24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#886442 06/27/06
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,677
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,677
You also bring up a good point about Grizzley bears and the toll taken on moose here. Moose numbers in Wyoming have plummeted in recent years, but Fish and Game attribute it to loss of habitat. 3 days ago, I was scouting some back meadows for fall elk hunting prospects, and examined some back country wallows/beaver ponds the north area of Sandy creek. I expected to see moose but not a one. The lab and I climbed a small moraine only to surprise a small Grizzley, probably fresh on his own this year, tearing up tree stumps by a pond. He yelled and took off with my lab after him, as this bear was too close for comfort. I called the dog back and he came forthright, but that Griz yelled one more time before disappearing into the high brush. I feared the 444, with Hornady light magnums would have to do some work to save the dog. And I wouldn't have hesitated. The Big Sandy trailhead campground was about 3 miles Northwest, filled with families and hikers. I hadn't seen even bearspray on any of the hikers earlier that day. This area is not even a tertiary proposed area for the Grizzley population. Its on the Southern most edge of the Wind Range/ Northern Bridger Range. You can't contain a "protected" predator; what are the dreamers of the Great experiment thinking? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Last edited by bearmgc; 06/27/06.
GB1

#886443 06/27/06
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
JOG Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
Logcutter,

Idaho is stuck between a rock and hard place - no doubt. Tell your Wyoming pards to help get your wolves delisted.

In the meantime make sure you're up on the current laws. This LINK is an overview of the revised 10(j) rule. Wolves on private, state, or tribal land can be whacked for messing with livestock and dogs. If you want more detailed info let me know.


Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense.
Robert Frost
#886444 06/27/06
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
L
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
L
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
Jog-Believe me..I am up on the laws.All the land and hills around here are USFS.My only point is why they are putting us in the position to possibly break the law if one determines through the crime scene investigations that other options were available with there two or three days later,showing up.(The Feds).

This is why I posted the local paper column stating the local Sherriffs department is left completely out of the formula when they could easily be the first responders(within hours if that, not days) and have the knowledge to take care of the situation.I do not understand that!!

If I was in danger from an escaped Felon running from the law and used leathal force to protect my family in the far back mountains,the Sherriff would handle that and determine self defense or not, yet not with Wolves.

What is the situation that allows an escaped felon to kill your dogs in front of your eyes on public land and point his gun at your forehead and threaten your life because you were there.That would be self defense once he raised his gun after killing your animals, yet it is not when Wolves are the aggresser with possibly the same result.Does the 250 pound Wolf have to attack you first and draw blood with the possibuility you can't recover from such a large animals first strike surrounded by the others.....Hog Wash!!!

Change the rules of engagement so the average outdoorsman is not put in the position of SSS or the outcome of some one-sided Goverment investigation or let the local authorities handle it.

My opinion...Jayco

#886445 06/27/06
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,677
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,677
Game and Fish folks are hired not elected. I would love to see the Wolf delisted, and some concessions made in management plans done, in order for that to happen. If powers that be have a "traditional" vision of Wyoming, that impedes delisting, I agree it needs to be changed. But if ranchers have no Game and Fish Comission response to their outcry, the general consensus is we are not being listened to or considered in this plan. I expect that some political upsets will happen in the next election, but no real change in the Wolf problem will come because of it. Logcutter, you make a good point about the exclusion of law enforcement in wolf incidents. The two wolf incidents last year outside of Farson, were sealed for over a week with investigations by nonlocal enforcement investigators. We had Federal guys driving all over the place in addition to Fish and Game. It was decided that a female wolf with a bunch of cubs stealthed out a decimation of 14 sheep in a flat land sheep farm just outside of town. Look where Farson is located...

Last edited by bearmgc; 06/27/06.
#886446 06/27/06
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,677
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,677
The main sticking point in Wyoming's management plan is the number of packs that the Feds want Wyoming to maintain, which is double the number that Wyoming is willing to agree to. While this plan lies in limbo, the pack number is increasing toward the number that the Feds invision Wyoming to manage. So, for Wyoming, its coming to a default pack number in the interim. We might as well just agree to it...

IC B2

#886447 06/27/06
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
JOG Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
Logcutter,

You can kill a wolf that's attacking livestock or dogs on Federal land, but you're right, you'll be dealing with the Feds after the fact. There are certainly more hoops to jump through dealing with the Feds.

On any other state and private lands you'll now be dealing with the state game & fish (according to the revised rules).

This is one of the reason why delisting is so important - it turns all management over to state authorities outside of the YNP boundaries - the locals make the call.


Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense.
Robert Frost
#886448 06/27/06
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
L
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
L
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
Quote
Logcutter,

You can kill a wolf that's attacking livestock or dogs on Federal land, but you're right, you'll be dealing with the Feds after the fact. There are certainly more hoops to jump through dealing with the Feds.

On any other state and private lands you'll now be dealing with the state game & fish (according to the revised rules).

This is one of the reason why delisting is so important - it turns all management over to state authorities outside of the YNP boundaries - the locals make the call.


You cannot kill a Wolf on Federal Land for messing with your dogs.A permit holder for grazing livestock on Federal land can but the normal Hunter/Fisherman or just camper,cannot.You must have a permit to graze your cattle on federal land for this to be able to happen.

Jayco

#886449 06/27/06
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
JOG Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
Bearmgc,

You're hitting on the Catch-22 situation Wyoming is currently in: Wyoming officials have so far elected NOT to modify their plan with the result of having no say in wolf management. The citizens are ticked off at Game & Fish for not doing anything, but the citizens outcry is what led to the failed plan in the first place.

The Feds and Wyoming actually agree about the number of packs - 15. It's where the packs are located that's causing the trouble - kinda like a wolf pack shell game. Wyoming has had at least 8 packs in national parks for quite some time and only wants to manage for 7 outside the parks, 8+7=15. The Feds want Wyoming to commit to 15 packs regardless of where they are located. The irony is that Wyoming is way over 15 anyway.

The big sticking point, IMO, is unprotected predator status. Wyoming will never get that to fly with the Feds. The other Wyoming classification is "Trophy Game", which would sail. The irony (again) is that actual management techniques wouldn't have to be that different. The big difference is the amount of paperwork. "Trophy Game" status would require Fish & Game to keep harvest records like it does for elk, etc.


Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense.
Robert Frost
#886450 06/27/06
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,480
Likes: 18
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,480
Likes: 18
While the feds say that they've turned Idaho's wolf management over to the state, I have yet to see that that's the case. Idaho's sportsmen get to pay the bill, though. We have a seriously declining elk herd in the Clearwater area of central Idaho. The IDFG wants to kill about 50 wolves to protect what's left but they can't get permission from the feds. So, who's running the program? If the state was, they'd shoot them. However, since they were 'turned over' to the state, the IDFG has to pay the bill and they're 100% funded by hunting and fishing licenses and tags. So, as long as the current situation continues, the IDFG funds will go down as hunters give up and stay home, elk numbers will continue to go down, and wolves will continue to increase unchecked.

If we could shoot the wolves, the IDFG could sell 50 tags at $500 to $1000 and make a pile of money to help finance the program.

Dick


β€œIn a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell

It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
#886451 06/27/06
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
JOG Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
Rock Chuck,

YouοΏ½re on the right track.

The provisions of the endangered species act forbid the IDFG from ANY aspect of wolf management until approved management plans were obtained from the three states, the wolf populations goals were met, and the delisting process completed. After delisting, wolf management is turned over to the individual states. All the pieces are in place except for WyomingοΏ½s plan.

The USFWS, in recognition of the wolf problems in Idaho, revised the 10(j) rules to allow IDFG a more active role in wolf management pending some resolution in Wyoming. As I said before, the revised rule is far from ideal but much better than the original. Keep cutting the IDFG some slack, because the USFWS still holds all the power. At the same time, cut the USFWS some slack because theyοΏ½re twisting the rules in IdahoοΏ½s favor οΏ½ the endangered species act doesnοΏ½t give them much wiggle room either.

I suck at Idaho geography, but IοΏ½m thinking the Clearwater area you mentioned is the Lolo Zone? If so, this is a copy/paste from an earlier post:

οΏ½Idaho has a proposal to the USFWS (April 4, 2006) that takes advantage of the revised 10(j) rule and calls for a wolf shoot in the Lolo Zone. The proposal clearly states Idaho's preference for hunters to conduct the 'management', but concedes the issue due to the current endangered species act provisions. Good on Idaho for setting the stage for future management.

The proposal, and the USFWS's reaction to it, will be a bellwether for future actions. On one hand, the Idaho argument for management is a little weak in specifics, but strong in overall logic. On the other hand, the USFWS prefers specifics, but supposedly revised 10(j) for just this type of management.οΏ½

On the money subject - delisting the wolf opens up a number of avenues for funding too. While the whole funding topic is mostly voodoo to me, many of the problems are associated with the states being understandably reluctant to pay for Federal management. Once the wolf is delisted and the state runs the show οΏ½ you can apply a surcharge to tourist wolf lovers and non-resident elk hunters <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.


Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense.
Robert Frost
IC B3

#886452 06/27/06
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,670
Likes: 1
1
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
1
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,670
Likes: 1
I hope you guys in all your respective states have good luck in this "great experiment".

The one overwhelming thing that sticks in my craw is for folks that don't live there to have such effect with their input.

I vote Idaho for Idahoan's

Minnesota for Minnesotan's

Wyoming for WTF ever them cowboys call themselves. (grin)

I'm a big believer in State's rights, the Federal government is far too intrusive.

Dang Jog, 200,000 deer hunters! Is there enough room for everyone or is deer hunting kinda scary????

I like the idea of that many license holders, but am thinking I'd try something new and wear orange!


"This ain't dress rehearsal....it's the life you get to live, make it a good one."

TEAMWORK = a bunch of people doing what I say
#886453 06/28/06
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
Firearms licence sales show that 626,211 total licences sold for the Regular firearm season alone for 2005.
Archery licence sales were 58,989.
Muzzleloader licences were 9,226.
The figure for statewide hunters in the field for the "opener" was at 500,000.
Mike

#886454 06/28/06
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,008
S
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
S
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,008
Mn has got the numbers of hunters , no doubt , but my opinion is with akhunter in that any sports style hunting will have minimal effect on wolf populations , and even if you get a Mn wolf season , their range will continue to expand .

#886455 06/28/06
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,677
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,677
JOG, thanks for clarifying the situation. I had my numbers crossed.

#886456 06/28/06
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
JOG Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
1akhunter,

I agree with you 100% that the citizens of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should have the final say in managing state and private land - hence the importance of delisting the wolf. It gets a little fuzzier with national parks, but the state should still hold most of the power.

My involvement in this thread has been non-denominational <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, I'm just trying to shed some light on the facts.

By the way, Minnesota actually has around 500,000 deer hunters, but not all of them hunt in wolf country. Blaze orange is required by law. I'll bet the overwhelming majority hunt with a round chambered.

There's plenty of land and plenty of deer, but most hunters tend to bunch up on state land near access points like you'd expect. Probably the most frustrating thing is scouting out a nice spot in advance only to find the Orange Army has bivouacked there on opening day. I avoid all that by mostly hunting on private land. The deer hunting is so-so, but the experience is much better. I can't say it's safer, because a hunting related shooting is really rare here.


Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense.
Robert Frost
#886457 06/28/06
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
L
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
L
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
I believe this Wolf program was designed from the "Witness Protection Program".They resemble each other in almost every way.No one,not even the local law enforcement,can mess with them without harsh results!!!!Thugs/Gangsters/Murderer's and Wolves all protected by Uncle Sam!!

Jayco <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

#886458 06/28/06
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,480
Likes: 18
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,480
Likes: 18
Quote
I suck at Idaho geography, but IοΏ½m thinking the Clearwater area you mentioned is the Lolo Zone?


Yes it is. Here's more of the story. The greenies are fighting the IDFG tooth and nail to prevent killing wolves. They say that declining habitat is the problem with the declining elk herd, not the wolves. It's true that the habitat has a problem, but the greenies themselves are the cause.

Back in 1910, that part of Idaho had one of worst fires in US history. It burned 100's of square miles. Over the next 75 years, it grew into premier elk habitat. Now, however, it's overgrown and the browse plants are declining because of the mature trees. To bring back the browse plants for the elk, it needs to be logged or burned again. You probably know what the word 'logging' means to a greenie. It's worse than global warming. Since the feds have almost eliminated public land logging, what's turning into old growth forest is a major cause of elk decline. But now, they've dumped hundreds of wolves on top of the decimated elk herd to deal it a death blow. At least 15 years ago, the greenies stating in writing that they planned to use introduced predators to reduce game to unhuntable levels. In this area, they're getting the job done.

Dick,


β€œIn a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell

It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
#886459 06/29/06
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
JOG Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 13,550
Rock Chuck,

Your post is the key to whole deal. The wolf population should exist at a level where predation is compensatory - a large prey base that ensures a lot of fringe (health-wise) animals. The wolves get to eat an elk just before it tips over from old age <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. The wolves will be fat and happy and so will the prime elk herd.

In the Lolo Zone, as you stated, the elk herd is struggling for a number of reasons and don't need the wolf wildcard thrown into the mix. Idaho did a great job with their management proposal, IMO, but it's long on common sense and short on actual science - that's not an insult as there are just too many variables to prove anything. My bet is that the USFWS will accept it any way, in part because it makes sense and also due to the support of Bush administration.

Write your congress critters...

Here's link to the Wolf Control Proposal in case you haven't seen the whole thing.

To beat the delisting drum once again, once the wolf has been delisted IDFG won't have to ask for permission for this type of management. Believe it or not, the USFWS and the US Department of the Interior would like nothing better.


Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense.
Robert Frost
#886460 06/29/06
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
L
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
L
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,295
Heres a little tidbit out of this weeks paper.
Quote
Bring a gun, leave the leash, bells at home
Guest Opinion - Priestley, IFB

The Idaho Fish and Game Department sent out a news release June 12 advising residents how to keep their dogs from being ripped to shreds by wolves.
F&G warns pet owners that other canines are intruders in "wolf habitat" and if you take your dog into the backcountry wolves may eat him. In addition, because of the Endangered Species Act, there is nothing you can do except scream and yell if wolves attack your pet on public land.
These warnings come on the heels of a wolf attack near Grangeville wherein a bear hunter lost two dogs, paid several hundred dollars in veterinary bills to repair a third dog and nearly became a victim himself. Hunter Scott Richards wrote about the attack in a first-person account. According to Richards, when he came on the scene of the attack he attempted to scare the wolves by screaming and yelling, resulting in one of the wolves turning on him. If not for a counterattack from his dog, Richards believes he would have been taken down. When he found his second dog, her stomach was ripped open and she had more than 60 bite marks over her body.
"It's very difficult to describe the type of death these dogs were handed," Richards wrote. "It was easy to see that the wolves want to cripple their prey, torture it and then kill it. I have never seen any worse way for an animal to die."
In another recent incident, children watched as two wolves entered a backyard in Troy and carried off their dachshund. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report, an investigation could only confirm "that wolf tracks and scat were within 150 yards of the house."
In a third recent incident, a Sun Valley couple stated in a public meeting that initially they supported wolf reintroduction, but since their dog was killed by wolves, they changed their minds. Similar reports have come from Mountain Home, Challis, Leadore, Salmon, Stanley and Council.
An increasing number of incidents coupled with the Idaho Fish and Game department's press release warning us about entering "wolf habitat" with dogs begs the question where is wolf habitat? Is it in the backyard?
The F&G news release further warns us to keep dogs on a leash because "dogs running loose, away from people, may attract wolves." And "if the dog runs loose, bring a leash to restrain the dog if wolves or wolf sign are encountered." Further F&G advice is to make noise or put a bell on your dog's collar "to alert wolves that humans are associated with the dog."
According to the U.S. FWS report, Scott Richards' dogs were wearing bells and Richards was screaming at the wolves when one of them lunged at him. In our opinion, the Fish and Game's advice is about as much good as a chicken wire canoe.
Along with declining big game herds and livestock losses that are sucking the life out of many small towns, we now need to take extra precautions to protect our families and pets. Along with the millions of dollars our government is spending on wolf management, these are some of the costs associated with living with wolves. Here's some honest advice that our F&G officials overlooked; if you recreate in the backcountry with your dog, take a gun and leave the leash and bell at home.
By Frank Priestley, president of the Idaho Farm Bureau.



Jayco

#886461 06/29/06
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,144
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,144
Jog, are you saying wolves ONLY eat elk, etc. which are about to kick the bucket?

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

468 members (16penny, 10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 16gage, 10ring1, 1_deuce, 48 invisible), 2,804 guests, and 1,194 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,193,756
Posts18,514,833
Members74,017
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.131s Queries: 54 (0.014s) Memory: 0.9184 MB (Peak: 1.0412 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-05-16 03:54:06 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS