Poll, Should Montana Follow Idaho’s Lead and Refuse to Manage Wolves Under ESA?
10-20-2010, 05:57 PM
#1
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 59
Poll, Should Montana Follow Idaho’s Lead and Refuse to Manage Wolves Under ESA?
Let's get this poll turned around...http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articl...der_esa/20189/
10-21-2010, 08:35 AM
#4
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
that's confusing...maybe I didn't read the article...
does it mean, refuse to manage wolves now that theyre under ESA?
or does it mean refuse to follow ESA and Manage the wolves/hunt them however they choose to?
do we vote yes or no? geez I hate poorly worded polls.
does it mean, refuse to manage wolves now that theyre under ESA?
or does it mean refuse to follow ESA and Manage the wolves/hunt them however they choose to?
do we vote yes or no? geez I hate poorly worded polls.
Last edited by salukipv1; 10-21-2010 at 08:39 AM.
10-21-2010, 04:25 PM
#5
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
What Butch Otter (Idaho's Governor) has announced is that Idaho will no longer participate in wolf management. That means Idaho game wardens will no longer investigate wolf poaching, they won't monitor populations, and they won't spend any sportsmens' dollars on animals that Idaho didn't want in the first place. I personally say good for them. It's time the states stood up and did something drastic, and I hope Montana follows suit, although I doubt Brian Schweitzer will. The USFWS can't effectively monitor wolves and they certainly can't keep up with poaching over that large of an area. The feds want to keep jerking this situation around so it's about time the states told them to take care of their own problem.
10-23-2010, 04:37 AM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,926
Unfunded Mandates
It's not just hunting, but ideas that kept coming from the federal government for years.
They'd come up with this great idea, and then expect the state and local governments to pay the costs. The federal government would mandate an action, and expect the states to fund the mandate.
Wolves in themselves are tremendous wild animals. And they are very efficient at killing cattle, sheep, and the sporting animals like elk and mule deer. Keeping wolves off private property was always going to be a problem. Wolves don't follow no trespass signs. It's not in their genes.
They'd come up with this great idea, and then expect the state and local governments to pay the costs. The federal government would mandate an action, and expect the states to fund the mandate.
Wolves in themselves are tremendous wild animals. And they are very efficient at killing cattle, sheep, and the sporting animals like elk and mule deer. Keeping wolves off private property was always going to be a problem. Wolves don't follow no trespass signs. It's not in their genes.
11-08-2010, 04:02 PM
#8
Spike
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Powell,Wy
Posts: 79
i wish Wyoming would do that also--use to see a couple thousand elk while heading to Cooke City to snowmobile--now we are lucky to see 25 to 100--its pretty sad that after they reached there objective 5 Years ago-they still would not let us manage them like we were promised---us hunters know how the Native Americans felt-- F@#$%D
