Thoughts on Wolves?

[shoots-straight]

BHR

Anwser to your questions. Yes, Yes, and she doesn't have anymore a say in how wolves are managed than you or I do after they have been delisted. She's there to document the wolf packs and keep track of them. Yes she seems to really love em, once their delisted it goes back to the process that all game animals go through. We had increased the mountain lion permits here so we could bring the deer back. It worked. The problem here the houndsmen decided that there wasn't enough cats to run on every road so the quota got lowered by them. The science isn't allways followed in a way it should. But the science will show less deer and elk, now that the wolves have recovered, and the fact is that the fish and game want predators to knock the elk and deer back. It took 30 years of conservation here in Montana to bring the elk to the numbers we enjoy today. My fear is with all the predators, man included, the loss of habitat, and this kill them before they kill you attitude, will result in a population downtrend that won't be easy to stop. Your statement that their not collering the wolves anymore is wrong if you ment as of last week. Because a couple were collered here in western Montana.

 

[MNHunter]

]


wow translation please! moosie,,,,,, english please

I think it is to read F'ed as in f#$ked not fed as you read it

 

[Moosie]

MNHunter, thanx

280, you know Buzz and Gunner,-Jose-whoever are always busting guy’s balls for spelling, punctuation, etc. But look how they type, almost perfectly. Now if we apply the same corrections from you, who can't punctuate or structure a sentence if you tried, it doesn't have the Same Clout. That would be like me correcting someone’s spelling. Sure I can but come on....really.... that’s F'ed up

 

[mtmiller]

The head honcho Carolyn Simes is a wolf hugger through and through IMO. I'm still waiting on your bet.

I've been to all the local meetings, during the planning process and after. I've met Carolyn Simes the "Montana Wolf coordinator". Have you met her? Have you met any of the other Montana wolf managers? Give them a call and then tell me what you've learned.

Paul, I have only met Carolyn once and she didn't come off as a "wolf hugger", at least what I would define as a "hugger". The night she was in town she had dinner with a co-worker of mine and his brother (their last name is Hagener by the way). According to my co-worker, she is far from a "wolf hugger". Curious why you would catagorize her differently.

 

[The Hedgehog]

But is she hot or not?

 

[BigHornRam]

Greeny,

No, but Liz is.

S. S.,

Didn't say they weren't collaring them. Said Bangs doesn't think it's necessary to collar many of them anymore. My biggest fear is something no one has mentioned here. What happens when we finally have a severe winter kill? We haven't had one since 96-97 and are due.

At the T. F. meeting she kept refering to the plan that ended up being accepted as "the plan FWP prefers". Then she said I'm not here to talk, I'm here to listen to what you all have to say. After most everyone in the room made their comments, it was very clear there were no wolf huggers in the room. Manage them at 10 packs was the consensous. She then commented that this meetings comments were no where in line with the comments she received in Kalispel. Later, I read the printed version of the comments from our meeting and they were way watered down from what was said at the meeting. FWP already had their minds made up and the public meetings were little more than a farce IMO.

Also read the quote's by Simes in any wolf related article. She sounds like a politician to me, not a wolf coordinator. Come to think of it she sounds a lot like Bangs.

 

[shoots-straight]

BHR

The North Flathead had a severe winter kill pre 96-97. Up there the wolves were being studied heavily, as the food died off the packs increasingly battled each other, after 3 months of fighting 2 out of 50 were left.
Hell BHR all Fish and Game employees are politicians thease days. Doesnt' take long talking to them to figure that out. Our local Biologist, plays the game to get what he wants, not what we want, So as sportsman we'll have to get sharper playing the game. He's moving the count of elk from one area to another so it appears we still have to many elk. So the unlimited cow hunting, followed by unlimited predation will continue.
All that aside, it looks to me that if wyoming will get their tantrum throwing, baby ass politicians to write a real plan, we will start the foot in the door to hunting and trapping wolves.

 

[JoseCuervo]

My biggest fear is something no one has mentioned here. What happens when we finally have a severe winter kill? We haven't had one since 96-97 and are due.
.

And what happens if a metorite strikes the planet? Or what happens if creatures form Planet Zork land in Montana and attempt to take over the world? |oo

 

[BigHornRam]

S. S.,

The whole wolf issue is nothing more than a big chess match IMO. We already know what the opposition wants. They are also way ahead in the game at this point. Heck when an Alaska trapper caught one freaking wolf just outside Denali Park last year, it made national news. Your delusional to think that Wyoming's "baby ass politician's" are holding up hunting and trapping of wolves. Comment like that tends to make me believe your opinion of ranchers is more in line with Buzz's than mine. I think Wyoming wrote a good plan. My opinion but 10 of 11 independent biologists agreeded.

Those that think Wyoming is the problem are only playing the game one move at a time. You want to win it, better start thinking a little further ahead.

 

[BigHornRam]

"And what happens if a metorite strikes the planet? Or what happens if creatures form Planet Zork land in Montana and attempt to take over the world?"

Started drinking pretty early this morning Jose, didn't you! I thought you were trying to stay sober until noon.

 

[MarvB]

Just MHO but if the Zorkians (sp?) really wanted to take over the WORLD they (since they've got space travel and all figured out already) ought to be bright enough to pick a more central location than Montana! |oo Stooooopid space fags anyhow!

Now back to the wolf debate.....carry on! hump

 

[shoots-straight]

BHR

I read your posts several times,stating 10 out 11 biologists aggreed that wyomings plan was the holy grayle. I've read it. Have you? It's pure and simple, crap. If you think that after all the effort to bring back the wolf, the Feds would let the same thing happen that lead to the wolf demise in the 1st place, is ignorant.Work around it and move on.

Being delusional is whats going on in wyoming and BHR's head not mine.Hello.
That's exactly what's holding up the delisting.Where do you get your information? Do you think that there's some huge, deep, conspiracy? (The anti's planned the whole wolf relocation to take away our hunting rights.) Propaganda. You might be getting the right info, just digesting it wrong.

Declaring that once outside the boudries of the park that their classified as a predator, and not a game animal, without any protection is horse chit. You know it and I know it.

Ranchers are just like everyone, some good, some bad. I'm sure you allready know oppions are like a-holes, everyone has one.

Fact is, without Wyoming writing a new plan the debate will go. The only way to force the Feds hand is to start the process. For the those that can't digest what your reading, that means NEW PLAN! Understand!

 

[Ten Bears]

I just wish WY would get their heads out so I can get to woof hunting (legally).

 

[BigHornRam]

S. S.,

You must not have read Wyomings plan. They guarentee 15 packs....minimum of 8 packs out of the park...no matter what. Also adjoining wilderness areas, wolves will be managed as a game animal. If they enter cattle country they are managed as a varmint. But that only applies if there is a minimum of 15 packs. Montana guarentees 15 packs same as Wyoming so what's your problem?

Also the wolf huggers have major problems with Idaho's plan, as well as Utah and Washington's lack of a plan. That's their next move after we get past the Wyoming speed bump. Are you going to bad mouth those states when we get to that point or are you going to back them up? Maybe you should be backing up Wyoming now. The legal precident if they win will come in very handy when we have to deal with the huggers.

 

[shoots-straight]

BHR

Almost all of Wyoming is Cattle country, so they (wyoming) will according to their plan treat almost all wolves leaving the park as predators. The reason the feds rejected the plan is because they couldn't garantee the 8 packs out the park, being legal to shoot on site and all.

The wolf huggers aren't the one's that have to ok the plans,just as you or I dont. It's the Federal Wildlife Service.

The problem the Feds, as well as the Wolf huggers have with Idaho's plan, is that as soon as their are delisted, Idaho will kill as many wolves as possible in the Clearwater region. Instead of just issueing a few tags first, then slowly rasing the number year in and year out. Idaho decided to let the Feds know they were going to remove lots of wolves asap. Dumb. They should have taken a page out of Brian Switzers book on how he's got us hunting Bison again.

It's not the Wolf huggers against wyoming, it's the Feds vs. wyoming. Feds will win. I will bet you on that.

You can't support a plan that's not going to win. It doesn't make sence. Go ahead and think there's somthing to gain. It'll go away just as wyoming's plan will.

 

[shoots-straight]

BHR The Wyoming plans states that They (wyoming) will count at least 8 packs inside the park as part of their numbered packs, Wilderness areas will be considered Trophy areas where legal hunting will take place. All other areas or 90% of the range that wolves will habitate will be considered predators. Meaning that they could and would be shot on site.

If the number outside the park drops below 7 then they (wyoming game and fish) could at that time classify the wolf as a Trophy animal with more tighter regulations.

Doesn't it sound as if I'v read wyomings plan BHR

 

[BigHornRam]

S. S.,

If Idaho wants to cull some wolves in the Clearwater and it's within the preset rules it's their call. If the wolf huggers don't like it, they shouldn't have agreeded to it in the first place.

I read an article the other day about an enviromental group sueing the USFWS over their position concerning the Libby Dam, and the welfare of the sturgeon population. Is the enviromental group "Grandstanding", or do they have a case? I don't know, don't know the particulars, but in Wyomings case, I think they have a very good one. Would be helpful if hunters new the facts about their management plan and supported them.

 

[mtmiller]

S. S.,
If Idaho wants to cull some wolves in the Clearwater and it's within the preset rules it's their call. If the wolf huggers don't like it, they shouldn't have agreeded to it in the first place.

The proposal for wolf reduction in the Clearwater still has to go through FWS.

 

[Ithaca 37]

shoots-straight, Keep wasting your time answering BHR's dingbat posts and you'll understand why he's on my "idiot" list. Whoops! I meant "ignore" list.

 

[JoseCuervo]

S. S.,

I read an article the other day about an enviromental group sueing the USFWS over their position concerning the Libby Dam, and the welfare of the sturgeon population. Is the enviromental group "Grandstanding", or do they have a case? I don't know, don't know the particulars, but in Wyomings case, I think they have a very good one. Would be helpful if hunters new the facts about their management plan and supported them.

Looks like ol' BHR, once again, is getting his arse whumped, this time by SS. Are you trying to change the subject to sturgeon in Libby, or are you getting so senile that you can't remember what you read, and you are asking SS for his understanding of what you read? Remember, last time you asked me, I pointed out that whatever you read was likely written in crayons.