# Wyoming hunters started killing wolves



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/04/01 ... 048afb.txt

Please respect copyright law when posting to our forum.

Thank you


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

While I am VERY happy wolves are being put to rest, the above link is evidence the 'battle' is NOT over. The "Defenders of Wildlife" seem to have forgotten about the 'other' wildlife besides their cute little woofs. :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Anyone want to go to Wyoming?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Anyone want to go to Wyoming?


I'm heading there tomorrow to get like 10


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Anyone want to go to Wyoming?


ROAD TRIP! Who's in? No seriously, who is in?


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Maybe this has been addressed, but what is the answer the lovers of wolves give when asked, "what happens when the wolves exceed the management plans?" Did they think the wolves would know to stop reproducing at three hundred packs? Did they not know that we have been funding management plans that would grow elk and deer herds... er...... I mean ........... wolf food so that these animals would thrive far above objective numbers?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> ROAD TRIP! Who's in? No seriously, who is in?


Im serious. It would be an awesome trip.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

huntinco said:


> Please respect copyright law when posting to our forum.
> 
> Thank you


I am all for respecting copyright law...HOWEVER, my understanding of the law says that copying and pasting an article for non-profit use and for educational purposes probably falls under the "Fair Use" exemption to copyright law.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EPEK, I believe they feel once 'nature' has been balanced out, the wolf numbers will even out and 'normalize'. I am all for 'assisting' in the 'normalizing' of wolf populations. Who is with me?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Kill some for me!!!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Assuming your question isn't rhetorical, Epek...

The pro-wolf crowd has expanded their own management goal to 5,000 wolves with contiguous habitat through Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, (for sufficient genetic diversity to ensure long term survival). Set aside the fact that such an objective isn't possible...if that objective was realized, they'd just up it again. Some time ago, the pro-wolf coalition did what so many environmentalist movements have done before - they allowed the fight to overshadow the objective of the fight. At this point, winning is more important to them than wolves.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

I think they just forgot to tell the woofies to quit making baby woofies when there was enough woofies. Or we could just feed them some birth control pills. (Say a 110 grain V-Max pill administered with a 270 Winchester).


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am all for respecting copyright law...HOWEVER, my understanding of the law says that copying and pasting an article for non-profit use and for educational purposes probably falls under the "Fair Use" exemption to copyright law.


Why risk it when a link to the site will suffice? I am glad the mods err on the side of safety, rather than risk losing this forum. I did think that pasting a *part* of an article was completely legal, and I have requested clarification from the mods.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am all for respecting copyright law...HOWEVER, my understanding of the law says that copying and pasting an article for non-profit use and for educational purposes probably falls under the "Fair Use" exemption to copyright law.


While some folks may enjoy educational benefits and while no one is drawing a paycheck here, this forum doesn't qualify as either educational or non-profit. And since the forum is readable by the general surfing public without need of an account, posting copyrighted material can't possibly be deemed "Fair Use" - it's reproduction, pure and simple.

The fact is that we don't have deep pockets here. We don't even have pockets. So a copyright suit would be the end of us. In fact, it wouldn't even have to be that serious since legal conduct is a condition of our use agreement with our internet provider. Add to that the fact that if it hit the fan, it would be the forum owner whose butt would be in the grinder.

A high price to pay and an unnecessary risk just to save a couple clicks, don't you think?


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Could this possible push the wolves into Utah? :?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The forum rules clearly state:



> No copyrighted material unless the copyright belongs to the poster.


Its a pretty simple rule. Regardless of what the laws say, it is against our rules.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Could this possible push the wolves into Utah? :?


There has been several articles in the paper recently. They are already here.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Anyone want to go to Wyoming?


yep...when?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Who can get Friday off???


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

We won't be the first truck load of hillbillies driving around looking for wolves in the past few days, But we stand a good chance of having the most teeth! :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Who can get Friday off???


I'll see what I can do.



> But we stand a good chance of having the most teeth!


So, we're leaving fixedblade at home? :shock:


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

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


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Could this possible push the wolves into Utah?


All this means is....you will just have to drive less to shoot one


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> So, we're leaving fixedblade at home?


Well I heard Fixedblade makes a good decoy.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

please.........no details about how one makes him squeal :shock:

friday's a go for me...


----------



## jhunter (Dec 14, 2007)

:rotfl: O*--


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Canine puppy yeps and barks are also a great way to call in the top dogs. I have a coyote in distress tape that works great also. Im sure wolves would come running with that noise.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

You guys really being serious about heading up there?


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> EPEK, I believe they feel once 'nature' has been balanced out, the wolf numbers will even out and 'normalize'. I am all for 'assisting' in the 'normalizing' of wolf populations. Who is with me?


I'm always able to assist, I never go to the hills without my rifle.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> huntinco said:
> 
> 
> > Please respect copyright law when posting to our forum.
> ...


In the age of electronic media, the copyright laws are very much outdated and subject to all kinds of disputes. Whether or not your argument would hold up in court, I don't know.

My objective, however, is avoid the need to find out. This forum is a low- to non-paying hobby for me. Avoiding unnecessary legal disputes is an essential part of our my willingness to keep it online.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Could this possible push the wolves into Utah?
> 
> 
> All this means is....you will just have to drive less to shoot one


by HOGAN on Apr 01, '08, 12:36

Could this possible push the wolves into Utah?

Not if you line up on the Wyoming side of the border and start driving them the other way.

If anyone does make the trip, I wish you a successful hunt!

Fishrmn


----------



## Crash (Mar 20, 2008)

Wish I could go. If you were all going this weekend, I could. Good luck and shoot one for me as well.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

FYI on the copywrite from our school librarian:
You may legally post part of an article so long as it's not the major part, provided that you cite your source in an acceptable format (look at a University handbook guide to citation). If you've posted more than 1/2 of any given article, the law always stands on the side of the copywrite owner. You may legally post a full article for educational purposes, but the URL here is .net and not .edu. Just having the classifieds section and the links advertising commerce would violate the educational protections to copy. You may also post a full article if you buy permission, as do sources like LexisNexis and the AP. 

Petersen is right. Just post a link!!!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> FYI on the copywrite from our school librarian:
> You may legally post part of an article so long as it's not the major part, provided that you cite your source in an acceptable format (look at a University handbook guide to citation). If you've posted more than 1/2 of any given article, the law always stands on the side of the copywrite owner. You may legally post a full article for educational purposes, but the URL here is .net and not .edu. Just having the classifieds section and the links advertising commerce would violate the educational protections to copy. You may also post a full article if you buy permission, as do sources like LexisNexis and the AP.
> 
> *Petersen is right. Just post a link!!!*


Ignore the rest, follow bold statement. :wink:  Lets just not chance it boys and girls, what does it hurt to just post a link. :? Just remember the feeling when we lost the last forum, I don't think I could handle losing it twice.  :lol:


----------



## Surfer Coyote (Jan 14, 2008)

Crash said:


> Wish I could go. If you were all going this weekend, I could. Good luck and shoot one for me as well.


I wish I could go too. It gives the rest of us a chance to go on an OIL hunt before the pesky draw process and the permit fees go into effect, which I'm sure will be boo-koo bucks.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> FYI on the copywrite from our school librarian:
> You may legally post part of an article so long as it's not the major part, provided that you cite your source in an acceptable format (look at a University handbook guide to citation). If you've posted more than 1/2 of any given article, the law always stands on the side of the copywrite owner. You may legally post a full article for educational purposes, but the URL here is .net and not .edu. Just having the classifieds section and the links advertising commerce would violate the educational protections to copy. You may also post a full article if you buy permission, as do sources like LexisNexis and the AP.


I still disagree...my own personal understanding as an English teacher is that the "fair use" exemption is a broad law that is looked at in regards to 4 specific areas:
1) intended use of the information
2) the kind of information--the more creative the work is the less "fair use" will not apply
3) amount of work used
4) the effect of the use on the market

After looking at how information has been used, knowing that it hasn't been used for profit, knowing that the information wasn't creative but factual in nature, and knowing that the articles verbatim use will not affect its use on the market, I don't believe it violates any law. If I were to weigh those 4 factors, I don't think the verbatim use violates copyright...especially since credit was given to the source.

BYU's policy states that "A central principle of the fair use analysis is a flexible doctrine that Congress wanted us to test and adapt for changing needs and circumstances. The law provides no clear and direct answers about the scope of fair use or its meaning in specific situations. Instead, we are compelled to return to the four factors and to reach reasoned and responsible conclusions about the lawfulness of our activities. Reasonable people may differ widely on the applicability of fair use, but any reliable evaluation of fair use must depend upon a reasoned analysis of the four factors of fair use. If most factors lean in favor of fair use, the proposed use is probably allowed; if most lean the opposite direction, the action will not fit the fair use exemption and may require permission from the copyright owner. Reliance on a "reasoned" analysis using the Checklist for Fair Use is essential to claiming a good-faith effort."

As for just posting a link...yeah, that's probably what should be done; however, many people simply don't read links...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The forum rules clearly state:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


End of story!!!!! :roll:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyoming2utah wrote:


> As for just posting a link...yeah, that's probably what should be done; however, many people simply don't read links...


I understand, but why take a chance of us losing the forum because people aren't as likely to read the material. And as Garyfish said, it is against forum rules. I personally like the links, because I generally don't want to read all of them and I don't want to have to scroll through it all to get to what the poster actually wrote.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Does it not concern most of you that the pro-wolf people will be trying to push this "emergency" provision in the ESA, if everyone and their dog (pun intended) goes up there to try to smoke a wolf? Seems like fuel for their fire to jump on the wolf killing bandwagon to WY to exploit this new found rifle target. I say let it rest for a month or two, then hit 'em.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

ChaserOfAllBirds said:


> Does it not concern most of you that the pro-wolf people will be trying to push this "emergency" provision in the ESA, if everyone and their dog (pun intended) goes up there to try to smoke a wolf? Seems like fuel for their fire to jump on the wolf killing bandwagon to WY to exploit this new found rifle target. I say let it rest for a month or two, then hit 'em.


I am agreeing with you. It is like a pendulum that swings to both extremes. First the wolf lover side where they want 10 of thousands of wolfs then to the other side where hunters and ranchers want zero wolves. Everyone rushing up there to kill the wolves are only hurting the chances of things working out quicker. Oh well, can't stop the ******** and can't stop the wolf lovers. :roll: I hope they can get things resolved to where it is fair to all sides. Like many have said whatever happened to 300 wolves instead of 1500? I don't mind a small population of wolves as long as they are regulated, but somehow things never seem to work out like that.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> As for just posting a link...yeah, that's probably what should be done; however, many people simply don't read links...


Just for the record, the forum rules _do_ permit copying brief excerpts from copyrighted material. So doing that might help with some of the problem that you mentioned.

I've been contacted a couple of times from people claiming copyright infringements on forums that I've been involved with - once from a business owner and once from a news media outlet's attorney. The business owner was steamed about it and threatened a law suit.

Anyway, like I've said, I don't know how the courts would have ruled on these two or any other potential copyright issues here. But as I've also said, I don't care to find out; my interests lie heavily weighted toward avoiding the issue altogether. I have far more enjoyable (and potentially less expensive) things to do than to argue with attorneys about fair use of someone's copyrighted material.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Ok 2 things:
First off, I think the copyright argument needs it's own thread because I'm having a hell of a time wading through it to get all the meat out of the titled thread about wolves. 

And second, how long does it take to get to the areas you can hunt, and is anyone seriously going? Because it seems like it would be a great way to get to know some of you guys in person and go on a hunt that I'll probably never get the opportunity to do again.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Is there a map or description of the areas where the woofies are unprotected?
Has the fun started in Idaho yet?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Idaho is running a different game. They are treating wolves as big game animals, instead of nusiance species like Wyoming. Idaho is/will be selling wolf tags over the counter, and the season will be in the fall. Kills must be reported within 24 hours, and once 300 (I think) have been reported, the season is closed. So no wolf hunts there yet.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

How about Montana? Colorado?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think Montana is more similar to Idaho. Wolves are not delisted in Colorado - they are more similar to Utah.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

I found a map of the "trophy area" in Wyoming. Out side the area the woofies are predatory animals. The map is on page 5.
http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/Wol ... cepted.pdf


----------



## spiraleyes (Nov 25, 2007)

You can find the latest updates on wolf hunting here:

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

We owe the hunters in Wyoming a HUGE thanks. The more they kill means fewer wolves that make it down to Utah. The only problem I see is reporting the kills. The more the treehuggers see reported means more ammo to try to shut down the program...if you catch my drift.

WytoUt...stop hijacking this good thread for some BS...isn't there a tree that is in serious need of a hug? :mrgreen:


----------

