NOW: Appeals Court rejects move to stop wolf hunt

[clownbuster]

By JGRuby:
Woody - you made a lot of claims - where is the actual proof that they are focusing on humans? Wolves typically try to avoid humans.
Here's some recent proof:
Wolf Kills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_wolf_attacks
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html
http://www.wildsentry.org/WolfAttack.html
Dont be naive. I suggest you research historical accounts of wolves on settlers, to recent time. Just because this animal may resemble the dogs you keep in your homes, doesn't mean they are like dogs. Wolves are not dogs.

By JGRuby:
I also bet that the cougar population has a larger impact than the wolf population does presently.
Seriously? These days, a single Cougar's hunting grounds typically consist of 10-20 square miles. Thats one cat requiring a fresh kill approx. every 3 days or 8-10lbs of fresh meat per day. They prey on smaller animals (fawn/calfs/slow,sick animal) as they dont have a pack to help. One cat. Not a pack of cats. How can you make that statement? We've had cats here along time without problems of diminishing herds.

By JGRuby:
Workman - so there are a 1000 wolves in Idaho - big deal historically what was the wolf population back in the 18th century? Bet it was more than a thousand for the state of Idaho.
Your comparing the exact same amount of available habitat today to what was available to the ELK, Deer, Bear, Cougars, and the Wolves back in the 1800's? Yeah, its a big deal because the amount of habitat is a fraction of what it was. So when the wolves' numbers continue to grow and continue to eat and all their food is gone, what should we do with them then? Hand feed them? Let them starve? Neither are good answers. First they will consume all the available prey, then the other available predators (that includes us), then they will prey upon themselves.

By JGRuby
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.
Opinion Noted. What you dont understand is the Fish/Fur never mentioned that they would be introducing a super killer into the areas where the ranchers are grazing their investments they paid for with their own money on lands they leased from the Govt with their own money. Had the Govt mentioned it, I'm SURE, most would have found other options. If I told you that you could board your prize race horses on my land for cheap, and then I let my dogs in the pen with them, and they killed them, you'd be pretty pissed about the loss of YOUR INVESTMENTS. And dont worry about what ranchers lease land from the Govt for as they help provide the enormous amount of food this country requires daily.

This is for all you "Give Wolves a Chance" folks. Sorry to say it like this, but you don't know what you are talking about or are dealing with. I hunt and have worked in the deep backcountry of ID, MT, CO and Saskatchewan for the last 26 years and have personally seen the 'Sport Hunting' that wolves engage in. Killing for fun, developing killing skills. The wolf packs in N. Idaho to NW Montana are very large in size. Longtime friend and Idaho wildlife biologist I hunt that state with says the largest single pack they found was 56 wolves. One pack. Idaho denies the size of a pack this large and my friend was strictly told to keep his mouth shut by the ID fish&fur higher ups. Wolves kill daily as long as the prey presents itself. The only natural predator to wolves is man and were not hunting sh!t. NO, bears are not a wolf predator. They will only engage to battle over food, bears do not prey on wolves. You believe the State biologists have a large say in the wolves being brought into the state? Wrong. Sorry again, but you need to gather facts before you speculate something you have NO idea about.

 

[JGRuby]

Sorry - been away awhile

Woody your facts fall way short of proving that wolves are preying on humans today.
from your quoted soruces

Wolf attacks on humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compared to other carnivorous mammals known to attack humans in general, the frequency with which wolves have been recorded to kill or prey on people is much lower, indicating that though potentially dangerous, wolves are among the least threatening for their size and predatory potential.[2]


When settlers began colonizing the continent, they noticed that while local wolves were more numerous than in Europe, they were less aggressive.[11] In Canada, an Ontario newspaper offered a $100 reward for proof of an unprovoked wolf attack on a human. The money was left uncollected.[3] Though Theodore Roosevelt considered the large timber wolves of north-western Montana and Washington equal to Northern European wolves in size and strength, he noted they were nonetheless much shyer around man.[12]

In the 20th century there were 20 people reportledly kileld by wolves - the family pet kills more than that in two years.



WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS
Two wolf attacks on humans occurred in 2000.
Icy Bay, Alaska - Six-year-old John Stenglein and a nine-year-old friend were playing outside his family's trailer at a logging camp when a wild wolf came out of the woods towards the boys. The boys ran and the wolf attacked young Stenglein from the back, biting him on the back and buttocks. Adults, hearing the boy's screams, came and chased the wolf away. The wolf returned a few moments later and was shot. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) officials, the wolf was a healthy wild wolf that apparently attacked without provocation. The boy was flown to Yakutat and recieved stitches there for his wounds. Later, however, the bites became infected and the boy had to be hospitalized. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.)



Vargas Island, British Colombia - University student, Scott Langevin, 23, was on a kayak trip with friends. They camped out on a beach and, about 1 AM, Langevin awoke with something pulling on his sleeping bag. He looked out and came face to face with a wild wolf. Langevin yelled at the wolf and it attacked, biting him on the hand. Langevin attempted to force the wolf toward a nearby campfire, but as he turned, the wolf jumped on his back and started biting him on the back of his head. Friends, hearing his yells, came to his aid and scared the wolf away. Fifty (50) stitches were required to close the wound on Langevin's head. British Colombia Ministry of Enviroment officials speculate the reason for the attack was due to the wolves occasionally being fed by humans although there was no evidence that Langevin or any of his party fed these animals. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.)


Killer WolvesIn Ontario, Canada where thousands of people visit Algonquin Provincial Park-and many of them come to see or hear wolves-five people have been bit in the past twelve years.

 

[JGRuby]

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.Opinion Noted. What you dont understand is the Fish/Fur never mentioned that they would be introducing a super killer into the areas where the ranchers are grazing their investments they paid for with their own money on lands they leased from the Govt with their own money. Had the Govt mentioned it, I'm SURE, most would have found other options. If I told you that you could board your prize race horses on my land for cheap, and then I let my dogs in the pen with them, and they killed them, you'd be pretty pissed about the loss of YOUR INVESTMENTS. And dont worry about what ranchers lease land from the Govt for as they help provide the enormous amount of food this country requires daily.

I fully disagree with this last statement - "And dont worry about what ranchers lease land from the Govt for as they help provide the enormous amount of food this country requires daily." That does not mean that the ranchers should be getting entitlements they are in business to make money pure and simple and they should be paying thier fare share of the cost, not being giving grazing rights for almost free. I have raised cattle before and we used our own land and that land which we could afford to rent. These ranchers out here are getting freebies that I as a tax payer provides - these ranchers need to be paying a rate that is consistent with what everyone else has to pay. I would call this benefit an entitlement or even the equivalnet of a handout.

James Ruby

 

[kenno]

I feel safer when there is no Big Brother to tell me my wife's life is worth less than an over sized dog's
JGRUBY's (the man that shot Oswald) post is full of anti-capitalist/PETA/Green Party jargon, a Commie TROLL

 

[JGRuby]

Kenno - I am trying to understand your position - is it the fact that you are more likely to die of many other things than being attacked by a wolf or is that you feel that I should have no say in how the dollars that are taken from me so that others can benfit from them while I cannot. Just trying to get a handle on your mind set. Yes I am for the wolves - I do not deny this - because it gets in the way of other individuals "NEEDS", Too bad - I and many others have a right to state a position that may be contrary to yours. I personally think you use terms like these " post is full of anti-capitalist/PETA/Green Party jargon, a Commie TROLL " because it is the best you can come up with which to me shows a bit of ignorance. To define your position would show more intelligence.

James Ruby


James Ruby

 

[Jamie6.5]

90% of this debate can be traced to people that don't live among wolves. I see you are from PDX Mr Ruby.
That is pretty typical. I would be willing to bet that 90% of Oregon's pro-wolf people live in Eugene, Portland, Salem and Ashland.

Whereas those opposed live in rural areas, and their kids and pets play in country where the tallest structure is a grain silo.
You have presented a nice strawman argument about the low cost of federal land leasing for grazing JG, but the reality is that is not what the thread is supposed to be about.
It is about hunting wolves, in efforts to control their numbers.

Nobody involved with the management plan has advocated eradicating them. Efforts MUST be undertaken to control them, as continued federal protection would result in overpopulation of their areas' carrying capacity, and start a boom/bust cycle of the wolf and their prey.

That will drive yet more wolves to ranches, and result in even more livestock predation.

And the wolf population currently in the northern rockies is not the same species in your TR anecdote JGR. In the area(s) of Canada where these wolves were imported from, there are many shoot-on-sight orders issued by Canadian regulatory agencies.

They are big eaters, indiscriminate killers when training their pups, and prolific breeders.
To demand the people that live among them leave them to expand their numbers unabated is both unrealistic and wrong.

That is what this court decision was about, and rightly so.

 

[JGRuby]

I have heard twice that the species of wolf are not the same that originally existed in Eastern Oregon, Idaho and Washington - I dont beleive that - if they were in Canada as stated then they also could have been in these areas at one time as well. I also have not seen proof from anyone that theses animals are causing massive loss of life or livestock. I have heard lots of people complain but no one is providing documented evidence - if ranchers are running cattle in open range areas they must expect that they will lose a percentage of cattle - we lost cattle that were penned and fed twice a day. We even had predation from a neighbors dog. Seeing a wolf doesnt mean you are going to be attacked by one - wake up people.

As far as being from PDX - that is correct - where the most taxes are collected in the state of Oregon. Where half the population in the state of Oregon exists. Collectively we pay for more of the management of those grazing lands then the folks in Eastern Oregon do - why collectively should we not have ultimate say in how those funds are spent. The benefactors so far appear to be the ranchers who are complaining because there are too many wolves. The solution is to keep the ranchers off the federal and public grazing lands and let the wolves and other wild life have it back.

Yes wolves need to be controlled but not for the ranchers sake or the people that decided to live in the country - for the fact that a piece of land can support so much wildlife. If you live in the country you accept the country way of life. I choose to live in the city due to the type of work I perform and there are draw backs to that choice as well. Everyone is running scared becuase the big bad wolf is back - guess what it was here first. Boom / bust cycles is how wildlife managed itself long before humans interfered. What is wrong with that? If the ranchers kept their cattle on thier own land then the wolf would not be presented with so many cattle. With less food the wolf population would be controlled.

James Ruby

 

[coyote223]

I have heard twice that the species of wolf are not the same that originally existed in Eastern Oregon, Idaho and Washington - I dont beleive that - if they were in Canada as stated then they also could have been in these areas at one time as well.

Yes wolves need to be controlled but not for the ranchers sake or the people that decided to live in the country - James Ruby

You seem to have a pretty big hatred towards the Ranchers, since you mention them in most of your posts.

Do some research, you'll find out these are bigger wolves then origionally were here years ago. It does take some time to research it. Look at both sides for info, not just your HSUS side. :winkkiss:

As far as being from PDX - that is correct - where the most taxes are collected in the state of Oregon. Where half the population in the state of Oregon exists. Collectively we pay for more of the management of those grazing lands then the folks in Eastern Oregon do - why collectively should we not have ultimate say in how those funds are spent.

I think you should worry more about all the stupid projects the government wastes your money on, instead of grazing lands. How about that over-priced columbia river crossing? Bike sharing? That's where your tax money is going,,,

 

[Jamie6.5]

Whether you believe they are not the same is irrelevant. The truth is what matters.
Educate yourself, then spout off.
From 3 articles on Wiki:
Wolf reintroduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adolescent members from packs of Mackenzie Valley wolves in Alberta, Canada were tranquilized and carted down to the recovery zones later that week, but a last minute court order delayed the planned releases. The stay came from an appellate court in Denver and was instigated by the Wyoming Farm Bureau. After spending an additional 36 hours in transport cages inside the recovery zones, the wolves were finally released following official judicial sanction. Yellowstone's wolves stayed in acclimation pens for two more months before being released into the wild. Idaho's wolves, conversely, were given a hard release. A total of 66 wolves were released to the two areas in this manner in January 1995 and January 1996.

Mackenzie Valley Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mackenzie Valley Wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) also known as the Canadian Timber Wolf is perhaps the largest subspecies of Gray Wolf in North America.<snip>
Mackenzie Valley Wolves typically stand about 32&#8211;36 inches (81&#8211;95 cm) at the shoulder and males weigh between 100 and 145 pounds (45&#8211;65 kg).[4

Gray wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gray wolf weight and size can vary greatly worldwide, tending to increase proportionally with latitude as predicted by Bergmann's Rule.[45] Adult wolves are 105&#8211;160 cm (41&#8211;63 in) in length and 80&#8211;85 cm (32&#8211;34 in) in shoulder height.[46] The tail is &#8532; the length of the head and body,[47] measuring 29&#8211;50 cm (11&#8211;20 in) in length. The ears are 90&#8211;110 millimeters (3.5&#8211;4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220&#8211;250 mm.[46] Wolf weight varies geographically; on average, European wolves may weigh 38.5 kilograms (85 lb), North American wolves 36 kilograms (79 lb)

Looking at the location of the Mackenzie Vally, Canada, and using Bergmann's Rule, it shouldn't be any surprise to anyone, even you JG, that these wolves are considerably larger than the species that populated this range naturally.
The fact is, that these wolves most certainly are a larger and more capable predator than their territorial predecessors.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Yes wolves need to be controlled but not for the ranchers sake or the people that decided to live in the country - for the fact that a piece of land can support so much wildlife. If you live in the country you accept the country way of life. I choose to live in the city due to the type of work I perform and there are draw backs to that choice as well. Everyone is running scared becuase the big bad wolf is back - guess what it was here first. Boom / bust cycles is how wildlife managed itself long before humans interfered. What is wrong with that? If the ranchers kept their cattle on thier own land then the wolf would not be presented with so many cattle. With less food the wolf population would be controlled.

James Ruby

So pick your reason, I don't care what it is, just CONTROL WOLF NUMBERS.
The most viable and cost-effective way to do that, is to allow the public to hunt them, which is exactly why those of us in the hunting community generally applaud the decision by the court that started this thread.

If you want to rail on about ranchers and grazing fees, maybe you could start a new thread, rather than crapping in this one, about a topic that strays from this one's intent. But don't beef (pun intended) about low grazing fees, when they constitute a means of keeping the cost of food down.

As for the rancher's right to protect their livelihood from predators,...
I'll bet you support laws that allow you to do your job, free from those that would take your earnings, your means to get to work, burn your workplace down etc.
The rancher merely asks that he be allowed to do the same.
The only difference? He (the rancher) is willing to do the protecting himself.
You, and your neighbors on the other hand, ask the metro police to do it for you.
At the same time, you and many of your neighbors ask the feds to stop the rancher that wants to protect HIS livelihood.
Pretty hypocritical don't you think?

Sorry JG, I'll vote with the rancher every time.

 

[JGRuby]

I dont think anyone including myself deserves a free lunch and as far as metro police protecting me they have never been thier when I needed or could use them (yet). I donot want them to pretect me or mine. I have little respect for the police in Portland.

Becuase the wolf is larger is not what I care about - are they the same sub species - how does the DNA compare? Or are they truely a different or unique sub species. I can increase the size of an animal simply by the amount of food I feed it over time the offspring will become larger. Humans are a perfect example of this. That does not mean that it is not the same species. According to the article they are all Grey wolves. ( thanks for pointing me to that article )

Grey Wolf aka Timber Wolf - The wolves of British Columbia, Canada
The grey wolf, also known as the timber wolf, prefers the open tundra and forests of British Columbia. Although they once inhabited most of North America, now distribution occurs in only Alaska, Canada, and parts of the U.S.A. Human fear, superstition, and outright hatred of this animal decreased its population drastically and eradicated it from 50% of its former range.

Ranchers need to use the same type of protection we use - the game officers as these are animals protected by state and federal laws. Those same laws are there for the ranchers. To me the battle is between the wolf and the ranchers. It was the ranchers that killed them off in the first place. I feel that this is primarily about the ranchers having to compete and that thier free lunch might be coming to an end.


James Ruby

 

[Jamie6.5]

That may be JG. But during the era when these animals were eradicated, if a pack came in the middle of the night and killed off the bulk of a rancher's herd of sheep, or a year's crop of calves, it was highly likely the farmer/rancher would (at best) lose his ranch, and at worst, he and his family would starve.
Today things are different. The ranchers don't want the wolves, and I understand that, but just because they don't want to have to deal with them, doesn't mean they'll eradicate them again.

The rancher wants wolf numbers controlled. The average hunter wants wolf numbers controlled. State fish and game managers want wolf numbers controlled. Biologists want wolf numbers controlled.
Controlled doesn't mean eradicated, and DFWs are setting tag numbers and harvest rate targets that will allow for wolf populations to survive, albeit in a limited sense.

The left side of this debate argues that there is a hysterical drive to re-eradicate the wolf in the northern rockies.
It just isn't so.
The only hysteria I have seen over this issue comes FROM the left, with their arguments like yours, that want to defend wolf propagation at all cost.

I advise you to get beyond your hatred and hysteria of ranchers. They are the backbone of the table fare you enjoy daily.
IOW, don't complain with your mouth full!

 

[2506]

Just a side note to the debate: I rode into the Minam River Ranch a few weeks back for vacation. There were a number of state troopers, professional packers, and others with a vested interest in wolf management. The one thing they kept talking about was how some the pack that was in Imnaha had radio collars and they were all a bit concerned that a few of the pack was now located in Fossil.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Just a couple of notes about the website you referenced there JGR.
Grey Wolf aka Timber Wolf - The wolves of British Columbia, Canada

An average of 7 pups are born to each female in April-June. Usually hunting at night, they feed primarily on large mammals by chasing down their victims either slashing tendons or driving it back to waiting pack members. Even though they kill only to survive, studies show that wolves play a key role in drastically decreasing the number of ungulates, sometimes beyond the rate of replacement, in any given area.

?!?WHAT?!?
I don't know who's studies they are talking about, but most studies, and more than one documented case has proven that wolves kill indiscriminately when teaching their pups to hunt. I have seen many many photos of entire herds of sheep terrorized and killed by wolves teaching their pups the art of the hunt/kill.

As for the rest of the statement about wolves killing ungulates beyond their ability to replace/repopulate, that much has been proven true numerous times, and is the very reason hunters, game managers and biologists don't want wolf numbers to go unchecked.
I'll give you points for fairness though. Your article supports the anti wolf side of the argument as far as hunters are concerned.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Becuase the wolf is larger is not what I care about - are they the same sub species - how does the DNA compare? Or are they truely a different or unique sub species.

So you really don't care. Yes they are a distinct sub-species, as stated in the article I referenced.

The animal rights people have obviously sold you on their side of the argument, so I'll stop trying to supply you with the facts, and let you run with your emotions.
Your mind is apparently made up. Hysterically so.
What a shame.

 

[JGRuby]

Jamie6.5 so far I have not seen evidence that the Mckenzie wolfs are any different in gentic makeup than the standard grey wolf -the only thing I hear is that they are larger , maybe meaner. They are still a Grey wolf. To me this is the equivalent of calling a cinnamon bear a black bear. You seem to know a lot about these wolves -respectfully may I ask how you know so much -all I have to go on is what I have read and been told. In order to stay on topic I have intentionally moved past the grazing issue. I feel that to talk about controlling the wolf population without mentioning ranchers is like talking about smoking and not mentioning cigarettes. I am biased against most ranchers - I wont go there this time.

The Westerner: Protesters call for wolf eradication in Oregon
and who says they dont want to erdaicate the wolf population

Yes there is a great desire by many to make the wolf extinct again here in Oregon -I cannot and will not support such an action. Control yes, eradication no - never.

James Ruby

 

[Jamie6.5]

Subspecies of Canis lupus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mackenzie Valley Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really aren't trying very hard are JG,...
I guess it's because you "don't care" about the truth. I do believe however, that you "care" about an agenda.

Gee, you found a website that advocates for eradication.
When the jack-booted thugs that run the USFWS, and the ESA worshippers get together and start telling farmers and ranchers that live on the land that they can no longer defend their livelihood and/or their children, they are going to get P-Oed.
Can you not comprehend what these people are up against?
If a cougar or a pack of wolves was roaming your neighborhood and stalking your kids what would you do?
I can't speak for you, but I'll bet you'd "CARE" then!!

If you are going to advocate for centralized (Wash D.C.) control of the citizenry regarding self defense, you are in for an uphill battle, and one that ignores my constitutional rights.
I take great offense to anyone attempting to do that, so in that regard my sympathies are totally with the rancher.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Yes there is a great desire by many to make the wolf extinct again here in Oregon -I cannot and will not support such an action. Control yes, eradication no - never.

James Ruby

So you came into a thread in the hunting forum to raise a hue and cry about wolf eradication, when the thread in question started out with "Appeals Court rejects move to stop wolf hunt."
When we all know that the wolf hunt in question is being used as the principle means of population control, not extinction. Furthermore, that wildlife managers in the states involved, that have been put in charge of ALL wildlife management, are tasked with wolf management, not eradication.

Put down the kool-aide JG. The bunny huggers have sold you a "bill-o-goods."
There are extreme ends of most policy debates these days. I can find just as many or more that advocate NO wildlife managerial control of wolf numbers.
That's what the lawsuit was about, and the judge tossed it out.
Welcome to the rational side of the system.

 

[Scott]

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.

Yes Canada has a lot of wolves but they also have some of the best hunting in the world. If we could go back a 100 years game was abudent here. Thousands of everything and wolves belong in the eco system. Every animal needs to be kept in check. WI where I come from has a lot of wolves as well and one of the highest deer populations there is. So what is the correlation? Hunting whitetails in WI is awesome and some of the best hunting I have seen and with all of the wolves the population is growing. They extended the deer season. People that think wolves just go around killing people and animals for fun need to have their head examined.

But this is like saying the 5 seals at the damn are eating all the salmon.......

Need to kill them all.......... and then you see a troller with a net a mile long.

Now honestly tell me sea lions kill more fish than man and bear combined........

 

[Jamie6.5]

Great. Lets abandon management principles and go back to boom/bust cycles!!

100 years ago firefighting efforts were miniscule by comparison with today's methods and success rates. Game animals were plentiful when fires burned away understory, and allowed grasses (browse) to flourish.
Then came better firefighting methods, and game numbers began to suffer.
Then came clearcutting that helped game numbers by increasing browse-able areas for ungulates, and deer and elk numbers soared.
That was hammered by the ESA over the spotted owl strawman invented to stop the practice, and game numbers began their decline.

So you think the ESA is a good thing for hunting? Why?

There aren't as many wolves in WI as there is in Idaho, and there is TONS more feed/browse for white tails there, than there is for the mulies in ID.
So that is an apples to oranges comparison.

There is also a battle in WI over the delisting of wolves, just like the one the thread starter discussed.
Not to mention the fact that in WI, wolves re-populated naturally. Albeit with the protection of the ESA, but they weren't imported/forced on the residents.

So what was your point? Any more pearls of wisdom from you scott?

PS. and if you think that blanket, perpetual protection laws like the Marine Mammal Protection Act are good practice, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in!