# Antis Win



## huntinND (May 1, 2008)

Well I have officially changed my veiw on the whole wolf deal. Originally I felt that there is no problem having wolves around under proper management, but the truth is they are never going to be properly managed because the antis won't let it happen. We already know the population in the Rockies is out of control yet they refuse to allow any type of hunting season. I originaly felt that after they were returned to state jurisdiction the wolf population would be brought back down to acceptable levels and the big game populations would rebound. Now I realize that this was just an idealistic way of looking at the issue and it is really past the point of return. After a recent court case the wolf is back under Federal protection in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana which means no wolf season this year. I feel bad for the big game hunters in the west, not to mention Livestock producers. I wouldn't doubt if anti hunters are using the wolf as a tool to eliminate big game hunting in the west by depleting the population via large predators. The sick part is there is nothing we can do about it. :******: 
I still don't believe that the wolf needs to be wiped out like in the past, but there population needs to be reduced one way or another.

*Federal Court Decision Changes Wolf Management in Wyoming*

CHEYENNE-A decision issued today in federal court will have significant impacts on the way wolves are managed in Wyoming. Judge Donald Molloy issued an injunction to suspend the removal of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains from the federal Endangered Species List.
Wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains were removed from the Endangered Species List in March 2008. A number of environmental groups are challenging the US Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting decision. Today's injunction effectively returns management authority for
wolves in the region to the federal government while these legal challenges are heard. Under state management, wolves in Wyoming were classified as Trophy Game animals in the northwest corner of the state and Predatory animals in the rest of the state. In the Trophy Game
area, wolves could only be taken by hunters with a wolf hunting license during an open season or by ranchers who had been issued a lethal take permit by the Game and Fish. In the Predatory Animal area, wolves could be taken by anyone at any time. As a result of today's injunction, wolves can no longer be taken anywhere in Wyoming except in cases where wolves are in the act of attacking livestock. Ranchers who are experiencing livestock depredation problems anywhere in the state should contact their local Wyoming Game and Fish office. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department and US Fish and Wildlife Service are currently
draf ting a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to cooperatively manage wolves in Wyominguntil a decision is reached on wolf delisting. Under this agreement, the department will likely remain active in monitoring, conflict resolution, and law enforcement activities related to wolves in the state under the authority of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Under the proposed MOA, the department will be active in wolf management only in the Trophy Game area.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree. If memory serves me the animal rights groups were involved with the plan for wolf introduction in Minnesota and the plan called for hunting when biologists determined it was not detrimental to the population. Their word was worthless, and they sued as soon as a season was proposed.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

USFWS reinstates rules following Molloy's injunction

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTIONS REINSTATED FOR
NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF POPULATION

NEWS RELEASE

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mountain-Prairie Region
134 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, Colorado 80228

July 22, 2008
For Immediate Release

Ed Bangs 406-449-5225, x204
Sharon Rose 303-236-4580

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTIONS REINSTATED FOR NORTHERN ROCKY
MOUNTAIN WOLF POPULATION

The U.S. Federal District Court in Missoula, Montana, issued a preliminary injunction on Friday, July 18, 2008, that immediately reinstated the Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the
northern Rocky Mountains. That area includes all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon and parts of north-central Utah. This injunction will remain in place until final resolution of this case occurs.

The Endangered Species Act provisions reinstated by the court are the same ones in effect before wolves were delisted on March 28, 2008.

Any, and all ,wolf take permits issued by the States under State authorities while wolves were delisted are null and void as of 4:04 p.m. on Friday, July 18, 2008. In the meantime, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its partners are evaluating legal options regarding the Court's order
and the ongoing litigation over the Service's delisting of the northern Rocky Mountain wolf population. The Service believes gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains have recovered and no longer need the protections of the Endangered Species Act.

All wolves in the southern half of Montana, all of Idaho south of I-90,and all of Wyoming will be managed under the 2005 and 2008 Endangered Species Act nonessential experimental population regulations. To better understand these regulations, please visit the Service's website at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-priaire/spe ... mmls/wolf/. These regulations allow people to take wolves under certain circumstances, such as when wolves are in the physical act of killing, wounding, chasing, or molesting legally present livestock and dogs. Any killing or wounding of a wolf in that area must be reported within 24 hours and the scene should not be disturbed. Each incident will be investigated by law enforcement agents to determine that the physical evidence at the scene demonstrates those wolves were in the act of attacking livestock and dogs. Please see the maps on the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks website (http://fwp.mt.gov) regarding the specific experimental population borders in Montana.

Wolves outside of the experimental population areas, including all those in the northern half of Montana and all of Washington, Oregon, and Utah, are listed as endangered and may not be legally harmed by the public, except if it is to defend an immediate and direct threat to human life.

Any other conflict with wolves listed as endangered may be legally addressed only by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or its legally designated Federal, State, or Tribal agency agents. Violations of
the Endangered Species Act can result in penalties up to $100,000 in fines and one year incarceration.

Under cooperative agreements with the Service that have been in place for the past 3-4 years, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks will continue to lead all wolf management activities under the Endangered Species Act regulations in Montana.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game will continue to lead all wolf management activities under the Endangered Species Act regulations in Idaho.

Until a similar cooperative agreement can be finalized with Wyoming, the Service has resumed the lead for all wolf management activities throughout all of Wyoming. [boldface mine] All wolves in all areas of Wyoming are protected by the Endangered Species Act as a nonessential experimental population.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service.

For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.

........................................................................................................

*Livestock leaders object to wolf relisting*

Patricia R. McCoy
Capital Press

BOISE - Jennifer Ellis, president of the Idaho Cattle Association, is not happy to see the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies back on the Endangered Species list.

"The Idaho State Wolf Management Plan went through 17 drafts," Ellis said. "We sat at those tables for hours and days, trying to put together something that was acceptable. The livestock industry negotiated in good faith. The minute it was actually to take effect, they litigated.

They are 12 environmental groups who sued to overturn a March decision to remove the wolf from the endangered species list.

Three states - Idaho, Montana and Wyoming - had planned to allow some wolves to be hunted this fall to reduce their numbers in the region.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont., granted a preliminary injunction late Friday, July 18, restoring protections for the wolves in the region.

"It's the ultimate lesson," she said. "Why even try to work things out when we know we're going to face litigation anyway?"

Stan Boyd, executive director of the Idaho Wool Growers and a seven-year member of Idaho's wolf committee that developed the plan, was more optimistic.

Molloy simply granted a preliminary injunction placing wolves back under federal management, Boyd said. He will decide at a later date whether to make the injunction permanent.

Malloy's ruling does not negate a rule that covers special regulations for managing the non-essential experimental population of wolves reintroduced in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and living south of Interstate 90, said Jeff Foss, head of the Idaho office of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

That rule, known as the 10-J rule, allows ranchers to kill a wolf to protect their livestock and guard dogs, if a wolf is caught in the act of depredation on private, state or federal land.

"The judge did not rule on the case itself. He simply granted a restraining order, protecting the wolves until he can rule," Boyd said. "He could still rule in the government's favor and allow the delisting to proceed. As I read what he wrote in taking this action, he seemed favorably inclined to the management plans presented to FWS by Idaho and Montana, and hinted he might allow delisting in those two states.

Boyd said the judge did seem concerned about Wyoming's wolf management plan, which Boyd speculated was one of the major reasons Malloy granted the restraining order.

Boyd said delisting makes sense in Idaho, where wolves were first reintroduced back in the mid 1990s, and have established a strong population in a short time.

Idaho officials estimate there are from 500 to 700 wolves currently in Idaho, according to Steve Nadeau, wolf management specialist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission wants to bring that number down closer to 500, Nadeau said July 14 during the annual range tour sponsored by the Idaho Wool Growers Association.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife estimates that 2,000 wolves are now at home in the Northern Rockies. Just this week, wildlife officials in Oregon reported they have confirmed at least one pack of wolves, with at least two adults and two pups, have been heard in Northeast Oregon.

"My biggest fear now is a backlash by the hunters and other people who use the lands where wolves are established," he said. "People will obey the law as long as it makes sense, and delisting the wolf flies in the face of common sense."

Boyd said wolf numbers in the Intermountain West have boomed.

"We certainly hope the judge will see that recovery has been successful, and rule accordingly when he decides the case as a whole," he said.

The group Defenders of Wildlife were was pleased with the court injunction, said Suzanne Asha Stone, Northern Rockies wolf conservation specialist with the organization.

"This is a very important first step, since it stops the continued and almost indiscriminate killing of wolves under the states' management plans that could have put the long-term recovery of the wolf at risk," she said.

"The delisting was inappropriate and illegal n large part because existing state management plans are inadequate to ensure the long term conservation of wolves in the region, allowing far too many to be unnecessarily killed," she said. "Responsible, balanced management by the states would benefit wolves, ranchers, hunters and all Northern Rockies residents."


----------



## huntinND (May 1, 2008)

After reading more into it, the "environmentalist" argument is that the wolves in these states have not had a chance to mix there genes between subpopulations in order to insure a future for the species. Give me a break, you would have to take DNA samples of every wolf out there in order to figure this out. Why are there wolves showing up in odd places like Western North Dakota if they aren't dispersing?

* Molloy's primary conclusion is that while the original wolf reintroduction plan called for the animals to be delisted after the population reached 300 in the three states, it also called for "genetic exchange" among the greater Yellowstone, central Idaho and northwestern Montana subpopulations. The judge said there's "strong evidence" that such exchange has not occurred.

I would like to see the strong evidence he refers to, basically one persons word vs. another. And obviously he sides with the antis.

It is a never ending story, the antis will always find some loop hole. And this judge they have is definitely not going to help. He is obviously an anti, you can just tell by some of the wording he uses in his decisions.

Over all Wyoming screwed up by listing wolves as a predator in 90% of the state with no quota. they should have known there was going to be a lawsuit and planned accordingly, like having a draw system and a limited amount of tags. they would have a good argument then if they had full control over the harvest.

I feel it is important to have documented wolf sightings in areas like eastern Montana and Western North Dakota to show these idiots that wolves cover a lot of ground and I gaurantee populations in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have reached each other via transient animals. If these people actually believe that animals in these states are isolated populations that are at risk due to lack of genetic diversity then they are 100% retarded.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Their word was worthless, and they sued as soon as a season was proposed.


Does it suprise you? The problem wasnt they sued, the problem was some idiot judge listened.

Thats why you NEVER give these people a single damn inch. It doesnt matter what it is. Wolves, oil drilling, high-fence hunting, gun control, baiting, etc etc etc, give them an inch and theyll take it all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Their word was worthless, and they sued as soon as a season was proposed.
> ...


Actually them suing and the stupid judge were both a problem.

As to never giving them an inch I agree. I also realize that we need to keep our own nest clean. We certainly can't allow night lighting big game etc. We can not let paranoia keep us from doing what is right because we see a boogeyman in the forest.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> We can not let paranoia keep us from doing what is right because we see a boogeyman in the forest.


The anti hunting lobby is not a boogeyman. They are very real. It is not paranoia to understand that they understand that the most effective way to destroy hunting is to break our unity and make us less effective as a voting block.

I firmly believe that part of their agenda is to reduce hunting opportunity so as to reduce our numbers. If the hunting tradition declines they win. Reducing size of game herds is certainly a way to do that.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

questions

1) if not hunted won't the population of wolves stabilize? Big game populations would be at natural levels and if thats lower than now if its truly balanced, so what. Big gmae populations are managed for license money not for truly correct carrying capacity in most places.

2) are they antis or are they wolf crazies. Seems to me all other hunting in those states seems to be well established and doing fine.

Just curious...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I firmly believe that part of their agenda is to reduce hunting opportunity so as to reduce our numbers. If the hunting tradition declines they win. Reducing size of game herds is certainly a way to do that.


I agree completely. That is my big concern with any pay to hunt operations. Some of them are ok, and I will not say that pheasant stock and shoot operations should be shut down or anything like that, but when outfitters start leasing up land and hunting opportunities are lost we loose hunters. There is nothing we can do about that, but they will put us at risk faster than PETA or any of the other radical groups. 
Politicians look at numbers, and when ours are down we are in danger. It makes little difference why are numbers are down or how it happened only that it will happen.

Bob to answer your questions. Yes the wolf population will stabilize, but they would have to reduce their food resources (elk, deer, rabbits etc.) to the point that starvation reduced their numbers. That or disease hit them when their populations get to high. When predator prey species are left to balance themselves it is a boom and bust. Prey species increase to the point they decimate the herds. Then they starve and populations plunge giving advantage again to the herbivores they prey on. Elk and deer populations spike and wolf populations go on the incline again. Up, down, up down, with little balance as the TV wildlife experts claim.

Many of the pro wolf people are not just the anti hunting crowd. The media has hyped it to the point that many hunters are wolf addicts. I don't understand some people who hate hunting, but it's ok for wolves, bears, eagles to do it. We are as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal, and we are omnivores just like bears. We as a society have gone from kill all those terrible predators because they eat Bambi while he is still alive to predator worshipers. I don't get the current love affair with wolves, eagles, bears etc. Myself, I give equal value to all wildlife.

To me not hunting is abandoning the herds to starvation and disease after we have altered the habitat to a point nature will not balance itself. In an ecosystem as large as Yellowstone the natural system can work, but still is boom and bust what we want? Personally I would like to see wolves and elk, but every time we try do that the anti hunters mess up the system. Also, because the wolves and elk have such a large annual home range they geographically encompass a lot more than Yellowstone.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

OK thanks,

We need some wolves down here we are up to our necks in deer and wild hogs


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

bobm said:


> 1) if not hunted won't the population of wolves stabilize?


Of course, no population will increase forever. Yes, the population will peak, and cycle as plainsman pointed out. There are two big concerns we should have with an unchecked population: 1) hungry wolves will start looking to livestock more frequently; 2) game populations will "stabilize" at levels that will reduce hunter opportunity. This last reason will reduce hunter participation in the long run. This is bad for huntings future.



bobm said:


> Big game populations would be at natural levels and if thats lower than now if its truly balanced, so what.


The notion of carrying capacity is a very hazy number. It is very clear that wolves have a tendency to reduce game numbers to levels that create what is know as an LDDE (Low Density Dynamic Equilibrium). This is a fancy term used by biologists that means wolves drop populations below habitat carrying capacity.



bobm said:


> Big game populations are managed for license money not for truly correct carrying capacity in most places.


I disagree. Not managing for "carrying capacity" would hurt revenue since you would have population crashes.



bobm said:


> are they antis or are they wolf crazies.


Yes, no and both. I'm sure there is a wide variety of motivations. Groups such as HSUS and PETA are often motivated by simplistic ideas of animal ethics. There are many environmental groups that are motivated by preservationist notions and aesthetics.



bobm said:


> Seems to me all other hunting in those states seems to be well established and doing fine.


There are still large areas not effected by wolf populations, which is what many in those states want to maintain. Unchecked the wolves will change this.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I want to be clear I was just asking not trying to start any controversy.

Personally I think most of the country has too many deer, doesn't Minn have big herds of deer coexisting with wolves, why does that work??


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Bobm said:


> I want to be clear I was just asking not trying to start any controversy.


I understand. I responded politely.



Bobm said:


> Personally I think most of the country has too many deer,


Nationwide deer populations definitely are doing well, but I think that is because we have created a habitat haven for them. My view is that hunting is the best way to control populations.



Bobm said:


> doesn't Minn have big herds of deer coexisting with wolves, why does that work??


The entire midwest wolf population is on the upward growth curve. I think the only place they have a stable population is in the MN arrowhead region. Most of that area has low deer density naturally because of habitat. I'm not arguing that wolves and deer can not coexist, obviously. I am arguing that protected uncontrolled wolf populations will have an effect on hunter opportunity, and will in the long run reduce hunter participation. Many hunters like that idea. I'm just pointing out that reduced hunter participation will in the long run weaken their ability to gain support for hunting, which I also believe will reduce support for the 2nd amendment.

Remember when cervid populations decline hunter tags are the tool used by game managers to increase the herd. Wolf tags do not exist anywhere in the lower 48 at the moment.

Here is a worthy cause ...
http://www.protectmoose.com


----------



## duckslyr (Nov 27, 2008)

Personally I think most of the country has too many deer, doesn't Minn have big herds of deer coexisting with wolves, why does that work??[/quote]

that might be true in the rest of the country but here in idaho the deer and elk population is on a downslide. between the urbanization of the wintering ranges, drought in the summer and extremly harsh winters the deer and elk were declining before the wolves were reintroduced. now that the wolves have taken off i actually heard more wolves howl when i was elk hunting this year than i heard elk bugle. what makes the whole "save the poor little helpless wolves thing" even worse is the hippies/yuppies/antis/whatever else you want to call them blame the deer populations solely on habitat destruction but they are the ones moving here from california and building their minimansion neighborhoods in the wintering ranges all the game including their precious wolves depend on every year. needless to say i am glad i am moving out of this "extension of california" we call idaho.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

I hunt deer with a rifle in Itasca State Park in Northern Minnesota. I have hunted there for the past 28 years. We have a pretty good-sized group (12-16 hunters) in our hunting shack. In the past, we have been able to fill our tags every year. About 10-12 years ago, the coyotes started to disappear and the wolves showed up. We have not seen coyote tracks in many years. There are two, DNR documented, wolf packs that inhabit the Park. This year, I hunted 8 days of the 9 day season. I only sat in a stand the first two days. The rest of the time I was covering ground. I passed on a small 8 pointer and saw 3 other fawns. THAT"S IT!!! There are wolf tracks everywhere. We had fresh snow on the second Saturday. On Sunday morning, I walked close to 5 miles. I only cut 6 deer tracks!!!!!!

The wolves are taking their toll.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

If government biologists and scientific facts take a back seat to urban fringe animal rights groups and their liberal judges ideas, the maybe it's time the majority quit being so passive and taking it up the kazoo. I'm not one to knowingly break game laws and I'm sure most aren't either, but it's past time for something to be done. I know if I lived in a wolf problem area I wouldn't hesitate to practice the three S's in most situations.
(edited for a spelling error)


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Two years ago, I had one timber walk past my stand at about 30 yards and two minutes later another one walked by on the other side of my stand at 17 steps. THey never knew I was there. I let both of them walk. I won't shoot one until they are legal. It's the right thing to do.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

What the anti's don't understand is that the wolf population WILL be controlled. They are actually doing more harm to the population by restricting hunting. Instead of a regulated, legal harvest they are forcing an unregulated, illegal harvest (SSS).

Actually if they utilized hunter cooperation in gathering blood samples and other data the " genetic diversity" of the population could be more easily determined.


----------

