HR 509, 249, wolf bills

[BuzzH]

Brudno,

Just curious...how many wolf seasons have been allowed in the mid-west in the last 50 years?

Optimistic at best?

MT and ID are the only states that have had a wolf hunt that has been upheld by the courts, and certainly the only states where a Federal Judge ruled in favor of a hunt.

Seems to me we've been just a bit more successful than WI, MN, and MI.

Just sayin'...

 

[Brudno]

Brudno,

Just curious...how many wolf seasons have been allowed in the mid-west in the last 50 years?

Optimistic at best?

MT and ID are the only states that have had a wolf hunt that has been upheld by the courts, and certainly the only states where a Federal Judge ruled in favor of a hunt.

Seems to me we've been just a bit more successful than WI, MN, and MI.

Just sayin'...

No, I hear ya. I'd love a good group of ranchers lobbying for us over here. Its a little to forested though, I'd imagine.

 

[mdunc8]

Its a sad thing to see people who hunted for years since they were kids decide no longer hunt because they no longer see deer. I cant blame them. Not everyone has the passion and resilience for the outdoors that some of us do, we forget that somtimes.

I don't know if it's necessarily a wolf thing. My dad always talks about the lack of people hunting the national forest he group hunting in the 50's. Our hunting spot is about eight miles back a forest service road and we're lucky to see half a dozen trucks. It's not for lack of game. Virginia's deer population is at an all time high. I think it has to do more with how folks live their lives these days. Just a different life style for people living most anywhere in the country. The lack of game definitely doesn't help your situation, but I don't think it's the main culprit.

 

[BuzzH]

Ranchers lobbying didnt have much to do with MT and ID wolf seasons.

It was a major commitment by MT and ID's citizenship to draft and adopt an acceptable plan.

Hats off to ID and MT for all the effort, it paid off and will ultimately be the reason that wolves are delisted and managed by the States.

No good will come from the bills in question, only more head aches.

 

[tjones]

See nothing? For one whole entire weekend?


Sounds like an average elk weekend to me, nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[Brudno]

Brudno - what you have mentioned is the same as I have heard from friends in Michigan, Minnesota, New York, PA, and other states, as it relates to shrinking hunting numbers. Disturbing.

Do you have any thoughts about what can be done to change that?

Do you have any active hunter organizations? I have been told that WI once had the strongest bowhunter organization in the country. Is that no longer the case?

I know that is a side track to this wolf bill discussion, but what you mention is a repeating story. That concerns me when it comes from states with the hunter numbers of the Midwest.

It is often blamed on wolves. You have provided more causes than most I have listened to. Do you think wolves are being used as the easier scapegoat by some hunters who have grown frustrated by the process of change in those states?

I dont know how strong our Wisconsin Bowhunters Group is, all they seem to care about is keeping the crossbow out of the state. I've asked them on many occasions where they stand on the NR bear tag situation, wolves, tag distribution, etc. They dont care. I think that is hurting this state greatly. There as I said are alot of issues to blame. Its a combination of all of the issues but they all need to be fixed before we can be get to where we need to be.

Some may know RMEF helped introduce a elk herd here in 1995. They were doing well until the resurgence of the wolves. There is now a 60%+ mortality rate, and there are moving attempting to move the elk herd to a different area in hopes of reducing the wolf kills. There is no hunting this herd, there leading cause of death is the wolves. This to me speaks volumes. The elk herd here is in poor shape and all the hard work over the last 15 years is going down the drain. We also had a hunter report deal this year, while not exactly sceintific, there are lots of does without any fawns at all, an observation made by much of the state. Coyotes are a problem here, and they may place a bounty on them this coming year, but northern wisconsin there aren't many coyotes at all where the wolves roam. Bear and a limited number of bobcats are also to blame. But they've always been here.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Interesting survey on hunter numbers and what is causing some decline in Wisco.

Brudno, I know next to nothing about elk in Wisconsin. how much land is available for that herd, and what are the wolf densities?

 

[TOM IN TENNESSEE]

So Wyo is the real culprit....for trying to manage game/wildlife as they see fit....where in the Constitution does it give the power to the Feds to manage wildlife????
And if you say the Commerce clause, I will sentence you to the corner with a dunce cap!

 

[Ben Lamb]

The ESA has stood up to 30 years of case law.

 

[Big Fin]

So Wyo is the real culprit....for trying to manage game/wildlife as they see fit....where in the Constitution does it give the power to the Feds to manage wildlife????

Tom - The Constitution does not give the Feds any power to manage wildlife. When states sign a reintroduction agreement, they do sign over their powers as it relates to that specific species, the same as when the states all signed the Migratory Bird Act.

And, the ESA does superceed state rights of wildlife management if the species reaches a point of being listed for protection by USFWS. I am not sure of the logistics of how that got addressed back in 1973 when the ESA was signed, but I am sure it was something similar to the Migratory Bird Act process.

It can happen when a state agrees to it, or when the ESA is injected.

Wyoming signed the same agreement as MT and ID. They all knew their plans had to be approved by the USFWS. They signed up for that and agreed to it. If they were not willing to be held to the USFWS needing to sign off on their state management plan, they shouldn't have signed the reintroduction agreements. Pretty simple.

To agree to something at the time, then complain about the process you sign on to seems strange.

I can udnerstand if Wyoming feels that the USFWS is being arbitrary in their acceptance of the WY plan, but I see no reason for them to be upset about the process. We all knew this was the process before the ink was dry on the agreements.

 

[shoots-straight]

Tom, Wyoming is the culprit, because they let the Ag. community control the management plan for the state. They knew going in what needed to be written, but bowed to the pressures forced from hot headed thinkers in that community. Political Grandstanding was the name of the game. Still is.

Are animals that are on the ESA, state owned? Who do animals belong to that are listed? I think the ESA, puts animals that are in need of protection on the "Threatened" or "Endangered" List. Once recovered to those "DE LIST" levels, it triggers the process to begin. Which will ultimately put them back in the hands of the States. Follow the recovery rules, and your in, make up your own rules, and you'll find yourself, screaming "states rights".

 

[mdunc8]

I sure hope they dont end run the ESA....me and San Fran Nan want the Salt Water Marsh Mouse protected and the Elk and Deer on the Island erradicated so the endangered moss can live!
And dont fprget to protect our Cedar Glades and yellow pitcher plant along with the snail darter here in TN!

You're right. If you can't shoot 'em and hang 'em on your wall, screw 'em.

 

[BuzzH]

I used to be amazed at how many people simply fail to understand the basics of this issue...not anymore.

 

[mdunc8]

The 5 year requirement is in the ESA.

Any of you know the rational behind including this in the midwestern recovery plan, but not in the northern Rockies?

 

[BuzzH]

I wonder if the midwestern states have individual wolf management plans in place?

 

[mdunc8]

They do, but from what I remember they're not as detailed as Montana and Idaho's.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Any of you know the rational behind including this in the midwestern recovery plan, but not in the northern Rockies?

It's a part of the recovery criteria for all endangered species/listed species. The 5 year requirement is a component of the statute that is intended to serve as a little bit more incentive for states to manage for numbers above the minimums.

Buzz - WI, MI and MN all have service approved plans.

 

[shoots-straight]

Tom, here's the ESA of 1973, might give you some insight.http://epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf

Here's some Federal resource laws that explain some more.
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/esact.html

 

[mdunc8]

It's a part of the recovery criteria for all endangered species/listed species. The 5 year requirement is a component of the statute that is intended to serve as a little bit more incentive for states to manage for numbers above the minimums.

Buzz - WI, MI and MN all have service approved plans.

I understand the "probationary" term for lack of better word at this time of night, but there's no explicit wording in the recovery plan preventing a hunt? Are the individual states just opting to not initiate a controlled hunt right out of the gates? I suppose that's the reason for the lack of any real data or science in the midwestern plans.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No clue why hunting is not a part of the plans other than the population might not be as friendly to it back east as they are here in the west.