Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. ?

Wolf Delisting


InTheNorthwoods

Recommended Posts

Quote:
The Feds took over because the individual states seemed to generally have one purpose which was to as completely exterminate the wolf as possible.

Exactly. And when the delisting was proposed, it was blocked because some states (I know WY was one) had little or no wolf management plan in place and planned to simply allow un-managed shooting of wolves by anyone who felt like it.

So it was not the fault of the environmental groups, but the states who had the attitude of "any wolf is a dead one." The same attitude that a lot of individuals still have. That attitude is why wolves are still listed, despite rebounding numbers and a successful comeback under ESA protections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Exactly. And when the delisting was proposed, it was blocked because some states (I know WY was one) had little or no wolf management plan in place and planned to simply allow un-managed shooting of wolves by anyone who felt like it.

So it was not the fault of the environmental groups, but the states who had the attitude of "any wolf is a dead one." The same attitude that a lot of individuals still have. That attitude is why wolves are still listed, despite rebounding numbers and a successful comeback under ESA protections.

That is a pretty broad generalization. It does not explain the law suit blocking delisting in the midwest were recovery is complete, exceeding and possibly doubling recovery goals, confirmed depredations and lethal removal by the Feds already number in the hundreds per year, and State wolf management plans are approved and in place for delisting. Yes, it is the fault of the environmental groups that filed suit blocking the delisting. Their attitude or position that sound wolf management should not proceed no matter how successful recovery has been under the ESA is just as radical as those who think all wolves should be shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is the can bd delisted in one region yet still be listed/protected in another. Am I correct or wrong?

There should be no bearing on minnesota regaurding what Wyoming is doing. Of course some organizations will feel differantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is, the judge didn't see it that way. Yes, he may have been able to delist in one area and not another, but he didn't do that. But my point is that it never would have gotten to a judge and there probably would have been no lawsuit (not a tenable one) if the states with no management plans had HAD viable ones. Those states gave the environmental groups a reason to sue, so the enviro groups were not the root cause of the wolves remaining protected. Had all the states been ready to move forward with solid management plans, the groups would have had no legal leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Environmental groups sue just to advance their agendas, their reasoning can be lame, they don't care about legal leg. They are the root problem.

MN had a viable Wolf plan and environmentalist shopped for a liberal judge to side with them (I believe it was a Judge in the State of Virginia). The ruling may very well have been different if a Federal Judge lets say in Duluth heard the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
MN had a viable Wolf plan

Maybe so, but we're not talking about just MN (if you read the posts above). We're talking about the other states management plans.

I think the only "agenda" that was being advanced was in not agreeing with (for example) Wyoming's plan to simply treat wolves like coyotes. Federally protecting a species for 30-odd years so it can rebound from the brink of extinction, only to delist it and let a state allow unchecked hunting of it is kind of a waste - both of effort and taxpayer dollars. So they had a point. Maybe it shouldn't have been applied to all the states, but that was the judge's decision - not theirs.

You can call blame the environmental groups if they make a more appealing target for you, but the fact remains that if a state like Wyoming had looked at wolf delisting with the same level of responsibility as MN, WI, MI and everyone else did, and had prepared for it by coming up with an actual managemnt plan, wolves would already be delisted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said EJ_Mac. I gave examples of what you were saying earlier in the thread you said it much better than I ever could.

Thanks. But that's the first time someone has ever accused me of saying something better grin

My wife says I usually use 20 words when 4 will do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is, the judge didn't see it that way. Yes, he may have been able to delist in one area and not another, but he didn't do that. But my point is that it never would have gotten to a judge and there probably would have been no lawsuit (not a tenable one) if the states with no management plans had HAD viable ones. Those states gave the environmental groups a reason to sue, so the enviro groups were not the root cause of the wolves remaining protected. Had all the states been ready to move forward with solid management plans, the groups would have had no legal leg to stand on.

exactly. Wyoming ruined it for everybody. They only had to have a reasonable plan, something other than their "the only good wolf is a dead wolf" default. If they'd had a reasonable plan, they coulda had a season on wolves and they'd still be delisted

Of course, the USFWS messed up big time as well with their de-listing of wolves in Idaho and Montana but not in Montana, which was pretty embarrassing considering you cannot protect one part of an evolutionarily significant unit but not another

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now ↓↓↓ or ask your question and then register. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • Sorry to hear that Duff. Will give my GSP's an extra scratch behind the ear for you guys today
    • Aw, man, sorry to hear that.  Shed some tears and remember her well.  They all take a piece of our hearts with them; some more than others.
    • yes sorry for your loss..  our dogs are always special...
    • Truly sorry to hear that duffman! I know that feeling.  Keep the good memories  
    • Chamois passed away this weekend a couple days short of her 13th bday. What a great dog to hang out with here at home and on distant adventures. Gonna miss ya big time my little big girl.
    • Sounds pretty sweet, alright. I will check them out, thanks.
    • If you really want to treat your wife (and yourself) with a remote operated trolling motor, the Minn Kota Ulterra is about easy as it gets.  Auto stow and deploy is pretty awesome.  You just have to turn the motor on when you go out and that the last time you have to touch it.   24V 80lb.  60 inch shaft is probably the right length for your boat.  They ain’t cheap - about $3k - but neither one of you would have to leave your seat to use it all day.
    • Wanderer, thanks for your reply. I do intend for it to be 24 volt, with a thrust of 70-80. Spot lock is a must (my wife is looking forward to not being the anchor person any more).  With my old boat we did quite a lot of pulling shad raps and hot n tots, using the trolling motor. Unlikely that we will fish in whitecaps, did plenty of that when I was younger. I also need a wireless remote, not going back to a foot pedal. We do a fair amount of bobber fishing. I don't think I will bother with a depth finder on the trolling motor. I am leaning toward moving my Garmin depth finder from my old boat to the new one, just because I am so used to it and it works well for me. I am 70 years old and kinda set in my ways...
    • Dang, new content and now answers.   First, congrats on the new boat!   My recommendation is to get the most thrust you can in 24V, assuming a boat that size isn’t running 36V.  80 might be tops?  I’m partial to MinnKota.     How do you plan to use the trolling motor is an important question too.     All weather or just nice weather?   Casting a lot or bait dragging?   Bobber or panfish fishing?   Spot lock?  Networked with depth finders?  What brand of depth finders?
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.