Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Wolf in Utah?

Fellas,
I come down squarely on the fence with this issue. I hunt an area of Idaho said to have wolves, never seen one and I have noticed zero elk impact, Mulie numbers are down, but that is true ALMOST everywhere. I personally have nothing against wolves yet, I just don't need another hunter-man or otherwise-over harvesting my area.
 
JMCD,
I didn't think you knew what you were whining about, but just wanted to call BS on you. And as I guessed, you didn't know what you were whining about.

Which do you think kills more Elk calves: Wolves, Bears, or Lions?
 
Jose,

1.I really didn't think I was whining. 2.What exactly are you calling BS on me for? Are you an argument-loving asshole as well? 3.As to which predator kills more elk calves, it probably depends on which area you are talking about. And, as previously mentioned, lion and bear (blacks) numbers can at least be somewhat controlled through hunting.
 
jmcd,

Lions kill many times more deer and elk than wolves do...by FAR.

Do you even know what the lion population is in MT? ID? WY? How about black bear numbers in those states? How many wolves are there? How many ungulates per week do wolves kill? How about lions?

These are all legitimate questions. If people are going to bitch, whine and complain about wolves, then you better also be bitching about lions and bears.

Also, do you realize that SPORT hunting of lions and bears (where sport hunters target ADULT MALES of those species) can actually INCREASE the populations of lions and bears? Are they "controlling" the populations or adding to the total numbers?

Again, these are issues that arent being discussed and need to be in any legitimate discussion of predators and their management.

Also, the welfare ranchers were NOT brought into the discussion by me, Coldnosed brought them in as a defense for killing wolves. You must think joe taxpayer and ranchers that dont have federal leases, are getting a good deal? I tend to disagree as 60% of MY PUBLIC LANDS are over-grazed. I contend that if those public lands were not over-grazed and in good condition FOR MY PUBLIC wildlife, what wolves, bears, and lions kill would be an even more moot point than it already is.

If the wolf-bashers were REALLY concerned with ranchers, they'd fight tooth and nail to stop WELFARE ranching, and dig into their pockets to reimburse ranchers for predator losses...but they dont do that do they, wonder why?

If the wolf bashers were REALLY concerned with predators killing "their" ungulates, they'd also want much smaller bear and lion populations...wouldnt you think?

I'm sick of the one-sided hypocritical views of the average red-neck, nascar watching, big-bellies who pretend to have even a remote clue about complex issues like this.
 
Your right I have not researched a whole bunch, and perhaps my ignorance is showing trough. I don’t know what an AUM is or even if the figures that you gave are accurate. To be honest it isn’t that high on my priority list right now.

I do know that grazing on public land is not as attractive as grazing private. Gates left open because they can not be locked, idiots that choose to shoot livestock for what ever reason, things like that. Overgrazing and in poor condition? I don’t know that I have seen it. Is all grazing on public land over grazing to you? The things that I see here are beer and pop bottles along the road, shot up road signs and things like that, I would dare bet that it isn’t the rancher doing all that. This is your issue not mine. I’m likely to side with the rancher anyway. Perhaps the grazing would be worth more if the public could be locked out?

I will not argue that the fish and game knows where their bread is buttered and it isn’t from the sale of tags for predators. LOL However the checks are made out to the same place.

So what is holding Wyoming up on getting their plan together? Once they do are the antis going to sue to get the wolf listed again?

Fairness to tax-payers? Is it fair that tax payers spend money on helicopter hours and man hours to capture and transplant a single wolf when a well placed shot, or trap could solve the problem with less money than it takes to start the helicopter?

Lions and Bears are here management plans are in place, they are not a new risk to ranchers or wildlife, but the wolf is new to our generation and I, for one, am resistant to change. Especially when the decisions are being made in distant places, Utah has had several things forced on us, a National Park that the dedication ceremony was held in Arizona, thank you Mr. Clinton, and now the wolf. I have argued that the coyote gets a lot of blame that perhaps he doesn’t deserve the wolf might be no different. I have heard many an elk and deer hunter piss and moan about lion depredation. It stands to reason that the loin is responsible for more elk calves because there are more of them and distributed in a wider range. It is my understanding that lions and bears are least likely to be effected by wolves and the coyotes that moved to the mountain areas after the wolf was driven out most effected. So are you getting lion tags and killing females?

All in all I don’t know if you are picking my opinions apart for entertainment or if I typed something that hit a nerve either way one fact remains, I’m a long way from Missoula, Montana, :D and I still think that wolves in Utah should be transplanted back to Wyoming or wherever they came from when the opportunity arises. Nobody has offered anything that would change my mind yet. If you want to school me about how the wolf has benefited your state or how you think it will I will shut up and try and ask good questions so I can better understand. Maybe in that time you can decide if I’m a hypocrite or just ignorant, or both? :D :)
 
Coldnosed,

Good post. Way too much reason and common sense for the one-sided hypocritical views of the average short-dick, pot-bellied, Animal Rights activist know-it-alls who think their views should be the law of the land.

Buzz,
I really am sorry you've grown weary of the commoners. Maybe you should go buy a huge tract of land somewhere and manage it just the way you see fit.
 
Coldnose,

What's holding up delisting and hunting of the mutts in Minnesota? Wyoming's just a smoke screen and Buzz knows it. He hates ranchers, heck he hates all private land owners, thats why he likes the mutts. You guys in Utah are smart to want to keep them out until a hunt and reasonable controls can be issued in your state. The delisting process should have been iron clad and state management plans should have been excepted PRIOR to reintroduction here. It wasn't and now we are paying for it. Hard to negotiate a fair agreement when the other side already has what they want, wouldn't you agree? Don't give them what they want until they make some concessions, or you'll facing the same plight as Wyoming is in a decade from now. Good luck.
 
Coldnosed,

Just as I thought, you really dont know much about the issue, not your fault, you just arent informed.

For starters an AUM is a price that a rancher pays to graze a cow/calf pair, 5 sheep, or 1 horse for a month. So, in the case of welfare ranchers, they pay $1.48 a month to graze a cow/calf pair on my lands. The BLM openly admits that 60% of their lands are in poor condition and overgrazed, 90% of their riparian habitat is in poor condition as well.

As to the wolves being "forced" on anyone, thats another flat out misconception being passed around. There were over 100 scoping meetings, several comment periods to the original wolf EA (Environmental Assessment), and also the various drafts of the final EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) when PUBLIC comments were accepted. IN EVERY level of public comment periods, there was overwhelming SUPPORT for wolf reintroduction by the public (both nationally and locally). The documents are there for you to look at, do an internet search on wolf reintroduction and you'll find many sources where you can view the results of the EIS and various scoping meetings.

I'm just not sure how anything was "forced" on anyone or any State when an overwhelming majority were in favor of the wolf reintroduction? How do you explain that?

jmcd, while I dont own a "huge" tract of land, I've written management plans and conducted all kinds of restoration work for a dude that does own "huge tracts of land" and manages it as he sees fit. His land is perhaps the best managed land in Montana in regard to range health, riparian health, and quality of wildlife...including wolves, lions, etc.
 
Buzz, Thanks for clearing that AUM thing up. I now understand your points on that issue that came up due to the fact that I wondered if the ranchers were getting “fair” compensation for their losses. I have to disagree with you it is my fault that I didn’t know what an AUM is. If I really cared I could find out. I do not see the correlation between public ground grazing fees and the wolf other than you think that the rancher is getting a more than fair grazing opportunity that may outweigh the risks of grazing there. The past management of public land is NOT the ranchers fault, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don’t recall reading any public notice about a wolf meeting in my area. That is likely my fault too. It is my fault that I didn’t wade through all the, “So and So is no longer responsible for So and So’s debt as of yada, yada yada,” in the public notice section to find it. If there was a meeting where a vote or poll took place the pro-wolf groups did a better job at getting the word out, which was the intent of my initial post, to get the word out, the media is not going to do it. In the conversations that I had with people at the time they were led to believe that wolves outside the park would be moved back or taken care of other ways. Now considering the fact that I’m a beer swilling Dale Jerret fan I believed them. Shame on me, I should have been more extreme and unreasonable. Public polls can be misleading, for example. Are you in favor of reintroduction of the wolf in Yellowstone National Park? Are you in favor of reintroduction of the wolf in your back yard? Are you in favor of common sense gun control laws? What I’m trying to say is that poll questions can be tailored to get the results desired from trusting reasonable thinking people.

I’m a little disappointed…I didn’t just crack a door I nearly blew it off the hinges, and you didn’t walk through. I fully expected to read something like this from one of you that favor the wolf.

Since the wolf was reintroduced to Yellowstone the wolf has pursued the elk and forced them to move around the park. This has helped the areas that the elk had taken up residency and the areas are starting to recover from the overgrazing. Willows have started to grow along the creeks, aspens groves are showing signs of improvement, and it appears that beaver could move back to some areas that they once were.

The only response that I could make to that is that I believe hunters could have done the same thing, while at the same time installed a fear of man that is lacking from the animals within the park. I guess that would have taken away the “natural” petting zoo ambiance.

Thanks to those who have complemented me on my posts. I apologize for their length; I’m usually not this chatty. I hope this thread has at least been entertaining to those of you sitting there thinking that ol’ ColdNosed doesn’t know who he is dealing with. It is clear to me that the pro-wolf groups can not offer any benefits of adding a federally protected predator to already exploited ecosystems that fit into my values and concerns.
 
"Wyoming's just a smoke screen and Buzz knows it. He hates ranchers, heck he hates all private land owners"

BigHornRam,
You hit that right on .
The people on this forum need to start checking things out for themself as to where Buzz and his defender's come up with all the rancher bashing/pro-predator crap.
It all goes together ,but one of the first things that need to be done is to get the ranchers out of the way,and get the public used to being limited as to how much public land they can use.




A good place .
1. The Wildlands Project.
2. Biodiversity Project.
3. The Wild Rockies Bioregion.
4. A search on Jon Marvel and or The Western Watershed Project.

Pull up a chair grab some balls and go read it for yourself then come back and tell us all how there isnt a big push to get you off of public land.
There are so many red flags that pop up everytime I read there web site,yet some of the very vocal rancher haters on this forum tell us they havent heard of "The Wildlands Project, Biodiversity Project.) I call bull shit.
All there anti-rancher/pro-predator posts makes them look like the poster boys for some of the biggest anti-hunting groups out there.





II. Appeals and Litigation

"Members of the Wildlands Project have been very active in litigating the shut down of livestock grazing, mining and timber activities. On March 3, 1995, 11 of the 35 known member groups had suits filed against the Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency or U.S. Department of Agriculture. Thirty-nine separate suits were filed by these 11 organizations, however, this figure does not represent all the citizen suits filed. For example, Jasper Carlton from the Biodiversity Legal Center filed two suits under his personal name. Other suits are filed under names such as the Coalition of Arizona and New Mexico, and still other suits are filed under names such as the Audubon Society or National Wildlife Federation who haven't publicly announced membership within the Wildlands Project but have pursued similar goals.

A lawsuit which could have had great long-term ramifications on land use and property rights involved Category I and II species listed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). On November 4, 1991, the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Fund for Animals and eight other conservation activists filed notice of their intent to sue the USFWS for failing to adequately implement the Endangered Species Act in regard to approximately 600 Category I and 3,000 Category II species. In a December, 1992 settlement, the USFWS agreed to propose some 400 additional species for listing by September 1996, and to expedite final consideration of another 900 species "for which definitive scientific information has not been collected." This settlement granted USFWS for the first time, authority to list species using a "multispecies, ecosystem approach" rather than a species by species method."
 
Always funny to read MD's paranoia about some fringe group that did something in 1991, and she keeps fretting over them....

Hey MD<
Is Biodiversity a bad word????

And why should we have ranchers on MY PUBLIC LANDS??? I keep my cows off of the Public Lands, I use Private Lands, risking my capital to earn money in a Capitalist Society. MD, are you so much for Communism that you want to use public assets and Socialism to fund our economy??? I can't believe in 2005 there are still Communists like you running around posting your Marxist theories..... LMAO!
 
JoseCuervo/elkgunner?,

I don't think Biodiversity is a bad word at all,I believe it all depends on how far some of these groups want to take it that ruffles my feathers.

Talking about fringe groups and communisum, JoseCuervo , it's YOU that backs The Defenders of Wildlife ,now go take a look at there stand on Private Property Right's and tell us all about backing communism.



Protecting Biodiversity for Future Generations:
An Argument for a Constitutional Amendment
by Rodger Schlickeisen




Home
The Biodiversity Center

Protecting Biodiversity for Generations:



Rodger Schlickeisen is president of Defenders of Wildlife

"For hundreds of thousands of years, successive human generations passed on to their descendants a fundamentally undamaged living natural estate. Now, however, this precious inheritance is under serious threat. Natural areas in many parts of the world are being supplanted or drastically altered by the works and activities of mankind, and the Earth's biological wealth is rapidly being depleted.



Even the United States, despite its economic advantages, technological accomplishments and environmental and conservation laws, is failing to cope adequately with this adverse trend. With continued population growth, moreover, the threat both at home and abroad will worsen.

To meet this threat effectively, it seems evident, more is required than mankind has attempted to date. Ordinary laws and conservation programs have shown themselves to be insufficient. A logical recourse is to move to a higher level.

Many other nations now have environmental provisions in their constitutions.3 So do some of our states.4 Adding such a provision to the United States Constitution provides the best assurance that our own nation will upgrade its present efforts to stem the extinction of wild species and protect important ecological processes.

Relying on ordinary statutes alone is insufficient because normal legislative processes are systemically biased in favor of current benefits as opposed to the long-term future. Common law is also insuffficient. It falls far short of addressing the comprehensive need for protecting species and habitat. As for our Constitution, as currently written and interpreted it overwhelmingly favors other values, especially private property rights.

This paper proposes a constitutional amendment in the U.S. that explicitly imposes upon the government an affirmative obligation to protect the right of all people, including future generations, to the benefits of our living natural resources. This paper also responds to anticipated arguments from two opposing viewpoints. The first claims that protection for nature as a subject is of insuffficient stature to warrant constitutional treatment. The second maintains that by protecting nature only as a human resource the amendment does not go far enough. I respond that a constitutional amendment to protect biodiversity on behalf of all humans is the only option that captures scientific necessity and legal practicality.

A properly written constitutional amendment could protect against both legislation and administrative actions that significantly harm natural systems and biological diversity. It could guarantee the citizen's right to sue against questionable government actions in this area. It could also bolster the public-welfare position, offsetting the present overemphasis on private property values. Perhaps most importantly, it could serve as a catalyst, prompting the nation to move toward embracing an ecological morality to complement its social morality. This is a necessity if America is to sustain and maximize its benefits from nature over the long term. "
 
http://www.rockywolf.org/Pages/Groups.html

Check out the groups that JoseCuervo calls Fringe Groups, and the work they are doing NOW.

Jose, it's also my public lands and I support ranchers over many of these groups that back wide spread wilderness , anti-access and that dont give a crap about private property rights.

Here are your Fringe Groups that back wolf's .
I am not saying they are all bad ,but as hunters we have to keep an eye open and decide what ones are going to back us in the end and what ones are only using use to get there foot in the door.



 
Yawn......
Yeppers, the Sierra Club is to be feared, who would want places to hunt and fish and other activities supported by the Sierra Club....

And MD, we posted an E-mail from Earth Justice on their position on hunting. It fits well to all hunters, 'cept maybe the Fat-Assed ATV riders...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oak
Proposed Dolores Canyons National Monument
Replies
16
Views
354
elkduds
elkduds
Big Fin
Solar Energy Comments due April 18, 2024
2
Replies
37
Views
828
nrpate05
N
BAKPAKR
“Shoot a wolf, outfitter gets a MSG tag” bill 😡
Replies
6
Views
704
BackofBeyond
BackofBeyond
FI460
Oregon Outdoor Recreation Plan
Replies
0
Views
153
FI460
FI460
Elky Welky
Montana Commission Violates Constitutional Rights
Replies
2
Views
689
Straight Arrow
Straight Arrow
GOHUNT Insider

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,200
Messages
1,950,879
Members
35,076
Latest member
Big daddy

Share this page

Back
Top