Aggree with all of the post, but THIS part is especially urgent to hunters,ATV riders ,Snowmobilers, 4x4 enthusiasts or anyone who (once again) wants to deal with the outdoors on thier own terms.

I agree NVMike.

I am a rancher, who loves to hunt and fish. Where I live we have alot of preditors in the area, and I have two kids. We live off of the livestock we sell, that is what puts food on the table and cloths on our back. The wolves have not yet shown up here, but I can tell you that if it comes to putting food on the table or allowing the wolves to have their way, you can bet that the wolves are going to lose.

Wolves? Aliens? Drought? Bears? What say ye? Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![>:]

1/21/2005

CHEYENNE – As the Feb. 28 application deadline approaches, prospective moose and bighorn sheep hunters are alerted to changes in license availability for 2005.

On the south side of Yellowstone National Park, moose areas 7, 14 and 32 have been closed by the Game and Fish Department for 2005 and 2006 to conduct an extensive study on population demographics and survival to get a better understanding of recent population declines.

On the east side of the YNP, areas 11, 12, 13 and 31 have been further combined into one area after being managed as two areas last year. The change is also due to a declining moose population and to allow the few hunters more area to spread out.

The antlerless licenses in areas 30 (south tip of Wind River Range) and 37 (west side of Tetons) have been eliminated for 2005 due to declining populations.

On the west side of the Big Horn Mountains, the moose licenses for areas 42 and 43 were split after being managed together last year. After setting seasons very conservatively in the areas initial open seasons, the G&F believes the population is sufficient to allow separate seasons in each area.

Bighorn

I agree with NVMike too. Were do we start turning the screws on Bush/Cheney?

More Goodies on this one! Wolf story- Billings Gazette
Just in case the link doesn't work.... this came from www.outdoorsunlimited.net

Submitted by Robinhood36, good reading, and it contradcits what the prowolf USF&W is saying.


http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wolf_pics.htm

Check out this site if you want to know the truth on these predators.

http://www.natureswolves.com/index.html

GREAT sites on the last 2 posts!!!!!!!!!! Starting to look as if this thread belongs on Hunting politics TOO!!!

Big Game biologist doesn’t call for eradication of wolves

Anti-wolf groups have pointed to Dr. Valarius Geist, a prominent ungulate biologist from Canada, as someone who dislikes wolves and supports the agenda of wolf removal. To quote a USA Today article, “Jack Oyler (of the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife) of the coalition cites the research done by Val Geist, a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Calgary. Geist contends the West's plentiful big-game animals are the result of careful wildlife management, and wolves on the loose undo those efforts.”

In public hearings, in defense of his anti-wolf stance, Ron Gillette has stated that Dr. Geist is the “Michael Jordan” of big game biologists and points to his statements as proof that wolves should be eradicated.

This isn’t the case.

Dr. Geist is an important figure in wildlife conservation and study, as a quick internet search would show. I decided to write Dr. Geist directly and get his views of wolves and wildlife from the source.

Dr. Geist, while critical of the reintroduction currently taking place in the Western United States, does not call for the complete removal of wolves from the region that Ron Gillette hopes for. In one letter, Dr Geist responded;

“You asked the question: "Is there any room for wolves in the Western United States?" Of course there is! The question is not if, but how to introduce wolves so as to minimize problems and dissent, and insure that the wolves, once reintroduced, will have a secure long-term existence.”

This is some distance ideologically from the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition’s mission statement of “No Negotiations, No Compromise, No Consensus, and No Wolves in Idaho.” Dr. Geist goes on to state that there is a proper way to approach predator conservation;

“The details that concern us here is the known biology of our large carnivores. Another level of details deals with systems of wildlife conservation and their historical effectiveness or lack thereof. The goal has to be first and foremost to strengthen effective systems of wildlife conservation as only such insure the survival of large predators”

Dr. Geist seems to have a balanced approach to predator recovery issues, in tune with groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. He reaffirms that there is a place for wolves in the west, but only if management plans include rural communities and hunters.

So once again, we're left wondering what the heck Ron Gillette and the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition are doing. Aside from apparently misquoting important scientists, they've also raised a lot of money and political capitol which, again apparently, has vanished with little to show for it. Sadly, as a private business, the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition isn't subject to laws which protect and empower people who donate to non-profit groups.

Perhaps a few letters to the Better Business Bureau are in order? http://complaints.bbb.org/welcome2.asp Until then it's "Buyer Beware."


-FD