Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Wyo got shafted ...again...

I have a 640 acre state lease, and 40 acres of blm. Not a very big chunk of the 5000 acres of deeded land...

BigFin schools Ranch13...again.

Laffin'...

Ranch 13, I thought we settled whether you were going to credit me with something I didn't do. I have never said anything about Hageman. You want to start this all over again? I'm ready! You would be well served to forget my name in future arguments on this site - or else!
And one more time, Ag and the Ag-controlled Legislature saw to it the Wyoming Game and Fish Department could do nothing with wolves! No inventories, no discussions, nothing!
Big Fin, Moody was the guy who said the Legislature's actions weren't going to make managing wolves or getting federal agreement with Wyoming's plan any easier. As a result, they tried to get him fired, did succeeed in getting him taken off wolves about the same time they put the muzzle on the Department, and he worked on bears until he retired in July, damned glad to be gone, just like me.

Actually no Bigfin just prooved my point.

You Harry would do well to lay off the people that provide most of the habitat in this state for the wildife you were supposed to be taking care of.
I'ld really like to see you bring up some documentation to some of these things you say.
And are you saying you never spoke out agains the WWC?

Never said a word, because it wasn't permitted before I retired and wasn't worth the effort afterward. Wyoming politicians have an excellent system. Muzzle those who know the most about any topic and you get to do whatever you want without a discouraging word.
And I made it a policy for 28 years, so the cowboys and the miners couldn't get me, to never say anything I couldn't back up with facts. Those who provide the habitat, while making plenty of money off access these days, would do well to remember that a lot of winter range was lost under the guise of range impprovement. I reviewed lots of those shrub control projects in my first job at Game and Fish.
I will not say there aren't lots of swell people in the Ag industry who like wildlife and hunters and who have done a lot for wildlife. Industry, Ag and real estate developers reduced the amount of wildlife habitat available by altering habitats. Hunters have also been at fault, and continue to be, by insisting on having too many animals for too long on too little habitat. Once the population starts to decline, each winter on marginal habitat drops it lower, as does and cows have fewer fawns and calves because of the lack of protein in the forage, Some shrubs just die, and that began in the 1960s. Drought didn't help a bit, but hunters didn't want to help reduce numbers of animals on the winter range, and following the deer wars in the 1990s, no Game and Fish employee would have had guts enough to suggest it. Study after study shows predators are never a problem if the habitat is in good condition, but it isn't so people rail about predators and don't solve the real problem because that can't be done immediately. Ranchers are always more willing to reduce game populations, recognizing the problem first. Kudos to them.
That does not change the fact the current problem is due to a decision to fight rather than putting together an acceptable plan and getting on with controlling wolves. That fight was led by agricultural organizations!
What seems to bug you is people just will not accept your argument and go away. Facts are really troublesome, and subject to interpretation and you don't want to believe the group you are part of has done anything wrong. Welcome to the world of resource management. Fun, isn't it?

How many animals you kill this year...last year...last 5 years....ten year there Huntsnorrer. Oh yeah....ZERO!!! Talk about watching idiots with no experience with guns or killing stuff make an ass out of themselves...:D You win the award in spades! I love how you talk out of your arse all the time. It never gets old.

This is the part where you show some pictures of your "group guiding/babysitting" of old, fat, stupid rich guys on private land and draw units and pretend you know a thing or two. Can't wait for your lame excuse of a reply...as per usual. I love pulling your hair and watching you squeal like a little girl. You are good at it.

Let's see some more of those wounded buck videos and pictures of you and 5 guys sitting around a dead buck in the dark. Tell me why you have so many pics of bucks in the dark? Can't get them when it is light?

Old Buzzy, you measure horns and antlers just as bad as you age critters. Try Googling 12 inches, then compare it to 15.5 inches. You might actually get enlightened, but would never admit it. Oh, and your pinky isn't sixes inches either, but you can keep trying to convince the Mrs. of that notion

Keep convincing yourself a 4x4 buck is 2 years old. That is funny stuff. Flinch

I was involved with this sort of stuff along time before you left michigan to come here.
I do not charge for access to hunt my land. I have in the past done some paid guiding, but mostly somehwere other than here on my ranch.
I do agree that "hunting" has not had a damn thing to do with sound wildlife management in decades. It looks more to be about how much money can the game and fish take in by selling licenses.
I do severely question how you can say that the livestock interests would prohibit the game and fish from doing anything to stop the introduction of those Canadian wolves? They are the ones with the most to loose then and now with uncontrolled wolf populations.
Yes it would appear you have a lot of trouble sorting fact from fiction.

Nice job on that antelope doe and cow elk Buzz. Must have been some "tough" hunting this year for you. Did you get out of your truck?

So it is okay for you to post pics of dink rag horn bulls, does and cow elk, but nobody else can, because you are so much better of a hunter??? Okay, I think we all got it now. Everyone bow before the awesome and all knowing hunting god, Buzz

Nobody post any more pics unless they are approved by Buzz and he can't "one up" them. He will also have to be contacted for the proper "orange inch count, aging and measuring" since he is the ONLY one qualified. Flinch

From what I've read here, the Wyoming bureaucrats have proven once again that those who want all or nothing generally end up with nothing while some special interest groups(lawyers) pocketed a bunch of money and screwed Wyoming's hunters. What do I think? Lawyers are more overpopulated and destructive than wolves and wildlife management should be left to pros like DrHJH and BuzzH.

Now get off the computer and get back to farming the government.

Not pointed towards any one person at all, it is the same around here, if the Ag. industry and hunters could ever fight on the same front we could rule the world.

Ranch 13, you are putting words into my mouth again. I did not say the livestock industry prevented us from keeping wolves out of Wyoming. I wrote the letter for the Game and Fish Department objecting to it, as I said before, but we had nothing to say about the reintroduction because the wolves were purposely put into Yellowstone, where the state has no authority. Then we heard the wolves were going to be so happy in Yellowstone with all of the elk and bison they would never leave the Park. Nonsense, considering the prey animals leave the Park, and tagged wolves in Minnesota went as far as 400 miles into Canada, then came back. But, once the wolves were in Yellowstone, we were told to work out a plan for managing them. Based on the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to get an animal off the list and have the state take over management, it would have made them trophy game animals everywhere, with wide open seasons where we didn't want wolves or they were a problem, just like mountain lions. It also required changing their status from predator to trophy game. That was unacceptable because it didn't tell the feds to drop dead and involve blowing all of them off the face of the earth. When the Department wolf expert, who had been dealing with the feds, said a more radical plan proposed by the Legislature and okayed by one of our "go along to get along" administrators, wasn't going to make it any easier to get a plan approved, we were told by the Commission to quit working on wolves, or speaking about them. Those of us who understood how far our butts were hanging out if we did something after being told not to do it shut up and found other things to do. Since then, it has been Governors, Attorney Generals, Legislators, Ag groups, hunters, groups, wolf lovers, wolf haters, judges, and federal wolf managers and whomever else dealing with wolves. The problem is, you keep making accusations and slinging crap at people who couldn't do a thing, one way or the other.

So you feel that you as the assistant wildlife division chief could have no input?

As I recall after Dave Moody made his statement in Chino, they put him on a weeks paid administrative leave then gave him a promotion.

Mt. and Idaho went thru the same thing as Wyoming, they got lucky with having 2 democrat senators and got the laws passed by slipping them onto a must pass defense bill that opened things up for them.Unfortunately they saw fit to purposely leave Wyoming and Minnesota out of their nice little bill.
Wyoming now sits in the position to pass the necessary changes in state law to get the things delisted. The big snag is a democrat senator from Rhode Island stripped the lawsuit protection for Wyoming from a bill. Do you think they should go ahead and make those changes or not?

Reads to me like he summarized a lot of input (probably months of work and discussion by biologists and administrators), as well as the results.

Yep.

Public grazing...Public hunting....there are alot of people who don't like either.
Public or deeded ground, take care if the land, take care of the wild game, pretty simple and it works.

Ranch, I took your advice, went to scout for some wolves this evening and got some fresh air. Snow has it socked in so the glassing was a waste of time. I come back and you have put even more uninformed BS out here that reflects your ignorance of how the MT and ID delisting worked. I am convinced you get your information from SFW/BGF.

First of all, it was not a defense bill. It was an appropriations bill that needed to pass the Republican controlled House, the Democratic controlled Senate, and the White House. Your whining of partisan politics is a waste. Not the fault of guys in MT and ID that our elected officials can actually get something passed. Just sayin'.

Second, WY and MN could not have been part of that bill that you whine about being "left out of." The bill you refer to was a rider that stated when the USFWS separately delisted MT and ID in their ruling of 2009 (which was later overturned by Molloy) would stand as law, and not be subject to judicial review.

Since WY and MN were not part of the 2009 USFWS delisting of MT and ID, they could not be part of the bill. Pretty simple. Never mind that you guys fought to kill the bill you now wish you had not "been left out of."

You guys wanted to go your own route. Something we all supported WY in doing. We just wanted to be freed as the hostages in the game your advisors were playing. Your political advisors, saw the error in their ways much too late. In a final desperatte attempt, they went on attack to kill the MT and ID bill.

And it surprises you that the MT and ID delegation is not going coming to your rescue?

I am left with the feeling that those advising WY were such political neophytes, they could not see what the entire world could see - that they were headed down a dead end. My niece is in second grade and I suspect she could have predicted this outcome. Appears Dave Moody could see it coming and the enlightened despots in the WY war room showed him the door.

You say, MT and ID did "see fit to leave you out" of "our little bill." You guys in WY wanted left out. And now that you got what you wanted, you want to blame someone else. That is hilarious.

You even go so far as to ask for the same thing you tried to kill last March, once you see it working. Prima facie evidence of how poorly you were advised to try kill the MT/ID delisting.

Seriously, where did you guys get these political advisors for this wolf deal?

If it was a group of paid consultants, WY hunters need to file against their malpractice insurance. If I gave that bad of advice to my CPA clients, they would own my house, land, vehicles and office building.

The people you relied upon don't know chit from apple butter when it came to this deal. Now, the apple butter is being served in heavy doses and these advisors are letting you guys eat three squares of it a day.

The Wyoming political approach is a debacle of the highest degree. They bet all the chips; chips bought and paid for by hunters and landowners, on a very risky and poorly thought out strategy. Now the big risk plan has failed. With no viable plan, it is time for the blame game.

Reminds me of the whining and crying going on among the wolf nuts when they gambled that the Simpson-Tester language would never pass Congress and would not hold up in court. They gambled and lost, then started blaming everyone else for their stupidity. And you guys relied upon advisors who were in the same camp with the wolf lovers. No wonder WY finds itself on the outside looking in.

You have made many enemies in the process, such that your ability to build a coalition is so fragile that one wingnut Rhode Island Congressman can derail the last few options remaining. People who could be your ally are not coming to your rescue, having been burned too many times by the advisors and tactics you have employed.

If not for the damage that stupid leadership has inflicted on the wildlife of WY, it would be funny.

Yup, Harriet, the WWC, BGF, and SFW have done you guys a lot of favors. For the sake of Wyoming's wildlife and my friends who live there, I hope some miracle happens and you guys get your delisting.

So long as the same fools are leading the faithful, I don't have much hope for that.

Bigfin, I have no idea what a SFW/bgf is...
Your assumptions of where I get my info from is astonshing at best.
Wyoming was a part of the 2008 delisting and was shooting quite a few wolves until the court down the road from you shut the wholedeal down. But that's all in the past. So lets deal with the present.
So Harju hasn't answered the question so I'll put it back to you lets see if you'll offer up an answer.
What do you think Wyoming should do now. Do you think they should go ahead with the agreement as FWS has posted in the federal register,or should they just stop and wait until they get the same no suit laws and protections as Mt. and Id. have?

In any conflict such as the wolf reintroduction the real truth of the situation is very often not understood for years.

Some here feel Wyoming �has missed the boat� or other such thoughts, yet as we speak, Wyoming has, by far, the fewest number of wolves and the least impact on our hunting.

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=42339

Wyoming has basically contained the wolves to the North West corner of the state. Our elk herds in the Big Horns, the Bridgers, the Wind Rivers, are completely or largely unimpacted buy the reintroduction.

There are very specific reasons why this is and those that truly understand the situation are not in any rush to jump to state managed �trophy status�.

Sure, I cannot go wolf hunting and as an avid coyote hunter I would love to be able to try calling wolves, but not at the expense of losing other management options that remain open here in Wyoming and have kept our wolves to lower populations and lower game impacts than the sates that tried to �just play ball�.

If under trophy status ID and MT can get a better hold on the wolf situation than WY can without trophy status then I will be clamoring for the trophy status. Based on current hunter harvest in both states that really seems unlikely but I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.

There is a saying that 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish. Those in the know understand that 1 real professional with a helicopter, a radio tracker, and the blessing of the USFWS can do wonders.

The other unavoidable �logic trap� in this discussion is that no wolf hunting could happen this year, but for the Testor/Simpson rider attached to the must pass appropriations bill. Buzzy and DrHJH claim that if Wyoming had just �gone along� then we would have been able to get wolf tags for years. If that is so then once ID and MT prove that the �trophy status� is the better way to go then Wyoming can jump on the bandwagon and Buzzy can get his wolf tag.

If WY tries the trophy status and it is stopped by judicial activism than the entire argument that we should have tried it sooner is proven false.

If someone wants to say Wyoming has reaped what we have sown then I guess I am OK with that. Right now we have fewer wolves and less impact to our hunting.

Hmmm. Since I am not a WY resident my opinion probably doesn't matter.

I would probably go forward with, or without, the "no judicial review" language that MT and ID received. As you can see, even though we have the "no judicial review," we still have the issue working its way through the courts. I think we all knew that would happen, even if with that language. Personally, I never had too much faith that the "no judicial review" language would give us much benefit.

If anything, it gave a decoy for the litigation strategy by the wingnuts. They went ballistic about that. They are suing more about the validity of the "no judicial review" language than the actual delisting ruling. If it causes them to fight that and leave us to manage wolves, it is still worthwhile from a strategic standpoint.

My fear for WY is that you guys are the target, no matter what you do. The wolf nuts want your blood and want to make you their target. They might let MT and ID get their delisting. They might even give up on the Midwest states, given those state plans have very little hunting involved. But when it comes to WY, they are going to fight to the bitter end, no matter what plan you come up with and no matter what "no judicial review" language you have.

During this process, they just built hate for WY. Don't know how else to put it. And fighting WY is going to be a big money maker for them. They will be able to raise lots of money to fight you guys. You guys have become as much of their target as has the notion of delisting.

If I was Gov of Wyoming, I would probably clean some house on the advisory team. That group has pissed off every potential ally, making it so hard for you guys to build a coalition that could provide progress against the pro-wolf venom that has developed against WY.

MT and ID want you guys to get your delisting. For many reasons, we would pressure our delegations to help WY. Yet, those on the inside of the WY strategy have screwed over Simpson and Tester to the point that any help from them would be hard to find. Just a fact of the carnage now laying on the battle field. Too bad, given how much help they could be to WY. Some house cleaning or changes to the groups influencing the WY strategy may help that.

I would press like hell to get it done soon. Reason being is the natural ebb and flow of national politics.

First of two possible scenarios. Let's say a Republican wins the White House in 2012. He will have a Republican House and the Senate will be a toss up. If history repeats itself, there will be a two year window for things to get done, then a landslide swing toward the Dems in the off year House in and Senate elections of 2014.

The 2012 Republican sweep scenario would happen because many urban Republicans are voted in, which may not give the two year window some would count on. Those urban Repubs are worse than a liberal Dem, in some instances. They claim to be people who you could count on to support science-based management, but they will not touch anything related to the ESA, hunting or trapping of wolves, etc. These urban Republicans are the real wolves in sheep's clothing. Hunting and state wolf control are not popular in those districts, so they make deals with pro-wolfers on that topic if the pro-wolfer will cut them some slack on other issues.

It is that urban Republican wimp out factor that so many fail to realize when they start making this a partisan issue. I guarantee that if a vote was brought to Congress on significant reform to the ESA, the urban Repubs would form a solid voting block with the many urban Dems. This is not a Dem or Rep issue. The vote would go along urban-rural lines, not Rep-Dem lines. Wolves and ESA issues go along urban-rural lines, not R-D partisan lines.

A Repub held Congress, with mostly urban Repubs is not going to give WY what it wants. They will run for the doors. History has shown that, every time ESA type issues come up. It is a mistake to think a Repub take over in 2012 will guarantee WY any different outcome.

Second scenario is that Obama keeps the White House in 2012. If so, the national political climate will probably allow the Dems to keep the Senate. That means the window of opportunity that MT and ID had in 2010 would not be there for WY.

Looking at it from purely a political perspective, Wyoming's chances of getting a Congressional solution look very bleak in either scenario.

With that, if I was WY Gov, I would get the best deal I could from USFWS, then build a coalition with my neighbor states to help fight the battle sure to come, given how well my predecessors have screwed up the process and the enemies they made along the way.

The currently negotiated deal between WY and USFWS still allows WY to manage very aggressively when gauged against what MT and ID have put in their plans.

But, accepting the current deal means eating some crow for those who have advocated to stick it in the eye of the courts and USFWS. Politics being what they are, eating crow is just not something certain people are willing to do, even if it is best for the citizens of their states.

And, there is no guarantee it will not be overturned by the courts, forcing the USFWS to come back to WY and say the judge disagrees with the deal that was struck.

In the end, it is up to the WY guys. Lots of risk to dump the negotiated deal and keep fighting in hopes that a Repub sweep in 2012 will save the day, or to rely too much on the "no judicial review" language.

Watching WY fight this is almost like watching union workers on a prolonged strike. They fight and fight for so long, gaining so little, that no matter how good of a deal they get in the end, they will never make up all they lost in the strike. WY might be in a similar situation.

Sure hope you get there somehow. What is on the table today might be as good as it gets.

This current agreement is based upon Judge Johnsos ruling. If you read the proposed rule change it is very enlightening as to where the USFWS actually stands.
There are a great many that believe there will be suits no matter what happens, but if our legislature crafts their bills properly so that it addresses and specify's it's intent to comply with Johnsons ruling and subsequent order, it will likely keep the suits from going to handpicked judges in the 9th or 2nd circuits
I'll post the link one more time and maybe some folks will read it and read it thoroughly.http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/wyoming-102011/2011-25359_FR_wolfdelist.pdf It's also imperative that those who want the wolf delisted file their comments on the 6 questions asked in this rule change, before January 19.