Yellowstone Park Wolves

[Ben Lamb]

That's the true comment... I believe our numbers far exceed the "minimum". This is political football at its finest. This will not be about biological science. Eco-extremists have proved that. This is now a faction war.

I do not agree with Idaho's political power play though the pendulum has swung in favor of fixing the f-ups of the other party. I agree with their intent to bring the numbers to a more reasonable # though not a fan of politics.

As for MT... I don't see their power play as that monstrous. It's about time this went to war and let the chips fall. Biden administration eco-extremists vs State management of a population well above the USFWS requirement.

This ignores the entire history of this issue, including legal battles, past agreements and everything else that's come about because of the 94 reintroduction EIS.

And one more time - population is only 1 part of the issue. Pinning all your hopes on just that is ensuring that you're gonna have a bad time.

 

[Sytes]

Yes Ben, I'm aware of the big elephant:

- If a change in state law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to the wolf population.

We will see, right? It's out there is what I'm saying. There's no do-over for Idaho's political woof rant. Now the fight begins... I'm unfortunately on the side of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. There is no middle ground. It's a pick your side deal at this point.

 

[Tradewind]

I don't know that there are, but 90% likely they'll show up on some moron's feed. Doesn't matter though. The orgs can find them on their own.

or make them up

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes Ben, I'm aware of the big elephant:

- If a change in state law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to the wolf population.

We will see, right? It's out there is what I'm saying. There's no do-over for Idaho's political woof rant. Now the fight begins... I'm unfortunately on the side of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. There is no middle ground. It's a pick your side deal at this point.

If the wolf gets relisted, it will rest squarely on the shoulders of the legislatures and fish & wildlife agencies that make these changes. Nobody else. Not enviros, not tribes. Just the politicians and the people who support forever wolf wars.

 

[Sytes]

If the wolf gets relisted, it will rest squarely on the shoulders of the legislatures and fish & wildlife agencies that make these changes. Nobody else. Not enviros, not tribes. Just the politicians and the people who support forever wolf wars.

All right, Ben. Would you elaborate a bit on this? Your statement can be read from various perspectives and from my read - I disagree. I'd imagine you have a valuable piece of understanding you're trying to convey and well... mock it if you care to though I'm not following your experienced opinion.

"Rests squarely on the shoulders of the legislatures and fish and wildlife that make these changes..." Then you proceed to say, Not enviros, not tribes... You, of most all people here, comprehend the intent of lobbyists, Ben. Not enviros? Are you kidding???
I'm a very literal person so maybe that is where I am not following. Clarify?

 

[BucksnDucks]

The title of this thread is just like the click bait and headlines of the media. Words matter. "Yellowstone Park Wolves" as if they belong to some amusement park. Wolves wandered off the park, as if they got lost and forgot where the boundary line was.
Majestic, beloved wolves tragically shot dead during heroic attempt to return to the safety of home. The unfortunate trio took a wrong turn and found themselves outside the protection of the YNP perimeter. The canines were terrified to find themselves in this strange new world devoid of friendly Rangers and camera toting tourists.

 

[rwc101]

Tribes, enviros pan Wyo wolf killing policy in ESA petitions - WyoFile

Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland’s review will determine whether the federal Endangered Species Act should again protect wolves in Wyoming, neighboring states. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland’s review will determine whether the federal Endangered Species Act should again protect...

wyofile.com

 

[RobG]

Exactly. Even if the quota was 1 this could have easily happened. It doesn’t close as soon as one is shot…that pending closure time is still considered open.

This was 10% of the pack. Worse, for public perception, it was two puppies and a yearling. I wonder if they were killed by one person. And the hunting season is just starting. No, that couldn't have happened if the quota was one (or two). It was off the radar when we could kill one or two. This was the exact reason for the quota.

Hoppe's domestic sheep were legal, yet were were all (justifiably) pissed off because they impacted bighorn sheep when they come out of the park. But with wolves it seem to be their own fault.

Didn't we just have a big thread about how those elk hunters that shot the elk on the island gave hunters a bad name? Don't we get our undies in a bunch when hunters blast into elk herds and say "slob hunters" are giving us a bad name? Killing pregnant elk in February makes us sad (what a bunch of bullsh*t). I can't even take a picture of with my foot on a deer in satire without you guys condescending on me about how it makes hunters look bad (more bullsh*t).

When it comes to big game you guys anthropomorphize more than me. I don't give a crap about wolf feelings, and understand their impacts outside of the park, but I can see the bigger picture.

There are plenty of wolves to shoot so there is no reason to kill off the pack that thousands of people watch each year. They live almost exclusively inside the park and are used to humans. Wolves are the most charismatic animal in the U.S. so we should be aware of how it is viewed by others and how that impacts us. It was off the radar when we could kill one or two. Go hunt wolves that aren't used to cameras pointed at them.

Plus, maybe these wolves will kill Hoppe's sheep.

 

[Sytes]

Should they have massive NPS tattoos on them???

 

[shoots-straight]

Should they have massive NPS tattoos on them???

No just a buffer zone to protect our seasons from attack. Yes, I know, I know, they would do it anyway, but they didn't do much until the door was opened back up. Digest this before answering please. Just add something I we haven't heard.

 

[Sytes]

No just a buffer zone to protect our seasons from attack. Yes, I know, I know, they would do it anyway, but they didn't do much until the door was opened back up. Digest this before answering please. Just add something I we haven't heard.

Digested. I respect and give additional consideration for your opinions on this topic (and a few others) and time vested in the delisting process. I disagree with the principle behind buffer zones around National Parks.
Shall we do this with deer and elk? No... why? Because this is a specific pacification of the Eco-extremists not science applied use via our Bio's.

Whitefish ---> North along the western border of GNP... Buffer zone? Some here want to pretend apex predators do not play a part (Note: not the only part) in bio science ungulate management. So be it... another can of worms.

The Buffer zone becomes an extension of GNP / YNP. A wolf goes out of that zone five years from another invisible boundary - then?

 

[shrapnel]

Should they have massive NPS tattoos on them???

This should work...

 

[RobG]

This should work...

View attachment 196217

OK, that was a bit funny...

These particular wolves are highly visible and literally world famous. I don't think Glacier has a similar situation. I'd rather not have a buffer zone if possible. It was a problem before the quota was put in place and it's a problem now that it went away. It wasn't a problem with the quotas in place and the wolves didn't have tattoos.

 

[shoots-straight]

Digested. I respect and give additional consideration for your opinions on this topic (and a few others) and time vested in the delisting process. I disagree with the principle behind buffer zones around National Parks.
Shall we do this with deer and elk? No... why? Because this is a specific pacification of the Eco-extremists not science applied use via our Bio's.

Whitefish ---> North along the western border of GNP... Buffer zone? Some here want to pretend apex predators do not play a part (Note: not the only part) in bio science ungulate management. So be it... another can of worms.

The Buffer zone becomes an extension of GNP / YNP. A wolf goes out of that zone five years from another invisible boundary - then?

It's the nature of the beast. I totally agree that it shouldn't be a problem, but it is. The moderates of the wolf groups can accept the wolf's death if they move past the buffer.

It's a trigger to the line in the sand for many of them.

Do we treat the Greater Yellowstone eco system differently because it's not in the park boundary? Yes we do.

On the list of things that exceed the original wolf plan this one is small, but has large implications with the publics perception of hunting and hunters. How we treat our wildlife matters.

 

[Carnage2011]

This was 10% of the pack. Worse, for public perception, it was two puppies and a yearling. I wonder if they were killed by one person. And the hunting season is just starting. No, that couldn't have happened if the quota was one (or two). It was off the radar when we could kill one or two. This was the exact reason for the quota.

Hoppe's domestic sheep were legal, yet were were all (justifiably) pissed off because they impacted bighorn sheep when they come out of the park. But with wolves it seem to be their own fault.

Didn't we just have a big thread about how those elk hunters that shot the elk on the island gave hunters a bad name? Don't we get our undies in a bunch when hunters blast into elk herds and say "slob hunters" are giving us a bad name? Killing pregnant elk in February makes us sad (what a bunch of bullsh*t). I can't even take a picture of with my foot on a deer in satire without you guys condescending on me about how it makes hunters look bad (more bullsh*t).

When it comes to big game you guys anthropomorphize more than me. I don't give a crap about wolf feelings, and understand their impacts outside of the park, but I can see the bigger picture.

There are plenty of wolves to shoot so there is no reason to kill off the pack that thousands of people watch each year. They live almost exclusively inside the park and are used to humans. Wolves are the most charismatic animal in the U.S. so we should be aware of how it is viewed by others and how that impacts us. It was off the radar when we could kill one or two. Go hunt wolves that aren't used to cameras pointed at them.

Plus, maybe these wolves will kill Hoppe's sheep.

Thanks for the reply…I’m currently hunting and don’t care to write up much of a response.

 

[RobG]

Thanks for the reply…I’m currently hunting and don’t care to write up much of a response.

Just as well. I'm going to spray our favorite L. Spurge patch and don't want to hear discouraging words at the moment.

 

[MTGomer]

This was 10% of the pack.

Somewhere around 20% of all legal rams in the Beartooth mountains were killed in five days last year.

It takes four years for one to become legal, and seven or eight to become mature. I guess I missed the national outcry.

I don’t agree with the night hunting thats now legal or the general tone and direction the commission has taken on predator management, but three wolves being legally hunted doesn’t cause me to lose any sleep.

 

[MTGomer]

This ignores the entire history of this issue, including legal battles, past agreements and everything else that's come about because of the 94 reintroduction EIS.

And one more time - population is only 1 part of the issue. Pinning all your hopes on just that is ensuring that you're gonna have a bad time.

You sure have a lot of knowledge about a lot of stuff for someone “on the sidelines”

 

[Ben Lamb]

All right, Ben. Would you elaborate a bit on this? Your statement can be read from various perspectives and from my read - I disagree. I'd imagine you have a valuable piece of understanding you're trying to convey and well... mock it if you care to though I'm not following your experienced opinion.

"Rests squarely on the shoulders of the legislatures and fish and wildlife that make these changes..." Then you proceed to say, Not enviros, not tribes... You, of most all people here, comprehend the intent of lobbyists, Ben. Not enviros? Are you kidding???
I'm a very literal person so maybe that is where I am not following. Clarify?

You bet.

Maintaining a delisted status means that the regulatory mechanisms in place have to pass legal muster in terms of securing viable populations for the long haul. The previous plans that were in place were what led to the ability to split MT & ID off of Wyoming in the 2009 delisting order issued by the USFWS. By eliminating the issue of Wyoming's dual classification plan, the thought was that the states who did everything right in terms of drafting plans and focusing on the long-term viability of the wolf, the delisting was in order, and those states shouldn't be punished for Wyoming's recalcitrance.

Wyoming's plan was having significant issues passing legal muster, or USFWS internal review, but was accepted in order to try and move forward with delisting. Remember, Wyoming negotiated that they didn't have to have 15/150 as breeding pairs, min population because they claimed that the park wolves would account for roughly half of their wolves. That took flexibility away from ID & MT, but those states were on a different path in terms of their plans, so it went forward.

Now, with more pressure being placed on wolves in the park, by eliminating the quotas, and following the directives of the legislature and commission, MT's plan is a husk of it's former self, leaving a gaping hole in the adequate regulatory mechanism provisions of the ESA.

Yes, the enviro lobby will always sue. That's a constant, and there will always be extremists on both sides of this issue to keep the hate & money flowing. The key is to be able to survive the litigation without having to be relisted. When the legislatures and commissions abandon the already litigated plans that we know stand up to scrutiny in favor of a more aggressive approach with no basis in biology or eye towards sustainability, it becomes far more likely that litigation to relist is successful than if the original plans were in place.

Bounties, night hunting, snaring, etc all break the faith that MT & ID agreed to in their plans. It leaves them open for relisting, and now with those changes in place, they may take Wyoming with them because of some legal grey areas in the Wyoming plan, that really only work if MT & ID would have kept their plans in place.

So now it's a crap shoot as to whether or not they get relisted, purely because the legislatures and commissions have decided to play politics rather than biology. If those bodies hadn't given the ammo to the litigants, this litigation wouldn't be possible.

 

[RobG]

Somewhere around 20% of all legal rams in the Beartooth mountains were killed in five days last year.

It takes four years for one to become legal, and seven or eight to become mature. I guess I missed the national outcry.

There are many problems with this comparison. Most obviously: there is a quota on bighorn sheep and not a six month open season.

I'm not being a wolf hugger; I'm just trying to explain how this is being perceived outside of our little hunting bubble.