Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

NOW: Appeals Court rejects move to stop wolf hunt

Discussion in 'Northwest Hunting' started by Dave Workman, Jul 5, 2011.

  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386
  2. darkminstrel

    darkminstrel PDX Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    156
    The livestock killing issue is a pointless argument now. It's been proven that blasting a recording of the territorial howls of a different pack no more than three times a day for about 5 minutes each time is sufficient to set boundaries and keep the other pack at bay. This technique has been used in three countries and has had, I believe, a 100% success rate.

    Killing off wild game is another story so I can understand that angle.
     
  3. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386
  4. Woody

    Woody western Wa. Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    9
    the wolfs have made a huge come back. they are the cause of alot of elk kills where the elk was hardly consumed. there are alot of reports of the wolfs focusing on humans. wolf packs circling people. they are very dangerous hunters with lots of friends. this should be interesting on what Montana and Idaho will do
     
  5. coyote223

    coyote223 NW Oregon Stamp Collector,,,

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    512
    My guess is: The HSUS will file lawsuit after lawsuit until the seasons are closed again, and their beloved wolf god is once again protected under the ESA. :confused:
     
  6. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    You're warm

    Wolf advocates like gun prohibitionists: Never enough

    Western state hunters and game managers are once again learning just how far wolf advocates will go in order to prevent the states from managing wolf populations that have exceeded anyone’s expectations, though perhaps not their wildest dreams.

    Wolf advocates like gun prohibitionists: Never enough - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
     
  7. JGRuby

    JGRuby Portland Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    392
    Woody - you made a lot of claims - where is the actual proof that they are focusing on humans? Wolves typically try to avoid humans. What about the untouched remains being left behind. Cattle and calfs die - prove that the wolf did the killing versus doing the chewing on a carcass. Ranchers are cashing in on this. I feel that alot of this is hype on the wolf haters side of the board which I beleive is more scare tactics. Where is the proof?

    Workman - so there are a 1000 wolves in Idaho - big deal - the state cant handle that many based on whose dedicated research - who is paying for the research - the hunters and stockmen? Guess what the hunters and stockmen killed them off in the first place - historically what was the wolf population back in the 18th century? Bet it was more than a thousand for the state of Idaho.

    I also bet that the cougar population has a larger impact than the wolf population does presently.

    In my opinion hunters and ranchers should not be the only ones having a say in the wolf population. If the ranchers want to control the wolf population do it on their own property not federal land. The ranchers should not have explicit rights on federal or state lands, not at the minimal charge they pay per head to graze on that property. In Oregon its maybe the price of a couple bales of hay to graze for 9 months. The problem with this is that the wolves might have impact on a freebie the ranchers expect now.

    This has nothing to do with gun ownership or the second amendment, that is a seperate issue - dont get the two confused.

    James Ruby
     
    Grunwald and (deleted member) like this.
  8. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    4,380
    This IS the hunting sub-forum, and wolf packs have everything to do with ungulate numbers, therefore they have a direct impact on hunting.
    Hunters have paid for game and non-game species of wildlife management for nearly a century through gun and ammo sales, license and tag sales, and taxes.
    More than any other group.
    Fish and Wildlife Service | Southeast Region

    Any more "pearls of wisdom" there JG?
     
  9. MA Duce

    MA Duce Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    117
    Oddly enough there already is a wolf season in Eastern Oregon. Locals refer to it as the "3S" hunt.
     
    Swedish K and (deleted member) like this.
  10. MA Duce

    MA Duce Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    117
    The one problem with your contention about ranchers having no "Special rights" on State or Federal lands ignores the fact that the government gets a nice hunk of change from ranchers by leasing grazing rights in the forest in the summer so ranchers can use their pastures to grow hay to feed the herd in winter. Should these herds just be left to the mercy of the wolves, and should the ranchers be asked to feed the wolves for the conservationists pleasure?
     
  11. JGRuby

    JGRuby Portland Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    392
    Jamie6.5 - you do have a point about the this being the hunting forum. I admit to that point and I am wrong and concede that point.

    On the wolf issue - I have been buying hunting tags for 37 years so far - I buy tags for each season with the possibility that I might actually get to go. I as a sportsman / hunter feel that the wolf is a native creature and has a right to be there as does the deer and the elk. In my opinion the reason why the wolf is being despised is that they are competing with the ranchers and the hunters plans. Guess what the hunters and ranchers killed them off in the first place. I feel that the animals will control thier own population due to lack of food, weather and / or disease as do most other animals. I support wildlife but I support all native wildlife not just some.

    James Ruby

    I did know that sportsmen supportted the wildlife and thier habitat - I have known this for a long time. But many hunters feel that wolves should not exist in the field.
     
    Grunwald and (deleted member) like this.
  12. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    4,380
    I am sure there are a few. But no one I know believes they should be eradicated. There are a few salient points that need to be made (AGAIN) about this debate.
    1)The wolves that were imported are not anything close to the indigenous species. They are 30-50% larger and much more efficient predators.
    2)They are NOT an endangered species. In their home range of Canada they are a nuisance/pest that has overpopulated their habitat. In many areas, Canada has a shoot-on-sight policy for dealing with them.
    3)As such, the endangered species laws/rulings are specious at best, and controls on their numbers need to be instituted/applied. Why? Because they are prolific breeders whose numbers can decimate entire herds of prey if left unchecked.

    It's not eradication the hunter/sportsman is after. It's the ability to follow the advice of wildlife biologist that are responsible for all the prey species. That advice is to control their numbers.
    The advocates like HSUS, defenders of wildlife, the Audubon society etc., have taken an anti hunting stance and are using the Canadian gray wolf as a strawman in their war against hunting in general.
    A prime example is the argument you posted above. Proof that you have bought into their argument.

    They know that unchecked numbers of wolves will decimate ungulate populations, and diminish hunter opportunities as well as success rates. They see this as a good thing. Especially if, as a result, people quit hunting.
    Do you?

    How many is too many? Hunters and ungulate biologists know, and want wolf numbers controlled.
    HSUS and the rest of their ilk don't care. They have a different agenda altogether, and it has nothing to do with what's best for wildlife in general.
     
  13. coyote223

    coyote223 NW Oregon Stamp Collector,,,

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    512
    And the states should be allowed to manage that same wolf as they see fit, the exact same way they manage the deer and the elk populations. Without all these special interest groups interfering with their lawsuits, and special protections afforded by the ESA. :winkkiss:
     
    iusmc2002 and (deleted member) like this.
  14. JGRuby

    JGRuby Portland Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    392
    The ranchers pay only a few dollars a head to graze for the summer months - nothing close to what it would cost to raise that same amount of cattle on their own land or what a private land owner would charge for the same service - in short the ranchers are taking advantage of the property that tax payers are maintianing - in no way are the ranchers paying an equitable amount for the land they are using for grazing priveldges. This is the equivalent of the old soil bank funding. Put an equitable charge on the gazing that is equivalent of what a private land owner would charge and it would be fair, otherwise they are raising more cattle than they should be based on thier private resources.


    here are some stats
    Costs to the U.S. Government (and the American taxpayer) to manage these programs was as follows in FY 2004 (as determined by the General Accounting Office[GAO]):

    •BLM – $58.3 Million
    •FS – $74.2 Million
    Giving us a total of $132.5 million in management costs in FY 2004 (there is some discrepancy between the estimated management costs of the GAO and some private organizations – i.e. the Center for Biological Diversity estimates the cost to be $500 million annually)

    Fees received for grazing permits in FY 2004:

    •BLM – $11.8 Million
    •FS - $ 5.7 Million
    Giving a total of $17.5 Million received, a deficit of $115 Million in administrative costs alone to manage the permits for the ‘operators’.

    The Bone Trail » Bureau of Land Management

    James Ruby
     
  15. JGRuby

    JGRuby Portland Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    392
    I would argue that the wild life biologists dont have a clue or else they would not have brought a specises into an area that is not native to that area. One of two things appear either the biologists are idiots for bringing in a new species or the wolves are gentically the same. Which is it? If the biologists are idiots why should we put any faith in what they say as they caused the problem. If the wolves are the same gentiically then they belong there. So are these wolves gentically speaking the same or are they just larger wolves - do they belong to the same sub species of wolf?

    James Ruby
     
  16. drew

    drew OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    970
    I always figured it was a convenient aid to ranchers. It's not like the govt. doesn't hand out agricultural subsidies or maintain other agricultural programs that cost money. I agree more with grazing on public lands than most forms of assistance.
     
    claypigeon and (deleted member) like this.
  17. JGRuby

    JGRuby Portland Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    392
    The problem with ranchers grazing on public property is that the herd eats the same staples as an elk herd does - the less elk the the more grazing for the cattle. That does not even reflect that new fences are being put up all the time by the ranchers - these fences impact herd movement- we hunt Desolation and Northside - the fences that exist can be maintianed but no new fences are to be built - yet the ranchers dont follow this rule over there. Secondly when was the last time you saw the ODFW disperse a herd of elk on private propety - they do that all the time on public property - so the racnhers win again. If given the choice i would outlaw grazing on non privately owned lands.


    James Ruby
     
  18. coyote223

    coyote223 NW Oregon Stamp Collector,,,

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    512
    Other Peoples Money, our government is good at wasting our tax dollars. Look at all the recources we have in this country, that are locked away because of environmental groups, and an administration that refuses to allow cutting of timber, drilling for oil, etc. Atleast someone is still getting a some benefit from the use of our federal lands,,, :bluelaugh:
     
  19. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    Ninth Circuit rejects motion to halt MT, ID wolf hunts

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco yesterday turned thumbs down on a motion from environmental groups to stop planned wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho, and in the aftermath, Washington hunters are cheering, and they are getting a quick education about what lies over their political horizon.

    Ninth Circuit rejects motion to halt MT, ID wolf hunts - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
     
    iusmc2002 and (deleted member) like this.
  20. coyote223

    coyote223 NW Oregon Stamp Collector,,,

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    512
    Oh yeah, happy to hear that,,, :banana::bananadance::bannanaguitar::cheer::peace: