ORIGINAL: Elkcrazy8
The situation goes way deeper than that. People like ADV. are not the problem.
Being a radical can do more damage than help. Whether we like it or not the wolves are here to stay. Extermination is not a possibility and any coversation in or around extermination orillegal killingis quoted directly in the courts and is used to further the pro wolf cause. Believe me, it happens. I have seen it first hand. There are links on the pro wolf websites that lead to threads such as this, be careful in what you say.
A far as the states game management plans and fighting the wolf movement, I too wondered what was being done. By attending public hearings and meetings, my eyes were opened to what the departments are up against and what they are willing to do. I am also aware of the impacts and have watched outfitters plea with fish and game commisioners to cut tags and even close seasons at their expense to save what is left of the elk in both the Lolo and Sawtooth zones in Idaho. It pained me to watch the tears in the eyes of people who have devoted their lives to the outdoors.
There is an opening in the ESA called the 10j ruling for those who are not familiar with that. It allows the agencies to eliminate those wolves in problematic areas. This is indeed being exercised as I type this. There have been many wolves that have been taken out of areas where they were becoming a huge impact on ungulate mortality.
If all goes well in the courts, and we show that the genetic crossover studies that occured several years ago are not correct, maybe we can help in the management process by partaking in the seasons that have been set and are ready for this fall.
Until all hunters show that we can be civil and make the correct decisions regarding management of an animal on the ESA, we will find ourselves battling this issue from here til the end of time. Please make responsible choices.
Its never a good idea to mix feelings with ESA politics.
To whomever has a vested interest in what is facing hunters now and in the future, attend any meeting or hearing that you can instead of becoming an armchair commando in cyberspace! You may be surprised as to what is going on around you.
Sorry I am just getting my information from a guy that says this is what his organization plans to do in court with the wolves coming soon. Here is a little more of an update.
I have learned something new today from a guy that has worked his whole life in Fish and Wildlife law and policies. He has worked 4 years for the Department of the Interior and several years in the Senate.
The Bush and Obama administration are the only administrations to let certain states de-list a species off the ESA, while keeping a species still listed in another state. An example is the wolves being de-listed in ID and MT, while still being listed in WY. As I said in my first post; a species has to go through the exact same process (mirror image) getting listed and also de-listed. The Bush and Obama administrations have interpreted the ESA as they like. There is no law that states if a species can be listed and de-listed one state at a time or if a species across the country has to be listed and de-listed all at once. The problem is that the wolves were listed under the ESA across the country as a whole. Now they are being de-listed one state at a time. This is what an organization is going to use in court about the wolves. Not only have the wolves been listed and de-listed in two different ways (from a legal stand point).
There could be good and bad from listing and de-listing by small individual regions. The good is what we have seen with the wolves. The bad can be endless. Here are some quick examples: 1. There could be no limit to boundaries. We could see species listed in single states, counties, mountains, single ridge, or even a 1 acre field. 2. If a small region in a state had poor calve elk or fawn deer recruitment; we may see them get listed under the ESA! 3. Predators impacting game herds too much? We may see game herds affected by predators get listed under the ESA!
Everyone that knows me can understand my passion for hunting and wildlife. I do kind of understand why the wolf issue should be back in the courts. Not necessarily because of the wolves themselves, but because of the way the administration wants to de-list the wolves and the possible negative outcome it could have on everyone including hunters in the future. If WY would get their act together with their wolf management plan; then all the states with wolves could have gotten de-listed at the same time. That would have kept this mess of the wolves being back in the courts here in the near future from even happening. The Bush and Obama administration is also to blame. They may however have the power to keep their own interpretation of the ESA. Time will tell. We may have to fear that if this interpretation stays; we may see unit by unit with poor game herd counts be put on the ESA. That could spell the end of hunting as we know it! Does anyone out there think we as hunters need to make a stand and push for the Obama administration to go back to the old way of listing and de-listing species? This may be exactly what the animal rights groups are looking for. I’m kind of at the middle here and would like to hear everyone’s thoughts. Please keep this thread clean and open. It could decide the future of hunting as we know it.