Wolves: problem or not?
02-10-2005, 06:56 PM
#23
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh NC USA
Posts: 352
RE: Wolves: problem or not?
A Line by Denzel Washington from "I, Robot", seems appropriate:
"Somehow the words, 'I told you so', just don't seem to cut it!"
"Somehow the words, 'I told you so', just don't seem to cut it!"
And now, back to the never ending discussion on wolves...
BTW, the courts just denied the proposed "delisting of the grey wolf" last week I believe, in a suit filed by guess who?
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration violated the Endangered Species Act when it relaxed protections on many of the nation's gray wolves.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland rescinds a rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they were attacking livestock, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.
In April 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service divided the wolves' range into three areas and reclassified the Eastern and Western populations as threatened instead of endangered. The Eastern segment covers the area from the Dakotas east to Maine, while the Western segment extends west from the Dakotas. The agency left wolves in the Southwest classified as endangered.
But the judge ruled that the government acted improperly by combining areas where wolves were doing well, such as Montana, with places where their numbers had not recovered.
"Interior Secretary Gale Norton tried to gerrymander the entire contiguous 48 states so that wolves in a few areas would make up for the absence of wolves in much larger regions," Robinson said. "Now, instead of drawing lines on the map based on political considerations, any future lines must be based on science."
The judge also found that Fish and Wildlife did not consider certain factors listed in the Endangered Species Act in evaluating the wolf's status, including threats from disease, predators or other natural or manmade dangers.
Practically speaking, only wolves in northwestern Montana were affected by the rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The rule never extended to experimental populations in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and the rest of Montana, and no packs have been established in other states in the region, Bangs said.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland rescinds a rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they were attacking livestock, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.
In April 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service divided the wolves' range into three areas and reclassified the Eastern and Western populations as threatened instead of endangered. The Eastern segment covers the area from the Dakotas east to Maine, while the Western segment extends west from the Dakotas. The agency left wolves in the Southwest classified as endangered.
But the judge ruled that the government acted improperly by combining areas where wolves were doing well, such as Montana, with places where their numbers had not recovered.
"Interior Secretary Gale Norton tried to gerrymander the entire contiguous 48 states so that wolves in a few areas would make up for the absence of wolves in much larger regions," Robinson said. "Now, instead of drawing lines on the map based on political considerations, any future lines must be based on science."
The judge also found that Fish and Wildlife did not consider certain factors listed in the Endangered Species Act in evaluating the wolf's status, including threats from disease, predators or other natural or manmade dangers.
Practically speaking, only wolves in northwestern Montana were affected by the rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight, said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The rule never extended to experimental populations in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho and the rest of Montana, and no packs have been established in other states in the region, Bangs said.
Let the ranchers take out the wolves that threaten their livestock. However, some hunters seem to have an opinion that we should wipe out anything that competes for their prize. You read the wolf discussion, read deer hunter posts on killing mountain lions because they might reduce the deer on his lease, same thing with coyotes. Some anglers import the fish they want, knocking out the local variety. I'd have to admit that collectively, left to our own devices, we can be pretty terrible managers of our environment. No wonder we need to have the government step in.
I'm not trying to make the case that hunters shouldn't get a share. However I don't think that the arguement that there are less elk to hunt is gonna be sufficient reason to revert back to the "good old days" of pre-introduction. We need to get to a point where wolves can be managed like coyotes and mountain lions. Right now too many in the opposing camps have their skirmish lines set up and snipe at each other rather than look for a solution.
An interesting question could be, if the reintroduction of the wolf is the right thing to do, why don't they reintroduce them in New York, Pennsylvania, etc.? Deer overbrowsing is a problem there as well: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6835501/
02-10-2005, 07:12 PM
#24
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rocky Mountains, Colorado
Posts: 1,964
RE: Wolves: problem or not?
By CalNewbie:
Let the ranchers take out the wolves that threaten their livestock.
Let the ranchers take out the wolves that threaten their livestock.
By The Court Case:
The decision by U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland rescinds a rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they were attacking livestock, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland rescinds a rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they were attacking livestock, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.
EKM
02-10-2005, 08:11 PM
#25
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh NC USA
Posts: 352
RE: Wolves: problem or not?
EKM - Minor Detail
You'll note that the judge ruled that the USFWS had improperly combined areas were the wolves were doing well with areas with areas that they have not (yet?) recovered. Sort of like basing the highway budget for the state on the traffic patterns and condition of the roads in one city. By the judges reasoning cited in the article, if the USFWS had not created such a huge area and instead treated Montana's situation as more unique, the ranchers would still enjoy that right today. Not that the group on the other side of the firing line wouldn't have challenged it anyway.
The article you cited didn't provide some of the details contained in my quote. I wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't for that. Mine was an excerpt from ABCnews.com. I'm curious where your quote originated. It struck me as slanted in favor of the ruling (versus simply reporting on it). First, was the sentence portion "...attempted to de-list the species to the mere ‘threatened’ category." (emphasis added) It goes on to note dramatic weakening and jeapordization of the recovery while providing no opposing discussion. I snipped parts of my citation out as well, so perhaps the entire peice wasn't as slanted as the quoted portion might indicate.
02-10-2005, 08:55 PM
#26
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 586
RE: Wolves: problem or not?
ORIGINAL: bwhunter501
When they are that outa hand just use the 3 "S's".....shoot, shovel, shut up haha
When they are that outa hand just use the 3 "S's".....shoot, shovel, shut up haha
Reason to hunt alone.
02-10-2005, 11:08 PM
#30
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh NC USA
Posts: 352
RE: Wolves: problem or not?
28-0 and it's "battling article annotations" at half time?
Again, rather than take a single sentence out of context, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on any of the points of my post, which is essentially that the wolves need to be better managed so that hunting opportunities remain available. Again, is the fact that hunters don't see as many elk as they used to sufficient justification for wiping the wolf out of the lower 48? If you believe that reintroduction is righting a wrong, then with the reduced elk herds we're simply no longer seeing the bounty, the "ill-gotten gains", of that wrong.
Keep in mind that I'm saying that they should be managed, their numbers kept in check. But they are back, and we'll have to learn to live with them.
Bigbulls has a good point re: stop whining. "28-0" and we're sniping at posts? How many have written letters to their representative, congressman, and president? How many have followed that up with letters to the USFWS, RMEF, state representatives, etc.? Make your voice heard in a reasoned, polite manner, cite your concern, the impact that you see on your states hunting opportunities, economy, etc. Maybe it won't change anything, but if you don't do anything other than post here it certainly won't change.
