They’re probably going to start using drones to scout.So, why don't we call them "super wolves"??
ClearCreek
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They’re probably going to start using drones to scout.So, why don't we call them "super wolves"??
ClearCreek
Idaho, Montana, and wyoming are managing wolves...enough already.If wolves result in fewer cervid harvests, more commercially raised meat will be eaten, and thus more will be raised. The only assumption is that hunters without tags will not go vegan for the year.
I’m not suggestion shooting wolves so that there will be MORE cervids. I’m suggesting that we limit cervid population reduction due to wolves. It should be one of the wolf management criteria.
You cannot say from one side of your mouth that beef production is unsustainable, and from the other side of your mouth that reducing harvest of cervids doesn’t make that situation worse.
I never used the word unsustainable. You assume more cervids would be better (there are more stakeholders than just hunters) and you assume that the meat consumption of successful hunters would make a meaningful impact on beef consumption if harvest changed at the margin.If wolves result in fewer cervid harvests, more commercially raised meat will be eaten, and thus more will be raised. The only assumption is that hunters without tags will not go vegan for the year.
I’m not suggestion shooting wolves so that there will be MORE cervids. I’m suggesting that we limit cervid population reduction due to wolves. It should be one of the wolf management criteria.
You cannot say from one side of your mouth that beef production is unsustainable, and from the other side of your mouth that reducing harvest of cervids doesn’t make that situation worse.
I never used the word unsustainable. You assume more cervids would be better (there are more stakeholders than just hunters) and you assume that the meat consumption of successful hunters would make a meaningful impact on beef consumption if harvest changed at the margin.
You could have said that A LONG TIME AGO.Idaho, Montana, and wyoming are managing wolves...enough already.
You could have said that A LONG TIME AGO.
Next, are they keeping them in MT, ID, and WY? Nope. If CO wanted to keep them out would it be allowed? Not as far as I’m aware.
Maybe try knowing what you're talking/whining about before spouting off...
Read the ESA, state management plans, educate yourself.
MT, ID, and WY are not required to keep wolves within the state boundary, same as elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, sheep, goats, bears, lions, upland birds, furbearers, waterfowl, fish, songbirds, you name it. Wildlife is transient.
No, states are not allowed to keep endangered animals out of their state for your convenience. They fall under the jurisdiction and control of the Federal government, again, read the ESA. The Feds provide funding and cooperate with the states in managing endangered species, via an Act of congress.
What Colorado should be doing is drafting a wolf management plan with regard to wolf recovery goals, delisting numbers, making sure wolf hunting is part of the plan, etc. etc. etc. when/if wolves are delisted in their state.
Another thing you need to get straight...if the Citizens of Colorado or Wyoming want to totally eliminate NR licenses they can and they don't owe you an explanation for why. What you're entitled to, is the right to sing the blues if we decide to feed, what you falsely assume is your share, of our deer and elk to wolves.
The wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of the States it resides in and you hunt as a NR at the pleasure of the Residents.
I know all of that Buzz. I know ID, WY, and MT are not required to keep wolves in their state. I was 99% sure other states wouldn’t be allowed to keep them out and now I’m 100% sure. I know you don’t have to let me hunt in WY. I also know that when someone in a state like WY says the don’t mind wolves reducing tags, that 99% of them aren’t talking about giving up THEIR tag.
Except for the simple fact that since wolf reintroduction, nobody, R or NR has given up a tag in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming.
Fact is, in all those States you can shoot 2-3 elk a year per hunter. When I started hunting elk in Montana in 1979, it was ONE elk per hunter and cow permits were draw only. Now there are places with season long brow-tined or antlerless elk, OTC cow b-tags (second elk), and now talk of allowing 3 elk a year per hunter. Wyoming has increased elk tags to 3 per year per hunter, and I have no idea how long its been 2 per hunter per year, a long time (edit since 2000, 5 years after wolf reintroduction). Idaho has areas with 2 tags as an option, including 2 bulls. In the case of WY and MT, multiple deer b-tag, reduced price doe/fawn deer tags.
I'm not seeing your complaint or argument of "giving up tags" to wolves as anything valid...
Where is this happening? Fantasyland?