Nevada May Legalize Shooting Wolves

Send by email Printer-friendly version Share this

Wildlife commissioners are considering classifying wolves in the state of Nevada as unprotected, according to the Reno Gazette-Journal. This would place wolves, at least at the state level, in the same class as coyotes.

The discussion was largely prompted by a federal judge's August decision to reinstate wolves as an endangered species in Idaho and Montana and concern the federal government might infringe on Nevada's right to manage wolves, which could threaten big game and livestock.

If Nevada proceeds with changing the wolves status in the state and someone legally shot a wolf in the state, it would still run afoul of federal law and could be punished with up to a $100,000 fine. The wolf issue definitely appears to be growing into a "states rights" battle like medical marijuana. In the case of medical marijuana fifteen states have legalized the prescribing and use of marijuana for treatment of doctor diagnosed conditions. However the possession, use, and distribution of marijuana still remains a serious federal offense. It would be interesting if the federal government decided to crack down on states that potentially legalize the hunting of wolves, but ignores or refuses to prosecute federal anti-drug laws in the same or surrounding states, setting up a selective enforcement of federal law.

Comments

ecubackpacker's picture

+1, Chuck and CVC.! It should

+1, Chuck and CVC.!

It should be the state's right to manage all wildlife within it's boundaries. However, with that being said, the states need to have a concensus on the way wildlife should managed, so that a certain species of animal will be managed rightfully in all states in which the animals are found. The feds have been too intrusive in too many aspects of our lives. Let loosen the noose. Let the states have controll! Let the people have controll again.

hawkeye270's picture

I find it very interesting

I find it very interesting the progression of attitudes on this issue. Even on the forum. When it first came up people were much less up in arms. As the weeks and months have gone by, peoples attitudes have changed drastically. Both those people on and off this forum that have been following the issue. I come into contact with a lot of people in the know on the issue because I go to a natural resource managment school. And this thing is a powder keg. It has pretty much reached its boiling point. I think I have a lot more faith in this last meeting that took place. The secretary of the interior agreed with the states that it is time to delist them. The only thing that really needs worked out is to come up with the level that wolves will be maintained at. I will tell you what... it needs to be a lot lower than the current 2000 level. Wolf populations have a huge reproductive potential when the prey base is out there so the population would have to be controlled heavily.

If this last meeting doesn't get delisting done in the next year than yes... I see people taking the matter into their own hands in a different light. But I still think that is premature at this point. We are just too close to getting it done in a way where no one has to put their hunting priveledges on the line.

Ca_Vermonster's picture

I feel the tidal wave

I feel the tidal wave coming!  And, that's a good thing.  Montana, Idaho, now nevada.  Hopefully the power will go back to the states where it should be!!!

This is great to hear!

Wolves: such a hot bed topic

My support goes out to the ranchers and farmers who have to deal with this issue with zero support of their elected representatives.  It's sad that they bow to political preasures of nature natzi's.  I am for animal protection more so than the average person but not to the extent of endangering a person's way of life such as these ranchers and farmers.  Surely there is some leaders out there who have not compromised thier values and integrity just so to not rock the boat.  Good luck.

CVC's picture

Interesting situation.  Is it

Interesting situation.  Is it a state's right to enact or not enact a law counter to a federal law or mandate?  I think the federal government has assumed too much authority and power and in the process has usurped states' rights counter to the intention and writing of the Constitution.

The Boston tea paryt participants are generally regarded as patriots today, but in their time, they were just criminals as well as that is what they were.  Only later were their actions regarded as justified.

So, if Nevada does go ahead and someone kills a wolf, they will, in the eyes of the federal government, be a criminal.  But in the court of public opinion will they be considered patriots?

Chuck-n-Alaska's picture

They were only criminals in

They were only criminals in the eye of King George and the loyalist, not to all of the colonist. We have that same basic split today it's states rights and federalism. If you shoot a sheep killing wolf in Nevada you're a good guy to the ranchers but in the eyes of the feds you're the lowest form of criminal out their. Over in Az many feds look at Jan Brewer as a criminal. I believe resources witnin a state belong to the state. Whether they be wildlife, oil, land whatever.

CVC's picture

Exactly my point.  And, if

Exactly my point.  And, if the patriots were not successful in defeating England and securing our independence, many today would regard them as criminals; that is if they were even remembered today.  And, those that break the King's law, I mean the federal governments law, risk the penalties for those committing a criminal act regardless of how the local public might view them.

Laws are necessary to prevent anarchy and patriots willing to break those laws are necessay to prevent tyranny!