Wolves are legal????????

[Ithaca 37]

Paul C. "Paul C
Member
Member # 899
Rate Member
posted 02-13-2003 10:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lot's of B. S. and misinformation coming from Ithaca's posts. Wolves should be transfered from endangered to threatened status in the next few weeks. "
**************************************

Paul, Talk about BS and misinformation!!! Has it been a few weeks yet?

Any delisting in sight, or do we need another week?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-07-2003 05:10: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[danr55]

I don't have the slightest investment in either the livestock or the wolves in Idaho, Montana or anywhere else up there. I do, however, make my living assessing threats and risks and using numbers to do so. Based on the information listed, and considering the varied sources of the data, I would have to conclude that were we fighting a battle based on this data, it would considered insignificant. The threat risk of the enemy (wolves) would no be a consideration for peripheral action. They would be less of a threat than Iraq was during Desert Storm. I don't think that the ranchers have a case for the wolf being a threat to livestock. It appears that the wolf is less of a threat than bearing young. So other than the emotional considerations, I don't see an argument..

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

Here you go again, showing off your ignorance! I didn't say the wolf would be delisted. I said that their status would be changed from endangered to threatened. Read the article summary below. I guess the Gumment is taking a little longer to do the paper work than they planned on. What else is new?

February 06, 2003
Wolf status reflects laudable progress - Feb. 6

SUMMARY: Shift from "endangered" to "threatened" for wolves marks great gains on the road to recovery.

A major milestone is approaching in one of the great conservation success stories of our time. Later this month, the U.S. Department of Interior is expected to formally change the protective status of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies to "threatened," from their current status of "endangered."

Some 41 packs of wolves totaling roughly 700 animals now roam the region, mostly in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. That's about enough wolves to ensure healthy, self-sustaining populations.

Considering the fact there were almost no resident wolves in the region 20 years ago, this is nothing short of phenomenal progress. Wolves are a native species wiped out early in the 20th century, when people didn't fully grasp the part predators play in a healthy ecosystem. Wolves traveling from Canada in the 1980s began recolonizing Montana, a process that promised to take decades to achieve sustainable levels of recovery. Federal agencies accelerated the process in 1995 by transplanting wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. The results speak for themselves.

Upgrading wolves to threatened is more than a mere label change. The change of status reduces the degree of protection people and agencies must provide. A rancher can kill a "threatened" wolf chasing livestock, for example, something prohibited with an "endangered" species. One of the benefits to having self-sustaining populations of animals is that we don't have to tolerate individuals that prove to be a menace or nuisance.

As soon as states in the region finish plans showing they intend to manage wolves competently, wolves can be crossed off the list of endangered species list altogether. "De-listing" will be contentious, no doubt, because some people view removing an animal from the endangered species list as backsliding. In reality, it's a transition that reflects ultimate success. It signifies the animals have been restored to the point where they can be managed at the state level similarly to other wildlife - something states in this region do exceptionally well.

We haven't reached that point yet, but we're making rapid progress. Precious few animals have made it off the endangered species list. Wolves definitely are on their way.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, The way I understand it, moving a species from the "Endangered" list to "Threatened" is called delisting. Either way and whatever you call it, it hasn't happened in the "few weeks" you claimed. There are many species classified as "threatened" and I've never heard anyone characterize them as being "listed". That term is reserved for the Endangered Species List.

And talk about "ignorance"! You expect the gummint to do something major like changing the classification of wolves in just a few weeks when the state management plans haven't even been finalized?!! That's how I knew you were wrong and spreading misinformation. All I had to do was wait a few weeks to prove it.

Face it, Paul, you spread misinformation. Time proved it. There's no weaseling out. Be more carefull about accusing people of spreading BS and misinformation. It came back to haunt you.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-08-2003 23:55: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

Your lack of comprehension explains why even the simplest of concepts escape you. For instance, comprehending that an expanding wolf population at some point will find wild game prey difficult to come by, and will turn their focus to livestock. Why did the Gumment agents wack those 2 wolves near the Utah border last week? For sharing a vegi burger? What, they only killed 2 measily sheep? 2 sheep last week, 2 the week before, 2 next week. Oh wait, scratch that, they are dead. Don't worry IT, there's a lot more right behind to pick where the dead wolves left off. Besides we want to make sure those Gumment agents stay busy, don't we. And what about the 11 wolves the Gumment agents smoked last month in Montana? Why did they do that? It wouldn't be for killing livestock would it? Weren't those wolves related to the Boulder pack? You know, the livestock eating wolves that Ted Turner tried to educate with electricity. This whole wolf experement is a joke!

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-11-2003 09:53: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, You may not like it, but it happened and now we have to deal with it. That's been my position all along. I made it clear I wasn't in favor of wolf re-introduction either. Getting emotional about it and spreading misinformation and bringing up all the predictions of doom aren't going to do any good, all they do is confuse the issue and drag out the delisting process by making some people think they can stop it----as we've seen some state legislators trying to do. Eventually most of them wise up and quit throwing up roadblocks, but it sure prolongs the process.

You mentioned that the ESA is going to be changed. Good luck, but don't hold your breath.

And I comprehend exactly what's going on. The only answer is to control the wolves at the minimum levels to keep them off the list. You can see the effects of predators etc. on livestock easily by researching the info on the net.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-11-2003 10:35: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Bullhound]

Hate to say it Ithica, but the researchers all agree that the numbers of actual wolf kills cannot be documented accuratley. The fact is that the number of "unexplained" kills or deaths has gone up a bunch in the areas where the wolves have been reintroduced. I'm just pointing it out because you displayed the statistics above as if they are gospil. Not so. Tell the whole story or don't tell it at all.

For those of you that are saying that US WHINERS that don't like the reintroduction being forced down our throat should have said something, or we're just whiuning, or we don't get off our ass and say what we believe in, I'll just mention a couple of things.

#1. I do comment! I comment to Senators, CO's, Biologists, F&G Commissioners, etc..... Sometimes it don't do any good because even the state has no control over what the Feds do. I make most of my comments to people that I think may be able to affect some change in course, rather than just sit around arguing on the net all day, every day!

#2. What comments do you think might have changed the Feds mind with regards to the Wolf? Idaho, as a state, said flat out, WE DON"T WANT WOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That didn't seem to help much now did it.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-12-2003 17:46: Message edited by: Bullhound ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bull, All I can do with something like that is post it and let everyone read and comment. If I start giving all sides to every story I'd end up writing books.

 

[BuzzH]

Bullhound said, "Idaho, as a state, said flat out, WE DON"T WANT WOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Can you back that up with anything?

Because the citizens in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming who commented on wolf reintroduction showed pretty strong support for wolf reintro.

Was it the citizens of ID who opposed wolves or the politicians in Idaho that opposed wolves?

The feds (public servants) have an obligation to the US citizens to do what the majority wants. Since the majority of US citizens in general who commented, and the majority of those who commented in ID, were in support...what message did that send?

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

Have you ever read the ESA? Some of the members of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd have, and as a result, much of the law that is currently being passed in the states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, have come from what has been uncovered.

If you indeed are in favor of strict management of the wolves, than you would support such groups in favor of strict management, and laws designed to give the states such control.

By constantly bring up dated, misleading, and often flat out wrong information to defend the wolf reintroduction program, one would have to question your true motives.

If sporstsman in the West do not get involved in these wolf issues, than wolf management here will be just like it is in Minnesota. Still under federal control, and wolf delisting continually being blocked by the wolf huggers. Sportsman in the west ARE active, and with no thanks to give to you for your support, we will have state management by 2004. And most importantly, we will have state management with some teeth.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-13-2003 10:36: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[Bullhound]

Buzz,

That is the "Official Position" of the state of Idaho! That is part of the record at this time! What the fu!!k more do ya need?

that enough back up for ya? It's all I need. What's your state's official position Buzz?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, Go ahead and bring up your own information then. I just post links to stuff I find on the Internet and hope everyone is smart enough to sort it all out, as I do. I've read the whole ESA, but it was about fifteen years ago, so I'm not real fresh on it. And I've been commenting on the wolf re-introduction since it first came up. As for being involved in sportsman's issues, I've probably spent more time being involved than you will in the whole rest of your life. Thousands of hours starting three separate groups from scratch here in Idaho (two of which now have hundreds of members), passing legislation that raised over a million dollars so far for sheep (I was the one who started and organized the efforts here in ID for our sheep permit auction bill) and lots of other stuff. It's you "Johnny come latelys" that need to get involved. I've been doin' this stuff since the 70s.

Bull, You know the ID legislature does stuff all the time that is contrary to the wishes of the majority of Idahoans. One prime example was overturning term limits. Everyone had plenty of chances to comment on wolf reintroductions. How many of the rabid anti wolf people you know bothered to? That's usually one of the first questions I ask them. They usually say, "No, nobody told me about it."---like their mother is supposed to make sure they're reminded of that kinda stuff.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-13-2003 16:39: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Bullhound]

Ithica,

Funny, that's just about what I thought your response would be. When the State of Idaho takes an official position on an issue that doesn't agree with you, YOU decide that it's just politics and that it aint what most Idahoans want. I'd like to ask you how many legislators you've wrote to indicating that you don't agree with the states position on the wolf reintroduction. How many of them have you wrote to indicating that they were all wrong according to most Idahoans.

Ithica, I happen to agree with you on alot of things but you need to, as I say, tell the whole story. Just giving enough of the true information to make your point and leaving out the facts that don't support your argument make you sound no better than a politician on the campaign trail. I think you know exactly what I mean with that comment.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I don't think anyone on this whole BB even tries to tell the whole story. It would be impossible and I don't consider it my job to debate all sides of every issue I get involved in.

I've spent many, many days at our Legislature working and lobbying and testifying on legislation and I let my views be known to lots of legislators. There are quite a few of them I wouldn't waste two seconds talking to, but I do know many of the ones who are influential and I often talk to some of them. As recently as yesterday.

Bullhound, please try telling all the sides of the wolf issue and show me how it's done!

As for your question about how many letters I wrote to legislators telling them they weren't in tune with what the majority of Idahoans who responded to the gummint during wolf reintroduction comment period---I didn't write any letters. They already knew what they had done. Telling them about it again would have just been a waste of time. If 90% of the people in Idaho wrote to Rep. Joann Wood and told her they didn't agree with her on wolves it wouldn't make the tiniest bit of difference to her. She's not the only one, either.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-13-2003 22:55: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Bullhound, I'll ask you this again:

When a MAJORITY of the people who took the time to comment on the wolf reintro were in SUPPORT of it, what message does that send? A majority of the comments received from RESIDENTS of IDAHO, MONTANA, and WYOMING were in favor of it.

Does that send a message that wolves SHOULDNT be reintroduced?

I dont believe it does.

Did the state of Idaho poll all citizens of voting age to see what they thought about wolf reintroduction?

I mean lets get real here, who made the decision for the people of Idaho on Idaho's official stance on wolves? Was it the MAJORITY of citizens or was it Dirk Kempthorne and Larry Craig?

No reason to answer that, I'm positive I know the answer.

I'm with everyone else, in believing that wolves definately need to be managed at minimum levels so they stay off the endangered species list. No question and no arguement on that from me. I'm all for legal hunting of them, etc.

However, to say that wolves were "shoved" down anyones throat just isnt true. There was ample time on many, many, many, occasions to voice disapproval of wolf reintro. I guess all the anti-reintro people must have been playing Rip-Van-Winkle during the 2-3 year period of scoping meetings, EA, and EIS processes involved with getting wolves into ID, MT, and WY.

The thing is though, a VAST majority of the comments were in favor. Too late to be bitching about that now. Thats my point, and I believe Ithicas as well.

 

[Ithaca 37]

My point exactly, Buzz, thanks for mentioning it.

Best thing to do is get on with the delisting process and quit whining about the re-introduction.

The funny thing is; I bet you and I would be a lot more likely to go out and make the effort to shoot a wolf than all these guys who are bitchin' about wolves. Especially if they had to get off their ATVs to do it!

Getting those wolves isn't gonna be easy and most of the guys I hear doing the whining aren't the type to get out and really hunt. If they were they wouldn't be whining about having to compete with a few wolves.

I figure if the wolves chase around some deer and elk and make them harder to hunt it will just be more interesting for guys like you and me who don't need easy game to hunt. I get bored with most elk and deer hunting because it's too easy. Nothing like a few big predators around to make the game more wary and a little more challenging to find!

The problem with most Idahoans is they've had it so easy for so long they really don't know how to hunt.

Turn them loose in a tough place to hunt like Maine or the Adirondacks and they'd never see a deer!

 

[Muledeer4me]

"However, to say that wolves were "shoved" down anyones throat just isnt true. There was ample time on many, many, many, occasions to voice disapproval of wolf reintro. I guess all the anti-reintro people must have been playing Rip-Van-Winkle during the 2-3 year period of scoping meetings, EA, and EIS processes involved with getting wolves into ID, MT, and WY."


If wolve's weren't shoved down anyone's throat,how do you feel about gun control?
We know alot of people in state's like Calif. and other big city's were all for gun control.
Many of us took a stand on all of it we could,so by your defenition ------we got more gun control because we as hunters wanted it? Or a certin TYPE of the population was for it?
I would think it's the latter,as well as with those that support the wolf backer's.
As with alot of the gun control law's we got (shoved down our throat),are we to now just lay down play dead and enjoy it? Or keep fighting for what we believe in?


BOARED with hunting ? if anyone is bored with hunting Elk and Deer because it's to easy for them

maybe they need only to pump it up alittle--------
you know try doing it Greenhorn style and show us how it's done,I would think by adding some challange to it like showing up some of these amateur's it could get to be a challange again even for the best of you.LOL

Im not doubting anyone (err uh cough ,laugh wink wink) ,I really love looking at all the animal's everyone get's each year.
You go dude, show us how easy it is

im sure it woun't be BORING!!!!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-14-2003 07:05: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]</font>

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzz's last post.

"The thing is though, a VAST majority of the comments were in favor. Too late to be bitching about that now. Thats my point, and I believe Ithicas as well"

Buzz, how many times have you seen Ithaca's name? Gee, you think you'ld know how to spell Ithaca correctly by now!

Just trying to help you out there Ithaca so everyone will someday spell your name right.

Paul

 

[Bullhound]

Ithica,

Please read this:

"Telling them about it again would have just been a waste of time. If 90% of the people in Idaho wrote to Rep. Joann Wood and told her they didn't agree with her on wolves it wouldn't make the tiniest bit of difference to her. She's not the only one, either."

By this statement I take it you're saying it's O.K. for guys like you to say it wouldn't have done any good to comment on the issue. But for somebody else who didn't agree with something that was happening or was being contemplated and didn't see that their not agreeing with it would make a differrence, they are a lazy, fat ass, atv owning, whining, not very good hunter.

For the Fu@#ing record Buzz and Ithica, I aint whining. I've pointed out exactly what the state of Idaho's position has been and is. The two of you have clearly indicated that the state's official position isn't really the state's position. I really don't give a rats ass because the position didn't get us anywhere. I believe we do agree that the wolves need to be managed now that they're here. I'm hoping the three states get the feds to accept the proposed management plans very soon. If the delisting don't happen sometime soon, allowing for management of the wolf, my opinion is that it will lead to real problems and costs down the road.

 

[Bullhound]

by the way Ithica, my goal in life is to become, someday, a god like hunter such as you are. How must it be to be so damned good that hunting deer and elk has become boring. I guess you might as well take on the CHALLENGE of sitting at your puter and gossiping all day.