Coeur d'Alene Press Newspaper | CDAPress.com
Local and National News - Kootenai County, Idaho
Wolf warp
Staff writer
 |
| Courtesy of Shutterstock.com Renowned biologist Dr. Valerius Geist warns that tame, inquisitive wolf behavior is a sure sign of extreme danger. |
Missoula judge picked by Defenders of Wildlife, co-plaintiffs to decide defining issue in the West
POST FALLS — The mood was somber — and resentful — at the Fish and Game Commission’s public hearing in the conference room at Cabela’s last week, not unlike families of victims who just heard that their loved ones’ serial killer got off on a technicality.
In this case it was the unhindered growth of the “reintroduced” Canadian gray wolf that got off and the technicality — the judge determined — was that there was not enough natural long-term genetic exchange between the three state’s wolf populations to ensure a healthy gene pool far into the future.
“We’re five times over recovery,” said Fish and Game Director Cal Groen. “However, those numbers weren’t discussed, we got into a different discussion in genetics.
“We were deeply, deeply disappointed.”
Even though U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy, of Missoula, Mont., acknowledged that Idaho had a good wolf management plan, he decided to grant a preliminary injunction that reinstated Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf across all three states on July 18. That effectively stopped Wyoming, Montana and Idaho from holding special hunting seasons for wolves this year.
“It is not a final determination in court,” said Clive Strong, chief of the natural resource division of the Idaho Attorney General’s Office. “The defendant — the U.S. in this case — cannot go forward with delisting until there is a full hearing on the merits.”
By granting the injunction Judge Molloy is indicating that he believes the (final) case will prevail on its merits although he hasn’t seen much of the evidence.
•••
Although wolf populations are five times higher than original agreements for ESA delisting, 12 groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the National Resources Defense Council and the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for delisting wolves in March primarily using the genetic exchange issue as the reason.
“They picked and chose where they wanted to go to court ... I think you might wonder, why Missoula, Montana,” said Commissioner Randall Budge of the Southeast Region. “Most likely because they wanted to be before a particular judge in Missoula.”
The genetic exchange issue picked by Judge Molloy as the primary reason to reinstate ESL status, would not have worked for nine out of 10 judges, Randall surmised.
“The judge basically picked that one thing and hung his hat on it,” said Commissioner Tony McDermott of the Panhandle Region. “He also ignored the federal government’s expert who said that exchange was occurring.”
Judge Molloy relied on only one study, the VonHoldt Study, as proof that genetic exchange does not exist, McDermott said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service criticized that study because the sampling was too small to make the determination that no genetic exchange exists.
“We disagree with it,” Groen said. “We think there’s ample exchange, 8 to 22 percent of the wolves are outliers, they’re moving around.”
Even if that weren’t so, the issue could have been surmounted and solved by the three state’s fish and game departments with a trap, transport and release program to ensure that genetic diversity continued.
“I attended the hearing in Missoula when the government’s position was presented and that option was presented in oral argument,” Groen said. “But the judge elected not to consider it.”
•••
One after one, outdoorsmen at the public hearing stood in front of the commission to voice frustration about the judge’s decision and the presence of wolves that are killing so much of Idaho’s ungulate (hooved mammal) population, some even going so far as to hint at Fish and Game Department complicity regarding the original decision to import the wolves.
Bob Balser of Hayden read a couple of documents, one signed by former Fish and Game Director Jerry Conley to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wolf Recovery Coordinator Ed Bangs that signified IDFG’s intent to work with USFWS to reintroduce wolves. The other was a special permit issued to Bangs and signed by former IDFG Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker to actually reintroduce the wolves from Canada.
“That means that the department (IDFG) was hand-in-glove with Fish and Wildlife Service to bring the wolves into the state,” Balser said. “Yet you people ... know the ramifications of wild wolves on our big game herds.”
Groen admitted that the documents existed but stated that he thought that by granting the permits, the state would just “keep in the process,” that the wolves were coming in anyway.
John Walters of Calder, who spoke next, gave graphic first-hand testimony to the slaughter caused by wolves on the elk population near his home on the St. Joe River.
“Using the $8,000 per head (elk) figure that we came up with when we did the collaborative with Sen. Crapo ... there’s $80,000 worth of dead elk within two miles of my home,” he said. “The last I heard the federal government couldn’t take anything without just compensation.”
He asked the commission if they had tried to get compensation.
After getting an earful, Budge spoke up.
“Most of us on this commission are just like you folks, we’re elk hunters,” he said. “We’re not real keen about wolves, either.”
He made the point that we’re all trumped by federal law in the guise of the Endangered Species Act.
“They trump anything we can do in Idaho under state law,” he said.
Budge believes there was no question then — or now — that the vast majority of the public in Idaho did not want any wolves.
“It didn’t matter,” he said. “We worked diligently to try to get a plan that we could get U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to approve ... so we could take over.”
Even Bangs who led the effort to introduce the wolves submitted affidavits to Judge Molloy acknowledging that the job was done and that it was time to move on.
“We’re more distressed, I think, than you are,” Budge said at the hearing. “Not only are we also being deprived of hunting opportunities, just as you are ... we get to hear people who accuse us of introducing the wolves ... and not trying to control it.”
He acknowledged he couldn’t predict how Judge Molloy would eventually rule, but added that an adverse decision would be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court.
•••
The worry now for the commission, Fish and Game biologists and Idaho hunters is how long our game can last.
“It’s a real worry ... Eventually you reach a status quo between the wolves that start dying off because there’s too many of them,” said commission Chairman Wayne Wright from the Magic Valley Region. “I hope we don’t take it to that limit, because there won’t be a whole lot of elk left by the time that happens.”
Groen and the commissioners all pledged to do everything they can — within the law — to try to gain the right to manage all the game in Idaho, including wolves.
Some may have already given up on that approach.
“I am right now running into people in the woods who are actively hunting wolves,” Walters said. “They have given up on you.”
Many don’t trust a system that so completely ignores local inputs, lifestyles and economies.
“Judge Molloy did us a big favor and the reason I think he did us a big favor is because there is now a line drawn in the sand,” he said. “I don’t see it ever getting delisted to the point that we’ll have a hunting season, we’ve already got groups within the state of Idaho who are wanting wolf viewing areas.”
Of course in order to have wolf viewing there must be wolves that haven’t been shot at and become gun shy — or at least people shy. Some suspect that was the reason for the lawsuit and the judge’s emergency injunction — to halt upcoming hunts.
Dr. Franz Carmenzind, the executive director of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, submitted an affidavit to Judge Molloy’s court stating that searching for, seeing tracks and scat, and viewing Jackson Hole wolves is an important part of his life and that it would be a big loss for him if any Jackson Hole wolves and specifically members of the Teton Pack were harmed.
A male, Wolf253M, was killed in the Wyoming Predator Zone in Sublette County.
“I was injured by the killing of Wolf253M, because I will never be able to see this well-known wolf again,” he lamented in his affidavit.
Others suspect that some wolf advocates do not think humans should hunt at all and may be trying to stall state wolf control measures until the wolf population grows large enough to take most — if not all — surplus elk, deer and moose populations leaving nothing for human hunters.
Indeed one of the plaintiffs, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) with an annual budget of $112 million, has admitted it is against all recreational uses for animals, including hunting, horseback riding, even pet ownership. President Wayne Pacelle is former director of the anti-hunting Fund for Animals.
If there is mistrust by hunters about the course of action taken by the state agencies, it seems to be less about loyalties and more that they may be overly naive about the end game planned by the pro-wolf groups represented by the plaintiffs but McDermott is under no illusions.
“In the 1994 agreement, Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife agreed to the 100-wolf numbers (per state) and now they want many times more,” McDermott said. “How can we trust them?”
•••
In the meantime, state Fish and Game representatives will be working under the new ESA 10(j) rule of 2008, which allows some wolves to be taken under specific circumstances: a wolf caught in the act of killing livestock, dogs or because of a serious decline in wild elk or deer herds.
Under the old 10(j) rule, Fish and Game had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that wolves were the cause of an ungulate decline, McDermott said.
The new 10(j) rule allows a somewhat relaxed burden of proof but McDermott heard that the same plaintiffs intend to file a lawsuit with Judge Molloy about this, too.
“We’re in for the long haul,” Budge said.
One course of action is to appeal the preliminary injunction to the 9th Circuit Court, which could take from 15 months to 32 months for a decision, while the other choice is to proceed to a final hearing of the case in front of Judge Molloy in Missoula, which may be 6 to 8 months, McDermott said.
An adverse decision would bring an appeal from either side and that would go to the 9th Circuit, as well.
Strong indicated there were a number of options available to Idaho, even some that might allow the state to be treated independently from the other two.
“This is not the end of the road, it’s the beginning of the road,” Strong said. “My counsel is we need to follow that review through to its end.”
The question is whether there will be any huntable game left by then.
end of story
Email this story
Printer friendly version
|
POST YOUR OPINION
|
View all of the latest commented stories! |
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
The Press invites you to contribute your online comments, with positive statements whenever possible and, when necessary, your constructive, negative thoughts.
Commenting Rules
- No libel (that means no NAME CALLING, OR USING PRIVATE CITIZEN'S NAMES)
- Use good taste
- Be positive whenever possible
- Do not Spam - post an advertisement or flood forum with the same message.
- Do not type entire post in CAPITALS - it means you are screaming.
- THINK BEFORE YOUPOST and ask yourself these questions;
Is it a positive remark?
Will I be hurting anyone?
Children can come to this site, is it appropriate for their eyes?
Most importantly, would I want my name on this forum?
population control too wrote on Aug 13, 2008 3:05 PM:
hey folks, this is really me, not one of the fakers or immitators...although immitation is the finest form of flatery so thanks....you see how easy these weak minded people are to manipulate and rile up...just read below and on other posts and you see the weakness radiating from your screen...wow c-cat you sure are a big person calling me and many others all those mean names over the anonymous internet...btw...people can imitate me all they like, unlike most i dont rely on this silly screen name as an identity... "
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 13, 2008 2:58 PM:
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 13, 2008 2:27 PM:
P.C.T. - I am so glad that you came clean and told us the truth about your unabased lying. You're still a Loser! "
Miguel wrote on Aug 13, 2008 1:53 PM:
Anyway, it's still illegal to shoot a wolf. And did the buffalo, elk, moose, and deer face extinction before Europeans arrived on the North American continent? No, not until they were nearly wiped out; and no, not by the gray aka timber wolf, but by the Europeans.
I'm no tree hugging, green enviromentalist, but a hunter myself. Nature has a tendency to balance itself out. I'm fairly certain, after the unusually long winter we suffered through, that that caused more decline in the large ungulate population than wolf predation. And if there are fewer elk, it follows that fewer wolves will survive, also.
And there are very few documented cases of wolves atttacking human beings, so all this talk about them "killing children" is pure foolishness. "
Population Control Too wrote on Aug 13, 2008 1:33 PM:
volder wrote on Aug 13, 2008 12:45 PM:
I fully understand personal issues and how they can affect mood and thought patterns. Emotions ultimately determine ones decisions. It is ones maturity that determines how those are presented. (That was difficult to articulate with three very hyper children bouncing all around me!) I have fallen a few times to personal attacks as well and I apologize.
As for wolves:
They may be hunting the same game I do, but have not affected (as of yet) a pretty successful harvest rate on my part. I wouldnt mind hunting them as well (I enjoy stalking a elusive prey), but I feel no need to annihilate the entire species in the area. "
gee Bruce wrote on Aug 13, 2008 12:06 PM:
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 13, 2008 11:55 AM:
To pop control wrote on Aug 13, 2008 11:23 AM:
Bruce Hemming wrote on Aug 13, 2008 11:20 AM:
Doctor Doom, Eric Pianka, Receives Standing Ovation from Texas Academy of Science watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
The academic world preaches this cult thinking. Everything man fault Global warming, animal extinction, running out of resources, hunters killed Endangered Species, a ton of other half truths spun into lies pointing that world is being destroyed and it is all man fault. Never any good news if the Environmentalist truly care about the planet then why do they not support research into greener energy? Ahh now we find the real truth these mental defective people have a plan they wanted to wipe out 90% of the world population and make slaves out of the remaining 10%.
The latest lawsuit Stop hunting of wolves by the Corrupt Federal Judge. Anyone with common sense looks at genetic diversity argument as being a joke. Common sense dictates that if the original 65 wolves turned into 1500 wolves with NO genetic problems noted, proves this lawsuit is nothing but a lie. But I have learned that the corruption in the Federal courts is going to doom America. Judge O' Mallory should be removed from the bench for gross incompetents.
Here is sample of the cult thinking in our youth today. Death threats f*** you who cares bout f**kin cows we eat them so mine as well let the wolves eat em, ima get a cheese burger today =) cows deserve to die ^_^ and ill kill a farmer give me ur address so i can kill u to!
Imagine what kind of world we are creating young people willing to kill someone to save a wolf. Good job environmentalist but you had Good leaders to follow Charlie Manson in jailhouse interview bragged about being the start of the radical environmental movement. "
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:54 AM:
wow pop control wrote on Aug 13, 2008 3:28 AM:
population control too wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:09 PM:
Colonel Sanders wrote on Aug 12, 2008 4:05 PM:
to C. Cat wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:46 PM:
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:04 PM:
You really should be or will be on the television show of "Dumbest Criminals". All you've done with your incesant bragging is to give USFW agents your computer address to come see you. First of all, PROVE to us you got two of the wolves. Bring in the skin and bones so we have proof because all we have now is your unintelligeable rant. My guess is you always bragged about "bangin" all the girls in high school but actually never got a date or to first base! How 'bout it girls, any of you interested in this yellow toothed monster with dirty fingernails and B.O.? I didn't think so. "Mr. DuMass" if you knew the pack law you would know that the other females will nurse those babies if necessary or if old enough every member of the pack will bring them food. You are a total waste of skin but I'll bet God didn't waste much skin on any lower extremities either!!!!!!! LOSER! "
volder wrote on Aug 12, 2008 2:54 PM:
You seem to be fairly intelligent why use insults to get your point across? As for a few other posters please try to use at least a little proper English, there is no way anyone will take you seriously. I may not have the best grammar and spelling but at least most people can understand my ideas.
As for wolves: Im all for hunting them, but come on; do it responsibly. Set up a lottery similar to that of moose and add quotas similar to cougar.
As for these people who are claiming to be hunters "shoot shovel and shut up is not only a very immature way to look at things but you have become a poor reflection upon a true huntsman (and yes I said huntsman and not sportsman). The actions of a few misguided people are what the anti-hunting and anti gun extremists latch on too in order to eventually take away all our rights. "
population control too wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:17 PM:
Bruce Hemming wrote on Aug 12, 2008 12:42 PM:
Spreading more lies and dis-information I see. Where do you think the denning tactic came from the Native Americans taught the early fur trappers. Some tribes considered wolf puppies a delicacy others believe their warriors needed to kill a wolf and eat it heart to become a warrior. If you look on line you will find Geronimo auto biography where he states that in order for a young man to have the right to smoke he had to kill a large animal such as bear , Mt Lion or WOLVES. That is plural the Apache hunted wolves as did most of the Native America tribes. I guess when you can't deal with the truth you make up lies.
Spreading myths, fairy tales, and misconceptions about wolves is a normal Pro Wolf cult tactic. What is the name of your cult? Charlie Manson family?
Want to know what living with wolves is all about? You have to see this new documentary titled Undue Burden. "
to native x wrote on Aug 12, 2008 12:38 PM:
population control wrote on Aug 12, 2008 12:32 PM:
native x wrote on Aug 12, 2008 12:07 PM:
uh Bruce wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:13 AM:
Bruce Hemming wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:57 AM:
Thank you for telling truth about wolves. What you will see in this debate is tiny less then 20% of population still in the pro wolf cult. A full 80% of the public wants the wolves controlled. But what we have here is that tiny percentage of people flooding the comments section. The Charlie Manson comments exposes the truth of pro wolf side being a cult. Please more cult members show your true colors and tell everyone how you are following your cult leaders like Ted Turner who wants to kill of 95% of humans to save the animals.
Please all you nature experts sitting in your city office tell us how you want to kill hunters because your cult believes people are evil. Thanks for proving my point. What is the name of your pro wolf cult. "
Applaud for Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:44 AM:
I see more and more posts in here about exterminating the Wolf, and this comparison of the Canadian Gray vs. Northern Rocky Gray.
To comment on the comparison issue: It's kind-of hard to re-introduce the Northern Rocky Gray Wolf since they are few and far between, because they were trapped and shot to near extinction). A species of animal adapts in size and behavior to their environment, so will these new wolves in time.
As far as the "kill them all" attitude, I would enjoy seeing the comments posted if we as humans were in the place of the wolves and were the topic of extinction. "
to C. Cat wrote on Aug 7, 2008 3:42 AM:
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 6, 2008 8:47 PM:
well then wrote on Aug 6, 2008 7:02 PM:
Comparison for Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 6, 2008 4:55 PM:
A Kodiak brown bear is a Grizzly bear, A whole lot of difference in size however but it is the same comparison as a Canadian wolf in the lower 48 states..
Next thing you know we will have these loon a ticks turning Kodiak Grizzly loose on us and saying what is wrong with you local people, We love to see the bears when we come visit Idaho and they are so good for all of us It doesnt bother us if they eat your pets, kids and destroy the rest of your wildlife.
And you wonder why we cant stand you loon a tick out of staters. "
hey local res wrote on Aug 6, 2008 8:41 AM:
To Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 6, 2008 5:53 AM:
local res wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:43 PM:
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:27 PM:
To to local res wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:26 PM:
Quote "I will go ahead and put some interesting little things out in the woods. Learned a little something from Charlie, don't'cha know".
Just like the rest of your fellow "ECO FREAK" murderers.
Question: What are you going to do for the family that looses a child because of these "NON NATIVE CANADIAN VERMON".
Please respond to what you are going to do to help them? "
stj wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:27 AM:
to local res wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:13 AM:
local res wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:30 PM:
To Well, there are other people than hunters who enjoy the forest. Your threats become a issue for all who visit the national forest. Who would have thought it would be dangerous to pick berries. Cheshire, Col. Sanders, Mother, do you really agree with this kind of behavior? "
Kirks right wrote on Aug 4, 2008 5:06 PM:
To Kirk Robinson wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:56 PM:
You wolf lovers have totally ruined your credibility by trying to portray yourselves as PhDs and everything else in these posts."Sad but true".
Your NON NATIVE CANADIAN wolves will be gone with in five yearsThere will be a vote in Montana, Idaho and Wyo. to remove these "Vermon" that NONE of your CRIMINAL judges will be able to change. "
Kirk Robinson wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:12 PM:
The degree of ignorance evident in the comments reported in this article is simply astonishing.
Many studies of the effect of wolves on ungulate prey species have been conducted since reintroduction and none of them support the fear that wolves will dramatically reduce prey populations. One thing wolves will do is scatter ungulates into the woods, making it harder for lazy hunters to get an easy kill. Another thing wolves will do is maintain prey herd sizes within a narrower band of population size because herds will be less susceptible to drought, winter kill, disease and less likely to eat themselves out of a food base. "
question wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:16 AM:
To heh, how many hunters do you know personally to make your comments? Maybe you need to get out and meet some new people?
To those saying that hunters are lazy or scared... Wow, what a comment from someone who gets their food from the supermarket aisle. Letting someone else slaughter helpless cows for your table?
Cat, how come you don't answer any of my questions? "
To well wrote on Aug 3, 2008 5:55 PM:
Your hero Charlie Manson is in prison forever so you can go s u c k eggs.
There is NO law against shooting NON NATIVE animals in Idaho, Montana, Wyo. so don't let these pond scum snakes "NON" defenders of wildlife scare you.
Shoot, Shove and Shut up is the modo now after a Judge tries to write laws that don't exist. "
well wrote on Aug 2, 2008 11:45 PM:
Be careful where you step, hunters! "
To Mother wrote on Aug 2, 2008 6:11 PM:
You are of consequence when it comes to you protecting NON NATIVE killing machines that have been turned loose on our livestock, children and our wildlife here in Idaho.
Nice try for the judge trying to instate laws that are not valid when it comes to NON NATIVE animals and the likes of NON defenders of wildlife.
It is now and ever shall be an unwritten law that it is a total assault on NON NATIVE Canadian wolves in the lower 48 states. You can thank the judge for that Mother
We here in Idaho believe in the law and live by it and like I stated there is NO law against killing NON NATIVE Canadian wolves and they certainly are NOT protected by any law in the U.S.A. "
Mother wrote on Aug 2, 2008 4:09 PM:
To Mother wrote on Aug 2, 2008 11:51 AM:
NOTE: The NON NATIVE CANADIAN wolf is not on any endangered list in the U.S.A., Only the NATIVE timber wolf is on the endangered list.
You can not have something on an endangered list that was never here in the first place.
It is open season year around on all NON NATIVE animals. "
heh wrote on Aug 2, 2008 11:17 AM:
That's cool. "
to colonel sanders wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:45 AM:
Do you understand now colonel? Or should I explain further? "
Mother wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:51 AM:
To heh wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:04 AM:
It is the people with common sense that have to come in and clean up the garbage people like you leave in our state. That would be the NON NATIVE wolves .
They are already killing our live stock and soon it will be our children.
As for being monitored it should be people like you so there are no more NON NATIVE wolves introduced ever again.
Feel free to throw another one of your temper tantrums so everyone can see your ignorance shinning brightly. "
To crimson wrote on Aug 2, 2008 5:55 AM:
The wolf lovers want to see wild wolves but to me it seems like an awfull big price to pay just for some tree huggers to say "ah how cute" once or twice a year. Baby elk are cute too but for some reason thats not good enough. Maybe if they ever do get out from in front of the TV they can acutually watch a wolf in the wild, taking the intestines out of a baby elk and running through the woods with it. That seems to be the goal here.
They seem to want to take out the human element of wildlife conservation, run by highly educated people which has brought elk numbers to an all time high, and throw away years of progress, putting it in the jaws of wolf packs that kill whatever and whenever they can, in a far less humane manner. Can someone prove this wrong? "
Colonel Sanders wrote on Aug 2, 2008 5:13 AM:
to Cheshire wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:30 PM:
"And for all you that says the Cat only personally attacks; well Forest Gump "stupid is as stupid does"! "
Yes it does and you are the absolute LIVING proof!!!!
Yay!
You actually admitted to your own stupid-ness!
I believe we can now retire Cheshire! "
crimson nape wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:56 PM:
heh wrote on Aug 1, 2008 6:40 PM:
To heh wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:30 PM:
There is NO law against shooting NON NATIVE animals and that is what these introduced NON NATIVE sport killing wolves are.
Get off your meth / pot or whatever it is your on "please" and read what I posted so you can see that I am not throwing a fit but I am explaining reality to you. "
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:25 PM:
heh wrote on Aug 1, 2008 3:14 PM:
To heh wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:57 PM:
Check the law, These are "NON NATIVE" wolves and there is NO law against shooting NON NATIVE animals of any kind.
The judge is WHACKED, DOPED UP and thinks he can make laws that don't exist.
Just make sure it isn't a NATIVE Idaho wolf and it is easy to tell the difference since they are 1/2 the size of these NON NATIVE sport hunting machines. "
heh wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:35 PM:
For a place noted for it's conservatism, the whole law-and-order thing seems awfully disposable. No wonder the meth rate is so high around here. "
to Cat was question wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:55 AM:
Why do you want the season to be black powder or bow only, if you say that 99% of hunters can't hit the wolf anyway?
Just so you know, there are many many hunters that won't mind if the season is black powder or bow only anyways.
You need to stop pretending that the only sides are those who want to either protect the wolf at all costs or want to slaughter it. I favor MANAGEMENT, whether that be with a hunting season or not. Putting them back on the ESL is only creating more disdain.
Why is no one trying to answer why 5 times the original ESA population isn't good enough? Or how these people who have spent years recovering the wolves are now being told that they're wrong - that their science isn't good enough? "
hey col sand or fried CHICKEN from da P.im.P wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:32 AM:
what makes no sense about the previous post??? the kitty cat does nothing but issue personal attacks...read the cats 3 posts below...
i bet neither you or the cat ever get out in the woods...the real woods not just tubbs hill...i have seen, heard, and smelled woves...have you? "
Cheshire cat - wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:25 AM:
And I love how you like to fill EVERY post with the nice percentages (based on facts right?). Especially the ones about hunters not being able to hit anything and not getting out and actually hunting - you are full it.
All of my family going way back (homesteaded in Montana) have hunted. They don't / didn't 'truck hunt' they get out and HIKE (I know you don't know what that means).
(also nice try saying you are a republican - not buying it in a million years - you are WAY too superior and elitist) "
Colonel Sanders wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:03 AM:
to chesire cat...fro da P.im.P wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:55 AM:
Cheshire Cat wrote on Aug 1, 2008 6:03 AM:
Local res. - I do care very much about these magnificent animals since I own some of their descendants. I just tell it like it is and if people look stupid, well then that's the hand that they were dealt.
Everybody keeps screaming about these Canadian Grays being so much larger than the indigenous wolves from the past. Let's say they are 30-40% larger, o.k.? Well isn't the average American 30-40% larger today than our predacessors 75 to 100 years ago? Darn right they are, so wolves are larger and people are larger, get over it. I personally hope that the wolves are protected forever under the Endanger Species Act and I'm a red blooded conservative Republican. The old "shoot and shovel" gang are a bunch of blowhards. They talk a good game but couldn't shoot me from a hundred yards if I'm moving let alone a very wary wolf. I'll bet that 80% or more of the deer and elk that were killed or died in the Winter of 2007/2008 were exactly from that, the Winter weather. If there is a shortage of deer and elk, which I highly doubt ask about Winter kill before you blame the wolves. I'm thinking that Bennelli woman's pack of cur dogs living in those old junk cars around her singlewide, kill as many animals as her local pack. If the average inbred from Kootenai, Shoshone and Benewah counties had a real education about the wolf and wolf pack they'd look like total fools when it comes to the actual footprint that a pack has on it's area. Do you realize that the pack is a very intricate family of individuals not a collection of random blood thirsty hunters. There's an Alpha, Beta and Omega in each pack and I would serious advise you to watch the Dutcher's special documentary "Wolves At Our Door" based on the Sawtooth Pack studied for about 5 years. That pack's descendants live today in Winchester, Idaho on land leased by the Nez Perce tribe. If the native Americans value the wolf as a brother and hunter, why would the white folks fear it so much? Ignorance!! Now leave me alone, The Cat needs a nap after all of that excitement. "
Agendas wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:29 AM:
Their plans are working perfectly. By introducing a predator to kill off all the big game animals they can basically put a stop to those evil hunters who do it for sport. After all, if animals like wolves wipe out entire herds of elk, it must be a more natural event than if a human does it right?
What these wacos fail to understand is that these wolves were placed there by humans, so how natural is that? Also humans, through conservation progams, paid for by hunters, are the reason we have elk and wildlife to look at in the first place, but apparently the elk are just a sacrificial pawn for the much bigger goal of stoping all the hunting by humans. "
so momma wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:53 AM:
** Well, heck, I guess if your very own husband has seem them, then MOST people have too! Thanks for clarifying that. Is there anything ELSE your husband has done that effects most of the rest of the N. Idaho population directly?
Just curious. "
Local wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:04 PM:
I sure am not going to ask F&G or the lame arss Judge... as Nike says...just do it!!! "
local res wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:52 PM:
On one side there are now people who are frustrated with a federal government that once again fails to listen to the local population. While those on the opposing side want to have the opportunity to view wildlife in it's natural state.
Why can't the government involve the local people before making decisions, this should be of importance to both sides. Secondly, for the folks who like to view wildlife in the natural state, perhaps it is time to simply film wildlife and make the film available to the public for all to enjoy. Next the article tells how the Humane Society of the United States is also wanting to see the wolves placed here in Idaho, Why would any one who is opposed to the wolf reintroduction further the cause against them by supporting this organization? When I talk to the local Humane Society, they tell me they are connected to the national organization.
Cheshire Cat I suspect that you care very little for the wolves one way or the other, I believe that you just enjoy making foolish people argue with each other. And yes I am against the reintroduction of an experimental population of wolves. While watching this it does appear that the purpose for the reintroduction has changes. To simply enlarge the genetic base of the Yellowstone pack, all that was need was to import more wolves to Yellowstone. "
Sarah wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:25 PM:
BennelliMomma wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:13 PM:
Think before you type or speak for that matter, since you obviously don't have a clue about the wildlife of Idaho. Elk and Deer population have decreased since the year before. I know I used to sell hunting licenses and hunters would come in a say they were up the Joe and didn't even see an Elk. These hunters are hunting spots that have been hunted for years and there have always been more then enough Elk and Deer. These animals have been scared away by the Wolves and therefore the wolves have started to move into the human populated areas and are starting to attack cows, horse even dogs and cats. I am not talking mountain towns but towns that are lower in elevation are being affected as well.
The Wolf population needs to MANAGED starting NOW not in a few months or years right NOW!!!! Once the Elk, Deer and Moose and other animals are gone the Wolves will come to town and eat our cats, dogs and other domesticated animals they are not afraid of us they know that a pack can kill pretty much anything. So tree huggers get the branches out of your a***s and the leaves out of your brains and look at the facts not just what you THINK. "
Elaine wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:54 PM:
Colonel Sanders wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:43 PM:
Cheshire Cat wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:20 PM:
dj wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:51 PM:
to HJ was question wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:42 PM:
Mother, yes we are infringing on their territory. But since I see NO ONE (including you) moving OUT of their territory, we need to have some kind of management in place so that we can all live here together.
Kristy, please go take some time to actually learn what you're talking about. Even if wolves only kill the weak and sick (which they don't ONLY do), then how does killing all the calves (weak) leave the strong to reproduce? I am not one saying that the wolves are currently dessimating our elk herds, but guaranteed, if left unchecked, they will. And what humans only kill the strong? I for one will take an animal that has been old or injured and looks like it might not make it through winter. "
hj wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:40 PM:
Too cw fdrom oh great wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:26 PM:
creed harwood wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:53 PM:
HJ wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:45 PM:
I'd like to add another species to your list of potential aggressors (ie, cougar, bear): wild feral dogs. I have seen a pack of wild dogs do more damage to a calf, cow, etc then you would imagine. So all of you out there wondering about a wolf taking down an animal....are you sure??? "
CW wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:38 PM:
HJ wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:37 PM:
Yes I agree that managment of the wolf population is needed - all things must be in balance, and I would not hesitate to shoot one while carrying an appropriate licence to control population growth. But what is disturbing is all the blood thirsty attitude toward the wolf, and the trigger happy folks out there drooling at the chance to bag one or two and exterminate the lot. "
Mother wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:24 PM:
oH GREAT wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:46 PM:
question Josh Lou wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:27 PM:
Is it just me, or are people blind to the fact that there are 5 times more wolves than the ESA proposed, and the proposal of a hunting season (at least in Idaho) is only for management and NOT to make hunters happy or to harm the wolf population?
HJ, the hunting season on wolves would NOT be merely because they are encroaching. It would be to help the F&G manage the wolf numbers so they don't get out of control. "
Kristy wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:19 PM:
BA wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:18 PM:
Darwin is rolling over in his grave. You are selfish, passive agressive bullies who are so scared of nature you desire to control it. Re releasing (domesticated) wolves back into the wild is not the same thing as wild life preservation. Not that you really care about that, your too distracted by trying to impose your will on to free men. "
Cheshire Cat - ha ha wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:13 PM:
ughhh - this is the problem - people chiming in with no real knowledge of what they are talking about. "
Lou you are an idiot wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:09 PM:
Everyone talks about the balance of nature etc etc and always the human is supposed to be taken out of that picture???? The human animal is also a part of the natural balance!!! I grew up hunting - and I do not mind having wolves, but they MUST BE MANAGED!!! We have been managing our game animals for years - controlled hunting and always trying to keep good genetics and control disease etc.
To let the wolf grow 'naturally' will cause havoc - and it isn't about the hunters being stingy. If the wolf population is left unmanaged you WILL see them moving into more and more populated areas and eventually they will be diseased and starving as their food supply dwindles.
Humans have intelligence and can HELP wildlife - DUHHHHHH.
Also, PLEASE I beg of you do some research - they do NOT only kill the weakest and sickest - that is flat out wrong wrong wrong.
There is a big misconception that locals, people who have grown up in these forests and hunted, have no feeling or care about wildlife and that is just flat out stupid and wrong. We DO care about wildlife - we want it to flourish. We also want to be able to harvest it, within reason, in order to help balance it and keep it healthy. "
Michael wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:55 PM:
This is what a democracy is all about. The IPUC is a regulatory watchdog group, created to protect the public from this very thing. Email your friends do do the same.
Together we stand, divided we fall! " "
HJ wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:49 PM:
Cheshire Cat wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:03 PM:
Ginger and Lou are right wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:02 PM:
I disagree Josh wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:51 AM:
Lou wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:24 AM:
haha wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:36 AM:
Hey Josh wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:34 AM:
To Josh wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:33 AM:
Ginger Mooney wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:24 AM:
Josh wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:42 AM:
Hey cheshire wrote on Aug 13, 2008 3:20 PM: