# Elk hunters asked NOT to kill wolves



## scottl67 (Nov 29, 2007)

They say vigilante hunters killing wolves illegally will undermine efforts to get them removed from the endangered species list.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/5 ... n.html.csp


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This article and the RMEF make a very valid point...breaking the law and killing wolves in Idaho will only hurt the effort to have them delisted.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> This article and the RMEF make a very valid point...breaking the law and killing wolves in Idaho will only hurt the effort to have them delisted.


+1


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> This article and the RMEF make a very valid point...breaking the law and killing wolves in Idaho will only hurt the effort to have them delisted.


I agree completely.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

What will HELP the effort to have them delisted then? Meeting population objectives? Nope. That was done years ago. EXCEEDING population objectives? Nope - populations are several times the objectives in the management plans that REQUIRE delisting when met.

The ONLY thing keeping them from being delisted is the decision by Judge Malloy in Missoula to override all the constructive and effective efforts by USFWS, IDFG and MGFP to manage wolves within the established management plans. 

I am not one for ever advocating breaking laws. But this issue is pushing me to that. If someone, anyone, can point out what CAN be done that will result in delisting, I'd love to hear it. Really. And if there is nothing that can get us BACK there, then I just might become an SSS proponent. Seriously. And that is totally out of character for me.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> What will HELP the effort to have them delisted then? Meeting population objectives? Nope. That was done years ago. EXCEEDING population objectives? Nope - populations are several times the objectives in the management plans that REQUIRE delisting when met.
> 
> The ONLY thing keeping them from being delisted is the decision by Judge Malloy in Missoula to override all the constructive and effective efforts by USFWS, IDFG and MGFP to manage wolves within the established management plans.
> 
> I am not one for ever advocating breaking laws. But this issue is pushing me to that. If someone, anyone, can point out what CAN be done that will result in delisting, I'd love to hear it. Really. And if there is nothing that can get us BACK there, then I just might become an SSS proponent. Seriously. And that is totally out of character for me.


It needs to go back through the court system. Now if all possibilities in the legal system are exhausted then I am right there with you about becoming an SSS proponent.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I guess my point is, the enviros will always find a judge that will throw out the science, biology, mangament plans, and efforts of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and even USFWS in this case. Because the wolf loving community has the objective of NEVER allowing them to be delisted - regardless of what the science or management plans or quotas or any of it say. Wolves WERE delisted as agreed upon in Idaho and Montana, and it only took an agenda-driven judge to change it. So where is the law? They were delisted according to the LAW. 

So back to the question - Does anyone have ANY idea at all of what can be done to actually get them delisted and STAY delisted?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

The ONLY way this war will be won will be on a political level period. If that doesn't happen then civil disobedience is what will fallow. I sent an email to Ryan Fouts with SFW to see where they had gotten with the problem. Here's my email and the one he gave me back in response.

Hey Ryan,

Just saw your bright shining face on the morning news as they were 
covering the wolf meeting that happened yesterday. What is the latest 
on the wolf war front? I've read that the Governor in ID basically 
told the feds to get bent. They are no longer enforcing, investigating, 
or prosecuting any wolf shootings. So, in a sense, it's open season up 
there for anyone who wants to shoot em. Do you think UT will fallow 
suit? If we don't our elk herds are screwed. The DWR says there aren't
any wolves in UT but I know of at least seven guys that say they saw 
wolves this year while out hunting. I'll bet there are many more. It 
wont be long before we're over run with them. But you know that as 
well as I do...

Best regards,

Darin Gardner UTA President.

Darin

SFW is working our asses off to get the ESA language changed through
congressional level. This is the only way to make sure it becomes a
permanent fix for managing wolves. It will give the states the right to
manage them and take away the federal power.

Butch Otter's letter is great but it is a band aid to the problem, we are
trying to fix the bleeding.

You can read his letter:

Governor Otter's letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
http://gov.idaho.gov/press/webnews/2010 ... wolf%20let

Thanks Ryan


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

The wold shouldn't have been on the ESA in the first place. The ESA was established to *stop the extinction of a species* to the best of my knowledge there are a ton of Canadian Grey Wolves in *Canada* and Alaska. That species is far from becoming extinct. Just because a species doesn't have a population in a certain area doesn't mean they are endangered. There are no whitetails in Utah should we make them an endangered species because they don't exist here, no I don't think so.

If I saw a wolf in the wild I would be tempted to shoot it, don't think I would. Never the less this problem needs to be dealt with pronto.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

We don't have manatees, penguins, gorillas, or sharks either.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I really liked the comments at the bottom of th article. Does the lay man really believe that wolves are not affecting other wildlife?


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

huntingbuddy said:


> The wold shouldn't have been on the ESA in the first place. The ESA was established to *stop the extinction of a species* to the best of my knowledge there are a ton of Canadian Grey Wolves in *Canada* and Alaska. That species is far from becoming extinct. Just because a species doesn't have a population in a certain area doesn't mean they are endangered. There are no whitetails in Utah should we make them an endangered species because they don't exist here, no I don't think so.
> 
> If I saw a wolf in the wild I would be tempted to shoot it, don't think I would. Never the less this problem needs to be dealt with pronto.


I agree, They should spend more money on a species that is actually endangered. Canada and Alaska have plenty of Wolves. Not to mention the populations in Michigan, Minnesota, plus a bunch of other states. And a bunch of national parks.

It is funny how much they favor the wolf because they think it is so "majestic". Why can't we save the majestic big game herds? I heard that the moose population in Wyoming is declining too, why don't they pay attention to that?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

lehi said:


> huntingbuddy said:
> 
> 
> > The wold shouldn't have been on the ESA in the first place. The ESA was established to *stop the extinction of a species* to the best of my knowledge there are a ton of Canadian Grey Wolves in *Canada* and Alaska. That species is far from becoming extinct. Just because a species doesn't have a population in a certain area doesn't mean they are endangered. There are no whitetails in Utah should we make them an endangered species because they don't exist here, no I don't think so.
> ...


I would imagine that since the ESA is an American Act that they only evaluate a species as it exists within American borders. In other words if the species is endangered in the US then it's not relevant how many live outside of the US. Having said that there are plenty of wolves in Alaska as many have mentioned. My only question is, and maybe this is where the bunny huggers have found a loophole, is what species of wolves live in Alaska?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Never mind I found my own answer. They are the same species.


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

I could be wrong as of right now I dont have means to research this. I believe I heard somewhere that the wolves that inhabitated Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana was the timber wolve or some other species of wolf but it wasnt the Canadian Gay Wolf. The Candaian Gray wolf is a much more vicious than the earlier species. It is much like introducing a Grizzly bear into what was traditionally black bear habitat. When I have some time I will do some research to try and support my claim.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

It's already been done. They are the same species.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2010)

i'll shoot one in utah if i ever run into one. no questions asked. if they "arent in utah", how can i get into any trouble for shooting a "large" coyote? 

our deer and elk herds already suffer enough every year from hunting, cats and dogs, cars and the winter. they dont need anything else out there trying to kill them. every one already bitches about utah having no deer. do you think it will get any better if we allow another predator to live in the same hills they do?? my logic tells me, no!

p.s. call me crazy, but there are actually a few whitetails that do live in utah. some live in the hay fields just outside heber city. ive seen them. im not saying theres a herd living there, but there was atleast 3. the dwr doesnt want them here and will shoot them when they see them.


----------



## goforbroke (Jan 4, 2009)

Wolves are tough critters to find and hunt. If I lived or hunted in Idaho, I would do as the govorner asked and eliminate that wolf! I used to hunt there, but game is scarce where I used to hunt. If you see one in Utah, please shoot that large coyote!!! Or game will be scarce here also.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > What will HELP the effort to have them delisted then? Meeting population objectives? Nope. That was done years ago. EXCEEDING population objectives? Nope - populations are several times the objectives in the management plans that REQUIRE delisting when met.
> ...


For how long? How many **** times do we put our faith in a corrupt judicial system? When is enough enough? These are questions I have, and I assume most on here do as well.

Here is my personal take: In less than two weeks we get to show where we stand on the proper roles of government. If you are happy with the Federal government dictating what happens in your backyard, vote for those who believe the Federal government is the solution to ANYTHING/everything. If you are ticked off about being told what we are going to have happen in Utah by pinheads in Washington, vote for those who favor state rights. If you are still apathetic, keep doing nothing but whining on the internet. The choice is yours/mine, will we take action or we do nothing?


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

Don't kill the wolves because that is illegal. Since they keep telling us there are no wolves in Utah we should shoot all of those really big coyotes we keep seeing!!! 

These animals don't belong here and will not survive if I see one where I think I can get away with it. Just make sure nobody finds the carcass! 

When the DWR, US Fish and Wildlife Service and all neighboring states wildlife departments appose these animals, I don't see it as poaching!!! To each his own opinion.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

If you have a 30-06 just carry a accelerator round or two. No traceable rifling left on the slug. and even if they do recover it, the cal wont match your gun anyways lol.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

bloodtrail said:


> When the DWR, US Fish and Wildlife Service and all neighboring states wildlife departments appose these animals, I don't see it as poaching!!! To each his own opinion.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Read this and tell me Utah's DWR opposes these animals.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolf_management_plan.pdf


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

PRO, Voting is a good idea but I never seem to have voting options for issues important to me. These obnoxious federal decisions seem to be made in backrooms in Wash. DC by unelected bureaucrats and enforced by foreign judges that are never on my ballot. Republian or Democrat, conservative or liberal, federal control of our lives seems to always increase.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

Having lived in Alaska I can tell you that it is a rarity to kill a wolf while hunting for another animal. They are just too smart to be seen all the time. If you have seen one wolf, there is probably 10 or 20 you cannot see within a couple miles of it. 

With that said, I will shoot the first giant coyote I see.... You have to begin somewhere.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

huntingbuddy said:


> I could be wrong as of right now I dont have means to research this. I believe I heard somewhere that the wolves that inhabitated Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana was the timber wolve or some other species of wolf but it wasnt the Canadian Gay Wolf. The Candaian Gray wolf is a much more vicious than the earlier species. It is much like introducing a Grizzly bear into what was traditionally black bear habitat. When I have some time I will do some research to try and support my claim.


You are correct on this. The Timber Wolf is the species that is native to the rockies. The species introduces is not native. This was actually documented in the impact studies done when the re-introduction plan was drafted. The US forest service knew about this and they did nothing to stop the plan based on the species dicrepancy.


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

I'll just continue my personal ethic...Shoot, SHUTUP!!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Since there seems to be some understandable confusion about wolf species and subspecies, here's what my research into the subject has uncovered over the past few months.

There is only one species of wolf, _Canis lupus_, but there are about 39 recognized subspecies that include everything from the Tundra wolf, _Canis lupus albus_, to the domestic dog (yes, it's a subspecies of wolf), _Canis lupus familiaris_.

There's really no such thing as a timber wolf species. Timber wolf is just a generic label given to any wolf found in forested regions of the upper midwest and elsewhere and includes several subspecies, including _Canis lupus lycaon_ or the Eastern wolf and the Great Plains wolf, _iCanis lupus nubilus_.

As for which subspecies is native to Utah, there are likely several that were here at one time or another. Utah was home to the Southern Rocky Mountain wolf, _Canis lupus youngi_, but it went extinct in the 1930s. The southern part of the state once had Mexican wolves, _Canis lupus baileyi_.

Utah was also home to the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf, _Canis lupus irremotus,_ which is the subspecies that was supposedly part of the Northern rocky Mountain Recovery Plan. However, when the legislation was adopted, Northern Rocky Mountain wolves weren't officially recognized as a distinct subspecies of wolf. Instead, two very closely related subspecies were introduced into Yellowstone: the Great Plains wolf, _Canis lupus nubilus_, and the Mackenzie Valley wolf, _Canis lupus occidentalis_, which is also sometimes known as the Canadian timber wolf. At the time, biologists mostly included the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf as being pretty much the same wolf that was reintroduced into Yellowstone.

When it comes right down to it, there's a lot of overlap and uncertainty about these subspecies. Many of the subspecies are so close to being the same thing that differentiating between them has little meaning.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> huntingbuddy said:
> 
> 
> > I could be wrong as of right now I dont have means to research this. I believe I heard somewhere that the wolves that inhabitated Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana was the timber wolve or some other species of wolf but it wasnt the Canadian Gay Wolf. The Candaian Gray wolf is a much more vicious than the earlier species. It is much like introducing a Grizzly bear into what was traditionally black bear habitat. When I have some time I will do some research to try and support my claim.
> ...


Not correct on this - this has been hashed over many times here. Huntergeek is correct. see also;Jump to post
Re: wolf problem out west
Generally speaking as you go further north the wolves get slightly larger, as you go further south they get slightly smaller. If you could put 10 extinct yellowstone wolves next to to 10 reintroduced wolves one would have a difficult time telling which was which. If you put a mexican grey next to a reintro... it would be easy to tell them apart.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

Troutsman said:


> Having lived in Alaska I can tell you that it is a rarity to kill a wolf while hunting for another animal. They are just too smart to be seen all the time. If you have seen one wolf, there is probably 10 or 20 you cannot see within a couple miles of it.
> 
> With that said, I will shoot the first giant coyote I see.... You have to begin somewhere.


Alaska has such a vast area for them to hide in and a much smaller population (people not wolves). So many people take to the hills at the same time in this state is hard to believe they are going to be able to stay hidden.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

jahan said:


> It needs to go back through the court system. Now if all possibilities in the legal system are exhausted then I am right there with you about becoming an SSS proponent.


Jahan, I typically agree with you but in this situation I have to say that it doesn't need to go through a court system that is obviously broken - it needs to be dealt with. I would say the same for border control as well. We have let our court systems gain too much power to tie up and often block our ability to have the freedoms we should have by way of the US Constitution...

Idaho (and every other state) should be able to make laws and rules by which they govern themselves and those participating in activities within their borders - the Fed should only step in where constitutional matters are concerned..


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > It needs to go back through the court system. Now if all possibilities in the legal system are exhausted then I am right there with you about becoming an SSS proponent.
> ...


So everyone talks about going vigilante, but it will never work. So Idaho gives a big FU to the Federal Government, so where does it go from there? Does the Federal Government just say, OK do what you want? Hell no, they will fight it and this will go nowhere. To me this isn't much more than puffing their chest out and letting the Feds know they are sick of their BS, which I agree with the message, I just don't think the method they are using will work. Can someone explain to me first of all how this will help in the long term and also what do they think the Feds will do now?

Another question, so what if the Feds what to play hard ball back and say that is fine, you are on your own now. No more Federal aid at all, they would be the first one bitching about not getting their Federal aid. I just get tired of people bitching about the Feds this and the Feds that, but as soon as something is taken away from them they go running to the Feds for help. :?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

jahan said:


> TopofUtahArcher said:
> 
> 
> > jahan said:
> ...


I don't know, maybe it will maybe it won't work. Most of what is happening right now is posturing. It's sending a message more than anything. Similar to what is happening with the Gays if enough noise is made and enough people stand up and say "no more" then the government is generally forced to do something. What that something is remains to be seen.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> Since there seems to be some understandable confusion about wolf species and subspecies, here's what my research into the subject has uncovered over the past few months.
> 
> There is only one species of wolf, _Canis lupus_, but there are about 39 recognized subspecies that include everything from the Tundra wolf, _Canis lupus albus_, to the domestic dog (yes, it's a subspecies of wolf), _Canis lupus familiaris_.
> 
> ...





HunterGeek said:


> ]
> 
> Thank you, thank you, thank you.
> 
> The internet is full of wolf "species" narratives, written by zoologists that graduated from Google University.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The thing to remember in this whole deal - it wasn't USFWS that RE-listed the wolf in Idaho and Montana - it was a judge in Missoula. USFWS actually DID de-list the wolf. Idaho and Montana were working with the Feds. Much as I am not a big fan of USFWS in most respects, this screw-up is not on them. It is ALL on the judical activism of Judge Malloy in Missoula listening only to the pro-wolf lobby's biostitutes. 

And in this, it wouldn't suprise me one little bit, that Gov. Otter's actions came at the SUGGESTION of USFWS to get attention to the overall issue of activist judges accomplishing their own agenda with no political accountability.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

jahan said:


> Can someone explain to me first of all how this will help in the long term and also what do they think the Feds will do now?


I agree with bullsnot that this is mostly posturing. Still, posturing can be important because it ups the ante and draws attention. Most of the rest of the country doesn't care about the wolf situation in the West - it's not even on their radar screens. Ultimately, politics will determine the outcome, and bringing broad attention to the problem is a useful part of making that happen.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks bullsnot and HunterGeek, you answered my question. So this sounds to me more like a short deal to potentially have a long-term, permanent resolution. My whole point is this is not a long term solution, it is just posturing as you guys have pointed out.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

It seems that the accumulation of power is at the root of a lot of these problems. To say that the solutions are not political is like saying that humans don't bleed when cut. I for one believe that the courts have too much power. Especially federal judges and supreme court justices. One way of limiting their power would be to limit the amount of time they serve. However i also believe it would be a mistake to make these elected positions. That would only create another cespool of polititians that would cause more harm than good.

The courts need to stay out of these matters period. When a judge overrules a decision made by a a government entity like the USFWS it undermines the authority and insults the "professionals" that work through that entity, biologists, vets, etc.

This needs to be dealt with and I think for now a very loud voice is the only thing that will work. Not vigilantiism.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> ........
> 
> The courts need to stay out of these matters period. When a judge overrules a decision made by a a government entity like the USFWS it *undermines the authority and insults the "professionals" *that work through that entity, biologists, vets, etc.
> 
> This needs to be dealt with and I think for now a very loud voice is the only thing that will work. Not vigilantiism.


Nicely put.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> The thing to remember in this whole deal - it wasn't USFWS that RE-listed the wolf in Idaho and Montana - it was a judge in Missoula. USFWS actually DID de-list the wolf. Idaho and Montana were working with the Feds. Much as I am not a big fan of USFWS in most respects, this screw-up is not on them. It is ALL on the judical activism of Judge Malloy in Missoula listening only to the pro-wolf lobby's biostitutes.
> 
> And in this, it wouldn't suprise me one little bit, that Gov. Otter's actions came at the SUGGESTION of USFWS to get attention to the overall issue of activist judges accomplishing their own agenda with no political accountability.


What you say is true. But ultimately all the courts can do is interpret and rule based on the law as it is written. So the burden ultimately falls on the law makers to write a law that makes sense and is clear. This isn't a constitutional issue so there is little chance of a law being written that can be ruled against.

I have read that since the ESA went into effect in the 70's it has been amended a few times, specifically in localized situations. A group in Tennessee wanted to build a dam but couldn't because there was an endangered snail there. They got the ESA amended to be able to work around that and build their dam. Even though there has not been precedent in having the ESA modified in this way it certainly seems logical to have it amended here so that the wolf can only be on the ESA on a state by state or county by county basis. I think that this is a unique enough situation to warrant a change of that nature.

A Texas senator has introduced a bill to have the wolves permantly de-listed and this species be listed as a permenant exception to the list. I think that will never make it to law though and is probably more of one senator trying to apeal to voters. Jahan is right in that this is a political battle so we need to introduce something that makes sense and has a chance of making it to law.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Again, I'm following bullsnot's logic on all this.

Judge Molloy's decision stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) decision to delist wolves in one geographical area of the distinct population segment (DPS) while not delisting them in the rest of the DPS was not permissible under the the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In other words, wolves were just as endangered or not endangered in Wyoming as they were in Montana and Idaho, so the FWS had no authority to delist them in one state while keeping them listed in another.

Molloy admitted that it might make sound biological, political and practical sense to hold back from delisting them in Wyoming, but that the ESA, as it's written, does not give the FWS the authority to subdivide DPSs, and that the entire DPS must be considered as one unit. Because of this, he overruled the FWS decision delist wolves in some states within the DPS but not others.

The FWS, by the way, did not like Wyoming's wolf management plan that, in short, sought to prevent wolves from expanding beyond the Yellowstone/Teton area. Montana, Idaho (and Utah) developed management plans that met the FWS guidelines for ensuring what they and the ESA deemed to be viable wolf population. Wyoming's plan was deemed unacceptable. This lead to the FWS delisting wolves everywhere within the DPS except Wyoming, which lead to a legal challenge that resulted in Judge Molloy's ruling that the ESA did not permit this sort of subdivision of the DPS.

In other words Molloy threw out the delisting over a technicality. Personally, I think that Molloy selectively and erroneously interpreted the ESA law and, especially, the intent of the law. Even so, I can't say that I'm not happy about judges having the authority to void decisions made by government agencies that fail to act in accordance with the law. His ruling has been appealed, so we'll see if if higher court upholds his ruling or tosses it out.

The real problem here is the Endangered Species Act itself. It's federal law, and parts of it are very strict to the point of being, in my opinion, irrational. For example, the moment that wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone, they were federally protected under the ESA to the exclusion of nearly all other concerns. That protection strips away the state's authority to manage these animals. Once a species meets the requirements for ESA listing, it becomes, in essence, a sacred animal that cannot be harmed for almost any reason.

Wyoming (nor most other western states) does not really want _any_ wolves. All the states but Wyoming were pragmatic enough, however, to realize that there was no chance of managing wolves in their states unless they came up with management plans that ensured protection for at least a minimum viable number of wolves within their boundaries. This is why Utah's wolf management plan does not aim toward eliminating wolves and aims toward managing them.

If we're ever going to get rid of wolves, keep them confined to the Yellowstone area or manage their numbers to workable sizes in the affected states, changes have to be made to the Endangered Species Act. Right now there are several bills working their way though Congress that would strip away various levels of protection for wolves under the ESA.

Despite the mostly anti-wolf sentiments expressed on this forum, the majority of the country's population supports some measure of protection for wolves. Until that changes, we're probably stuck with having to live with a certain number of wolves. That said, most people (including biologists) agree that wolf populations need to be controlled by the states. There's a decent chance (I hope) of getting the current and ridiculous protection of wolves removed and their population numbers managed by the states. All Utah's representatives and senators, from what I can determine, seem to be on board with this, but unless a big stink is made, the current congress (most of which is made up of states with no wolf issues) might not be inclined to do anything.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

When Utah was seeking input to help develop the State's management plan they held roundtable discussions throughout the State. I guess they were much like the current RAC's.
I went to the one in Ogden. It was packed, probably 300-400 people. They were from all walks of life. Pro wolfers, anti wolfers, hunters, ranchers, biologists, DWR (of course), people that were neutral, yet wanting to learn more, etc.
I sat at a table of Ranchers from the Randolph area, and from the Fort Bridger area of Wyoming.
We had very good and civil discussions. Each table then made a list of suggestions and concerns they had for when the wolves did come to Utah.
From these meetings the State then drafted their management plan. I feel they did an excellent job in trying to address the concerns of all the stakeholders, while at the same time trying to satisfy the law under the ESA guidelines (HunterGeek did a good job of describing those guidelines and the problem with Wyo's).


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Now I am not suggesting any strategies for you hunters and/or ranchers out there, but keep this little fact in mind:
*If there are NO wolves in Utah there will be no need for management. NOTHING will take place until there are actual animal populations in the state.* 
So far, I think we have only had "sightings...which is different than established "breeding pairs" which are needed for an area to legally have a "population". I do'no, just saying.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Another question, so what if the Feds what to play hard ball back and say that is fine, you are on your own now. No more Federal aid at all, they would be the first one bitching about not getting their Federal aid. I just get tired of people bitching about the Feds this and the Feds that, but as soon as something is taken away from them they go running to the Feds for help. :?


I dream of the day that the federal government cuts off funding to the states! As long as the federal government doles out funds to the states, they OWN the states. The day Utah tells the federal government to take a hike is the day Utah gains back her sovereignty. This is why I HATE the federal government owning *(C0NTROLLING)* such a high percentage of land within Utah's borders. All those who love public lands, and are comfortable with the federal government owning *(C0NTROLLING)* the majority of western states are now starting to see a few of the negative side-affects of giving pinheads in Washington and pinhead judges so much *CONTROL* over what happens in OUR backyard. In the case of Idaho, what do you think the wolf situation would be if the federal lands were under the control of the state? Tell me again, all you who have lauded how great federally *CONTROLLED* land in the states, how that's working out for you now? :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

One other thing: The Endangered Species Act *SUCKS!!* :evil:


----------



## RobK (Jul 3, 2008)

sorry 
But i say kill them all , and hope the elk hunter don't stop . The last thing we need is are wolves . As soon as the big game numbers decline from the wolves , the anti hunters will tell us there is no need for hunters to control the big game populations anymore , and we will be screwed . I don't trust the motives of ANYONE who wants the wolves back . :twisted: :evil:

http://www.saveelk.com/


----------



## RobK (Jul 3, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Another question, so what if the Feds what to play hard ball back and say that is fine, you are on your own now. No more Federal aid at all, they would be the first one bitching about not getting their Federal aid. I just get tired of people bitching about the Feds this and the Feds that, but as soon as something is taken away from them they go running to the Feds for help. :?
> ...


AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 2litl2l8 (Jan 16, 2008)

I keep reading all of these post saying I won't shot a wolf but I will kill a large coyote. Sorry folks ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law. I don't like the wolfs just as much as you guys, but what you guys are saying is just insane. I know most of you really would not shoot one, but you have to use your words wisley, here on the forum as well as when you talk to people you never know who is listening.


----------



## tigerpincer (Dec 5, 2009)

Mabye I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist but how bout this thought. Wolf lovers are normally anti hunters and environmentalist extremists. If you want to stop elk and deer hunting there is a better way to make that attempt than a full on frontal assault. Using subversive tactics and sneaking in the back door would be much easier and more productive. Get the wolves introduced, keep them on the endangered species list and let them decimate big game herds so there not huntable. Then when there numbers get dangerously low you make your move to have their Human pradators removed from that particular food chain. As usual not every wolf lover would fall into this category, however those high up in the movement controlling the money certainly do IMHO. Wolves are a strategy if you ask me not the end game.

Any thoughts as to this opinion? I'd love to hear em.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The cougar has been used as a "strategy" on deer for 30 yrs. Replacing the hunter. 

And I have full confidence wolf will be managed to maximum capacity in Utah in the future. And it will have less to do with environmentalist pressure rather this goes right in line with what the DWR intends to do. And there will be only posturing from SFW on the matter. 

Cougar aren't on the ES list and we lack the foresight or will to manage their population to allow for an increase in the deer herd. Consider the DWR has done little in the last 30yrs to seriously reduce cougar populations. Any significant reductions in the predator populations have been a result of less prey.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> "The cougar has been used as a "strategy" on deer for 30 yrs. Replacing the hunter".
> 
> "Consider the DWR has done little in the last 30yrs to seriously reduce cougar populations."
> 
> ...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

+1, you read enough of his posts and you'd think cats are to blame for the national debt and the death of George Washington. :lol:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just saw this and LOL Tree,,,,
And I'll be the first to say, lions kill deer.
But I get sick and tired of lions being blamed for the wiped out deer herds.
So I just keep pointing out the facts of how liberal Utah's lion hunting is, and has been
for quite a few years now...And for the record, I've seen a few cats hit the ground..


----------

