Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: Brian Krebs on August 06, 2009, 06:51:00 PM
-
The scene is now set for hunters to have the impression that hunting illegally can be expected.
This is a serious situation. How will officers respond to illegal wolf kills?
How will juries respond?
What does this commissioners comments say to the public about hunters?
And why why why- are those that are anti-hunting called 'conservationists'.
Commissioner: Some Idaho hunters are ready, whether it’s legal or not
By JASON KAUFFMAN
Express Staff Writer
Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Randy Budge speaks about the challenges of managing wolves in the state to a gathering of Western attorneys general in Sun Valley on Monday. Photo by Willy Cook
At least one high-ranking wildlife official in Idaho believes a wolf hunt will happen in the state later this fall regardless of whether the species remains under the state's control.
Speaking in Sun Valley on Monday, Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Randy Budge said many of the state's hunters are so upset by Idaho's growing wolf population they might take matters into their own hands if conservationists successfully derail the federal government's latest delisting of wolves in the northern Rockies. Budge made his prediction while speaking about the challenges of managing natural resource issues at the annual Conference of Western Attorneys General, at Sun Valley Resort from Aug. 2-5.
Whatever happens, Budge predicted, a wolf hunt will take place in Idaho's backcountry this fall.
"It will either be a state-authorized one or it will be an illegal one," he said.
Whether strong remarks like that play into conservationists' hands remains to be seen. In early June, conservation groups filed suit against the federal government in an effort to reverse a decision that removed Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.
According to the 13 groups that filed the lawsuit, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar failed to fully consider both scientific and legal inadequacies underlying the delisting rule—released in the waning days of the Bush administration—before adopting it on April 2. The groups claim the rule will allow more than two-thirds of the region's wolves to be killed before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would even consider stepping back in and restoring protections.
The federal government's April delisting did not include the state of Wyoming, whose wolf management plan the Fish and Wildlife Service has deemed inadequate. Wyoming officials have also filed suit against the federal government challenging their absence from the delisting.
Both lawsuits are still pending.
Click here to view the Yard Sales maps
Budge's comments were prefaced by his discussion of the federal government's role in the ongoing wolf delisting drama. He said the time has long since passed when the delisting should have been completed.
He said the original point wolves were to be delisted from the ESA was when the northern Rockies population reached 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves spread across the states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Current estimates state that about 1,650 wolves are in the region, more than five times the delisting numbers Budge said the federal government originally agreed on.
But conservationists have consistently claimed those numbers were set too low and do not constitute a biologically viable population of wolves in the tri-state region.
Not following through on the wolf delisting would further erode an already shaky trust between the northern Rockies states and the federal government, Budge claimed.
"We have a saturation of wolves in these three states and yet we have no (state) management," he said.
Except for several spots in the state—including the Sawtooth Valley, where the hunt would run from September through March—Idaho's wolf hunt will generally run from October through December. In areas inside the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, the wolf hunt is set to run from Sept. 15 through Dec. 31.
In Idaho Falls on Monday, Aug. 17, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission will set the quota for the wolf hunt state officials hope will occur this fall. Tags to hunt wolves would go on sale after the quotas are set, a news release from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game states. A resident wolf tag would cost $11.75, and a nonresident tag would be $186.
-
It's about time. The wolves certainly derailed my plans to hunt Idaho elk this year. I figure that cost the state about 2 grand.
-
This situation is not about anti-hunting. This is about a genetically viable population. 1600 individuals is not exactly a large amount variablity. The gray wolf, Unlike 99% of all threatened or endangered species, is endangered not from habitat destruction. It is there because extermination (not hunting). Some anti-hunters may say hunting but this was not the case. However, Myself and most conservationists I know are biologists or scientists of some form. Conservationists are not to be confused with some wacky groups out there.
Mickey
-
Shoot. Or was that Shovel, I forgot? Which is it Brian Shoot or Shovel?
Hey, maybe it was both them ideas together....
-
SSS shoot shovel and shut-up ! Hi Mike :)
mwmwmb: a viable population of wolves; and what it consists of genetically is unknown.
When it comes to wolves that have for generations followed the migrations of the different Caribou herds; a high number of wolves is NOT what is seen. A low number of wolves is representative.
I am pretty certain that the plains indians that covered themselves with wolf hides to creep up on bison - did not get the dead wolves from the side of a highway. I believe they hunted them. I believe that a part of the existence of wolves and man has been that wolves have been our prey.
Yes dogs are descendants of wolves; so we hunters showed compassion when it was appropriate. But NO animal should be allowed to overpopulate to where it destroys the environment. Because it is not the environment of any ONE animal; the planet is designed for the environment of many animals.
Right now off the coast of California; and Oregon; sea lions are overpopulating and consuming so much food that they are starving to death and yet - people are opening rehab clinics for them. They feed them; treat their ailments; and then let them go when they are recovered---right back to the place where the food is exhausted.
We as humans do have the ability to look at something like this and come to an intelligent solution.
In the case of wolves; there are too many. This article above shows that the people in charge of the fish and game animals know Idaho residents are certainly going to start killing wolves: with or without it being legal.
That is unhealthy for hunters in general; but the need to hunt wolves it is not a reflexive move; it is a well thought out and researched scientific conclusion: that anti-hunters are blocking in court.
Aldo Leopold is the father of wildlife conservation. He was a bowhunter.
Conservation is the WISE use of our natural resources;( not use based on what animal is 'cute' and which is not); and not based on a vendetta against hunting.
Hunters were the first conservationists. Hunters are concerned about all animals in the forest.
NOT just one animal; to the exclusion of others.
-
wolves? We don't need no stinkin' wolves! All that wasted ammunition on the part of the early settlers for nothing.
-
Brian,
I don't know what newspaper the Express is or where it is published. Have you written a rebuttal to them, yet? This "reporter" needs an education. Conservationist - wise use; Preservationist - the ones trying to block this hunt when elk, deer, domestic animals and who knows are being decimated in certain regions. What about our Idaho wolves that were here before the introduction of the Canadian wolves? I bet they are gone - extinct. Where does that fit into the ESA? Disgusting but not unexpected.
-
Ray_G
Its the Hailey Idaho paper.
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php
The pro-wolf people deny the existence of wolves in Idaho before the introduction - but they wouldn't care anyway - this wolf introduction is about ruining hunting for hunters. It was from the beginning and is now.
Before the introduction; the antihunters web sites were ranting about hunters having nothing to hunt; and then why - why would they need guns?
Big problem is their co-ordination and ability to gather money. I once signed up for email for an antihunting group; and I still get every other day with a new reason to give them money.
WE really lack in that way; we are tight with our money and this is one case where it has caught up with us.
The use of the word 'conservationist' in referring to the pro wolf crowd was made by one of our fish and game commissioners ( Randy Bunch). He is by trade an attorney.....
My big concern now is that he has opened the door for conflict. A rancher that shoots a wolf might do so with the thought that ultimately- biology says 'hunt the wolves'.
But what of the officer that responds if someone reports the rancher or if he is seen killing a wolf by an officer?
Its one thing to approach a decent person that is doing something wrong; and another to approach someone that did something only 'technically wrong'....but faces a $50,000 fine and a court battle.
This endangers our officers. That makes it 'scary inappropriate' for Budge to have said what he did.
And yes; people - hunters; ranchers; people out driving around - they are going to take the law into their own hands ....(they are to an extent now)....but after this - wheew !
Anyway you look at it; for a commissioner to say hunters are going to break the law: if the law fails them this fall.. has knocked over a huge domino.
-
Our future may hold many instances where "we" have to take the law into our own hands. (we the people)
Here in Michigan, wolf population estimates in the U.P. are around 400. If this were the case, sightings would be rare at best. Sightings are commonplace. The population estimates are far from accurate. I assume it is the same thing in other areas where wolves live. It is not so much the presence of wolves that is the problem, it is the OVER population of wolves. The policy of S.S.S. has been in effect in the U.P. of Michigan for years. Without it the problems there would be much worse.
New ground. We will have to see what happens.
-
Brian, I am glad you bring up Aldo Leopold He is my favorite. I usually have a leopold qoute but i changed it recently. This issue is discussed in his Thinking Like A mountian. maybe you have read it? very similar situation to what was decribed by many ecologists prior to wolf introduction. Lack of Apex predator, High densities of ungulates, over browsed vegetation, etc. the area were wolves were reintroduced things recovered. this was the management of an ecosystem not one species. it seems to me that the ONE SPECIES arguement usually comes from either people caring only about High numbers of Elk or whatever. I am all for hunting them (in accordance with science) once the data is in. But it seems this is really just driven by greed and fear. Greed on the part of many sides and fear by those that stick to the frontier type fear of wolves (i.e. wolves are evil,etc.)
-
WE are an apex predator. The ONE that can be controlled with the written word of law.
The overgrazing was in Yellowstone park - not in Idaho. NOT where hunting is allowed. And the over population of wolves has impacted the grizzly population there; who come from their dens and find not enough food to eat.
You say you are all for hunting them- '(in accordance with science); and once all the data is in'. I doubt you will never be satisfied with any data being complete: unless it is in concurrence with your opinions.... and I sense your opinions are that of the pro wolf people.
You think the existing science is driven by 'greed and fear'. Fear of wolves "wolves are evil, etc."
Wrong. Wolves are wolves; and they have been wolves in Idaho long enough. They need to be controlled.
I do think like a mountain; in that I consider the long term. Today sets the stage for tomorrow; and as stewards of the earth for tomorrows generations; the lack of control of the wolves is irresponsible and reckless.
I have a neighbor that will remain anonymous - not because of breaking the law; but because nobody likes to deal with yellow jackets. She was cooking for an outfitter; and some cattle came into camp for protection from a pack of wolves. They were ripping the cattle apart; not killing- just ripping. The sounds of pain the cattle made; the panic of the horses tied up; the gore...she is not ever returning to the wild.
Six shovels on that day- she can shoot.
When my baby donkey was killed by wolves that panicked my penned up pack animals; it was not a fear of wolves I felt; it was not that I felt they were evil; it was just that I was holding a dead animal: that once was a beautiful living thing.
I live with the wolves. Do not underestimate what I know about them: compared to someone in Arkansas.
-
First I dont think existing Science is driven by greed and fear but the public attitude. and I didnt say anything about ALL OF the data are in. Science is constantly evolving and reviewing past data. Science is what I do. I am an ecologist and to imply ("unless it is in concurrence with your opinions.... and I sense your opinions are that of the pro wolf people.") that I am one of the rediculous anti-hunting types is quite offensive. I dont know what you definition of "Pro-Wolf" is, but I am generally pro-wildlife. I am a sportsman, a Conservationist, and government employed professional ecologist.
I have lost livestock to predators, it sucks and I am for controling populations, but they serve a role in the ecosystem and should not be eliminated. sense you brought up Leopold I will remind you of my point "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise".
and if you didnt want to hear from someone from Arkansas or a some what different side perhaps you shouldnt post on an international forum.
-
I am glad that you are taking an aggressive position on this; I was a bit confused over what you were saying. Sorry for putting you against the wall.
The wolf control is not elimination.
I really wish that the biologists here in Idaho had your spunk. The desire you have is admirable.
What set off my spider senses was your comment:
" it seems to me that the ONE SPECIES arguement usually comes from either people caring only about High numbers of Elk or whatever. I am all for hunting them (in accordance with science) once the data is in".
The data. We as hunters; and our biologists whose job here is to insure there are healthy populations of game animals- say its well past time to hunt them. The original planned number of wolves before control measures started was exceeded long ago.
I have nothing at all against Arkansas; its just that most support for more biology; more objections to the hunt come from out east; and often from biologists. My implication was not anything negative about people from Arkansas; it was that the east coast is wondering what is going on here; we are here wondering what will stop it.
It is frustrating to be reminded of " A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise" : when you see what is wrong being embraced- by so many.
My sword is sharp now and so is yours :campfire:
-
Let's take a deep breath .... ahhh!
Wolves WERE a part of our ecosystem here in Idaho and all was fine until the introduction of the trapped Canadian wolves. We also have mountain lions, bears and hunters. Other than a few over hunted areas, our game animals did well. In some areas, it was scientifically proven by IDF&G biologists that predation had a significant impact on elk recruitment where predators were over abundant. This was prior to the wolf transplants. In those units, two lion and bear tags were made available over the counter.
Now the uncontrolled wolf population enters the picture. Game animals are either killed or driven out of their usual habitats. The stress must further reduce elk recruitment. It has been shown that the wolves do not fear human areas. The genteel folk of Sun Valley had to have Fish and Game harass the wolves back into the hills as residents did not like watching Wintering elk killed in their back yards.
Where is the wisdom in blocking state management of wolf populations? Most hunters that I know are not in favor of wolf elimination, but rather some major control before it is too late. Like I said, wolves were here prior to the Canadians introduction. Given that wolf packs don't tolerate other canids, I can only guess what happened to the indigenous wolves. Why is it that they can be eliminated?
I am at a loss for any understanding the rationale in bringing another large predator when indigenous species existed - except to reduce game numbers to where hunter reduction HAS to happen and perhaps that folks who live in remote areas will be forced into urban areas. I am reminded of the program for a Rocky Mountain Corridor for Grizzly habitat and that interference in that corridor would not be tolerated.
-
Ray_G
I agree.
mwmwmb - I am not sure if your aware of what its like to live and hunt where the wolves overpopulated. The fish and game commissioners comments are like a warning shot off the bow of the courts.
And it warns of 'war'.
This wolf situation is so out of hand - we do not need anything but a hunt: and fast. The vast majority of people that live here have been here long enough to remember the wilds before the native wolves were replaced with these wolves.
I am sorry if my comments were offensive; but we are living a reality here that others that do not live here - can't quite relate to. And now we do not have the time to talk about it anymore.
'its a sad sad situation...and its getting more and more absurd.......'
-
I might add, where predation on game animals was significant, we now see tag quotas for elk. They never had a chance to recover fully before the Canadian wolf introduction. Lions, bears and man were reduced in a management move to allow for better elk recruitment, albeit most human hunters were allowed to keep their hides.
There are other significant factors / policies involving recruitment and habitat, which like the wolves, are mostly driven by folks who will never step into our back country.
-
Brian, no prob,
but to answer Ray_G's question.
"Where is the wisdom in blocking state management of wolf populations?"
While not aware of the politcal structure in ID. I can tell ya from first hand experience that here our game and fish is governed by a board of good ole boy political appointees. they can and do over ride good scientific management strategies.
and the comment about"as residents did not like watching Wintering elk killed in their back yards."
this is what i meant about the evil wolf mentality. nature aint a disney movie. I think we can all agree on that.
as for the ecosystems approach, while we are an apex predator we are removed from the system to a certain extent. wolf kills play a role other than just population control.
I will give an example but from a different ecosystem. Are you aware of reduced tree growth rates in areas with dams blocking salmon runs. the massive runs fed bears,(which dont eat the whole fish the remains feed other animals, etc) this massive nutrient input from pee and poop nurished the trees. without that nutrient cycling the trees have basically been reduced to getting by.
anyways all I am saying is that everything has its place.
Why did they import wolves if there was a stable population in the first place?
Good conversation. :campfire: :coffee:
-
Mickey,
My question was rhetorical. The Canadian wolf transplant occurred at the direction of US Fish & Wildlife, not Idaho Fish & Game even though there may be a few there that champion it. Our F&G commission is appointed by the Governor, also. The Idaho commissioners are the ones who have proposed the hunting of wolves here.
During public meetings prior to the relocation from Canada, the citizens of Idaho stood 90% against bringing wolves here. What about states rights? To my knowledge, no published studies had fully concluded or acknowledged the sitings of wolves by citizens (non-biologists) or even whether there was a viable population. Even today, they can not know the actual count. My 72 year old friend was told that he mistook the wolf he saw on the Magruder Road as a coyote. What an insult to a man that spent much of the week in the back country! Having shot plenty of coyotes, he knew the difference. Others were given the same treatment. (The Magruder Road is a dirt corridor above the Frank Church and Gospel Hump wilderness areas, that goes into Montana.)
The comment about the wolves eating elk in Sun Valley is due to the general nature of the "rich and famous" that live there, who generally support an anti-hunting mentality but don't want their view marred by "nature aint a disney movie". I agree with you but they want it both ways. My opinion is to let the states manage the species within their borders and if we must adhere to ESA, with oversight. That is what is proposed, so let's get on with it.
We all have a part to play in the "ecosystem" and what about my part as a hunter that is coded into me as predator? I am as much a part of it as the wolf, lion or bear. Again, not to wipe out the wolf but some control when they become too numerous and drastically reduce the animals that I want to eat. If there were no reason to manage them, there would be no consideration of a hunting season on wolves.
A little byline:
I have a buddy who works in the APHIS program (if they still call it that). He related a story of when the USF&W folk went to Canada to get the first batch. They didn't want the APHIS guys to go because they are known as killers and are not looked upon kindly by their F&W peers. So the F&W bio's hired Canadian guys to do the catching of the wolves. The first trapper in with a live wolf couldn't find any of the bio's so he pelted the wolf out and sold the hide - perfectly legal in BC. I guess there was great gnashing and wailing over the loss but they got over it.
-
Well I don't want to start pointing fingers because there are usually some pointed right back but this has been coming since 1994. No one was saying anything then and those that were had voices too small to be heard.
Oh no, you mean wolves eat other animals?
I'm not refering to anyone here just the general public.
This has been a non hunting agenda since the begining. Their thought being that with an apex predator to do the hunting all other hunting would not be needed.
It's just sad to see people who make a living outfitting going under.
I'm sorry, I'm really trying to look at the big picture, but to put a non native specie in an ecosystem that has never been there is assinine.
Lets go dump 100 grizzlies in central California or throw 1000 pirannas into the Columbia. Why? Oh I don't know why, to see if we can. Come on, grizzlies are native to California, look at their state flag. No, lets put coastal browns in there. Right in the middle of Hollywood.
As far as management I don't know if it's even possible. I read a book about an alaskan trapper who took coyote, fox, and and other fur bearers but to snare a wolf was the upper enchilada. They are super intelligent.
Maybe a few would be killed at first but once bullets start whipping buy them, good luck.
I am not upset at the wolf. They are awe inspiring animals. I'm mad at the legislation and red tape that allowed them to be put here.
At the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation theatre room they clearly show how after the elk calves were two weeks old they could out run grizzlies and were too big for the coyotes. Enter the wolf. Not to mention this is a predator most Idaho elk have not seen in 70 years. These Canadian grey wolves have been crafted by evolution to run 50 miles a day chasing caribou on the wide open tundra. Now in Idaho, even in the Frank Church, they have no room to out run them. Oh yeah, I forgot, they only kill the sick and weak.
I understand that the Idaho Fish and Game has to feed their families. I thought that was by managing the states game population. The fact that they just stepped aside and let the Federal govt take over and do what they so desired is alarming.
Yes I know, the Federal govt, but now our elk herd is decling bringing in less and less dollars from out of state. So what do they do make Idaho have the cheapest hunting licensing in the west to bring in more people.
Too much demand, not enough resourse.
Again I'm not mad that we have competition. I enjoy competition. And I don't want to sound upset because there is less game for "me." I just like Idaho and don't feel like moving to Colorado. Ok I feel a little better.
-
very well said Crandog.
-
Jake, glad you feel better. Haven't caught up with you in awhile - since Western States :scared: Yikes!!
"This has been a non hunting agenda since the begining. Their thought being that with an apex predator to do the hunting all other hunting would not be needed."
I think that statement encompasses the crux of the matter.
Ray
-
The only flaw with crandog's argument is that the wolf's habitat was most of North America before they were killed off.
-
Different species of wolves.
-
I talked with biologists that insist they have data on the existing wolves that were here in Idaho before the 'reintroduction' of the wolves we have.
Lewis and Clark noted in their journals that the wolves around here were smaller than the wolves they saw in other places.
Then too; there were wolves coming in and out of the state that were radio collared - we got along fine with wolves for some time before this mess.
-
In North America there were only 2 species of wolves. Canis lupus (grey wolf covering most of north america) and Canis rufus (Red wolf mostly south east and belived to have interbred with coyotes)
-
Jerry Kysar shot a wolf here in Wyoming in '92.
-
Correction, they were a different sub-species. There are only two species of wolf recognized on the entire planet. But there are/were five different subspecies of grey wolf in North America.
Canis lupus occidentalis (Rocky Mountain Wolf, Mackenzie Valley Wolf, Northwestern Wolf); Canis lupus nubilus (Great Plains Wolf); Canis lupus lycaon (Eastern Wolf, Eastern Timber Wolf); Canis lupus arctos (Arctic Wolf); Canis lupus baileyi (Mexican wolves, Mexican Grey Wolf, or Lobo).
-
Dont forget about the Ethiopian Wolf Canis simensis
-
that is really neat to know. Thanks :thumbsup:
-
Originally posted by bravedeer:
The only flaw with crandog's argument is that the wolf's habitat was most of North America before they were killed off.
Interesting that they haven't been sent to other states in N.A. There seems to be enough prey for them (not that I would wish it on anyone else) so why just the few states where they brought them in? Our legislature recently passed a mandate on to our Fish & Game to try to give away some of our wolf abundance to other states. Of 20 states contacted, none accepted. Go figure! The mandate was a precursor to any attempted litigation to stem the hunting season for them. I guess they figure to show that hunting is necessary for control seeing how capturing and releasing elsewhere is not going to work.
Before the Canadian transplants were brought in, our F&G wildlife managers and biologists were telling us of recruitment problems with elk herds, mostly due to predation of new calves. Obviously, there are other factors like Winter kill, loss of Winter habitat, fewer timber harvests, hunting pressure, etc. So as our elk populations were declining, in comes the transplants! Someone needs a reality check or .... never mind. :mad: We now have a severely affected elk population and I have not seen any info on deer. The wolves do not always eat their kills. In one instance related to me by a lion outfitter, he came upon five dead elk cows in the snow with only wolf tracks around and all that was eaten was their fetuses. The rest of the otherwise healthy, pregnant (not the weak and sick!) elk was left for the ravens and magpies. This is man's manipulation of the habitat and left uncontrolled to the havoc that is amongst us.
-
Originally posted by mwmwmb:
Dont forget about the Ethiopian Wolf Canis simensis
I'm 100% sure the Ethiopian Wolf isn't a North American breed. It also isn't 100% sure that they are a wolf, the jury is still out. Some believe they are more closely related to the Jackle.
-
Originally posted by vermonster13:
Correction, they were a different sub-species. There are only two species of wolf recognized on the entire planet. But there are/were five different subspecies of grey wolf in North America.
Canis lupus occidentalis (Rocky Mountain Wolf, Mackenzie Valley Wolf, Northwestern Wolf); Canis lupus nubilus (Great Plains Wolf); Canis lupus lycaon (Eastern Wolf, Eastern Timber Wolf); Canis lupus arctos (Arctic Wolf); Canis lupus baileyi (Mexican wolves, Mexican Grey Wolf, or Lobo).
There are only two species of wolf recognized on the entire planet.
that was what i was referring to.
-
Phylogenetic analysis using mitochondrial DNA
sequencing suggested that C. simensis is more closely
related to the grey wolf (C. lupus) and the coyote (C.
latrans) than to any African canid (Gottelli et al. 1994),
and that the species may have evolved from a grey wolflike
ancestor crossing to northern Africa from Eurasia as
recently as 100,000 years ago (Gottelli et al. 2004).
While this has nothing to do with situation in ID. It shows what I was talking about previously. We need to manage by Current, up-to-date science not public opinion.
-
Here is a funny PETA parody about wolves.
http://unquietmind.com/petawolf.html
-
LOL!
-
Originally posted by mwmwmb:
Phylogenetic analysis using mitochondrial DNA
sequencing suggested that C. simensis is more closely
related to the grey wolf (C. lupus) and the coyote (C.
latrans) than to any African canid (Gottelli et al. 1994),
and that the species may have evolved from a grey wolflike
ancestor crossing to northern Africa from Eurasia as
recently as 100,000 years ago (Gottelli et al. 2004).
While this has nothing to do with situation in ID. It shows what I was talking about previously. We need to manage by Current, up-to-date science not public opinion.
Which they think may have crossbred with Jackles. But all of it is theory and maybes at this point.
Now back to what is happening on this side of the ocean.
-
This goes back to what i was discussing about with respect to this side of the ocean.
First you say "Some" believe that they are related to Jackals, Then I cite the science that was used to elevate them to wolves and proves that they are not Jackals. Then you say "THEY" think that may have crossbred with Jackals.
IF this were the case they would be more closely related to Jackals than Grey wolves. the DNA says otherwise.
Cite some science. THIS IS MY POINT ABOUT THE USA. USE SCIENCE NOT PUBLIC OPINION TO MAKE THE BEST MANAGEMENT DECICIONS.
-
"Taxonomy:
DNA analysis has shown that Ethiopian wolves are more closely related to grey wolves and coyotes than to any African canid (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004)."
It is closely related to wolves but not a true wolf. That is the science.
The wolf reintroduction here has nothing to do with science and all to do with politics. A larger sub-species was introduced into an environment with an already stressed herd that had not evolved to deal with this particular sub-species. Man playing God rarely if ever works.
-
Its OK. Quotas have already been set for different zones. 12 bucks for a resident tag.
-
Here are some "scientific" facts:
"Fish and Game models indicate Idaho now has at least 1,000 wolves. The population increases at a rate of about 20 percent a year, without hunting."
"Commissioners want to manage the wolf population toward the 2005 level of 520 wolves through regulated hunting (five-times higher than the federal recovery goal). The 2005 wolf population figure was used as a target number because wolf conflicts both with wildlife and livestock increased significantly that year."
Quoted text found here: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=5049
Notice the first quote says "at least 1000". In the next quote it states "the 2005 level of 520 wolves". Most resident hunters (who have a strong opinion I might add, as it is our state and wildlife) have held the opinion that the 1000 mark was hit a few years ago - no hard evidence but field observations. Our Fish and Game commissioners took a first vote at the meeting to quota enough kills to reduce the wolf population to five times US Fish and Wildlife recovery levels. USF&W previously approved Idaho's plan for those numbers. The vote was 3 Yeas and 4 Nays. A second vote was taken and we have a hunt scheduled to start with a kill quota of 220. It is a start but will still leave at least 800 wolves and new recruitment of their population. The quota levels will need to be increased to maintain the population as is if 220 are killed or greatly increased to see the population at or near five times USF&W level. We will still have elk reductions until wolf quotas are increased.
"The wolf reintroduction here has nothing to do with science and all to do with politics. A larger sub-species was introduced into an environment with an already stressed herd that had not evolved to deal with this particular sub-species. Man playing God rarely if ever works. Vermonster13"
Good comment, Dave. Politics is why I raised the issue of states rights. Our Fish & Game Department's mission statement as in the State's Wildlife Policy reads: "All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping." A federal mandate has come in and overstepped the last part of that policy. Our founding fathers of our nation wrote warnings about an overreaching federal government and the consequences of the same.
It is[/b] about politics and feel good emotions for many who will never step foot into the areas where the wolves are nor suffer the loss of indigenous wolves, elk or other living creatures. That is public opinion and not science!
-
RAY_G - are you the only one in Kimberly to think this way; or could there be something in the water?
Bottle it if it is so. Our country thirsts for intellect.
-
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g56/huntit/unsorted112.jpg)
Brian I know how you guys feel about these wolves. They wreck havoc on our moose populations. But we can whackem - $8.00 tag.
-
Well boys it looks like we get to buy tags this Monday morning Aug. 24th!
-
Whakem and stackem boys, probably be short lived like all the other attempts to open em up. Some bunny hugger someplace will launch a law suit and closed it will go. Get some bait out and shoot fast.
-
Well I bought my wolf tag yesterday. I just hope it doesn't get shut down before season opens up.
-
there are a lot of us that are hoping the same thing Jesse.
-
It is offical, the ruling came in this afternoon, we get to shoot them this year. It will be the first time in twenty years I will hunt with a rifle.
-
Congratulations !!!!!!!
-
Woohoo!
-
Good hunting, guys. Jesse, you could make a great coat for keeping the snow off this Winter!
Ray
-
The judge hearing the request of various animal rights groups to place wolves back under Federal jurisdiction, has sided with Idaho and Montana game managers! :thumbsup: The state managed hunts will continue.
Hopefully, the wildlife managers and the game commissions will see the advantages to reducing the wolf population to reasonable levels in the coming years so that our elk populations will rebound from the uncontrolled depridation that they have suffered.
-
well, personally, I'm all for cloning dinosaurs and sabretooth tigers from the frozen DNA we have.
I think the first place we turn them loose should be Washington, DC...approx. where the US Fish and Wildlife HQ and Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the Capitol Building.
We can then move them around to different areas as required from there, beginning with San Francisco and the state of MA
That ought to take care of most of our problems.
-
I think the first place we turn them loose should be Washington, DC...approx. where the US Fish and Wildlife HQ and Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the Capitol Building.
Yeah, that way we can get back to Old traditional Hunting. Meaning only for the rich large landowner. like it was in the old world. :knothead: Or everyone could just shoot asmany of every thing that we wanted.
-
mwmwmb : we wouldn't have to wear tights would we??
-
Brian, guess it depends on what those rich landowners tell us