Sad happening in Idaho!!

[DaMadman]

Originally posted by Beeker
I don't think he was training his dogs to run Grizzlies. Most people who use dogs in the west only use them on Blackies, and cats.

and out of all the back and forth debating on the whole wolf topic that is the most important issue that you could honestly come up with? Just kidding, but I really don't think that point changes anything at all. a black bear or a mountain lion (cougar) either one both have the ability and have been know to turn on a man or dog and rip then from stem to stern, and if it had happened with a bear or a cougar it wouldn't have been thought about twice it would have all been part of the risk associated with hunting a predator animal. But because it was a wolf and the wolf is still a protected animal and everyone seems to think they need to kill the wolves it is some big news

[Beeker]

I have for the most part stayed out of this debate on a number of boards. But perhaps you should look into what is happening to some elk populations out here. In the winter some herds actually need to be fed hay because there isn't enough food for them. I will let you figure what is happening to them. Some people are trying to hide what is going on but I will tell you that some of the heards that sportsmen have worked hard to rebuild are taking a real hit.

You cannot reintroduce a keystone preditor and not change the ecosystem. I would think people would realize that. Out here wolf packs don't bother with rabbits, or other small game. For these packs the menu is ELK........

[M.T. Pockets]

Multibeard, I'm going by memory here. I think the judge was from Washington or Oregon.

I'm going by memory because I was disappointed in the whole process of the States not gaining control over this issue when the Feds promised so long ago.

I also remember organizations like the Humane Society and something like "For Wolves" were bragging on how their efforts prevented States from regaining control.

This is a personal observation from people I've seen and visited with at the International Wolf Center in Ely, MN and some big proponants of introducing the wolves from Canada into Yellowstone: There are a lot of anti hunters in the bunch.

[multibeard]

It was a decision by some western judge. I just found it in the archives of another site. I emailed the whole thread including the transcript of the decison to Fabs.

I hope he will comment on what I sent to him. I have trouble understanding the Sunday comics let alone that legal crap. Also not very puter literate.

I think alot of the wolf huggers are antis. NO maybe I should say most of them are.

[Classicvette63]

I let my small dog out on the deck a couple years ago. Then I noticed a hawk eyeing him up for lunch. I chased the hawk off and call the pgc to ask them about it. After getting the runaround I finally got a warden out to talk to. My position was and still is, if I see it again, I'll kill it. If it hurts one of our pets, I'll kill every one I see. Can't have critters killing pets, just can't have it.

[fabsroman]

Multibeard, I never got the e-mail, but did a little research on my own. I must say, good Lord, no wonder the Courts are packed and we pay a lot in taxes.

It seems as though there were two decisions recently. One in 2004 by the Oregon US District Court Judge Robert Jones. In that case, the issue was whether or not the grey wolf could be downlisted from "endangered" to "threatened" by USFWS. The Endangered Species Act ("ESA") requires that specific scientific testing be done before a species is downlisted from endangered to threatened. According to Judge Jones, this was not done by USFWS. Hence, they could not downlist the grey wolf. Downlisting the grey wolf means that certain protections would be taken away and that wolves could be killed in certain circumstances.

Now, in 2005, it appears that USFWS gave 20 permits to Michigan and 34 permits to Wisconsin, but the wolf was not removed from the endagered species list. According to the ESA, before a species can be hunted, the USFWS must do specific scientific research and it must provide an opportunity to the public, including scientific experts, to be heard on the subject. Seems as thought the USFWS did not do this either. This case was in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Somehow, I think this might be an issue with USFWS not adhering to the law. Might be that they would not be able to grant the permits if they adhered to the law and performed the scientific research and let the public speak on the issue. Who knows.

I haven't actually researched the ESA, or even read it, but have relied on what I have read in a couple of articles, which appear to be slanted toward the tree huggers.

Okay, I found the entire Oregon case. The legal citation is 354 F.Supp2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005). If you punch in that info, less the parantheses in Google or another search engine, you will probably find the case. I don't have time to read it tonight, but will try to read it tomorrow while I wait in Court for my case to be called.

Seems as though there was another 2003 case in the Federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. There was also another 2005 case in the US District Court for Wyoming with Judge Alan B. Johnson.

I ran into a case or two that deals with the reintroduction of the grey wolf in Vermont. That should make things really fun.

All this money spent on legal fees and Court time for grey wolves. We should spend this much time and money trying to resolve more significant issues in America. Alas, we are going the way of the Romans. Politics and law is getting so thick that it takes 1,000 attorneys to do anything.

[fabsroman]

The more I read about this, the stupider it gets. It seems as though Montana, Wyoming, and Wisconsin (not sure about this state, but there was a third state) were told in 2003 that they could manage the wolves if they came up with a management plan and it was approved by USFWS. Montana and Wisconsin came up with acceptable plans. However, Wyoming did not because they wanted ranchers to be able to shoot wolves on sight as nuisance animals and USFWS wanted wolves only to be shot if they actually posed a threat. Wyoming actually sued USFWS because it thought its plan was legitimate. It appears that Wyoming actually lacked standing (i.e., the right to sue) because USFWS had not actually rejected the plan. Wyoming lost the trial and lost again on appeal.

What kills me is why Wyoming wouldn't have agreed to whatever USFWS wanted initially. The killing of some wolves would have been better than none at all. Now, this casued a big disaster for Montana and Wisconsin because all three plans needed to be approved before any could be put into effect. Hence, Wyoming ham strung Montana and Wisconsin on a stupid issue. Take what you can get and then ask for more later if the wolves continue to pose a problem. Sheer stupidity.

Okay, it is getting late and I have to prepare a little more for my case tomorrow. I'll read these other cases tomorrow and see if I can shed any more light on this. So far though, it doesn't seem to be the Court's doing that this never gets going. Seems as though a state organization or federal organization keeps on dropping the ball.

[royinidaho]

Well, Hmmmmmm

Me thinks you guys in maryland had best hunker down in the area and pretty much stay put as I doubt that you'll be very comfortable in a western culture, especially a western hunting culture.

When I was young and living in western PA I hunted coon with anyone that would take me. I soon got my own dog. A much better program than what is called "DARE" to keep kids in line. One becomes attached to the dog, very much.

Black bear and mountain lion hunting is nothing more dangerous than coon hunting. Very few dogs are hurt. You cut the trail, turn the dogs loose and sometimes, only some times the bear/cat is treed or bays up in the rocks. Most people walk up, take a pic and catch the dogs. One of the greatest lion hunters I know took one years ago. Since then he has taken none and has hunted cats every winter for years including last year. He's 86 years old.

Fabs I think you are softening a bit though

These large canadian grey wolves (or any wolf) will not tolerate another canine, coyote, dog or the native (smaller) wolfe that they have made extinct (noticed no one is bitching about that!) Our smaller wolf was here in numbers that were pretty much selfsustaining but are now gone never to return to the earth.

It is entirely possible for me to be hunting water fowl within walking distance of my back door and encounter a wolf. How much chance do you think my newly acquired choc lab will stand against a wolf. One wants to play and one want to kill. Hmmmmm.....

BTW!! Its the feds that set the rules not the state. If it were soley up to the state things would change.

Also, what makes anyone think that there were no wolves around here before reintroduction of a strain of wolf that was non native.... Ever try to get ALL of the coyotes out of an area, No Way!

nite nite, sleep tite, don't let the bed bugs bite

[multibeard]

Fabs I sent email to the address in your signature??

Here is the address that i have for the ruling.

http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/rulings/03-1348opinion.pdf


here is some other information on wolves. Remember they don't attack humans!!!

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

[royinidaho]

Pic

[DaMadman]

Originally posted by fabsroman
The more I read about this, the stupider it gets. It seems as though Montana, Wyoming, and Wisconsin (not sure about this state, but there was a third state) were told in 2003 that they could manage the wolves if they came up with a management plan and it was approved by USFWS. Montana and Wisconsin came up with acceptable plans. However, Wyoming did not because they wanted ranchers to be able to shoot wolves on sight as nuisance animals and USFWS wanted wolves only to be shot if they actually posed a threat. Wyoming actually sued USFWS because it thought its plan was legitimate. It appears that Wyoming actually lacked standing (i.e., the right to sue) because USFWS had not actually rejected the plan. Wyoming lost the trial and lost again on appeal.

What kills me is why Wyoming wouldn't have agreed to whatever USFWS wanted initially. The killing of some wolves would have been better than none at all. Now, this casued a big disaster for Montana and Wisconsin because all three plans needed to be approved before any could be put into effect. Hence, Wyoming ham strung Montana and Wisconsin on a stupid issue. Take what you can get and then ask for more later if the wolves continue to pose a problem. Sheer stupidity.

Okay, it is getting late and I have to prepare a little more for my case tomorrow. I'll read these other cases tomorrow and see if I can shed any more light on this. So far though, it doesn't seem to be the Court's doing that this never gets going. Seems as though a state organization or federal organization keeps on dropping the ball.

Fabs this is the case that I was referring to earlier. The way the Laws (Federal) are written that protect the wolves have built in procedures that do allow stated to submit management plans to the USFWS so the wolves can be managed. I don't think it will allow an all out hunting season but if the states that have reintroed wolves for a while and the population is gettin large enough that the wolves are spreading off federal land out onto ranches and becoming a problem the states have to get together and get thier plans approved, then they can manage the wolves that "become a problem" in otherwords as long as a person can come up with a justification the wolves can be shot leagally.

Some states as in the case you sited above get screwed because of other states not getting their act together. I think If you look into a little further Idaho was one of the states that originally held up the approval. Now they may or may not have their act together now and just have to wait out the approval process, but I know when I was out in Montana last two years I hear many mentions of Idaho holding up the process.

BTW I am almost certain that as of sometime late 2005 the Grey Wolf had been moved from the endangered list to threatened

[PJgunner]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaMadman
I will agree on a few things here and have to add my .02 cents


#1 I would probably be upset if my dogs were killed by wolves and eaten.

*ME too.

#2 it would more than likely put a fear in me that I wouldn't be out roaming in the woods without a gun.

*I never go out into the boonies unarmed.

#3 The wolf population need to be kept in balance

*I agree

#4 Agressive Wolves in populated area should be killed

*All wolves are aggressive. it is their nature, that dumb movie NEVER CRY WOLF nothwithstanding. Turn out to be a lie anyway.

However, For Christ sake your going to tell me that this guy trains dogs to chase Grizzly bears and Cougars but is somehow shocked and bent all out of shape that 2 of them were killed and one injured.

*YUP!

Doesn't make sense that the guy is out in the woods treeing bears with hunting dogs and has no way to protect himself or the dogs if the bear decided to turn on them. What would this dude have done if that mature sow decide it didn't want retreat up a tree and turn on hi and or his dogs, it could easily happen especially this time of year when the sows are dropping babies.



Give me a break.

*That shows just how little you know about bears. The sows drop their cubs while in hibernation.

I don't know guys the wolves are natural predators and have a right to be in the woods, just the same as any other animal, predator or prey.

*No argument there, but their population should be strictly controlled. it never will be because of the bunny huggers. I'll say more on that in a minute.

If a Grizzly happened to come down the tree and rip one of the dogs a new hole or two would this guy say that all bears shouldn't be allowed to live in the woods. Probably not because he is making money training and selling dogs to hunt them.

*I'll betcha a dollar that grizzly won't be up a tree. it is my understanding that climbing trees, while not impossible is a great deal more difficult for a grizzly than the more common black bearto climb a tree. I'll agree that there have bew a few instances recorder where a grizzly bear either tried to climb a tree or did climb a little way up trying to catch the human that mad him mad. Not sure whether the bear was successful or not.

I agree 100% that if there is a known agressive wolf or wolves in an area near a human population they should be killed.

*We're in agreement here. How about harassing livestock as well. The ranchers that lose cows are nowhere near being properly compensated. I'll get into this one in a minute as well

I agree that when it gets to the point, if it hasn't already there should be a hunting season to cull the wolf population.

*We're past that point now. JMHO.

But I am sorry I just do not see this guys story as any reason that the wolves shouldn't have been reintroduced or why they shouldn't be allowed to continue being part of nature.

*Because we eradicated them for a reason.

Wolves can be agressive if you enter thier territory especially with hunting dogs. That's just part of nature the same as it is part of nature that you wouldn't go trapsing through Grizzly territory while the Salmon stream is full of salmon. I mean wolves are for all intents and purposes Wild Dogs themselves, who is to say that this guys hunting dogs didn't go after the wolves first and the wolves being what they are defended their territory??

*Why not? You have as much right as the grizzly or the wolf.

The only thing about the story that concerns me is that it makes the wolves look like they are mindless killing machines when in fact the only reasons wolves kill are #1 to eat or #2 to protect the territory that they roam against other predators so they will have food to eat.


*And what about the documented reports where a pack of wolves would run through a herd of caribou, maiming and killing indiscriminately and eating little or none of the downed prey?

The wolves probably seen the dogs as another predator moving into thier hunting territory. [/QUOTE

*Probably. So what?

madman. I'm not trying to get a p!$$!ng match going here although it may seem that way. Obviously, you have absolutely no experince with wolves. My experience is slight, but experience nonetheless.

Incident #1. On the Olymic Penninsula about five miles out of Humptulips Washington state, I'm sitting on a stump in a swampy area elk hunting. it's about 4 in the afternoon and I heard, for the first time in my life, a wolf howl. The hairs on the back of my neck went straight up. Way too cool. A true wilderness experience.

Inciedent #2. While deer hunting up on the Kaibab plateau in Arizona, I'm sitting on a hillside over a water hole hoping to ambush a big buck I'd benn trying to nail for several days. two wolves, obviously a mating pair came out and were playiny and cavorting in the warmth of the open area around the water hole. A beautiflul sight. I spent almost an hour watching them before they went back into the brush. Might as well watch as witht hem around, I sure wouldn't see any deer.

Those were the pleasant incidents.

Incident #3. This occurred during an elk hunt in the White Mountains of AZ where several groups of the Mexican Grey Wolf have been introduced. We were stopped in a fairly open area so my hunting partner could try and call home on his cell phone. It was getting along towards sundown, and I decided to walk up the road and see if I could pick up any sign or mayber even spot and elk. A bit later as it was starting to be too dark to shoot, I saw movement in the brush off to my right. There were maybe eight of them, wolves for sure and when I walked they moved. When I stopped, they stopped. I decided to head back to where the rest of my group was and the wolves continued to follow me. I'd stop, they'd stop. I'd move, they moved.
The question is, were they stalking me as prey or just curious? I'll never know. When I got back to the gfroup though, they just melted back into the brush.

Incident #4. Same area as #3, but a year later. Just my wife and I on this hunt. We were taking a break during the lunch hour at camp when a rancher drove up and asked us if we'd seen a cow, which he described. We had seen it very early that morning and gave him the location.
Later that evening after the hunt, we were just getting ready to turn in when we heard the most horrible sounds. Some animal was screaming and bawling in total agony. This lasted for maybe 15 to 20 minutes before it became quite again. As all this sounds quite close to camp, when we got up the next morning and hunted up towards where the sounds had come from. We found what was left of that rancher's missing cow. It was not a pretty sight.

I'll be quite blunt here. Reintroducing those wolves back into areas where they were eradicated is, in my not very humble opinion, a serious mistake of the highest level.
They've already made inroads into our elk herds, and with the drought gthat we have been enduring for the last seven years, the deer, elk and antelope herds have suffered greatly.
Think about this. The bunnyhuggers want to stop all sport hunting and any subsistance huinting for native-Americans only. What betetr way to accomplish this by introducing a mega predator. Reduce the herds to the point that hunting is no longer vialable, and hunting will come to a stop. Nore more hunting? Well, if there is no hunting, you don't need that deer rifle anymore. Turn it in. Unintendend consequences my acheing arse.
I seriously hope I have not offended you, as this is not my intention. However, we who live out here where all the crap is happening see it in a very different light.
Paul B.

[fabsroman]

Okay, as far as the cow making all that God awful noise, so what. Most animals aren't going to die quietly. Heck, most humans that die in a violent means are not going to die quietly. That is the real world. Just like most people have no idea how the chicken got on their chicken sandwich, most people have no clue how things happen in the wild. That is just how it goes.

At the end of the day, I think everybody on here will support the hunting/management of wolves, so long as it is not meant to put the wolf population in endangerment again.

Back to whitetails. It used to be a pleasant surprise to see a whitetail and shooting one used to get my heart/adrenaline flowing. Now, it is like shooting prairie dogs or ground hogs. Last night, I was driving home at 1:00 in the morning and I had 3 separate incidents of seeing whitetails on the side of the highway as I was traveling 75 mph. I also got to see one freshly mangled white tail carcass. No, I do not want any wolves sent over here, but you can get my point that animals need to be managed in this ecosystem that we have created.

[multibeard]

Da Madman

The feds did TRY to change the status of the wolf.

The problem is that a judge put a stop to it. Try reading the ruling that I have a link to in my last post. I got thru about 10 pages of the 35 pages of legal mumbo jumbo BS in the ruling. My head was spinning so bad I gave up on reading it.

Fabs The residents of MD need to find out how the subdivisions in Va are being allowed to hire there own hunters to thin out the problem deer using bows. If you want I can get you my nephews phone number so you can talk to him about the VA system that he is involved. Just send me a pm.

[fabsroman]

Multibeard,

MD is using sharpshooters and hunters to try and thin out its deer population. They are closing parks for several days a season to allow organized hunts on them. In some places (e.g., Seneca Park, Wheaton Regional Park) it seems to be making a slight difference. Problem is the rest of the area where there is way too much housing development.