8 replies [Last post]
Chuck-n-Alaska's picture
Offline
Location: Southcentral Alaska
Joined: 04/26/2007
Posts: 222
To delist or not?

Do you think the wolves in all states should be delisted from the ESA and let the states take over management? A few days ago the new mexico gov shut down trapping in areas where mexician grey wolves hang out. The deer and elk populations in many of the northern rocky mt. states are getting trashed. Deer, elk , and moose feed people wolves don't, I'm for the states have at it. If the wolves go extinct so be it peoples needs should come first. If the bunny huggers want see a wolf let them go to Ted Turners ranch.

Offline
Moderator
Location: texas
Joined: 04/23/2006
Posts: 483
and i thought you were

and i thought you were talking about politicians being delisted.  i could volunteer for that.  seriously, you have a good point.  i would like to see almost all "federal" land returned to the states, with only yosemite, yellowstone and one or two other places being exempted.  get rid of the blm, national park service, and let each state manage its own areas.  what does someone living in new england know about huge tract land management?!

hawkeye270's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Joined: 06/15/2008
Posts: 1862
I'd like to see Montana and

I'd like to see Montana and Idaho's wolves go back into their managment. They had good, science based management plans in place and last years harvest was a success. Wyoming needs to come up with a better plan. Their current plan is not ever going to get them delisted in that state.

buffybr's picture
Offline
Location: Montana, USA
Joined: 11/15/2007
Posts: 320
wolf management

hawkeye270 wrote:

I'd like to see Montana and Idaho's wolves go back into their managment. They had good, science based management plans in place and last years harvest was a success. Wyoming needs to come up with a better plan. Their current plan is not ever going to get them delisted in that state.

My vote is to get the Federal Government COMPLETELY OUT of the wolf management.  To paraphrase an eariler post, what does someone in New England know about wolf management in Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho?

As to Wyoming's wolf plan, I heard that the US F&WS originally approved Wyoming's plan, then changed their mind.

 

numbnutz's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: portland,oregon
Joined: 09/06/2007
Posts: 3058
I say delist them and let the

I say delist them and let the states manage them

Ca_Vermonster's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!Moderator
Location: San Diego, CA
Joined: 07/27/2007
Posts: 5745
Pretty much in line with

Pretty much in line with everyone else here.  Each state is different.  The herds around Yellowstone are definately impacting the elk herds, but the wolves in NM have had little impact.  I would be for a season on one, and no season on the other. 

jaybe's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: S.E. Michigan
Joined: 10/19/2010
Posts: 817
Good Point

What does someone in New England (read, D.C.) know about anything that goes on in the rest of the world?

The wolf situation is just another example of how the liberal philosophy/mentality has thrown common sense to the wind for the sake of (a) money and (b) political correctness.

In the U.P. of Michigan, hunters are seeing more wolves than deer these days. When they don't see them, they are hearing them at night and finding the remains of their kills during the day.

The unofficial policy of the Upper Peninsula deer hunter is SSS (shoot, shovel, shut-up).

The management of all game animals should be left to the states.

 

 

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
To delist or not?

Delist them.  The ESA was supposed to be a method of preserving species, not a one-way trip to be abused by anti-hunters.  In areas where wolves have recovered, they should be managed as any game species.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a hunter that disagrees with the principle of the ESA, but in practice it has morphed into something that threatens its very existence.  It's abuse over the polar bear issue, as well as this one, threatens it because it's becoming abundantly clear that it's no longer about recovery...it's about an anti-hunting agenda.  Abuse dilutes the effectiveness of the program by crying "wolf" (as it were) over species that aren't in trouble, and will begin to affect support for actual troubled species.

buffybr's picture
Offline
Location: Montana, USA
Joined: 11/15/2007
Posts: 320
delist them

expatriate wrote:

Delist them.  The ESA was supposed to be a method of preserving species, not a one-way trip to be abused by anti-hunters.  In areas where wolves have recovered, they should be managed as any game species.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a hunter that disagrees with the principle of the ESA, but in practice it has morphed into something that threatens its very existence.  It's abuse over the polar bear issue, as well as this one, threatens it because it's becoming abundantly clear that it's no longer about recovery...it's about an anti-hunting agenda.  Abuse dilutes the effectiveness of the program by crying "wolf" (as it were) over species that aren't in trouble, and will begin to affect support for actual troubled species.

+1  very well put

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Move afoot to delist eastern cougar???John A. Lutz003/22/2007 07:46 am
A Trick Deal on Wolves? Chuck-n-Alaska706/08/2011 08:15 am
Montana Grizzly Hunting On The Horizon?jeffalaska412/13/2005 18:52 pm