Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: TEX-O-BOB on October 06, 2010, 10:02:00 AM
-
As the fight to get public opinion for wolf management, it is critical to take 30 seconds and VOTE YES.
Click below on link with Bozeman daily
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle has a poll online (http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/op ... 002e0.html ) asking if you agree with the legislation being introduced to delist gray wolves.
Right now the "no" vote is something like 70%. We need to change that. Let's out vote them. We've done it before, and we can do it again...but you have to vote.
Let everyone know...and plead that they support this permanent delisting of wolves...to save elk, moose, deer and other big game...Beg them to VOTE "YES"!
Organizations like Big Game Forever...Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation...Safari Club International...Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife...Idaho for Wildlife...and others, now is the time to have your members to rally behind this cause - to win control of the wolf issue. Bozeman is the greenie environmentalist capital of the Northern Rockies...let's beat them right in their own back yard by taking over this poll.
VOTE NOW!!!
NOTE: You don't need to log in, just click the yes button and your vote will be counted. The field to type the link on this sight is not wide enough for me to get the whole link to highlight so you'll need to just copy and paste the link to your browser.
-
When I click on this link it comes up with an ERROR message....?
-
need to check your link, it is not complete, missing some middle text as indicated by the "dots" ....
-
I went all the way to register and everything. But when I tried to log in it wouldn't let me. Tried 3 times then gave up. :deadhorse:
-
You don't need to log in, just click the yes button and your vote will be counted. The field to type the link on this sight is not wide enough for me to get the whole link to highlight so you'll need to just copy and paste the link to your browser.
-
OK I just had to wait longer. Voted, now it's 78% yes. How's that? :thumbsup:
-
just voted and the Yes vote is around 70%
Just go to the main page and scroll down near the bottom for the poll.
-
just voted the yes is at 71%
-
I helped.....
-
72% now, one vote 1% probably less than 200 total votes right now. We can really impact it with just 20 or more vote!
-
Trt this link below.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/polls/
-
You must have gotten the word out big time cause the vote is now:
YES - 72% 2879
NO - 28% 1114
-
Just voted 73% now
-
This is an article from the Bozeman Chronicle dated Wednesday, September 29, 2010 . It's a call to de-list Wolves as an endangered species....
After seeing what they can do in Idaho and Montana to game populations both elk and deer something more needs to be done...
Montana Senators want wolves written out of endangered species law
Montana's senators have become the latest lawmakers in Washington who want to change federal law so gray wolves in Montana and Idaho won't enjoy the protection of the Endangered Species Act.
Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both Democrats, introduced late Tuesday their legislation that seeks to give Montana and Idaho wildlife agencies control over the gray wolf.
Earlier this month, Idaho Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, both Republican, introduced a bill to do largely the same thing, and Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg has released a similar draft bill, though it has not been introduced yet.
More than 1,400 wolves live in the two states.
The flood of bills come in response to a federal court ruling in August that found wildlife officials violated the Endangered Species Act when they designated wolves in Wyoming endangered while saying wolves in Montana were Idaho are not.
The federal Fish and Wildlife Service tried that approach because of Wyoming's stated plan to allow wolves shot on sight in most of the state. Splitting up the states allowed the feds to protect wolves in Wyoming while allowing Montana and Idaho to take over control of the wolf population, which biologists consider recovered.
However, the ruling put the wolf back under the control of the federal government and brought to a halt hunts that many in Montana and Idaho hoped would reduce the wolf population and curb the predator's impact on livestock and elk herds.
The "Resorting State Wildlife Management Act of 2010" runs three pages and states that the Endangered Species Act "shall have no force or effect" on wolves living in Montana and Idaho. Rehberg's draft bill takes a similar tact, prohibiting the government from treating wolves in Idaho and Montana as an endangered species.
The Idaho senators' bill goes farther, calling for gray wolves in Washington, Oregon and Utah to also be put under state management.
Baucus and Tester's bill drew immediate criticism from groups that sued the government over its de-listing plan.
-
yes vote is done @ 72%
-
voted...yes is at 73%
-
I just voted and the yes vote is now just a shade under 73%
-
73% yes
-
me too
-
Yes & now 74%
-
Thanks Kingstaken for adding the link.
Yes 74%
-
its 75% now. :thumbsup:
-
74% now
-
Even though I love the wolves I voted yes with you guys. The grizzly bears are also doing a number on the moose and elk. More than you think. I was told that the reason the moose are practically gone in Yellowstone is because of grizzlies and not the wolves. The wolves primary diet consists of elk. And the vast majority of wolf kills end up in a grizzly's belly. So when a bear isn't killing a moose or elk they are eating a moose or elk that the wolves killed. We also need to shoot the bears.
-
Done,we need to stay at the top of the food chain!
-
74% yes, I am, however, really sceptical that the polls actually do any good. Where do they go? Who sees them? do lawmakers actually pay any attention to these cyber polls? Hope I'm wrong, but I do wonder.
Frank
-
75% YES
-
Just voted and it said 65% yes and 25% no, what gives, how does it go from 75% yes to 65% yes????
-
Just voted. its at 75% yes. I kinda wonder the same thing as Frank V ...hope we're wrong though!
-
Of course I voted yes, but I wonder if these divisive issues are not brought out in front of elections, just so we all take our eyes off of other things. Things seem to show up for political debate that concern everyone than nothing gets done for the better afterward.
-
I don't know if the polls on the web or newspapers, like in this case, have much impact on the politcos but both of Montana's senators (Democrats) and both of Idaho's senators (Republicans) have submitted (or about to) separate bills in the US Senate to remove the Canadian Gray Wolf from the US Endangered Species Act. The affected states want to manage ALL game animals inside their borders. The Idaho senator's bill goes beyond Montana's by additionally including management in Utah, Oregon and Washington by their respective game departments - the wolves are spilling into the other states and their affect will be felt.
The county in Idaho where I used to live, has declared a state of disaster due to the damage that wolves have done to the economy there. Idaho County used to have one of the best elk hunting in the US but in some game units there, elk number 1 per square mile. The previous count in those units before wolves was 8 per square mile. Imagine what deer hunting would be in your state if 84% of your deer were consumed by predators. Idaho County is very dependent on elk hunting for the revenue brought in from outfitting, groceries, hunting and camping stores, fuels, etc. let alone the people who feed their families from hunting. Now tags are limited. Our Fish & Game surveyed former non-resident hunters and found most were not returning due to the huge increase in the wolf predation.
Like most things, this management needs to be done by the state. The Canadian Gray Wolf is not endangered in North America - just lives up North now. The problem with management is that those that want the foreign wolf here, keep upping the total population numbers. The original plan called for 300 wolves. We are way, way beyond that. Now some of them are saying we will sit down and agree to stop the lawsuits if you will settle at our new request for 1200+. How about "I don't think so!" Hunters from other states should be contacting their senators to have them support these bills. Plans by the wolf folks are already being made to introduce these buggers wherever they think that they historically roamed - even East of Big Muddy. Before they get a foot hold in your back yard, get your senators to vote to remove them from the ESA.
-
Curious. Isn't it the scientific community that should determine the proper sustainable number of wolves? I.e., politicians and random people voting seems... odd to me.
I don't mind sharing the woods with bears, big-cats, foxes, and wolves (critters that compete with me). I *want* the woods to be as primeval as possible. Are wolf populations truly sustainable now? What do the rangers, naturalists and scientists say? In the end, they have an interest in ecological balance, rather than hunting or ranching.
I'm a beekeeper. Bears can do heavy heavy damage to hives. Do I want them wiped out? No. It's the nature of the business and we do the best to keep them from the hives, but... sometimes... ol' bear outsmarts you. Of course, hunting to a sustainable population, I'm of curious a fan.
Hmm... I should hunt around beehives.
-
Todd,
It is the scientific community, i.e. our Wildlife Managers and Biologists in the Fish & Game Department that are proving the detrimental effect that the unmanaged, imported wolves are having on our game populations. There are many posts in this forum relating that. In our state, the Fish & Game Dept. is mandated by legislative action to maintain healthy and sustainable game herds for it's citizens. Using polls and comments on web sites is today's version of a town meeting, sitting around the General Store or the tree in the common. We as citizens of a representative republic have the right and obligation to make our opinions heard.
Most of the hunters that I know are not opposed to predators of any type in our environment and we have lots of variety of them in Idaho. We believe that they should be managed like all other game animals. Bears and lions in Idaho were once considered varmints but now are managed as game animals and are thriving. In some parts of the state, a hunter can kill two each per season because there are larger than minimum numbers.
Prior to the importation of the Canadian Gray Wolf, Idaho had resident wolves. Knowing the nature of the packed up Gray wolves, our resident wolves are probably exterminated, as the Gray's do not tolerate other canids. How does that fit with the Endangered Species Act? It is my understanding that no one is monitoring for them or concerned about them. The mention of them was hushed up as the import plan came to be.
In truth, the "enviromentalist" crowd wanted a large population of wolves in the Rocky Mountain Region to fit their model of a corridor that would have all sorts of animals in it. I have watched them speak on PBS tv about limiting human influence in this corridor stretching down from Canada to Mexico. Their utopian world would eliminate hunting in the corridor.
As I stated above and perhaps insufficiently, the original Federal plan called for ten breeding pairs of Gray Wolves in Idaho. Pack sizes would be larger than that and would total from 100 to 300 wolves. The "preservationists", for hunters are the "conservationists", keep pushing for higher numbers of wolves, going way beyond the original agreement with the Federal plan. Their current proposal is for a wolf population of 1200! I have heard that we are past that number, perhaps as high as 1500 and we see the results of that! Currently, there is no ecological balance for all users with the lack of management of the imported Gray Wolf.
Ray