Copied from another site...

link to actual article?

Have not seen anything come across the telegraph on this. Usually when something like this happens the email blasts from various state agencies and other organizations are massive and continual.
I do know the governor included 600K$ in the budget to go to the FWS for management of the wolf in the "trophy" area and 200K for the state to use outside of the "trophy" area. Whether the legislature is in the mood to spend that sort of money on the feds or not is an open question..

Go here and sign..

http://biggameforever.org/

then you get an e-mail with the info.

Wyoming has reaped what its sown...and thats a fact.

If the Stockgrowers and Woolgrowers hadn't convinced the Legislature to fight for 11 years, and taken the advice of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to make wolves trophy game animals with a wide-open season in locations where wolves weren't wanted, we'd have been hunting them for ten years. So Buzz H is correct, this problem was created and perpetuated by the State of Wyoming.

Correct...and well said.

If you would of got off your dead ass and done your job, instead of chasting people for shooting the wolves that were already here.... None of this past eleven years would of been necessary.
Takes alot of Balls Harju to make the leftwing bullshit attacks you do.
No small wonder they fired you. Probably should of prosectued you for being a derelect.

Ranch13,

What part of his post isnt correct?

Wyoming chose the hardball/marlboro man route...and it bit them in the a$$...and is continuting to do so. The Lummis rider in the budget bill is DOA.

ID and MT took the correct route and are enjoying state control and hunting seasons. Wyoming could of done the same thing...and was given multiple chances in 11 years to come up with an accepted plan.

Further, the Wyoming Wolf Coalition...made up of the Wyoming stockgrowers Association, Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Wyoming SFW, and BGF...through their Attorney Harriet Hageman tried like hell to derail the Tester/Simpson language that gave wolf control to those States.

Maybe instead of being in opposition to the route that gave MT and ID the right to manage and hunt wolves...they should have jumped ON the bus, rather than try to throw MT and ID under same.

The WWC, along with their chronies have single-handedly put the screws to the Hunters in Wyoming as well as Wyomings wildlife.

I'm sick of them playing high-stakes poker with MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE...they have nothing to lose, other than their cash cow that is the wolf issue. I question whether they really want this issue to go away...its a huge money maker for them if wolves stay listed and under federal control in Wyoming.

I put the blame where it rightfully belongs...

yep on the forest circus............

Lloyd there was an establish pack of wolves in the thorofare.
Harju's incompetance and lack of evidence gathering and presentation of that evidence, allowed the imported wolves to be transplanted on top of that subspecies.
Had Harju of did his job, the mere documented presence of that established pack of wolves would of been enough under the FWS's own guidelines to stop the transplanting of those Canadian Wolves.
Harriet Hageman also won the decision in Federal court this past year that caused the FWS to finally uphold their original agreement.

Also you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the delisting of the grey wolf in Wyoming has been published in the federal register, and that after the legislature signs off on the agreement in about a month, this thing is pretty much over with, unless the lawsuits begin to fly, and hand picked federal judges decide they can try and overrule Johnsons ruling.

Wrong...but thanks for the misinformation.

What was wrong? Or are you just refusing to believe that the wolf agreement is a done deal except for the legislature ratifying it?

First of all it still needs to be ratified...you're running a huge assumption there chief. Wyoming is taking a huge risk beind tied in with the Great Lakes.

Secondly, even if it is ratified, with this news today, best case is YEARS of litigation. I'm sure SFW and BGF...along with their wolf lover buddies, were dancing in the streets. This is a good deal for those on the wolf gravy train...SFW and BGF can continue to claim, "if we just get your money...we'll fix this wolf issue". The anti's just thoroughly enjoy it being tied up in court.

Wyoming had their chance...and blew it. Montana and Idaho have been in the right on this issue all along. They have control and Wyoming has nothing.

Montana and Idaho hunters are having successful wolf seasons and Wyoming hunters are not.

You just keep believing that Wyoming is doing the right thing...meanwhile MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE is taking a pounding due to the arrogance of WWC and their chronies.

Cut BGF and WWC another check...they'll do whats best.

By the way, your frontier bullchit regarding a single pack of wolves in the thorofare is a joke. I want to see some documentation for starters...and you will NEVER provide that, mainly because its not true. Secondly, a single pack or mating pair is not an established population...period.

Lastly, I'd like for you to provide a shred of evidence that even if a pack was established in the thorofare that it would have stopped reintroduction. If that was true...than why did reintroduction happen with established, confirmed, and documented packs already living in Western Montana in Ninemile, the Flathead, and the Rocky Mountain Front? Its all the same reintroductiong effort...remember?

Be careful with your answers...I have the facts, that never seem to get in the way of your gibberish.

Yes the pack of wolves in the thorofare is true, Harju knows it to be true, but I suspect he's to chickenshit to weigh back in here and confirm it. There was a picture of the wolf that was shot in the Wyoming Wildlife and a scathing rebuke by Harju about how people shouldn't be doing that.
If you had half the facts you thought you do, you'ld have the picture of that guy with the dead pinto colored wolf shot in the burn not far from camp monaco....
There's not much reason to think the legislature won't ratify the agreement. There maybe some real grousing about the cost of the funding, but I suspect by March we'll be legally shooting wolves.

Sorry boy but there's alot more at stake on this wolf thing than your "public" wildlife.

As usual...no facts from you.

More fuzzy pictures...sounds akin to bigfoot and ufo's.

laffin'...

You didnt answer the question either...if a confirmed wolf or two would have forced the USFWS to use the "FWS's own guidelines to stop the transplanting of those Canadian Wolves."...then...

Why didnt the confirmed and established populations in Montana not stop it? Remember there sport, ALL three states were involved in the reintroduction.

Fact is, there was NOTHING in the wolf reintroduction EIS or EA that said anything regarding reintroduction being stopped if Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming had a confirmed pack...or even population.

Confirmed wolf populations were present in Montana many years prior to 1994.

You dont have even the slightest clue about this issue and thats more than plain to see.

You think theres no reason to believe they wont ratify the delisting???...yeah, I bet not many believed what happened today would take place either...funny how that works.

I'll take your bet that Wyoming will be shooting wolves by March...whats the wager? Just be careful its not more than you care to lose...because you surely will.

Oh Lloyd are things that bad in Ogden tonite?
I'll stand by my guess as to the legislature rafifying the agreement. I'll stand by the guess there's going to be a big fight in the capitol about the funding of the thing, but in the end there'll be legal wolf shooting in Wyoming.
The fly in the ointment will likely be a lawsuit filed by some wolf lover group.

Oh and the pictures weren't fuzzy. The USFWS wanted the US Attorney to file charges, to which he replied if I file charges then you'll have to testify that wolfs aren't extinct in Wyoming.
That US attorney later went on to become the governor of this state and served two terms fighting with the feds to keep their original promises....

...and how did that work out for him?

By the way, I live in Laramie.

He must of figured it wasn't to bad, he gave serious consideration to challenging the term limits...

Yeh right,, Laramie not Ogden... wink wink, funny thing about those forest service phone directry's

Ranch13, wolves were living right on the outskirts of Missoula Montana when the re-intro took place. It's well documented. Now as far as any illegal re-intro, goes, it's kinda a mute point seeing how we had colonies moving south all the time. Those wolves BTW would have received full protections under the ESA, because they would have never had the "Non-essential, experimental" status that gave USWS the latitude to heavily manage the wolf. More than likely we would have had way more wolves without the introduction taking place.

If you cant solve a simple issue like delisting wolves in 8 years, probably not very likely to solve it in 12.

Good thing he got a new job...maybe he's better at that one.

Maybe you ought to try a phone directory in Laramie...just sayin'...

Well it still stands the Wyoming Wolf agreement is pretty much a done deal. The legislature meets starting Feb 13, pretty safe bet the first bills to come up will get the wolf agreement finalized. Then we'll have to see where the lefty's start filing lawsuits.
It would of been solved long ago, but the feds kept moving the goal posts, and backing out on agreements they've made. This one will be tough for them to back out of considering Johnsons ruling and that they have published the intent in the federal register.

Is it tougher on you living in fantasy land or in denial?

Just curious.

While I don't have a dog in this fight Buzz.

There was an established pack of wolves in the Thorofare. Maybe you should talk to some of the outfitters AND guys that ran the hills in the Thorofare and East of the park. I'm just one of many. If you need some help with whom to talk to I can provide a long list.

Problem is guys like you will deny they were there. But how many have actually spent time in there with on open mind and unbiased opinion. Not many if any. Most had a boss, supervisor or some persuaded type of individual they reported to who didn't want to hear the truth or ignored it.

I guess this picture was taken in a Zoo.... Or.... I photo shopped it.... OR I took it somewhere other than Wyo. back before the wolves were there.

Yeah and they weren't on Commissary Ridge north of Kemmerer back in the late 80's either. Problem with Buzz is that if the goobermint didn't say it......it ain't true. What do you expect from a forest circus underling though. However it is entertaining to see watch him get his shorts all bunched up.

Trouble with the circus is well... you know... fill in any appropriate thing ____________

What is funny is Buzzy contends the wolves are not doing damage in other earlier threads but now feels the damage in Wyoming is Wyoming�s fault.

My dad was on the Idaho Game and Fish commission during most of the early fight and one of his regrets was that Idaho did not go with Wyoming from the start.

Buzzy also forgets to mention that we had wolf hunting here in Wyoming but the hunters here were just too damn good at killing them. If activist judges were taken out of the equation, Wyoming would right now have by far the best " Approved Wolf Plan�.

Johnie Burns,

Could you please post where I said wolves are not doing any damage to big-game in ID, MT, WY, etc.

I'll save you the trouble of searching...you wont find it.

Its a good thing your Dad had no authority in Idaho and that his peers were smarter than him...or Idaho would be in the $hit just like Wyoming is.

For the record...hows the 2011 wolf hunting season in Wyoming treating you?

Oh, and congratulations on drinking the BGF/SFW Kool-aid with the activist judge routine...not true, but a great scapegoate.

Comparing Wyoming Hunters with Montana Hunters...thas a real hoot...

laffin'...

Buzz,

How can you categorically deny there was not an established pack in the Thorofare? What data or criteria are you basing your statement on?
Have you been there? If so how much time have you spent there to say undeniably that there wan't an established pack?

Should I hold my breath on the answer?

It doesnt matter one way or the other if there was...Ranch13 is talking out of his a$$ regarding the "FWS guidelines".

Yes, I've been in the Thorofare, spent time in Sunlight and Crandall as well. Saw wolf tracks in all, post reintroduction, non prior to it. I've also spent plenty of time in the Bob Marshall, Frank Church, Scapegoat, Selway-Bitterroot, etc.

What Ranch13 cant provide is a single shred of evidence to defend his claims.

From all the research I've done, which is more than just a bit, there is no documentation of wolves in Yellowstone or the Thorofare prior to reintroduction. There was unofficial reports, some may have been valid, more likely were not. But, there definately wasnt an established population. If there would have been, more reporting of sightings would have been documented through the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.

Sightings and official documentation of wolves was reported throughout Western Montana all through the 70's-early 90's. Packs and a viable population had been confirmed there prior to reintroduction. That alone negates the BS that Ranch13 is spouting...as the EIS was not written on a state-to-state basis.

Like I already stated, it made no difference if there was a pack in the Thorofare prior to reintroduction or not. There was no "FWS guideline" that would have stopped reintroduction in 1994 even if a pack was established. Ranch13 is pulling that straight out of his a$$, once again.

Further, lets just say there was a pack in the Thorofare, those wolves would have enjoyed full federal protection under the ESA. With the reintroduction, all the wolves in Wyoming, whether reintroduced or not, were classified as a non-esential population and could be heavily managed...and they have been ever since.

In 6 years when my son wants to go on his first Elk hunt and there aren't any Elk. Who should I have him call to explain what happened?

Do you realize because of the people playing "God" and they millions of wasted research dollar's because someone thought... "some MAY have been valid....or...more likely were not"....how many father's will have to have this conversation with their children?

It's funny how NO ONE believed the claim's and reports from the Outfitter's ( you know they guys spending most of the time in wolf country ) Don't maybe you gubmit guys think that because it affected their livelihoods and families that maybe just maybe they were telling the truth.

[bleep] disgusting...

Tell him to thank WYSFW and BGF as well as the Wyoming Wolf Coalition. Wyoming stalled delisting for 6 years with their dual classification BS and desire to "show the Feds". All three states should be in their 5th or 6th year of state control...but Wyoming didnt allow that to happen. All grandstanding BS pushed by the WWC and their desire to ruin my public wildlife.

Point out that MT and ID are successfully managing their wolves while Wyoming is not, only because MT and ID backed Simpson/Tester while the WWC tried to ruin it for those states.

There will be plenty of elk to hunt in Montana and Idaho in 6 years...thanks to those active in getting wolves delisted and in state control in MT and ID...with no thanks going to Wyoming.

Wyoming??? Who knows, the hunters here are afraid to take control of THEIR PUBLIC WILDLIFE and cater to Landowners, outfitters, and the like.

Thats really "[bleep] disgusting..."

BTW, If I lived in a state that allowed me to have a $15 wolf tag...I'd be out trying to be part of the solution instead of whining on the 'net about wolves. Just sayin'...

DrHJH: Both BuzzH and you are wrong - Montana is still "under the thumb of both the feds and the courts!
Indeed we have a season but a season rigged to let the Wolves destroy our Elk, Bighorn Sheep and Moose herds!
Herds that we worked and toiled for decades to propogate and nurture!
There IS NO SUCH THING AS A WIDE OPEN SEASON!
There is a season but again it is designed to allow the current overpopulation of Wolves to remain OVER POPULATED and ruining humans Hunting opportunities!
Further correction of YOU - "this problem was created and perpetuated" by the FEDS, the GREENS and other liberals and anti-Hunters!
If you are foolish enough to think the feds are going to allow ANY state to find a solution to the over-population and over-predation of game animals by transplanted Candian Wolves then you are just that, foolish and naive!
This Wolf tragedy is not going away in this decade I am sure - and unfortuantely I firmly believe it will spread to Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona SOON!
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Your tinfoil is slipping...

Lloy you realize that the lack of "documented" sightings is exactly where Harry Harju is a lot at fault. Had he of got off his worhtless ass in his cozy little office in Cheyenne and got out there and documented or at least investigated the sightings and kills, there would of been no claim of extinction for the feds to use to import the wolves from Canada.
Furthermore had harju done his job then Federal Judge Bill Downs would have had evidence saying there were wolves already existing in the area, and therfore could of ruled to stop the transplant....

Ranch13,

Show me in the FEIS where it states renitroduction would be stopped, or not happen, if a wolf population was documented anywhere in MT, ID, or WY.

You're full of crap.

lloydy, you should probably take a break,, so far all you can do is throw typical little tempertantrums and not bring out any "proof" as you call it...
How's the weather in Ogden today?

Sure is fun watching Buzz get his shorts knotted up while talking himself into a corner....but mudhen your reply to VG was priceless!

Typical response from the do-nothing crowd...laffin'.

Dont let the facts get in the way of your BS and lies.

Laffin' even more.

You really should not try to emulate your superhero mentor bigstick...talk about do nothing have you looked in the mirror lately?

And I wouldn't be so quick to call people bullshitters and liars ..you may have to answer for it in person someday. Not wise to let your mouth overload your abilities.

Perhaps you should post your real name and address here......also include a real and current picture of yourself please.

ranch13 and eh76,

While I realize comprehension is tough on you both...

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/KPGeorge/issues/wolves_reintroduction/reintroduction_question.htm

Show me where an established wolf population would have stopped reintroduction...

The Wyoming Farm Bureau made a failed attempt to stop it.

Comprehension is not an issue for me but must be for you



Re re-read and post answers please.

What kind of pictures do you want??? Maybe 2011 hunting pictures?

Tell you what, you post one with you and a big-game animal you took in 2011...then I'll post one with a 2011 pic...and we'll continue until someone runs out of pics...and we'll solve who does nothing.

Just what I thought...

Don't be to quick squirt I don't live on here like you do. I was busy butchering.

However your comprehension skills are not improving. I didn't ask you to post a picture of your most recent kill did I? I didn't think so.

If you are going to run your mouth and call people liars and bullshitters be prepared to answer for it.

Now re read this


Just so you would not miss it I put it in bold. I don't care what you pull off the internet to post for pics game you claim to have shot, I just want to see a picture of you.

Here let me help....now you want me to post your real name and phone number?



Nice buck though...got a couple like that myself.

The only thing you've ever butchered is the English language, thats TOO, not to.

Just another ho-hum hunting season in WY, MT, and AZ in 2011...all public land and all DIY.


Antelope with my nephew in WY:

First doe:



Second doe a couple hours later:



First WY buck:



Second WY buck:



First WY elk:



Second WY elk:



Quick trip to Montana:

[img]http://photos.imageevent.com/buzzandpat/elkhunting/websize/IMG_4689.JPG[/img]

[img]http://photos.imageevent.com/buzzandpat/muledeer/websize/IMG_4659.JPG[/img]

Arizona bull:

[img]http://photos.imageevent.com/buzzandpat/elkhunting/websize/P1240774.JPG[/img]

Other than an AK fishing trip and helping out multiple hunting buddies, pretty much sat around doing nothing....

Plenty more where those came from...

If you want to discuss bullchit...look me up next time you're in Laramie.

Way ahead of ya there. My boy is sick and I'm "in for the weekend."


I was thinking you guys said no wolves would travel past Sunlight Basin. Then we told you they were on Heart Mountain and ya called us liars until that photo showed up in the Enterprise. Sure did some back peddling then .. laffin'

I don't really care what you have killed. I have plenty of pics too. You still didn't answer my questions Mr Grammar King. Should I post your address and phone numbers or you going too?

You are good at avoiding the issue.

"The only thing you've ever butchered is the English language, thats TOO, not to."

Oh ouch that stings so bad.............


Gotta love you clairvoyant though...you can tell everything about a person just by a post on the internet....wow!

Please keep posting pictures though.....

as far as whining... hell you forest circus kids are kinda making sure that's the only thing we can do. Seeing as you guys are following your well laid out plans.

Guys like you make me real happy mt tax dollars are well wasted...errrr spent.

What is sad is that Buzzy was a cog in the machine that reintroduced the wolves and now he wants to blame Wyoming for the destruction caused by the reintroduction.

As I said before Wyoming had the best approved plan and if it was not for judicial activism we would be miles ahead of Idaho and Montana.

Curious, if Buzz posts his address and phone # this will resolve "the issue".

If you are going to throw out false claims, you better be able to back it up and answer for it. YMMV ....I already know where he resides.

Obviously, but is there a point?

Apparently not for you.

i don't see the point either...

Me three, kind of messed up in my opinion.

If you are going to throw false accusations man up and post your contact info to be held accountable...not a difficult concept. Accept responsibility. No honor in your camps apparently? Can't help if you don't understand.

It will all come to light in due time...be patient.

what false accusations and why the [bleep] would anybody post contact info on a public forum to appease you? you don't get it, do you? nothing that happens on this thread is gonna make one iota of differece in the big picture. you were just as quick with insults as anyone here, yet you try to take the high road?

I made insults..show me. You don't get it obviously.

how many times did you use the term 'forest circus' in this thread? tell me that wasn't intended as an insult...

i'm waiting for Buzz's 'false accusations' too, BTW.

Forest circus applies to the entire organization...hardly a personal insult or do you work for them too?

If I called you a liar without warrant would you take that as an insult or a badge of honor?

I'm thinking you were well aware that buzz works for the FS.

BTW the forest circus is responsible for shutting down P dog shooting in the grasslands in case someone shoots a black footed ferret. I don't know about you but I don't hunt p dogs at night....ferrets are nocturnal. BTW I didn't coin the term forest circus...and ex forest circus employee I know did

and your point is roscoe? All assumption until you just verified it. thank you. ogden office I presume?

nope..just calling an insult an insult...and I wish I had one of those cushy jobs

And the hits keep coming...I would love to debate this, but would rather you see more of your ignorance first...er second...er where ever we are...what else do you have?

OK, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't see you posting your name, address, professional affiliation and/or contact information, much less whatever education and/or experience that you claim to bring to the issue. I am sure that I could find BuzzH's contact information with one email, but so what?

No, I don't get it either, nor do I get what you think that you are exposing since you haven't done anything except make undocumented accusations that (so far) you haven't backed up with any verified sources. You are entitled to your opinion, but (as the saying goes), opinions are like a$$holes--everybody has one. And, obviously, every a$$hole has an opinion, but not everyone can demonstrate that it is based on fact(s).

You work for the USFS or BLM don't you.........I know the USFS guy key to shutting it down...you want his name?

whatever you think is fine with me.

Well I respond with things like that when someone calls me a liar. This thread sure has brought the federal goobermint employees out in force though. They seem to band together.

Show me my insult...I didn't coin that term....an ex USFS employee friend did.

Nice try at an insult...you are showing your "intelligence" perfectly ...............

just love seeing you guys getting your shorts bunched up....keep it coming....excellent entertainment.

Wow! I am so relieved.

whatever I really don't care....you got a point? Show me where I made a personal insult.

All the misdirection and crap started by little buzzy and harju, and the piling on their side by the rest of the government boys, doesn't change the situation at hand.
Yes a Rhode Island senator got the no suit language pulled out of this budget bill.
But there's still only two things that can interfere with the agreement going thru. 1st and most likely to happen the feds back out yet again one more time. 2nd the Wyoming lesilature fails to make the needed changes to the statutes and not ratify the agreement. All of the concerned groups from those evil folks in the WACD , and Farm Bureau all the way to the Stock Growers have given their support to the agreement.
FEb 13th. thats when it'll start to get done. We're liable to be legally shooting wolves in March.

BLM. Havre, MT. Craig Miller. You can google the rest if you need my address and phone #.

Worked with BFF's in SD and MT for a few years. I really don't need to know about your "contact", but if you feel it is pertanant, giddie up.

BFF ( best friends forever) that must be a goobermint term....figgered you boys cling together worked with BLM in the past (insult here is on purpose) as bad as EPA and just as mis-directed....work harder I am paying your Obama sponsored salary. Don't worry be happy !

Ranch13,

Keep guessing and keep that imagination running wild...only 2 things can stop delisting in Wyoming?

Really?

With the language regarding lawsuits yanked from the budget bill...I'd say theres wayyyy more than 2 things that can stop delisting in Wyoming.

Every wing-nut wolf hippie group in the United States will be focused clearly on stopping Wyoming from delisting. They've lost MT and ID and now have a united front to throw all their time, effort, and money at Wyomings lack of an approved plan. Wyoming is sunk and Wyomings big-game is going to continue to take a hammering while wolf numbers in Wyoming continue to grow.

I can assure you and eh76, Wyoming will not have a wolf season in 2012...and thats a fact.

Oh and Johnie Burns...the only "cog" I had in the wolf reintroduction was that of a concerned hunter. My comments are part of the official record, both in the DEIS and FEIS. I also made comments on Montana's wolf plan (that was accepted) to help guide wolf management.

Oh, and yeah, Wyoming is way ahead of MT and ID with their great wolf plan...well, except for the fact they still dont have an accepted plan...and that wolves are still listed in Wyoming...and that lawsuits are looming...and that Wyoming has no hunting season...and that wolf numbers are increasing at higher rates than they are in MT and ID.

Other than those few things...I agree...Wyomings wolf plan is the best.

Do you really reside in Wyoming....I mean legally? Just curlyass....

Well Lloyd I'm sure that you as a topnotch employee of the Rocky Mtn Research Center, will do everything in your power to make sure that the wolf agreement gets thru.
Or not....
One thing about it you should be happy all those wolves killin livestock and running the ranchers you are supposed to be helping out of business. Then you can be right there in the forefront of helping to make sure ranches get bought up to "provide a buffer" for federal lands....
Yeh I got the training packet from the forest service in the mailtoday..... Haven't been clear thru it yet, but what I've seen so far isn't looking good for private property rights.
What say you Komrade??

eh76,

You could always stroll on over to Laramie and find out. I'm not very tough to find.

Ranch13,

No, I'm not happy at all that wolves are killing livestock, mainly because ranchers are compensated at 167% of the value of their livestock from a wolf kill.

The rest of your jibberish makes no sense. Not sure what packet you got in the mail...so I cant comment. I'm sure you fully understood everything in it though.

You are confused...I never said I made insults, you need to re-read this thread......you work for the goobermint too ?

Mudhen,, just zactly what dog do you have in this fight?
You have anything to offer other than the ability to take potshots at eh 76 you've shown so far?

I will do that what kinda beer you buying?

Lloyd I understand more than you think....

hmmmmmmmm mudhen disappeared need to use that quote thingy more often........

Hmmm that's curious....

eh76,

I cant afford beer...I have a hunting problem.

excuses......excuses

He said that he made the insults, I didn't. I just noted that (after reading through all of the posts once again) he never provided any factual verification for the conspiratorial scenarios that he alleged USFWS, WYDGF and USFS supposedly were part of with respect to the reintroduction of wolves in the northern Rockies. He basically made accusations of professional malfeasance on the part of biologists that I know and respect, but with whom I have had occasion to disagree. Those disagreements were not based on competence or the lack thereof, but rather on interpretations of facts.

Neither did he offer any bonafides that support that he has any expertise or knowledge about this beyond whatever prejudices and opinions that he personally harbors. And I still don't know where the "edge of paradise" in Wyoming might be. For all I know, he could be working for the governor or a public relations firm in Cheyenne as paid political hack.

eh76,

Show up in Laramie...I'll subsidize your beer.

Just dont show up in mid-February...I've an appointment with a bull musk ox of record book size near Shishmaref Alaska.

I have a family and a life. I try to keep up with threads in which I have posted, but I don't take my Blackberry to church.

Well Buzzy, then post your comments in the Draft and Final EIS.

You have been sucking off the teat of the Wolf reintroduction for better than 20 years. There was a time when working for the Forest Service meant understanding how to get the timber cut and maximizing range utilization for the betterment of US of A, not a place for silly left leaning enviro wackos to hang out and get a paycheck.

Wyoming�s plan was accepted by the USFWS and was implemented and only stopped by an activist judge. Wyoming hunters were shooting wolves, in numbers that flat scared the hell out of anti hunting groups. Too say any different is simply a lie to cover your complicity in the disaster that is the wolf reintroduction.

Wyoming�s elk herds have held out better than ID or MT simply because not all or even most Federal Employees are as morally bankrupt as you. When the job is hanging out of a chopper and smashing woofs with a shotty gun that tends to weed out the leftys in a big hurry. Kinda like when your job is hunting guys who are on a deck of cards. Results matter and the weak don�t get results.

You simply do not know and cannot understand the true nature of the situation, but you feel a desperate urge to blame others for the mess you have had a hand in causing.

spoken like a true federal government representative I get there once in a while...got relatives there I am ashamed to say ..

you posted and deleted ....2 of us at least saw it...quite the diatribe...won't forget to quote you next time

BTW, I don't work for the feds, never have and (at this point in my life) I never will. I have worked for state agencies, universities, private nonprofits and private for profits. For the last ten years, I have been self-employed.

John you kill me

So why did you delete your post?

Well, just put it back up and quote it. I try to keep the dialogue civil, but sometimes I don't always get it right the first time.

As I said, I try to keep the dialogue civil and don't always get it right the first time.

kudos for that....seriously. I didn't copy it.

Johnie Burns....

Just so you know...the USFWS is the Federal Agency that was responsible for the wolf reintroduction. They deal with listed species, anadromous fish, migratory waterfowl and the like.

I dont work for them....and never have.

You should brush up on some Natural Resource Policy...you've not the first clue.

My comments, in a version you'd understand, stated that if wolf reintroduction were to happen, wolves need to be managed at as close to minimum levels as possible to keep them off the ESL. My comments also included using hunting and trapping as a control method.

I was not in favor of reintroduction if hunting wasnt used as a control mechanism and for funding of wolf management once state control was granted.

The one thing I didnt see...and if something similar where to happen again...I'd not want Montana to be reliant on any other state for an approved plan. That was a huge mistake for Montana and Idaho to be relying on Wyoming to come up with an approved plan before wolves could be delisted. If it were to happen again, I'd make sure that Montana were not tied in with Wyoming in any way.

As the EIS was written, all three states had to have an accepted plan to trigger delisting...and we all know that WY put the screws to MT and ID on that with their crap plan.

It would be much better for each state to have seperate EIS's so they wouldnt be bound by the foolishness of other states.

If that would have happened, MT and ID would be 6-7 years into wolf management instead of only 1 year and well on their way to doing whats best for their state.

Wyomings livestock interests would then be free to beat their head against the wall trying to pass an unacceptable plan. But, they'd be going it alone and not dragging down two other states with them...along with the big-game in those states.

Lesson learned there for sure, dont rely on other states (Wyoming) to handle things correctly. Let Wyoming fight its own battles.

...and I guess thats what ultimately is going to happen, thanks to progressive thinkers in Montana/Idaho and along with 2 U.S. Senators, one from Montana and one from Idaho...with the smarts...and cojones to cut Wyoming loose to fight its own failed policy.

To be blunt Buzzy�s pictures also cause me issues.

He rails against Wyoming game policies yet kills 2 Antelope bucks and 2 elk in Wyoming.

Well Buzzy, let me know where in the world you would be allowed to do that excluding the great state of Wyoming.

To bitch like a little girl about the state that has given you unprecedented hunting opportunities is simply sickening.

Johnie...show me where I rail against Wyoming game policies...other than with wolves?

I'll save you the trouble of looking, you wont find it.

I can legally take 2 elk per year in Idaho, Montana, and Colorado...2 bulls in Idaho.

I can take 2 buck deer in Idaho a year as well.

What I'm not in favor of is the livestock industry, BGF and SFW via WWC and Harriet Hagemann, playing high stakes poker with MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE. They are threatening my public wildlife by allowing wolf numbers to increase because they insist on keeping dual classification of wolves. Their insistance of endorsing failed policy is keeping wolf numbers growing at 10% a year in Wyoming while elk, deer, and moose are declining.

That policy is whats keeping wolves on the ESL and threatening the game I enjoy hunting...and to top it off, I cant even get a wolf tag.

Post your exact comments. You were in favor of reintroduction and now you see the disaster it has caused and want to blame Wyoming for not bowing to the Feds to alleviate your guilty consciences.

Quit with the silly crap. We all know the answer in this situation.

Burnsie...

My comments are part of the public record...make an FOIA request.

I place blame where it rightfully belongs, never was scared of the truth or reality.

Wyoming threw MT and ID under the bus...and are crying now that Montana and Idaho cut them loose.

Too bad.

You know Lloyd if you weren't so snarky you might not catch so much schit.

I agree with John and Ranch on this ...the feds created this entire snafu....it is normal operating procedure for them though..trust me on this...

Jimmy cracked corn....

typical federal goobermint response...you can't do better than that? pitiful

The feds didnt force WY to come up with an unacceptable wolf plan...

However, Wyoming did agree to come up with an acceptable wolf plan as per the EIS they signed.

dayum you edit a lot...........

nope they are just plain Obama liberally [bleep] up...look at any policy

Cut off the chit and that's the truth.

gotcha again...editor

Dang Sam ...cut to the chase why don't ya!

They dont make key boards for those with big hands...what can I say?

Heck I am typing one handed on a laptop...not bad for a retard huh?

You really are a piece of work. You want a Freedom of Information Act request to show your actual comments in the wolf reintroduction but you refuse to provide your name and address??

You and I both know you wanted the wolf.

Wyoming and Montana and Idaho all followed the best plan for each state they could come up with.

With Yellowstone mostly in our state we had other issues to deal with than ID or MT but I hope the best for both ID and MT.

Wyoming had an approved plan and was whacking wolves until judicial activism shut us down. We had a scientifically based, sound plan that worked perfectly in the frame work of the original reintroduction plan. The reintroduction plan that most in Wyoming were not in favor of nor supported but you thought was a great idea because it provided you with employment.

Quit your whining because the wolf has kept you in your safe government job. You will not have to actually go out into the work force and prove you have the skills to get hired.

Burnsie,

If Wyomings plan was scientifically based and worked so well...why did a judge rule that it was unaccaptable?

Bigger question, why did the same "activist" judge rule in favor of Montana and Idaho's plans and find them totally acceptable.

Strange? Dont you think?

More misinformation....the public record is more than clear:

Out of 70,000 comments and votes, all but 2,000 favored wolf reintroduction (Fischer 1995).

Apparently most in Wyoming in either didnt take the time to comment or were in favor of reintroduction...and those are the facts directly for the EIS.

The facts are what they are....your BS knows no bounds.

Well shoot Buzzy, let's just cut to the chase.

Were you in favor of the reintroduction of wolves?

To be blunt if you were against it then we are on the same side.

If you were in favor then we have a disagreement as I think it was a bad idea.

No BS here Buzzy, Do you want wolves or not?

Self preservation aside if you were/are in favor of the re-introduction(aka current chitshow) you are a dumbass.

Yeah sure. If and only if they can prove a wolf did it. We all know how [bleep] hard it is to get that done. It's a struggle even when it is blatantly obvious.



really... you work in the gubmint and can't figure it out? Hint, It has to do with currency, politics and persuasion.



Prezactly! These guys are good at smoke and mirrors. They hint that they are transparent and willing to cooperate yet always insure there is red tape in the way in some form whether visible or not.

This is a shining example of Buzzys lack of understanding of the true situation.

Not only that John, it also prooves he's a lying little sonofabitch. The lowest of the the low slime.And those that choose to try and defend his actions in this and other of his malfunctions are not one bit better.

John, he's attempting to find justification for his job. Like you said he's have a hard time selling himself outside the gubmint in the real work force.
He had no problem however, watching the outfitters and ranchers crumble and loose their livelihood over the past 15 years.

Gotta tell you, Ranch 13, you are one miserable, ignorant human.
I wrote the letter signed by the Director of the Game and Fish Department saying we didn't need or want wolves in Wyoming, asking where the money to handle the problems they created was coming from, and asking how much big game would have to die before we could control wolves, or if they could even be controlled. Turns out the answer to the last question was a 75% loss of a big game herd two years in a row!
Then the ag-controlled members of the Game and Fish Commission told the Department nobody was allowed to talk about wolves, or even speak the word wolf. When the legislature decided to fight rather than make wolves trophy game animals, the guy in charge of wolves who couldn't speak the word said it wasn't going to make dealing with wolves any easier, and they tried to fire him.
As for getting off my lazy ass and dealing with wolves, you need to talk to those who prevented anyone in the Game and Fish Department from doing anything with wolves.
And just to keep this revved up a bit, I just read the report of the Absoraka elk study, and it isn't wolves that are killing calves, it's bears, both grizzly and black. In addition, the migratory elk, those going to the high country and Yellowstone, are suffering from poor nutrition due to several years of drought, producing few calves, while the elk living near the alfalfa fields are producing calves just fine. But that's data, not opinion, so it never fits in small minds with no room for facts,
And Ranch 13, if I ever get near your sorry, libelous butt, you are in deep trouble. Even though several people tried to get me fired because I never learned how to tell them what they wanted to hear, nobody fired me, I got tired of dealing with people like you. Since I am no longer a public figure, I don't have to put up with people urinating on me and teling me it's raining, so I can now sue your ass for libel. I will tolerate no more of your libelous bullshit. You will be civil or be in court. Is that clear? I will expect your apology on this website, or find yourself a lawyer.

really... you work in the gubmint and can't figure it out? Hint, It has to do with currency, politics and persuasion.



Of course its all currency, politics and persuasion...couldnt be that Idaho and Montana just had acceptable plan...no, couldnt be that.

Also, for the record, apparently wolf predation has been proved a time or two in Wyoming...

The organization has paid 100 percent of the market value of confirmed livestock losses attributable to wolves and 50 percent of the value of probable losses attributable to wolves while wolves have been listed as an endangered species. To date, over 800 payments has been made to livestock producers, totaling more than $1,100,000. In Wyoming alone, it has compensated ranchers for over $350,000 in livestock losses. (1)

Its also fair to note that livestock losses can be "double dipped" through others that compensate them.

Another thing to note is that the tax payers fund the USDA in the form of Government Hunters to control predators for ranching interests. Thats a pretty sweet deal...and a clear form of a taxpayer subisidy specific to livestock interests. I'm sure no political motivation was ever involved in that program....

Well ok if they did not fire, or ask you to resign, then maybe you can explain the conditions of your leaving the Wyoming Game and Fish dept?
Maybe you can also explain why you did not go to the attorney general about being told to keep quiet about wolves?
Why did you not go out and inventory the wolves known to be in the region?
Some explanation of your continual attack on the ag community in this state might be helpful, after all they are just trying to protect their private property.
And last but not least "And Ranch 13, if I ever get near your sorry, libelous butt, you are in deep trouble." could possibly be construed as a threat of violance and bodily harm..... that's punishable by jail time...
The loss of the biggame herds is a tremendous loss, the loss of the private property rights of ranchers, farmers and other private land owners in this entire situation is a terrible attack on the freedom of the people of the state of Wyomng.
When you provide satisfactory answers then I'll decide whether or not I do indeed owe you an appology.

Cocopuff,

My job is secure via the RPA...and has absolutely nothing to do with wolf recovery one way or the other. All I want is the wolves in Wyoming off the list and State control...and a wolf hunting season. That will never happen until Wyoming can come up with an accepted plan.

Secondly, if the outfitters and ranchers were worried about their livelihoods...they wouldnt have supported the WWC. They picked their side and they are suffering for it. Unfortunately, they are also laying the pipe to Wyomings Wildlife and Wyomings Hunters because of it.

The easy solution, that should have happened at least 6-7 years ago, would have been as simple as dropping dual classification.

They State of Wyoming has had multiple opportunities, as recently as a few months ago, to come up with an acceptable plan and join MT and ID in wolf management.

They failed to do so...and the piper is being well beyond paid for it.

Its a miserable and sorry group of people that make pawns of the Publics Wildlife over a grudge match. I will never support a group that threatens MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE...and they very cleary have been for a very long time. Intuitively obvious, even to the most casual of observers.

At least you admit it.

I fully admit that the reason why MT and ID have state control of wolves is because they came up with acceptable plans that satisfied both the FEIS and Courts.

No other reason.

Aww now you are calling me names. I'm flattered.



Yup the paid guns can't even keep up with the mess that has been created. See even you say that there is political motivation. Again, at least you admit it.

Yes there has been money handed out. But you know I know and all the ranchers know. Not nearly the amount that should have been due to "inconclusive evidence" which everyone knows is a crock.

You can throw out all the numbers you want but those numbers are useless without both sides.

Post how ,many claims were made in conjunction with how many claims were proven...

I guess there is really no way the judges and policy makers have been persuaded by politics, the elite and money, what was I thinking.

cocopuff,

I provide facts...you provide nothing.

Congratulations?

Bottom line...Wyoming shat in its own bed...now they're laying in it.

And what have you said really...?

How many here have caught you in lies and twisted words?

You've done well with providing one side of the equation.

Lies?

Provide ONE...

Make the case for "your side" that explains how well Wyomings wolf plan is "working" for Wyomings Hunters and Wyomings big-game populations.

Waiting..............

My point was it isn't working. The sportsman will pay the price along with the ranchers and outfitters.

None of it is really working. The packs double in population every year. Even if we were to kill 50% every year we would be hard pressed to even hold them at current levels.

How many experts have been heard? To many to count. yet the plans never change. The amount of wolves being killed is a drop in the bucket. In 5 years see how successful you are in your hunting endeavors with in a 500 miles radius of where you live.

Do you have facts to back up any thing you just stated?

Didnt think so.

Montanas wolf population, state-wide grew less than 4% following the 2009 hunting season when only 72 wolves were killed via hunting.

Care to guess how much Wyomings Wolf population grew that same year?...10%.

Hunting isnt working and is a drop in the bucket? yet it would appear that "drop in the bucket" drastically reduced wolf population rates in both MT and ID following the 2009 season...Yes?

We'll see just how big that drop in the wolf bucket is after the 2011 hunting season in MT and ID. We'll compare the growth rate of the population in MT and ID to that of Wyoming...any guesses on the outcome?

The sportsmen in Wyoming are paying because of the ranchers and outfitters.

The hunters I know and talk to in Wyoming want to be able to hunt wolves and want state control...they're tired of the WWC's hard line that has kept wolves listed for way too long.

I say we kill every last one of them, then everybody can get along. (only half joking)

Wont happen...only option is to get state control and allow hunting to control numbers. Just the same as we do for lions, bears, deer, elk, oryx, etc.

Wild guess here but unlike you, I'm pretty sure they didn't think it was a good idea to begin with. Alot of people still have enough common sense to realize that you can't trust the government to manage anything.

Looking at the situation as it sits now, anyone who still thinks it was a good idea needs their head examined.

Wasnt a good idea...but I wont be supporting a group that has done everything in their power to make it worse for the last 7+ years, including throwing MT and ID under the bus.

Sam,

Do you think State wolf management with legal hunting/trappings seasons are better than a State having ZERO control over management while wolves enjoy full federal protection/control under the ESA?

When did they count the wolves..? Mid winter? you can't take that as accurate data you need to count in the spring.

Drastically reduced .. are you kidding? Wow, what favor is the gubmint coolaide?

Here ya go gumby... Only quotes from Biologists who studied wolf habits and populations world wide.

















http://rliv.com/pic/TheOutdoorsmanMay.pdf

No, but I don't see a problem with WY's plan either.

I have zero woof experience living up here but isn't it a pretty solid consensus(among people who actually know wolves) that even if wolf had 'coyote' status they'd still be hard to control('keep in check')?

They should be treated as a predator, not a big game animal in my opinion.

Habitate destruction by gas drilling and McMansions is a far bigger problem in WY than Wolves. At least "shoot, shovel and shut up" helps the wolf problem but shooting drillers and rich yuppies is frowned upon.

Wolves have not destroyed the NW Mule deer herd. Uncontrolled gas development and housing developments have destroyed tens of 1000s of acres of the winter range. The terrible winter on 2011 just put the final nail in the coffin. Herd is down 60-70% in last 10 years and WG&F just lies about it. Want to meet some pizzed off people ? Talk to non-resident hunters who paid huge bucks for licenses and outfitters and were lucky to see any deer at all, not to mention a real trophy.

Want a good deer ? Go to Kansas.

Exactly why the wolf should have never been reintroduced in the first place in my opinion.

Ranch 13, you just don't get it, do you? The Game and Fish Department didn't inventory wolves because we weren't allowed to. We literally could not say the word wolf, explain to school children or anyone else what was going on with wolves, we couldn't even be involved, and we couldn't even have a flippin' t shirt with a wolf on it. The attorney general was the one suing the Feds, so he was no help!
I retired because I couldn't stand dealing with ignorant people who were ruining their hunting and mine. I no longer wanted to work for an organization that was so politically controlled it could not set legitimate hunting seasons because hunters had kicked the crap out of the poor devils working for the agency so badly they no longer would set a season based on anything but public opinion. That has now been going on for about 17 years, and it doesn't seem to be working too well, does it?
As for agriculture, I know very well who it was that tried to get me fired several times, and who it was that promoted a bill to get all state employees down to my level made at-will so they could fire me and shut me up. I will never forget. I also know whose livestock carried and still carry the germ that decimated the West's sheep herds, who over-grazes the public land, who gets subsidized in many ways by the taxpayers then denies me access to public land, usually while threatening me, who removed the sagebrush in NE Wyoming to grow more grass for livestock resulting in the current cheatgrass invasion, and who sprayed the shrubs that were once winter range for deer and antelope in many parts of Wyoming. I also know whose complaining created this dozen year wolf fiasco. But, the lynch mob mentality prevails when you don't want anyone to know what you've done.
Your deadline is 8 AM tomorrow to retract what you said about me and apologize. Then hire a lawyer. I'm not going away.

Well at least we all seem to agree that the reintroduction was a pretty bad idea and has been a disaster for the big game herds in the three states.

After supporting the reintroduction now Buzz wants to blame whole mess on Wyoming for a plan that is unquestionably sound from a scientific perspective.

The fact is that wolves are being lethally managed here in Wyoming by the USFWS. How much more or less of an impact a state run hunting season as a trophy game animal with trophy status in the entire state is certainly open to conjecture.

I for one am glad Wyoming has gone the route of the dual classification and am willing to see it through for a little while longer.

Whatever, just give credit and blame where it is due, and quit trying to destroy people who couldn't do anything.

Sam,

It doesnt matter if YOU see a problem with WY's wolf plan or not.

The EIS cant be ignored, the courts have ruled that WY's plan doesnt satisfy the FEIS.

You and all 5 feet 2 inches of Johnboy Burns can argue all day long that Wyomings plan is fine...the courts over the last 7+ years disagree. Their opinion is the only one that matters.

Whats really troubling is how willing people like Burns are to support groups that threaten the Publics Wildlife via crap policy. Really odd considering that without good populations of big-game his livelihood wouldnt exist.

If my living relied on strong numbers of big-game, I sure as hell wouldnt be siding with ANY group that has worked for 10 years to destroy it. As a recreational hunter, I wont support it.

In particular when a solution to the problem is very easy. Drop the dual classification, which would immediately give WY a court approved plan to satisify the EIS, largely the same as MT and ID's plan.

Then the State of Wyoming has the ability to implement management...including taking the current predator zone and running a trophy wolf hunt 365 day a year on wolves. Did you notice how easy it was for Montana to extend its wolf season about a week ago? I wonder why that is? Hmmmm????

Until Wyoming puts up an approved plan, wolves will continue to enjoy largely unfettered growth and full protection under the ESA.

Its that simple.

What Wyoming can expect, now that the Lummis rider has been rejected, is more and more litigation. Only difference is, the wolf hippies now have ONE state to focus their lawsuits, time and money on...WYOMING.

Its fine to bluff at a pot in poker when you're holding rags...and I dont mind that Wyoming bluffed with the dual classification.

If it would have passed the courts...great!

The problem with bluffing is when someone else has the "nuts"...and in this case the Feds definitely have the full house. Wyoming has shown their rags...and they havent been smart enough to fold.

The "chips" in this game is the publics big-game. Thats why the WWC and their chronies are so willing to continue to play with rags...they have nothing to lose...no flesh in the game. They're playing with MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE as the chips.

Time to fold, keep the few remaining chips you have and play another hand...this current one is a sure loser. The only ones suffering for it are Wyomings Hunters and Wyomings big-game...and thats just unacceptable.

DrHJH,

Funny how it was you that has been blaming everyone else from �The State of Wyoming� to Stockgrowers to the Woolgrowers for this problem when it was the Feds that reintroduced the wolf.

There is simply no creditable evidence we would have been hunting wolves for 10 years if Wyoming would have just caved in and capitulated.

In point of fact the USFWS did not delist the wolf, for the first time, until Feb of 2008. You assertions that we could have been hunting for 10 yrs is simply revisionist history.

It took the Testor/Simpson rider and the specific language �shall not be subject to judicial review� to even let ID and MT hunt under the trophy Status this year. Anyone can read Malloy�s decision and see he would have stopped the hunts this year but for that language in the rider attached to the appropriations bill.

Had nothing to do with anything scientific just political maneuvering.

Buzzy�s assertions that the �courts� have found Wyoming�s plans unscientific are again a complete lie. Show us the decision by any court that supports your statement and not just a preliminary injunction by Malloy, a real decision.

As I pointed out in a previous post Buzzy simply does not understand or feels guilty for his support of the wolf reintroduction and is looking for a scapegoat.

Johnie,

There is credible evidence...why did MT and ID have a season in 2009 while Wyoming sat on the sidelines?

Why are MT and ID again having seasons in 2011/12 while Wyoming is still pissing up a rope?

MT and ID have had USFWS and court approved plans since 1996-97, Wyoming still doesnt have an accepted plan. Now it appears that many in the Wyoming state delegation on are the verge of pulling the plug in the 2012 legislative session, even Lummis said she'd pull the plug on it:

Lummis said that if she were a Wyoming state lawmaker now, having no protection against lawsuits would give her pause about whether to approve the wolf deal.

�It was a huge defeat for common sense,� she said.

Legislators had conflicting views about whether keeping the Wyoming wolf deal open to judicial review would affect whether the Legislature passes the wolf agreement during next year�s budget session.

House Speaker Ed Buchanan, R-Torrington, said he expects lawmakers will be �cautious� about approving the deal and said that some legislators may argue for keeping the status quo. Buchanan himself said he�ll look at why opponents of the deal are objecting to it and the likelihood of a lawsuit before deciding how to vote on it himself.


http://trib.com/news/state-and-regi...0247776-7544-5bd5-9f21-d01c45f8f394.html

Molloys ruling clearly set legal precedence that Wyomings plan was unacceptable.

Lummis and now some of the State delegation are pissing down both legs on what they should do...since as the same article stated:

�This is a different situation than when you had Baucus and Tester doing it,� Snape said. �And Wyoming, arguably, missed the boat.�

Thats perhaps the understatement of this whole issue...Wyoming didnt even make it to the dock.

Finally Johnie, anyone with a single firing brain cell knows that Wyoming has screwed the pooch on this whole wolf issue. The reason is that the WY stockgrowers, BGF, WYSFW, and Harriet Hagemann sold sportsmen and Wyomings wildlife down the river.

I understand why you drag up red herrings....the truth stings pretty bad.

The rules are, you have to be able to show you can curtail the season if too many wolves are shot. Since classifying them as predators doesn't allow for that, no plan that makes them predators to be shot on sight could be approved. That's why Wyoming's plan was unacceptable.
You are correct that the feds brought wolves to Wyoming, and Buzz is correct that most of the folks who commented, from places outside Wyoming, who by the way also own the federal land in Wyoming and are entitled to comment, were in favor of the reintroduction. They weren't going to have to deal with the problems created, so why would they care? This was partly to help control elk and bison in Yellowstone so the Park Service wouldn't have to deal with habitat problems caused by too many elk, and I always suspected in part hoping wolves would reduce herds where elk were fed to the point no feeding was necessary.
That doesn't change the fact the wolf plan would have been accepted by the feds ten years ago if wolves had been made trophy game animals and the groups I mentioned hadn't decided to fight. So here we are nearly a dozen years after the original Game and Fish Department recommendation with a plan on a "fast track", I believe the newspaper said. Meanwhile, wolves have been protected and allowed to go anywhere they want. Brilliant!

Harju I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your reasons why you left the Game and Fish Deparment. I appologize for being wrong about that.
I do however take exception to your constant and persistant bashing of the ag community in general. I had nothing to do with any of the things you think may have been done in an effort to "get" you, I don't even know anybody that did such things.
I have not ever over grazed blm land, nor have I caused a cheatgrass invasion. Neither have any of the people I know.I also would of thought that you would know grazing allotment numbers are set by the managing agency and fines levied against the lease holder for exceeding those numbers. So any over grazing is a dual fault, both the agency and the leasee are at fault if over grazing occurs.
I do not understand why you blame people for trying to hang on to their lively hood.
I will also tell you that if you know of anyone who truly is threatening you while trying to keep you from "public" land then you need to call the local law enforcement, and the land management agency in charge of the land.
So once again I will say I am sorry for mistating the reasons for your sudden departure from the game and fish.
So there's my appology.

Buzzy,
I called you a liar on the court issue and you have proven me right. Show us a court decision that back up your claims.

Wyoming�s wolf plan is scientifically sound but might not be politically correct. The USFWS agreed that Wyoming�s plan met the FEIS requirements and we were legally killing wolves.

I realize your job has trained you to simply go along with the easy route and don�t stick out and you will do OK. Some others are not so inclined.

Wyoming can always go to the Trophy game status and down the road if we really lose the fight then it will be what it will be.

Right now the USFWS is lethally managing wolves in Wyoming using radio collars and helicopters so we are actuality in better shape than ID and MT concerning the damage to our big game herds.



You should at least understand the guy's name is Malloy on Molloys. Malloy�s ruling set absolutely no legal precedence but it did establish him as an activist judge.



You assertions that any wolf hunting 10 years ago would have been possible is simply ludicrous based on the unassailable fact that the USFWS did not attempt to delist the wolf until Feb of 2008. Simply stupid to try and change that history simply because it does not fit your narrative.

Anyone with access to that thing called GOOGLE would see the actual truth.

Malloy??????

Burns,

Are you sure the USFWS is killing wolves?

Last I checked, Gov. hunters were under the USDA.

Are you saying that the USDA is not killing wolves in Montana and Idaho now that they're delisted in those states?

I also just read that Idaho has approved helicopter hunting in the Lolo zone as well.

Maybe you should take your own advice and try google.

If the USFWS approved WY's plan...then why isnt Wyoming still hunting wolves??? Answer if you can.

Burns...still dont think the courts shot down Wyomings plan?

Last year, the federal government attempted to take wolves off the endangered species list. The same coalition of conservation groups sued, and Molloy ruled the federal effort was illegal because Wyoming's wolf management plan was inadequate.

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_e36346d2-9d4f-11de-98ba-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1gxJM9o27

Try google...

Burnsie,

Official court findings...pay attention to pg. 49....

http://www.jhalliance.org/Library/Alerts/2010/MolloyWolfRuling.8-10.pdf

You tired of getting spanked yet?

Damn it.

Molloy.

Of course that does not change the fact that no court has ever ruled that Wyoming�s plan is "unscientific" or that it does not conform to the FEIS.

Buzzys claims to the contrary are just as frivolous as before and he is still a liar in claiming otherwise. Show us an actual ruling Buzzy or shut your yap.

As always Buzzy was for the reintroduction but now wants to blame Wyoming for the problems.

Buzzy if there was no reintroduction, which you wanted, then we would not even be having this discussion.

Yes you would. The NW Montana wolves would have made it there by now, regardless of the introduction.

WOW just WOW I just hope you guys keep your wolfs up there and kind of corraled. I don't think I want none down here.

If they do happen to get loose or something do wolf's catch mange?

Over the last three or so years the mange has almost wiped out the coyote population in my part of the world. Just this year do I see a couple with hair.

Serious question do wolf get mange?

They do.

Especially prone if they've been hanging out with Bent.

Well then could there be some way to intorduce some mange into the wolf herd. Sort of let nature take her course then. I would guess a hairless wolf would find it kind of difficult to survive a northern winter.

Not to worry.....a lot of the coyotes up here have it...only a matter of time.

sure is entertaining watching all the .gov boys band together and get there panites bunched up!

Now along will come buzz or the blm guy with a quick but stinging retort (in their minds anyway).

mange already been 'introduced' to the wolves here

USDA/WS is contracted to do the killing for USFWS.

This would be correct...

I am almost embarrassed to say I read this whole thread. As a person who doesnt have a dog in the fight other than I will be hunting big game in one or both of these states in the future, I will throw my .02 in.

I dont like wolves. Lets make that clear.

It appears to me that WY gambled for a more lucrative plan and lost (or is at least losing to this point). IF....IF they would have won, they would have been ahead of ID and MT. but they didnt. So at this point, what should WY do? Fold the tent and accept a plan similar to MT and ID or keep going all in with the path they are on? I for one, would like to hear opinions on whether they should keep pressing for what they want. And add to that, at what point should they fall back (or should they never fall back)?

Nice orange there Buzz, since you are so eager to turn everyone else in for not wearing orange or enough orange on their rifle hunts. Your arrogance, hypocrisy and childishness never ceases to amaze me. Nice going on the "sub adult" bucks and bulls. Flinch


No orange on a rifle antelope hunt...good going Buzz.


This does't even qualify as the minimal amount, especially when wearing a back pack of the top.

Berettaman,

What you stated is pretty much correct. The EIS outlined general guidelines of what was to be included in the States wolf management plans. One part was that each plan must assure that required wolf minimums would be maintained. A state couldnt draft a plan that would elimate wolves basically.

Another requirement was that ALL three states had to have an accepted plan in place to trigger the delisting for the entire wolf recovery area (MT, ID, and WY).

Looking back...MT and ID should have cut ties and not made that agreement with Wyoming. When the states started drafting wolf management plans, MT and ID certainly thought that WY would also come up with a plan. MT and ID drafted excellent plans and those were accepted when the wolf numbers climbed high enough to meet the EIS.

Wyomings plan has been a problem due to the dual classification from the start. There was concern by MT, ID, biologists, etc. etc. that their plan to have unregulated hunting in 70% of the state in the predator zones.

Many, including myself, realized as far back as 2003-2004 that Wyomings plan wasnt going to fly.

Court cases, injuctions, legal wrangling off all sorts over WY's plan kept wolves listed from 2004-2008. A very brief window as opened in 2008, where Wyoming was open in the predator zone for wolves, but there was no legal hunting season conducted in any state. Within a month or so, another court order relisted them and WY was shut down.

In 2009, Montana and Idaho, with their ACCEPTED State plans, proposed a season...that was promptly taken to court. Judge Molloy ruled that the hunts in MT and ID would not impose any long-term damage to the wolf populations in MT and ID and the hunts commenced. In the same ruling, Molloy also stated that if any group wanted to file a lawsuit, he would be forced to relist the wolves because Wyoming still did not have an accepted plan. He followed the law per the FEIS that stated that one wolf population could not be delisted via state lines.

Right after the seasons in 2009, a lawsuit was filed and Molloy did exactly what he said he would be foreced to do, relist. I was in Missoula the day the ruling came out, and a close friend was in the courtroom when Molloy made that ruling. I talked with my friend and he told me that he believed Molloy was not real happy with having to relist. He based this on having attended previous rulings on the wolf issue. Like he said, "it wasnt like he didnt warn them in the last court case".

Long before this happened MT and ID now were totally aware that Wyomings bull-headedness was not going to change. Left with little option other than begging Wyoming to drop the dual classification, MT and ID went another route. MT and ID, along with Senators Tester and Simpson drafted legislation to free themselves of WY's failed state wolf plan via attaching it to the 2010 budget bill.

At that time, WY had ample opportunity to come up with an accepted plan and be part of the Tester/Simpson proposal...but again chose not to. Shortly there-after the Simpson/Tester boat had already sailed from the docks. Most sporting groups, both local and national, in MT and ID were on board. Many letter were written, much lobbying was done, and the simpson/tester rider passed without a hitch...for the most part.

Wyoming, in the meantime, had also tried to go through the national legislature with a bill (I believe H509) that would have gutted the Endangered Species Act. That proposal came about via the Wyoming Wolf Coalition that was made up by the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association, Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Wyoming Guides and Outfitters, Big Game Forever, and Sportsmen for Wildlife. Bad idea, and was destined to fail from the get-go.

All was good, until emails surfaced and public documentes were released by those groups asking for hunters to do everything they could to derail the Simpson/Tester rider.

Wyoming and the above groups were pissed to no end that MT and ID were now working on behalf of the hunters in their states to do whats best for the wildlife found within their borders. Clearly the WWC, BGF, and SFW tried everything they could to stick it to Montana and Idaho and kill the Simpson/Tester rider.

As expected, the WWC proposal flopped, the Tester/Simpson rider passed and in 2011 MT and ID both conducted legal seasons again. In a monkey-see-monkey do lame attempt, Cynthia Lummis tried to pass a no-lawsuit rider in the 2011 budget bill (that failed as per the OP).

To further frustrate Wyoming, Molloy ruled that the Simpon/Tester language did not violate anything in the constituation and no lawsuits over MT and ID's hunts can even be filed...absolutely brilliant on their part. It wasnt easy, but with the help of a lot of hunters and a couple Senators with a spine, Montana and Idaho are on the track to take over full control of wolf management.

Wyoming still isnt in control of wolves and I dont believe they will be for a very long time.

Wyoming called it down...and lost it all.

Flinch,

First of all you can gargle my sack...

Secondly, you're right about nothing...both those bucks I killed this year were 4+ years old...not that you'd know how to tell if they were or not.

As to the no orange photo...does this make you feel better there little tugger:



You can also contact Rod Lebert...he's the warden out of Douglas Wyoming. I shot that buck on a piece of state land and he checked everything out. He also aged the buck at 4+ and wrote in his log book and also on the tag...again I wouldn expect you to know jack chit about antelope...let alone how to age them in the field.

Oh, and yes, in Wyoming there is no minimum amount of orange that you're required to wear...try the regulations there dipchit.

Carry on spanky....

An Opinion from the Casper Star-Tribune's Editorial Board yesterday:

Wyoming missed the boat on getting wolves delisted

Here we go again.

A piece of the fragile deal that held together an agreement between the state of Wyoming and the federal government on wolf management has crumbled.

We�d describe it as back to square one, except Wyoming has been knocked further back than that because of the time it has lost trying once again to manage the wolf population on its own terms instead of accepting a reasonable compromise.

On Thursday, congressional negotiators killed a budget rider proposed by Wyoming Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis that would have prohibited lawsuits against a pending agreement with the feds that would remove Wyoming wolves from the endangered species list.

Gov. Matt Mead and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reached a highly touted agreement last August. The agency agreed wolves could be deemed predators and shot on sight in all but the northwest portion of Wyoming, where they would be considered trophy game and could only be hunted with a license.

Congress doesn�t have to approve the Wyoming-USFWS agreement for it to go into effect, but Mead and other state officials have repeatedly said that congressional protection against lawsuits � which has been granted to Montana and Idaho � is vital to any agreement.

Negotiators for the House and Senate removed the controversial Wyoming �wolf rider� when they reached a $1 trillion federal spending agreement.

One of the chief opponents of the no-sue clause was U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., one of the budget negotiators. Mead said he was �disappointed� by the action, but we think Wyoming officials shouldn�t have been surprised the provision was tossed from the budget bill.

The Obama administration opposed it, as did several environmental groups that lobbied against the wolf rider. They are still upset that U.S. Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both Montana Democrats, had successfully attached a similar no-sue clause to a must-pass budget bill last April, which delisted wolves in five Western states � but not Wyoming.

Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group that opposed Lummis� wolf provision, said Wyoming always had an uphill battle in its effort to keep the state from being sued over the USFWS deal.

�This is a different situation than when you had Baucus and Tester doing it,� Snape told Star-Tribune reporter Jeremy Pelzer last Friday. �And Wyoming, arguably, missed the boat.�

Without the provision, the environmental groups and others who opposed the Wyoming wolf agreement will be able to sue to stop it. There�s no doubt they are working on their legal strategies right now.

As we predicted in numerous editorials prior to the deal, the wolf issue now appears headed back to the courts and another seemingly endless � and expensive � round of lawsuits and appeals.

There�s also more bitter fighting ahead between ranchers and wolf advocates.

Wyoming could have seen wolves delisted in the state, as they are in Montana and Idaho, if it had agreed to give up the shoot-on-sight policy and make wolves trophy game in the entire state. If the state had accepted the same terms with the feds that its two neighbors agreed to, it would now be planning wolf hunting seasons instead of returning to litigation.

Wyoming�s management plan, which is now under public comment, could still be approved by next summer. Without the no-sue clause, however, lawsuits could keep it from being implemented for a long time, if ever.

Mead�s press secretary, Renny MacKay, said the governor is confident the state�s Republican congressional delegation will bring the wolf issue back, possibly as a stand-alone bill.

The measure, however, could well meet the same fate as the wolf rider. Wyoming should have accepted statewide trophy game status when it had the chance.


Read more: http://trib.com/opinion/editorial/w...07e-bffc-90457d0a1edb.html#ixzz1h1PpCKJc

Hmmmm???

That sounds familiar...

With this one statement we get to see Buzzy�s real issue. He was for reintroduction and wants wolves across the entire state and then moving into South Dakota, Nebraska and into the elk herds of Colorado and Utah.

Right at this very moment the USFWS, the agency that implements the Endanger Species Act, agrees that Wyoming�s dual classification is a scientifically sound plan that conforms to all aspects of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Endangered Species Act. The plan is not "Politically Correct"

The real fight is that most of the proponents of the Wolf reintroduction (Buzzy) want wolves distributed throughout the west. Wyoming�s dual classification zones make it much more difficult for the wolves to move out of the Original Recovery Zone.

While he continually claims Wyoming screwed ID and MT over, it really seems just the opposite could be true.

The Testor/Simpson rider attached to a must pass appropriations bill delists the wolf in 5 states; Idaho and Montana plus Oregon, Washington, and Utah, but not Wyoming? Who screwed who?

Right now if a wolf travels south, crosses what would be the predator zones, and into Colorado it will have the full protection of the ESA.

Another can of worms that statewide trophy status would open is lawsuits that the state is not properly managing a Trophy Game animal. Pretty hard to justify wide open seasons on a �Trophy Game Animal� in zones in which the wolf is not already established. How would Wyoming defend a Quota of, say 20 wolves, to be taken in the Big Horns until there is an established population of wolves eating the elk herds of the Big Horns?

The stated purpose of the reintroduction was not to repopulate the west with wolves but to restore limited populations to very remote areas, with Yellowstone Park being "wolf central" here in Wyoming. Most all thinking people, on both sides of the issue, knew this was the classic �Camel nose under the tent� ruse.

After supporting wolf reintroduction Buzzy now whimpers and whines that Wyoming must immediately give up to save his �public wildlife�. I disagree.

Wolves are being lethally managed in Wyoming. I don�t believe having a trophy status hunt this year will make any major change in the number of elk eaten this year.

Wyoming can go to the Trophy game management in a heartbeat but I for one want to run this Dual Classification thing a little further. I am not convinced it is a lost cause and I feel pretty comfortable that missing one season of trophy management, while USFWS is lethally managing wolves in Wyoming, will not have a major detrimental effect on the elk.

Good thing they don't have minimum intelligence requirements either. You lucked out again blow hard. Does that half ass orange bikini pass in other states? Tell me again why you wear it, since you obviously don't need one anywhere you "hunt". Why don't you just admit that you are a hypocrite and a liar. You can bullshit the fans..... You must gargle the Game Warden's sack in order to get away with the crap you do.

So my 3.5 year old bucks are "sub adult" yet your 4.5 year old buck (according to you)) is suddenly an adult????? Laffin here. Are those bulls 4.5 year old adult bulls too? Did you use the same method to age them???? Keep digging your hole and I will keep feeding your rope there wolf lover. Flinch

You aint too bright Flinch, but what else is new. Pronghorn can reach B&C size by the age of 3.5. In WY all you need is an orange hat to comply with the law. WGAF what the law is in other states if you're hunting Wyoming??

You already changed it but no hunter orange needed in NM, unless on one of the missle ranges and youth hunts on the VC.

In over his head, as usual.

Flinch,

If you ever bothered to read hunting regulations, and if ever hunted outside Utah...you'd know there isnt a hunter orange requirement at all in Arizona...and I didnt wear it there.

Wyoming doesnt have a minimum square inch requirement, only one article of clothing above the waist, and camo orange qualifies. An orange hat is enough.

Montana is 144 square inches...get your ruler out and you'll see just how little that is...camo pattern orange also qualifies.

No, it wasnt according to a third party that my antelope were both 4+, I know they were They could have been older, but unlike you I dont inflate the age of 2.5 year old buck to make it what its not.

Aging antelope in the field from 6 months to 4.5 years is simple. Anything older you cant do it other than by tooth cementum annulation.

Oh, and heres another "side step" from my MT bull...



I didnt hunt NM this year...so not sure where you pulled that out of.

I did hunt NM last year though....3 horns on this one and also 4.5+...



Now, run along and post up some more pics of your "big cows" and "old" pencil antlered 2.5 year old mule deer.

Az doesn't require any orange, thank goodness...

It'd make us too easy a target for cartel snipers...

Ship us some wolves and we'll ship some 'dog burrito' love'n illegals... wait, they're immigrating toward each other already.

Kent

Jeez Rosco...did you read that out of a book? Ever killed an antelope...or anything for that matter? I know antelope deer and even elk once in a while can hit B.C. status very young, especially antelope. That isn't the point. You are REALLY late to the game, and have no clue what you are talking about with regards to "sub adult bucks" but thanks for enlightening me.

Let me help you out a bit. Old buzzy got all over my case for killing 3.5 year old "sub adult" dinks, yet his 4.5 year old bucks are suddenly old age studs. Old Buzz has a great imagination though. You his new buddy?

Oh, so now my bucks are two year old eh Buzz? Good going blowhard. How do you make up all your B.S.? What did that bull go....400+? Laffin...You just keep going and going and going.

Sucks to be me, I didn't get any out of state hunts this year, shame on me. Why can't I be so great, wonderful and all knowing as Buzz the blowhard. Oh yeah, cuz it would be a lonely pathetic life. Flinch

Flinch,

There is no way that an elk can reach B&C status "very young"...add that to the list of things you're absolutely fuggin' clueless about.

Post up a picture of a 375 inch bull elk thats 3.5 years old...or a 190 mule deer buck thats 3.5.

It flat doesnt happen...they dont get B&C sized at a "young age."

I'm sure that pisses you off, as I just crushed your hopes of shooting a B&C 2.5 year old mule deer.

Heres a hint...dont shoot your mule deer out of the nursery herds and you might find one older than 2.5.

NO, I dont know Buzz..

Yes, I've killed a few.Not a real good picture taker tho.

Rosco1...that top buck is wayyyy cool and looks to be a real good one.

Once again Buzz, your comprehension shows your ignorance. Show me WHERE I said a 3.5 year old deer, elk, or goat can be a B.C. critter? Come on, make something up, you can do it. I said "YOUNG", not 3.5 years old....you idiot!! Keep digging. You are batting a thousand.

Check the state record books, there are quite a few white tail, mule deer and speed goats in there that were not old. There are even a few elk. You can read and do research...right? Flinch

Hey Flinch,

How old is this buck...any first year biology student could tell you with no problem that its 4.5+



Heres a pic of the same buck about 30 minutes earlier:

He grossed 83 and change, but barley made awards after drying/deduct..The bottom one is my biggest, net B&C. he looks to have crap prongs, but they are both over 6.He also had lots of deduct as his left horn was considerably smaller than the right..his gross score was rather impressive!

another view of the bottom one

Flinch,

Could you point out in the "record book" the section where they list the age of the animals?

I've about a half dozen B&C and P&Y record books...missed the age section.

Rosco1,

The first photo didnt do that buck any kind of justice...thats a dandy. Congrats!

I've shot a couple that have flirted with Awards...but none that make it.

My wife has shot 2 that make awards in 2007, and 2010.

80 6/8



80 4/8

Antelope...wow...they are tough to hunt.
I never get out of state to hunt either Buzz, but thanks for noticing.Flinch

Texas


Colorado


Colorado, oh and he is 4.5 years old and went over 150. Not bad for a "young" 8 point buck.


Another Colorado 4.5 year old 5x5 dink


I need to get out more. At least a good pissing match brings out some good pics Flinch

Yes..I need to start taking better field photo's..Something I really kick myself over now.

Congrats to your wife, those are both dandy bucks..I've gone two years in row without hunting them..Cant wait for September!

Flinch,

I agree, hunting 12 inch antelope bucks that score 65 B&C arent tough to hunt...

Yep, pic's are always better than a Woof debate

Flinch,

Heres what whitetail look like at 8.5 as per cementum...

Oh, and public land in Western Montana and a $12 tag:

love that one...

I can like it as well, but....I hope you were wearing 400 sg inches of orange not 144

Dober

i caught that too, but wasn't gonna poke a hornets nest.

Yep, you's guys is right....400 square inches.

20x20...which still isnt much.

But, I bet if Flinch measured his junk, and multiplied it by 10, he'd start getting the picture about how much orange is required.

Just sayin'...

Dober...I had it covered...in spades:



A better pic:

Man that bucks got a really similar rack as the one I killed this year, who knows, could be same genetics.

That's a toad of a buck...

twasn't worried bout it, ya 338 him? I do love the 33's!

Dober

rl11, I remember seeing the one you got, post a pic, that was a nice deer!

Dober,

I did use the 338...and 250 partitions. About all I used for close to 10 years, other than for antelope.

Was hunting elk and bumped him...338's work on deer.

Shot this one with the same 338 in 2004 or so, not far from where I killed that other one:



Havent shot the 338 since 2006...should start using it again, always seemed to work pretty good.

The six side is on opposite sides, other that, could be brothers.

Here you go Sam-

That's the one!

rl11,

Thats a great deer for sure.

Which direction were you from zootown? Bfoot?

Sorry for the temp wuff derail but Buzz I ran a 340 quite a bit (wore out 2 tubes) on all that moves here from pd's to elks. Love the 33's and then for a good share of this last decade I ran amuck with the 338/06.

I dote on the 200 NBT and the 250 Noz. Just dig how they plant game.

Dober


(k-now you all can get back to cussing and discussing wolves)

Mudhen you must always take the editorials in the Casper paper with a grain of salt.
It's pet name by most of the locals is the Casper Redstar... If there's sickpup democrat or other leftwing/socialist agenda for them to get behind ,,, they will.
There's alot going on with this wolf thing. So until the legislature meets and starts casting votes on wolf bills and agreements, nobody will know much about which way it's going....
Might be if the wolves do eat all the wildlife, then the game and fish commission can be desolved, and all can start from a fresh start.....

Talking about guns is way funner than arguing about wolves......grin! I have many opinions about them(wolves), but have to keep them under my hat for another 10 years or so.....grin!

Course there's always cussing and discussing gun gack whilst calling wuffs.....

Life don't get much better than that do it?

Dober

Flinch opening his mouth and proving he's an idiot is always fun to watch

There are some pretty tough typists on here Buzz. Watch you don't get yur arse kicked by some of them. I hear tell they are some tough bastids that know more about game, rifles and bullets then your hard drive can even hold!

Damn it. I was out wolf hunting the last week and missed all of this fun.

Did ya get one?

It is interesting how time goes by and nothing changes.
http://gf.state.wy.us/services/news/pressreleases/07/12/14/071214_8.asp



Wyoming's Wolf Plan Offers 'Adequate Regulatory Mechanism' to Manage Wolves, Feds Say

12/14/2007

CHEYENNE, Wyo. Dec. 14 -The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has approved Wyoming's Gray Wolf Management Plan, calling it an "adequate regulatory mechanism" that meets the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

Formal notification of the approval came in a letter yesterday from Service Director Dale Hall to Wyoming Game and Fish Department Director Terry Cleveland.

In the letter, Hall wrote, "After careful review and consideration, we determined that the 2007 Plan will provide adequate regulatory mechanisms for conserving a recovered wolf population in Wyoming after delisting and meets the requirements of the Endangered Species Act."

"The Fish and Wildlife Service's acceptance of Wyoming's wolf plan is an encouraging sign that wolves in our state will soon be removed from the Endangered Species List, and that Wyoming will be able to manage wolves on its own terms," said Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal. "It has been a long and difficult road, and in our discussions we have achieved compromise on issues like the dual classification and the state's ability to manage wolves in relation to their impact on elk and deer. I salute Wyoming Game and Fish Director Terry Cleveland and his staff for their hard work in developing the management plan. What remains, in terms of process, is for the feds to delist wolves by Feb. 28 of next year."

Wyoming's original wolf plan was rejected by the Service in 2004. With the passage of House Bill 0213 by the 2007 Wyoming Legislature, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission had latitude to adopt a new plan that met the requirements of the Service. The plan approved yesterday was adopted by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission on November 16, 2007. The Commission worked with the Service to make several significant changes to Wyoming's original wolf plan and reviewed public comments before approving the plan and submitting it to the Service.

Under Wyoming's approved plan, after delisting the Wyoming Game and Fish Department will assume management of wolves in that portion of the state where wolves will be classified as trophy game animals. In the remaining portions of the state, gray wolves will be classified as predatory animals.

The Service has determined that 15 breeding pairs of wolves will ensure Wyoming's share of a fully recovered population. Wyoming's plan commits the Game and Fish Department to maintaining at least seven breeding pairs of wolves in the state and primarily outside of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway. The remaining breeding pairs will be located primarily within Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway.

"Approval of Wyoming's plan is a major step forward in the recovery of wolf populations in the northern Rocky Mountains and should help clear the way for removing them from the Endangered Species List this winter," said Cleveland. "We're pleased that the Service has worked with us to find a compromise. Credit goes to the Governor, the Legislature, the Attorney General, and the Commission for their hard work and efforts in moving wolf delisting to this point. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is fully prepared to assume management of wolves in Wyoming, and we are committed to ensuring a recovered population while managing this species in a way that makes sense for people who live and work in wolf country."

To see the full text of the Service's letter approving Wyoming's wolf plan, go to the Wyoming Game and Fish website at: http://gf.state.wy.us.

Contact: Eric Keszler (307-777-4594)

-WGFD-

Hunters Orange is a target..I would never hunt in a State that required it like Montana and Wyoming.

oops..Was I off topic.

Ranch..Do you really wear it?

Jayco

Not unless I have to.
How's the wolf burger chili recipe coming?

And we both thank you!

Apparently the ban on WyG&F employees even mentioning wolves was lifted after March of 2003?




DAVE MOODY VALUED G&F EMPLOYEE; GOAL OF WOLF DE-LISTING CONTINUES FOR WYOMING

4/22/2003

CHEYENNE – The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has finalized its review of the comments made by Dave Moody at the North American Interagency Wolf Conference and has taken appropriate action.

Contrary to what has been previously reported Moody was never suspended from his position, he was placed on paid administrative leave for a short time and is now back at work.

"Moody is a valuable employee with our department," said Director Brent Manning. "He will continue to be involved in wildlife management. His expertise and experience are invaluable."

The department is moving forward with its wolf management plan and expects to have it out in a few months.

"There is probably not a more contentious issue in wildlife management today than wolves," said John Emmerich, assistant chief of the department’s Wildlife Division. "The decision to reintroduce wolves to Wyoming was a national decision reflecting the diverse interests of the citizens of Wyoming and the entire country. Our goal is to get the wolf de-listed so the Wyoming Game and Fish Department can manage wolf populations and distribution to meet the desires of both Wyoming and national publics.

"We are going to work as a team to get the wolf de-listed. We are going to strive for excellence, not perfection. We may have different opinions on how to get to where we want to be, but we will get there," said Emmerich. "We have a responsibility to manage all wildlife, and that now includes wolves. We plan to do that while still maintaining our traditional Wyoming lifestyles, including hunting opportunities.

"We will strive to balance the interests of all folks in Wyoming to the best of our ability while ensuring viable wolf populations are maintained and there is no future need for re-listing," said Emmerich.

-WGFD-

My son and I were going out tomorrow Wolf hunting but he probably has to work.Nuts..He goes a few miles out of town to play with his friends in the snow and the last two outings, showed three wolves in a hurry.

It appears,he is just not quick enough or had his mind somewhere else.But that leaves me hunting until March 31 and my '06 out of the safe.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Jayco

Dated 2007, and it's now nearly 2012. Fast track!
I'm looking for volunteers among you .gov haters. Here's the deal: A few of you give me your names and addresses, plus your phone numbers, and your bosses' phone numbers. Then, just for fun, I call your bosses and complain about what you've said on this website and try to get you fired. If that doesn't work, I'll find a legislator who will call and try to get you fired. If that fails, I'll try to get you transferred, to force you to sell a house at a loss and buy one that's over-priced, plus forcing your wife to quit her job, too, breaking you financially. With luck, maybe your wife will divorce you, if she hasn't already because you're spending too much time at work and not enough with her and the kids. If all of this doesn't work, I'll try to get political pressure applied to promote some "go along to get along" wimp as your boss so you can't do your job. If you're a fed, he'll probably force transfer you to Barstow or Bakersfield for doing your job and making somebody angry. I'll spend lots of time trying to make certain you never get promoted. And finally, for real amusement, I'm going to call your house, preferably when you're gone, and make a few death threats to terrorize your family. I might even see to it that your kids get the hell beat out of them at school.
I almost forgot. I'm also going to spread a bunch of false rumors about things you supposedly said, and because you have a .gov in your e-mail address, you don't get to refute the lies, because the politicians and your wimpy supervisors might not like it, you just have to shut up and put up with it. How about it boys? Anyone want to see how the .gov guys and gals live? Any takers?

Jayco, Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

Harju, like has been pointed out here many times, its' the second time the USFWS has led Wyoming along the merry trail, just to get near the end and get the rug jerked out. How this time turns out is up in the air. Altho there is time and opportunity for a no suit claus in federal statutes. There is also a chance for the Wy. Legislature to craft legislation that speaks to judge Johnsons ruling, thereby making a better chance that for a lawsuit against the FWS and Wy agreement it would be back in his court instead of the 9th or 2nd circuit.
I still maintian my opinion that had the Wyoming Game and Fish Dept done their job in 1993,4 or 5 and documented and inventoried that wolf population on the thorafare, never mind the Upper Green pack. None of this conversation might be happening..

I'll bet you, I was cruising Whitefish/Kallispell and Columbia Falls before you were born.Unless your older than I...

My Uncle was the Super and retired from the Hungry Horse Dam.I spent alot of time up there..I like Montana alot and my second choice to live in the NW part.

Jayco

Ranch13,

You're living in lala land...and the past.

Wouldnt have mattered if there were wolves in the thorofare or not, FACT is wolf reintroduction would have happened anyway.

What midget Burns pointed out only applied to the Yellowstone Reintroduction...and secondly, there had to be a POPULATION of wolves living in Yellowstone...which there wasnt.

There was the "black animal" video...that was not conclusive and "reports"...that were also inconclusive.

I can tell you right now that any no-lawsuit legislation is not going to happen. Call Enzi's office and ask him what the chances are for a no-lawsuit bill to pass the house and senate as a stand-alone bill. I did, just this A.M., and talked to one of his staffers...chances are somewhere between when hell freezes over and NEVER.

Theres also rumblings in the State Legislature to drop the entire wolf management plan and just leave everything as is...and apparently thats picking up steam.

Even if the legislature adopts the "new" wolf plan, I can assure you, lawsuits will likely be filed the same day it passes.

Wyoming has a long and lonely uphill battle...all thanks to...well, you already know who.

Wyoming had many, many, chances to get this thing right...squandered it.

Like I said, you reap what you sow...

Buzz you might be part right on the no suit claus.
Yes there's a real chance that the Wyoming legislature might let things be. It wouldn't take long for the lawsuits from the prowolf people to bankrupt the state.
In the end in may indeed be the best thing to leave the wolves alone. As it stands now livestock interest can shoot wolves in the act of preying on livestock, so while it's a hard pill to swallow loosing income like that,but with Aphis,FWS and G&F able to take care of problem packs things may turn out alright. The big loosers will be "sportsmen" with a lessened chance of going hunting. Which isn't all that great as yet, there's still ample opportunity for "sportsmen" to fill tags for the 3 main species of biggame,antelope,deer and elk, Wyoming has to offer.
Yes we know who to thank for the long and lonely uphill battle. You were only 3 years old the last time we could kill a grizzly bear on the bear tag that was attached to our elk license. Here we are 39 years later, grizzlies still can't be hunted in the lower 48.I'm not sure you were even a gleam in your daddies eye, when it was ok to go out into the Red Desert and the Big Horn basin or out in Nevada or Utah and gather a bevvy of wild horse colts and weanlings... Hell the BLM themselves can't even get the management done due to lawsuits enabled by the ESA.The Wy GFD fought real hard to stay out of that battle when it started to.
So yes youngfella I do know where the blame goes,and its' not were you think it goes.
Let's keep in mind the state has changed from Democrat-Republican administrations 3 times now since this wolf thing has cropped up. Each and every adminstration has held to the same basic stance on wolves.
Reap what we sow? Not hardly, we get to clean up the mess after those that slip into the state to take what they can and leave, and those that stick their noses in where they don't belong, leave us with.

The one point I'll agree with is neither the R's or D's have the balls required to do whats right...mainly because they're bought and paid for by the same interests.

Those "interests" are the folks that believe in the marlboro man...yet hide behind the government security of subsidized grazing, subsidized loans, and subsidized predator control...and tax breaks around every clump of grass!

To ice the cake, they cant concede a simple point that would do much to bridge the large gap they've created between themselves and sportsmen on this wolf issue.

To say they've completely cut their nose off to spite their face is perhaps the understatement of the last 8 years of this wolf issue.

So, yes, I think they have reaped what they've sewn.

I realize thats painting with a broad brush...apologies in advance to those that it doesnt apply to.

Things are not looking good for sportsmen or big-game in Wyoming...and we shouldnt have to pay the price for a pi$$ing contest created by the WWC and associated hard-heads.

I well remember when I could have bought a grizzly tag OTC in Montana...and also remember when the springs hunts were on a draw. Happy to say I applied unsuccesfully for the spring hunts...sorry to say I didnt take advantage of the fall OTC hunts.

Wyoming isnt helping itself on the potential delisting and possibility of once again managing/hunting grizzlies by playing hard-ball over the wolf issue either.

Good faith has been pissed into the wind...sadly.

Somebody needs to "introduce" Parvo

Its been done and it is as stupid or even more stupid that the poisons that have been killing bird dogs and pet dogs out there.

OK so...let's just entertain this notion. 1994 there are 20,000. As of this past week there are 6000.


In 17 years there have been 14,000 Elk in YNP that were wiped off this earth. I can only assume that the depreciation of Elk grew exponentially and not linearly. Seeing as it is biological fact that wolf population nearly doubles every year.



823.5 Elk a year. At a steady rate YNP is outta Elk in 7.28 Years.

This is without taking into account Wolf Population growth and the cow calf ratio's.

Seeing as you can't hunt the park... well...

Good Job gubmint!

Buzz you have lost total sight of two things.
1. It was Jack Reed senator from Rhode Island that stripped the no suit clause out of the FWS funding bill.
2. It is those folks that utilize the grazing on federal lands that creates a reason for the taxpayer to be subsidizing all of your hunting trips...No grazing in the multiuse of forest service lands, and USFS range managers/scientist not much in demand...
You certainly aren't paying any price for the pissing contest brought about by those who want both the livestock and the hunting industries gone.Except for whatever dues you pay to such orginizations, with money generated by your taxpayer funded job.
Good faith? There's been precious little coming from the feds, people who work for the feds, or so called prowolf groups, and a good many "sportsmen" groups.

Nope. Five days of hard hunting and hiking. Saw two on one day and five on another day. Did not get in shooting range of any of them. Very exciting to think you are going to get a shot at one.




In MT we had good faith from the USFWS and their employees. No need to comment about the pro wolf groups.

Agree that there has been NO good faith from at least two "sportsmen" groups. The two back stabbing groups from Utah who wanted to sink MT and ID plans. Glad they got caught sleeping with the wolf lovers and exposed for the traitors they are.

If it were up to SFW and BGF, I would not have had the chance to hunt wolves in MT this season. They did everything they could to kill the bill that got us those seasons.

Now, the MT Chapter of SFW is making a big deal about wolf hunts, and they had not a single thing to do with it.

I have advocated states rights in this since the beginning, but when MT/ID/WY signed on to the reintroduction agreement in 1995, we were sunk, as that language tied us all together.

It took away the right of each state to do what they wanted, without being impacted by the actions of the other state.

All along I supported WY doing what ever they damn well pleased, but it was hard to sit by and watch the enviros use the WY plan as the tool to stop delisting in MT and ID. While WY and the courts fought over the plan, wolves were eating the crap out of MT and ID elk, even though our plans had been approved by the USFWS and by Molloy.

I am going to hunt wolves in MT until I fill my tag, the quotas fill, or season ends. And if I shoot one here, I will be in ID trying to help them fill their quotas.

I am not afraid to say that I gave comments that supported the reintroduction in 1995, when the agreement was negotiated that when each state reached 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs, we would start with delisting.

I can live with some wolves, so long as they are managed as was negotiated and agreed to in the reintroduction agreement signed by USFWS, MT, WY, and ID. I expected lawsuits, but never in my wildest dreams did I think it would get as fugged up in the courts as it did. Call me naive or stupid.

Having been burned by this process, I will never again support reintroduction of any species. The process that falls under the ESA cannot be trusted. That is too bad, as hunters have been the leaders in species conservation. But, we have been screwed over so bad by this process that I can never again see hunters, or western communities, supporting a reintroduction of another species.

So, if WY and the courts want to keep fighting, I don't really give a crap, now that MT is not held hostage by that process. I want WY to do what is best for hunters and citizens of WY.

And if ever again see two supposed "sportsmen" groups jump in the sack with the wolf lovers, I hope the hunting community hangs them out to dry. As of right now, most hunters seem to be giving those two worthless groups a free pass. Not me. Their actions are unforgivable.

Time to go do some more wolf hunting. I am not taking these seasons for granted. Having spent fifteen years fighting about this crap with USFWS, enviros, and then two supposed "hunter" groups, I cherish the opportunity to kill a wolf more than most anything I can hunt in MT.

If I do kill one, I will make sure and post it here. And on every UT hunting site I can find, so the worthless pukes who tried to screw us over can see how ridiculous their actions were.

On a different note, did Dave Moody get run out of WY G&F? He and I worked together for a couple years, working with the USFWS to integrate the Fed Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan with the MT and WY recovery plans. He was a very smart guy and always spoke up for the hunter in those discussions. I had a lot of respect for him, but have not seen him for about six or seven years.

Bigfin I don't know exactly what happened to Moody. I think I recall he left the Wy GFD and went with a FWS bear related job, but I could be wrong on that.
Near as I can tell the only thing that saved MT and Idaho was the 2 democrat senators that MT has, had they not both been in the ruling class, you'ld still be dancing the dance around that halfwit Malloy and his handlers and the 9th circus.

What saved MT was a state wolf management plan designed by hunters and ranchers that was accepted by the USFWS and agreed to by Molloy as acceptable for wolf management.

And, we had a delegation that worked with a Republican, Rep Simpson from Idaho, to get the USFWS ruling of 2009 that delisted in MT and ID to be law. It had nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. It had to do with Simpson and Tester being western legislators who understand the importance of hunting to their constituents.

The bill that got us our seasons was introduced by one Republican and one Democrat. It was opposed by all urban legislators, both Republican and Democrat. And yes, we were lucky to have an upcoming Senate race where the Dems do not want to lose Tester's seat, so they held their nose and accepted it.

The important point is that the two MT senators you mention, listened to the hunters. The one MT rep, who is a Republican, pretty much fought the solution behind the scenes until he saw the writing on the wall. I am a registered Republican, and it pisses me off that he put his partisan BS in front of what we all know was best for MT - getting state control of our wolves.

If we did not have a plan that was already accepted by the USFWS, we could not have circumvented Molloy's opinions. We would still be tied to WY and the ongoing battle WY has with the USFWS/Molloy.

I laugh at all the guys who say MT caved in. We did not cave in. We drew up a plan that reflected the value of Montanans. The committee that crafted the MT plan was stacked with hunters and ranchers, hardly the bleeding heart softies that some like to imply when comparing our plan to WY. It is a plan crafted by Montanans to reflect what we wanted. Naturally it would be different than the ID or WY plans.

I am just thankful we got disconnected from the WY/USFWS battle. And however it happened makes no difference to me. I can now go wolf hunting.

Well this is the second "approoved" plan Wyoming has had. This second plan is still there and still approoved, but without the same safegaurd against the onslaught of lawsuits that Idaho and Mt got, Wyomings legislature is hesitant about going forward with their part of the plan, and rightfully so I believe.

BigFin-which two supposed sportsmans groups got in the rack with the wuff people? Gotta know who not to support in the future.

Thx
Dober

Dober,

Big Game Forever and Sportsmen for Wildlife...

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/wyoming-102011/2011-25359_FR_wolfdelist.pdf

Anyone that knows me knows I am not a fan of the wolf in the lower 48.
Law, or no law, the only good wolf is a dead wolf in the lower 48.

Biker

Thx Buzz

Dober

Answer - What Buzz says. Too bad, but so true.

Reminds we of what my Grandpa would say about folks who betrayed his trust, "I wouldn't trust him in a chit house with a spoon - What he couldn't steal from you, he would try to eat." Kind of sums up my feelings about getting screwed over by SFW and BGF.

You been out trying to kill any of these wolves? A guy like you could be hell on them with your calling talents.

I've got a few ponies I need to get lined out for spring sales. BigFin or Dober.. point me in the right direction from Norris and what you've heard are the most recent whereabouts of the Wuffs and after the Jolly Ole man visits the kids, I may just saddle up and go pound some hills.

I understand the point you are making, however no protection is afforded to nor guidance for management of wild horses are made by the Endangered Species Act. That is provided for by Wild-Free Roaming Horses and Burro Act of 1971. Similarly, lawsuits are not enabled, AFAIK, through either the ESA or WFRHBA. That is provided for through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (and admendments) which provides for appeals to federal decisions, which can and do end up in lawsuits. Just wanted to clear the air on that.

Closest to you would be the pack near Potosi, or those that are starting to follow the elk near Wall Creek. A pack is being monitored way up Johnny Ridge road. Horses would be the way to go after the later. They are still up high.

Good luck.

Pointer the BLM wildhorse people may have a different take on thingss concerning being able to develope and implement management plans.
Put what ever letters, numbers etc you want behind something the feds are supposed to take care of, and they all turn into a cluster flop in short order, that mainly serves to give a handful of federal employees employment until retirement..
I did find it particularly interesting in this last federal register from the FWS on delisting the wolves, that they continually and often pointed to the lawsuits filed by various wildlife groups that have stopped all of the approoved plans. I also found it particularly interesting that Montana and Idaho's plans are still under appeal, and given a judge or two in a pithy mood, those hunts may come to a screaming halt.

And ..... ?

There is hardly anything in the realm of Federal policy that is not being litigated in some way shape or form.

Would take more than a judge in a "pithy mood" to stop those hunts. It would take a legal finding that the delisting ruling of 2009 and the budget bill of 2011 were not in compliance with Federal statute and law.

The hunts have already withstood the legal challenges to this point. They may get overturned if the court finds reason to do so. But most attorneys inolved are pretty confident they will not.

So, we are hunting woves in MT. Enjoying the hell out of those hunts

I might be wrong, but your comments come across that you feel MT and ID have done something wrong in our plans or how we got here. Almost like you hope MT and ID hunts get overturned.

If I am reading that wrong, my apologies in advance.

One more day of work, then two more mornings of wolf hunting. And three days next week.

Good stuff Randy.

I feel inspired. I think my traditional Christmas bird hunt may turn into a wolf hunt this year.

BigFin,

You arent reading it wrong...Ranch13 and Burns are both all chapped up about MT and ID getting wolf hunts and accepted plans.

They both still believe, after 8 years, countless lawsuits, injunctions, whining about judges being "unfair", etc. that Wyomings plan is the "best". I've seen slow learners before...but this is off the deep end.

Burns thinks Wyoming should hold out a little longer...apparently beating a dead horse for 8 years just doesnt quite get the point through???

Ranch13 is now blaming a senator from RI for Wyomings woes and thats funny, considering Wyoming could have been in with ID and MT on the first no-lawsuit rider. Of course, thats not even taking into account that with an accepted plan, WY, along with MT and ID would have had state countrol in 2003-2004 if not for the dual classification in Wyoming.

Wyoming is sailing a sinking ship into uncharted waters...with Captains Benson, Wharff, Haggeman and Peay at the helm.

Huh? I am totally missing the point your are trying to make in the first sentence. All I know is that ESA is NOT used in the management of wild horses or the administration of that program, which you stated previously.

The latter I get, you don't like federal agencies, how they conduct business, or the people hired to do so.

Bigfin if you read the delisting proposal the FWS has published in the federal register, (see the link I posted, and remember the buzzH said they never posted it) they state in their that the court case against Mt and Id are still under appeal. So yep it could end yet.
And no I'm not saying Mt or Id did anything wrong.

Pointer, it is true I think the vast majority of federal agencies can be done away with. It's a sad fact that the federal employees like the Hettick boy and others forget who they are working for and do just as much as they possibly can to keep trouble stirred up, but hide behind uncle sams skirts as best they can.
There are good people in the federal government, its the bad apples that put a stain on the rest.

Ranch13,

Please point out where I said the USFWS never posted the delisting proposal.

Thanks.

Wyoming has kept the wolf issue stirred up since they proposed dual classification.

Also, since Molloy ruled that the Simpson/Tester rider was NOT unconstitutional based on prededence set via other 9th circuit rulings...I'm confident, as are the attorneys in MT and ID, that any further appeals are D.O.A.

Montana and Idaho are on easy street...Wyoming is off in the weeds.

I figured that was how you felt, as you are not alone. Federal employees are still free, for now , to voice and state personal opinions when not operating in an official capacity. It's usually others that make a bigger deal about their employment in regards to their opinions than they do.

Still don't get your point you were trying to make regarding my clarification of wild horse management and ESA?

Buzz clear back on page 1.

Buzz are you on company time and computer?

Pointer so you're trying to say that you and others employeed by the government do not carry your anti private property and states rights belief system into your job?
The point is slice it dice it anyway you want, the blm can't get a handle on the horse herds because everytime they come up with a plan to do so, they get a lawsuit filed on them. There's no reason to expect the wolf issue is going to be any different.

pointer,

I agree, Ranch13 keeps acting like I'm the wolf coordinator for the USFWS...I'm not.

I have never acted in an official capacity or represented any government agency in any way on this issue from 1988-present.

I have represented my personal opinion and commented on the DEIS, FEIS, and also commented on WY and MT's state plans as a United States Citizen, Citizen of the the states I reside(d) in, and as an outdoorsman. I've also supported several sportsmens groups at the National level as well as local level and allowed them to speak on my behalf on the wolf issue.

Apparently rights afforded every other U.S. citizen should be denied those that work for a government agency?

Thats messed up thinking right there...and a joke.

Ranch13,

You're going to have to point it out...I never said anything about the Federal Register.

Question 2....NO, and NO...on leave and sitting at my HOME computer in Laramie.

Your third question...I'm all about private property rights, I dont trespass for any reason, work, hunting, etc. I'm also all about states rights...including my right to address state issues that are negatively impacting my public wildlife, my public land, etc.

As an example I fully support WY's state right to discriminate against NR hunters by charging them more to hunt, making them have a guide in Wilderness areas, etc. As a hunter and citizen, I dont agree with the Wyoming Wildnerness guide law, but I do support the States Right to have the law. same with the wolf issue, it is important that Wyoming has the right to come up with any plan they want from a states right issue. But, as a citizen of WY, a Resident Hunter in Wyoming, I also have the right to inform the State they're taking the wrong stance on this issue. I can lobby the Legislature (both state and federal), G&F Commission, etc. as a citizen...which I do on a regular basis.

IMO, its a sorry employee, of any stripe, that cannot maintain a level of professionalism by keeping personal views seperated from their profession. Precisely why you'll never hear me represent anyone other than myself, on any issue, unless acting in an official capacity to do so.

Buzz you can state your opinion all you want, nobody ever said any different.
But you need to not get your panties all twisted, when you called for the demeaning hateful remarks you make about the very people you are employed by the Rocky Mtn Research Center to work with. The type of backhanded insults you throw at the livestock and ag industry is just the type of thing that causes a deep seated resentment and lack of trust from those you are supposed to be in the business of helping. I seriously doubt you have the ability to switch that crap off when you should.

Last question for you Buzz, did you read the FWS proposed delisting published in the federal register? If so why do you keep up with these ludacrist statements about the state of Wyoming. It clearly says in there that Wyomings plan has been accepted and rejected and is now accepted again.. So why all this crap about the livestok interest.
Also whats with these attacks on Harriet Hageman, had she not of won the suit against the FWS and got the ruling from Judge Johnson we wouldn't be where we are, and the FWS says so in the federal register.

Ranch13,

You're making wild assumptions...at best...making libelous assumptions at worse.

The truth is what it is and the truth isnt an insult. The eveidence is clear who was in the drivers seat drafting Wyomings wolf plan and who was influencing the Governor and WYG&F commission on same.

It wasnt the hunters and sportsmens groups (other than WGOA, SFW and BGF) that have pushed Wyomings crap wolf plan.

I think we know from the tone of your posts who has the deep seated, and unfounded, resentment....and who cant seperate personal opinion from professional opinion...if only obviously.

Pretty brash claim there regarding my stance on private property and state's rights. You obviously don't know me.

I don't disagree much with your position regarding wild horse management. It is a mess, but has nothing to do with the ESA as you stated.

Buzz I am a rancher, I have no reason to seperate my personal opinion from my professional opinion. I draw my own wages from my own income. I have no agency policy to adhere to,whether I like it or not such as those of you employeed by the government.

Gee I dont know, other than Hageman throwing Idaho and Montana under the bus, along with conservation groups including some of the most respected and oldest ones in the Nation???

I guess as a hunter and member of a couple of those groups, as well as someone who TRULY does believe in States Rights...I should be happy that Hageman, acting in capacity as an attorney for the WWC, I should be happy with the way she tried to stop a delisting bill?

TROUBLING EFFORTS BREWING IN CONGRESS AS IT SEEKS TO REVERSE WYOMING�S VICTORY

I am now writing to you with great disappointment, as I fear that our victory in the wolf saga is now at risk. Once again it appears that politics may prevail over science and good public policy. Wyoming�s Wolf Management Plan and our victory before Judge Johnson are now at risk as the direct result of an amendment that has been introduced by Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, and Senators John Tester and Max Baucus, Democrats from Montana. The amendment would either be added to the �continuing resolutions� that have been in the news lately (to keep the federal government running as the House and Senate seek to hammer out the 2011 budget), or to the budget bill itself.

The purpose of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is as simple as it is troubling. It is designed to delist the wolf populations in Idaho and Montana, as well as parts of Oregon, Utah and Washington, while the remainder of the States �- including Wyoming -� are left to fend for themselves. Most importantly, however, the very wording of the proposed amendment appears to be designed to nullify Judge Johnson�s decision in its entirety.

Mr. Simpson�s amendment works by reinstating the USFWS�s 2009 Final Rule (the one rejected by Judge Molloy in Montana). There are two sections of the 2009 Rule that are important here, both of which would become law if the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment passes. As you remember, the first portion of that Rule approved the then-existing Montana and Idaho Wolf Management Plans, both of which allowed the States to assume management authority over their wolves (although with federal permission and involvement). The second part of the 2009 Final Rule rejected Wyoming�s Wolf Management Plan, stating that �the Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms.� 74 Fed.Reg. 15123.

Considering the language of the 2009 Rule, if Congressman Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus were to be successful in including their proposed language as part of either a short-term �continuing resolution,� or the 2011 budget, and such bill passes both the U.S. House and the Senate, we can fully expect that the federal agencies and the environmental groups will argue that Judge Johnson�s decision has been congressionally nullified. Even more troubling is the fact that their amendment includes language that is intended to then block Wyoming from challenging the statute: �Such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial review.� HR 1, Sec. 1713. To state that this is a real and immediate threat to Wyoming�s ability to assume management of the wolf population is an understatement.

You may ask: �why would Simpson, Tester and Baucus seek to impose a rule from 2009 when, from the States� rights standpoint, and from the standpoint of wolf management, Judge Johnson�s decision is much more favorable to every State in the Union?� I have asked the same question, and none of the answers are favorable.

The actions of Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus are beyond troubling, and should be cause for concern for anyone who seeks to protect our wildlife populations, our livestock producers, and our States� rights. Perhaps as significantly (and of grave concern), there are four groups that have endorsed Congressman Simpson�s efforts, and appear to be willing to sacrifice Wyoming� interests:

* National Rifle Association (NRA)
* Safari Club International (SCI)
* Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF)
* Boone and Crockett

By supporting only limited delisting in just a few of the affected States, these four so-called sportsmen groups have essentially sold out everyone else that has been affected by this issue. While these groups also support all of the wolf delisting bills, including some very good legislation (discussed below), their actions in supporting HR 1 (with Congressman Simpson�s amendment) has allowed the Representatives and Senators to �race for the bottom� in order to take the weakest stand possible on the issue.

While these groups publicly claim that they support delisting in all western States, as well as in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, their actions are counterproductive. Their support of the amendment described above will likely undermine other pending wolf litigation that will protect all States. Their actions will also have a more dire outcome: the important victory that is represented by Judge Johnson�s decision, and that resulted from years of hard-fought battles and the investment of tens of thousands of dollars, could be lost. This does not hurt only Wyoming, but will hurt every State in the nation that seeks to manage its own wildlife without the federal agencies� unlawful (and often-times destructive) micro-management out of Washington, D.C.

There are two other bills currently pending in Congress - HR509 and S249, both of which would return management of wolves to all of the affected States. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus approach not only undermines our ability to get either one of these bills passed, but will likely make it more difficult to obtain any additional Congressional action into the foreseeable future. In other words, the actions of Simpson/Tester/Baucus, along with the NRA, SCI, CFS, and Boone and Crocket, have enabled those who seek to prevent the passage of any other bill that would actually provide for legitimate and effective delisting of the wolves.

Passage of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is not an incremental victory as some would claim. This is not an incremental victory for ensuring that States have the right to manage their own wildlife populations, or an incremental victory under the ESA. Judge Johnson�s decision was a victory. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus effort is designed to take that victory away.

By supporting a weak piece of legislation, these groups have allowed several of the Congressional Representatives and Senators to play both sides of the aisle -� to argue that they support delisting when such claims suit their political aspirations, and to argue that they fought against delisting when such a position will garner them votes from the so-called �environmental� groups. In other words, this amounts to nothing more than obtaining only the slightest and short-term moral victory for a limited number of people, and at the same time ensuring a very troubling defeat for the citizens of Wyoming and for the States� right to manage wildlife. While we recognize that political compromises are sometimes necessary, I cannot support legislation that is specifically designed to undo Judge Johnson�s finding that the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan is biologically and scientifically sound. This is simply not good science, good public policy or even good politics. �

We fully and whole-heartedly support delisting in Idaho and Montana (and all of the States where wolves exist). Such delisting, however, cannot be done so that Wyoming is sacrificed at the alter of environmental extremism.

Judge Johnson�s decision must stand. We must fight against this effort to use the promise of delisting in Idaho and Montana (and portions of Oregon, Utah, and Washington) as a ruse to nullify the most important decision that the States have obtained in the last seventeen (17)+ years of wolf battles, as well as the rights of States to control their own destiny in terms of wildlife management.

Please contact the offices of Congressman Simpson, and Senators Tester and Baucus and ask them to support only HR 509 and S249. Please request that they not re-introduce the Wyoming-busting amendment described above.

Please contact Representative Lummis� office and thank her for her strength and continued efforts to fight this battle on your behalf. Please call the offices of Senators Enzi and Barrasso and thank them for their hard work in supporting the right bills on this issue, while fighting against the bad ones. Our Congressional Delegation has stood strong on this issue, and we need to commend them for their efforts on our behalf.

Please contact the NRA, SCI, CFS and Boone and Crocket and ask them to stop their support of an amendment that is specifically designed to undo our important and hard-fought victories. Ask them to instead focus their efforts on passing a solution that protects all of the States that have been plagued by this predator. Ask them to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves.

Please distribute this letter to anyone you believe could help us to expose what is going on in Congress.

Sincerely,

Harriet M. Hageman
18 Mar 2011, 10:52am

Ranch13...is that something I should be happy about?

Pointer no I don't know you, you state your residence as Indiana, I was there once briefly in or about 1983.
There are more private property rights tied up in any of these endangered species things as there are any "sportsmans" public wildlife rights.
The loss of private property rights is the one thing most folks tend to gloss right over, and some tend to celebrate, and many times the ones doing the glossing and celebrating can be traced back to a government paid job.....

Yes Buzz it is something you should be happy about, everything she said in that was true.

Ranch, the reason why people who actually want to hunt wolves don't trust Harriet is this. She tried to put an end to the delisting in MT and ID, along with her buddies at SFW and BGF. After they got caught screwing over hunters, the NRA, SCI, and CSF called them out with a very public beat down. Harriet then went on the attack and tried to blame everything on those groups, along with B&C and RMEF.

She is a hired gun who has no vested interest in solving the wolf delisting issue. Same for SFW and BGF. To them, continued conflict is money in the bank. Heaven forbid someone actually solve the problem. Her, and those two groups are a mirror of the pro-wolf nuts, just that her and BGF/SFW claim to represent the interest of hunters.

Here is a copy of the letter where NRA, et al called out SFFW/BGF. And if you need to see Harriet's ridiculous and extremely long-winded rebuttal to the public beat down her clients/friends received from the NRA, I can post a copy of that, also. That was enough to tell me that as a hunter, I should never trust Harriet.

And no, I am not a government employee, though I have some great friends who are. I am self-employed. Own three businesses. My opnions are based on my own research of facts after getting screwed over by people I thought could be trusted.

Ranch, I see Buzz already posted Harriet's drivel that I offered to post in my previous reply.

You say that everything she said was true. Guess we will just agree to disagree. It would take me a full day to point out all the inaccuracies in that sniveling rant.

Look at the bottom where Buzz highlighted that she was calling for action to kill the MT and ID plans. She was doing that as a representative of a coalition of groups supposed representing and promoting the WY plan.

So, as an MT hunter, you expect me to accept Harriet's call to kill our wolf season? And you expect me to put any faith or trust in her, her clients who used hunter money to pay her, and those who support her ideas?

Some of you guys are complete hypocrites. You come here and talk about state's rights, but when MT and ID have our chance to exercise our state rights and get wolves delisted, you guys go out of your way to sabatoge us.

If you support Harriet and her call to kill the MT and ID delisting, it appears that you believe the only state that has any rights is WY.

It is crap like that makes me care less if you guys in WY ever get your wolf season. I hope you do get season, but I sure as hell ain't gonna waste any more of my time trying to help by putting pressure on the MT delegation to assist WY in your efforts for a wolf season.

Bigfin, I know Harriet Hageman I know most of her family.
I have no quarrel with anything she has done or said in this wolf battle. As a matter of fact if you look closely at what she wrote in the stuff that Buzz posted, it's almost prophetic. Look at where we are today. The very laws that may have gained you guys in Mt and Id a small but not certain way to manage wolves left Wyoming setting right out in the cold.
So here we are, the FWS is ready to delist, there is an agreement between Wyoming and the FWS that meets all the required levels, yet there is no protection afforded Wyoming from lawsuits stopping, such as there is for Mt and Id, because 1 senator from Rhode Island pulled the language from a bill. And somehow people like Buzz and Harju and others think it's Harriet Hageman and the WWC's fault. Some one needs to dig deep into their brain pan to bring up any slight rationalization for that one.

Really? How much of the $20 billion dollars a year of government agricultural subsidies go in your pocket? The US government needs to privatize private industry to get lying crying babies like you off the government teat.

Do you really stand by your statement that the MT and ID delisting law is what has WY setting out in the cold? Seriously, do you buy into that? That is as dillusional as Al Gore inventing the internet.

What has WY sitting out in the cold is the approach they have taken. Whether right or wrong, the political and legal reality is WY has decided to continue fight the court's demand for a different plan. The courts, due to rulings that were won by the wolf nuts, have forced the USFWS to ask WY for a plan that passes the muster the courts have placed on this process.

I am not saying I agree with the courts. Hell, if I was God for a day, the WY plan would be implemented, AS IS.

But since I am not God for a day, WY finds itself in a situation where they can 1) comply with what the court said and amend the plan to comply with what the court requires, or 2) try to find a Congressional solution, or 3) continue to be out in the cold.

But if you continue to be out in the cold, don't be pointing the blame at MT and ID. WY took their own path, which is completely within their right, and something I have always supported. Just that the courts don't agree. We live in a country where the courts rule on law. Whether we agree on those ruling or not, they rule the day.

Wyoming seems to refuse to believe that. Fine. Their perogative. So they follow MT and ID to try the Congressional route. Rather than joining MT and ID in their Congressional efforts, WY decides to go it alone, again. Fine. Their right. And now that they are one state with only 3 of the 535 Congressional members, they wonder why a guy from Rhode Island, or New Jersey, or Florida, or ...... can muck up their plans.

Whover is leading the WY political strategy is an idiot. A person running for Kindergarten class President could have managed Wyoming's political strategy in a better manner. And now that they have seen their chances go down the tubes, the politcial strategists are blaming us in MT and ID. Fine, keep blaming us, but I am not going to sit here and let it go unanswered.

Maybe you need to go to the Capitol and start asking for some accountability about who designged such a poor political strategy. A strategy that is based on a fairy tale land that courts would not weigh in on this. A fantasy that judges are studied wildlife biologists and would always rule in favor of hunters and ranchers. Whoever came up with that strategy must have been on the take. They must have had some sort of personal interest in seeing WY continue to be mired in conflict.

Maybe I am wasting my time, but it seems very obvious the hypocrisy in your statements and blame of MT and ID. You want other states to be held hostage, so WY can continue to use those states as leverage, yet out the other side of your mouth, you rail on about state's rights.

And, what you call a "small way to manage wolves" is your opinion. The same words used by SFW and BGF when they cry about MT and ID being freed from the chains. It is not a "small way." It currently allows us to manage wolves according to a wolf management plan put together by the hunters, trappers, and ranchers of MT. Call that "small" if you want.

We are not naive enough to think it cannot be overturned. Hell, anything under the ESA can be overturned. Any time something goes to the 9th Circuit, it is a crap shoot. The Grizzly Bear delisting got overturned due to the court beleiving a connection exists between global warming and white bark pines the bears feed on. Gauging those realities, MT and ID looked at the political landscape and made and decision based on the best odds of getting control of our wolves. It worked.

You state that WY wants the same protection from lawsuits that MT and ID got in our delisting. Yet, you continue to tell us how small and tenuous our situation is. Your leadership tried to kill what MT and ID got, and now your state is asking for what MT and ID got.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in those positions.

Good luck with the delisting in WY. Given the Midwest states got their delisting today, something Harriet and her friends predicted would never happen if MT and ID were let out of bondage, WY is getting more and more isolated on this wolf issue. I hope you get it solved, but the options and leverage you have to force your plan upon the courts is dwindling, and dwindling fast. And your political clout, now as one small populated state is not a position of power if you go the Congressional route, as shown by the most recent events.

I do hope you get there.

619$.
Now your estimate of 20 billion dollars in ag subsidies is waayyyy off the mark. Most of the so called "farm bill" goes to food stamps, school lunch, WIC, and the US Forest Service. Then the 2% of the original money goes into ag programs, most of that is dropped into administrative costs.
Now this may surpise your ignorant little backside, but as near as I can tell they would do well to close the USDA kill ALL of the programs, and then look at whether or not they should slowly bring back TSA (technical service agencies) such as the NRCS, but not with any programs that provide direct payments to any body.
You want to do some good? you get ahold of your representatives in DC and tell them that if they can't see their way clear to cut the USDA clear out, then they need to completely defund the CRP program. That is a welfare program of obscene perportions. That thing is doing nothing other than creating a welfare land baron class of people. I know of people who have recieved in excess of 3/4 million dollars in the last ten years, on land that was bought and paid for by you and me thru the CRP program...
If they took even 1 of the payments for 1 years CRP contract of 50K$ and went to town and bought food gift certificates from the grocery stores and handed those out as customers walked into the store they would do more good for the ag community, and the nations economy, than they ever will get out of it by letting some lazy ass buy new pickups and take trips to Mexico every winter...
Now how do you stand on the issue of declassifying wolves in the state of Wyoming?

Bigfin, you need to stop, step back from the keyboard, and get a breath of fresh air....

You grazing any animals on public land?

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.

ranch13,

They arent going to get the no lawsuit bill passed...whether stand alone or tied into an appropriations bill. Like I said, just give Enzi's, Barrasso, or Lummis' office a call...they'll tell you the same thing.

Theres a right time to strike and thats when the iron is hot...Wyoming didnt have an iron in the fire...and still doesnt.

Wyoming now really has 2 options, disregard the new plan in the State Legislature...or pass it and roll the dice yet again.

Wyoming is in a no win situation, and IMO, it will be a mistake to adopt the new plan. Adopt it without a no lawsuit clause and you open yourself to lawsuits from every wolf-hippie group in the world. Groups that are already fuming over having lost in ID and MT. They've (wolf hippies) have had plenty of time to circle the wagons and my guess is the lawsuits are already written.

Wyoming wanted to stand alone on this deal.

Oh, and Burns, wolves are increasing in number every year in Wyoming...in 2009 Wyomings wolf populations grew at 11% while MT's grew at less than 4%.

It would seem intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that hunting and trapping work...while WY's failed plan doesnt.

BTW, got an email from a friend that smoked a wolf in Montana yesterday. Its a real shame WY hunters are being denied the opportunity to hunt wolves because of the WWC and associated chronies.

For the state in this mess with the fewest number of wolves right now to "clean house" might not be the best plan.

If I was sitting in a state with almost twice as many wolves (MT) as WY I might reconsider who I supported and my course of action.

I guess it could be worse and you could have the same number of wolves as ID?

Political capital has been squandered in Wyoming with this issue...and there needs to be a house cleaning of epic proportions. No doubt about that.

BTW Burns, are you a member of SFW or BGF?

I'd say you are...sounds like you're swilling the kool-aid straight from Benson and Peays tap...

Pretty hard for me to whine about the state that has so far proven to be the most effective at moderating the damage from the reintroduction.

I have always been a result oriented type of guy.

When ID and MT have a better handle on the disaster, that you wanted and helped cause, I will change my opinion.

To date WY has simply handled a bad situation better than the other 2 states but I wish them well and would love for the state managed �trophy status� to work, I simply have my doubts.

Wyoming has way less wolves and we were supposed to be �Ground Zero� with most of Yellowstone here in Wyoming.

It is not an accident.

Not a member of SWF nor BGF. Never have been but I can read.

Wow, impressive - the state with the smallest wolf recovery area (WY) has fewer wolves than MT and ID. Yet, still does not have a season where their hunters/trappers can kill wolves. Fine manipulation of data there.

No season yet. Great leadership, for sure.

Next.



Yeah, given the wolf recovery area in MT is three times the size of the recovery area in WY, you would expect Montana to have three times the number of wolves as WY, not only double the numbers.

Next.

And, we are actually hunting wolves in MT and ID, rather than having government employees shoot them. How many hunters legally killed a wolf in WY this year? No need to answer, I know the number.

Very glad MT guys supported the course of action they did. Works for us, and when we start trapping them in a few years, it will really be fun.

Like I said, do what you want in WY. Your situation, so make of it what you want. Just glad to be disconnected from the WY deal and moving forward with our own plan. Keep blaming MT and ID for your plight. That seems to be making great progress.

Do you call whats happening to Moose in NW Wyoming effectively handling the damage? How about with elk there?

I dont think many are going to agree with you on the "effectiveness" of Wyomings plan in those areas.

Wow that�s funny as all three states have the same number of packs and wolves to comply with delisting.

If you don�t understand that concept then get out of the discussion until you educate yourself to a level to be able to carry on at an intelligent level.

Wonder why we have fewer numbers??? Wonder why Wyoming is so much closer to the minimum number of wolves to comply with delisting?? Wonder why Wyoming only has wolves in the Northwest corner of the state??

I don�t want a wolf season if it means more wolves. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I hope you guys have good luck with your plan and it proves to be more effective than Wyoming�s plan and we can jump on the bandwagon.

But, as for right now, you guys are getting shafted way worse than Wyoming and you have dragged Washington, Oregon and Utah into your mess.

Remember you wanted wolf reintroduction. I did not want reintroduction.

I wonder why wolves are increasing at nearly 3 times the rate in Wyoming than they are in Montana and Idaho?

Real effective managment...

Even funnier is that you don't realize that 60% of the MT wolves came from natural migration out of Canada into the NW part of the state. A big number of wolves that were not part of the reintroduction in YNP. They were here, breeding for years, before a single wolf landed in WY as part of the YNP wolves.

If you don�t understand that concept then get out of the discussion until you educate yourself to a level to be able to carry on at an intelligent level. ........ Your words, might want to follow your own advice.

Rancher 13 and Burns forget one small part of the whole debate. Had Wyoming had a wolf plan similar to Montana, and Idaho, we all would have been off the list at least 4 years ago. With the Feds watching and making sure the management plans are adhered too for the first three years of delisting, they would have been out of the picture. Wyoming could have then, went to their holy Predator, and Trophy, duel status at this very moment in time. Totally cutting off your nose to spite your face. STUPID, plain and simple.

I know the SSS crowd meets every night at happy hour, and strategize how to kill wolves. Problem, it's coming from their bar stools, and you'd have to get off one to get a wolf.

If your not SFW/BGF members then your getting your info from your local pub.

Burns, Montana had wolves prior to the introduction. Our northern border is prime wolf habitat and we have many dispersal's from there. It's guessed that we would have had more wolves without the introduction, because of the experimental, non essential population status that the introduction afforded us.

I actually misspoke because Wyoming is committed to more wolves for recovery than either Idaho or Montana.

We have to have 15 breeding pairs and 150 Wolves in the state, while MT and ID only have the 10/100 deal as was originally proposed. Ah the joys of having the vast majority of Yellowstone in your state.

Yet Wyoming has barely half the wolves of MT and near 1/3 the wolves of Idaho.

Wyoming has undoubtedly had major impacts from this lower number of wolves but has unquestionably faired better than our northern neighbors.

Again I hope MT and ID get a handle on the wolf situation and it is so successful that it shows WY the way to perfect harmony.

But until that time it is really hard to condemn the path Wyoming is on considering how much better we have done than either ID or MT.

Simply having a �wolf season� is hardly a reason for celebration unless your real goal was reintroducing wolves to the west. If hunting wolves was my main goal then I would have been onboard with the reintroduction of the wolf from the getgo (as were Buzzy and Big Fin).




First of all you actually should provide some real evidence that your claim is true.

Second, who cares?? MT only has to have 10 pairs and 100 wolves. Wyoming is committed to 15 pairs and 150 wolves.

Which state is closer to minimum??? Keep thinking a hunting season is the end all be all but some who understand game management (also those with a 3rd grade education) get it that less wolves is better for elk hunting.

Wyoming has the fewest wolves of all three states yet has the greatest required number of wolves to delist.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt01/2001report.htm

Gray wolf populations (Canis lupus) were extirpated from the western U.S. by the 1930s. Subsequently, wolves from Canada occasionally dispersed south into Montana and Idaho but failed to survive long enough to reproduce. Public attitudes toward predators changed and wolves received legal protection with the passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973. Wolves began to successfully recolonize northwest Montana in the early 1980s. By 1995, 6 packs lived entirely in northwestern Montana. In 1995 and 1996, 66 wolves from southwestern Canada were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park (YNP) (31 wolves) and central Idaho (35 wolves).

The Nine mile pack was just west of Missoula Montana.

Not even close to true.

[/quote]

Wonder why Wyoming only has wolves in the Northwest corner of the state??

[/quote]

Do you understand what makes good wolf habitat?

This discussion is a perfect illustration of why MT and ID so badly wanted to be disconnected from the WY issue. Every state is going to have a different idea of how they want to do it. Which is how it should be.

When MT and ID were chained to the post, while WY and USFWS fought their battles, wolves were eating the hell out of our game in MT. We did something about it. And from comments on here, that seems to have ticked off a few WY guys.

Seems a few of the WY guys here think ID and MT were supposed to be the chips they could use to pay the ante in their game of poker with the Federal judges. Writing checks with other people's elk, and you wonder why the other people wanted out of the deal.

As stated early by Burns, ...If you don�t understand that concept then get out of the discussion until you educate yourself to a level to be able to carry on at an intelligent level.

Then, when WY doesn't get good results, the leaders of that failed strategy start blaming everyone else for their plight. Mostly blaming the MT and ID guys and the fact that we found a way to get our problem solved. Take another hit off the pipe, guys, it is getting you nowhere fast.

The other reason MT and WY are different is due to the wolf situation in each state that existed at the time the wolves were put in Yellowstone. Unlike WY, in by 1995, MT already had more wolves in our state than the entire Yellowstone Reintroduction numbers that Burns likes to talk about. The numbers 4100fps provided were just the documented wolves, not the total number of wolves in NW MT at that time.

At that time, we had no way to manage those wolves coming from Canada, as they were completely protected under the ESA. When the YNP reintroduction was negotiated, Montana negotiated that we would get to manage both the YNP wolves and the Canadian immigrants as a"non-essential experimental population." A "non-esssential experimental population" that could be managed in a way not otherwise provided under the ESA umbrella.

In MT we had wolves coming in from the ID reintroduction, wolves already here from Canada, and then wolves coming from YNP. So, they bred like rabbits and have been eating the hell out of things the entire time that WY and USFWS were fighting. And Burns snickers about the wolf infestation in MT has been dealing with.

And people wonder why MT wanted disconnected from WY..... If you don�t understand that concept then get out of the discussion until you educate yourself to a level to be able to carry on at an intelligent level.

If WY wants to continue with their current path, knock yourself out. Given you now want to point blame at MT and ID, and you whine that our Congressional delegations are not bailing you out, I guess you are on your own.

Currently, Wildlife Services and WYG&F are spending a lot of money to kill wolves in WY. Wildlife Services are getting their budgets hacked hard. The ability of WS to continue fending off the expansion of WY wolves is going by the wayside, soon.

Wyoming will be left with two choices - 1) Fund that cost from their hunter license dollars, or 2) Don't fund it and let the wolves expand further and further. Right now, that subsidy helps WY keeps wolf densities lower than they otherwise would be, though Burns would have you believe it is because of their excellent political strategy.

Or maybe the wool growers will do in WY what they tried to do in MT. Come to the legislature and ask for $2 million of state license money to hire the Feds at Wildlife Services to kill predators (mostly coyotes) on private ground. A move that MT hunters blocked, as this diversion of license funds would have cost us another $6.5 million of Pitman-Robertson money.

Good luck to you WY guys. I hope you get control of wolves and can manage them as you damn well please. If you want to wipe them out completely, matters none to me.

The falasy you are continuing to operate under is that this is a science and legal battle. Hell, if that was the case, we would have solved this ten years ago. Think that all you want. It is a political battle.

In politics, you need a majority, or a lot of friends in places to help you as the minority. At this time, Wyoming has neither, as evidenced by the quote of the original post where the dude from Rhode Island supposedly "shafted" WY .... again. Pretty sad commentary of how isolated WY has become on this issue, when one dude from Rhode Island can block your plans.

Hopefully that all changes and you guys can move forward with your current plan, or you can follow Burns' plan to keep the status quo. Best of luck, whichever route you take.

Until then, I am going wolf hunting for Christmas. Merry Christmas to each and everyone of you. May your New Year be filled with health, happiness, and wolf pelts hanging from your rafters.

You know, after I sifted through some of the pi$$ing contest here, I really have learned a lot. Thank you to the guys who have taken the time to try and explain woof strategy from both WY and MT's perspective. I know writing long posts is tedious at times, but I, and I expect many others, have enjoyed reading this thread.

Now with woofs delisted in MN, they are talking about a fall hunting season here. I think that would really be fun to do. any tips on hunting them? I dont live in the woof range (barely though...we do have a few come around once in awhile).

+1 Has been pretty good reading.

Bigfin the predator control has been largely funded thru the legislature, the predator fee's collected from brand inspections, and the option landowners have when they turn in the landowner coupons to direct payment to the animal damage control board.
Even if the Game and Fish had to cough up money for control of the wolves, wolves are "wildlife" and that's what the Game and Fish department is charged with doing, managing all the "wildlife" in the state.

Can any of you wolf proponents and the criticizers of Wyomings dual classification tell me why you think wolves need to be afforded the protection of "trophy game" in these hills. Approximately 300 miles from the nearest boundry of the proposed "trophy game" area, less than 1% public land?

Well douche bag, to answer your question, I've killed a 200"+ typical mule deer, a 36"+ bull oryx, a beautiful black bear and an 89" antelope. I'm a trophy hunter Flinch, I enjoy hunting for a particular animal and am perfectly happy to eat a tag. I just enjoy being in the outdoors.

As for this mythical picture of me and 5 guys, I have no idea what picture you are referring to. Please post the picture.

You keep telling everybody that you're feeding them rope to hang themselves and the only person that hangs themselves and comes out looking like a freaking idiot is you. Thats a fact.

I hope Santa brings you a clue

Drummond

So you can shoot one if you see it?

Nope not yet, have to wait for the final delisting,then we'll be in the shoot on sight side of the line.....
We do have them come thru here from time to time.

Don't you mean Nope not legaly there buddy?

Didn't see any point to adding to some's confusion.
Merry Christmas to you and yours, and Hoping for many good rain showers on your range in the upcoming year.

Would HAVE & should HAVE.