Skip to main content

View Diary: Fishgrease: Booming Wolf Haters (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let me revise (8+ / 0-)

    And extend my remarks.

    1 - Governor Schweitzer's decision is extreme and wrong.

    2 - Montana had a reasonable wolf hunting season for one year, which was both ecologically and politically defensible. It was thrown out by a federal district court's decision last year, not because the hunting season was wrong, but because Wyoming had never submitted a legally acceptable wolf management plan.

    3-The current legal stalemate over a Montana and Idaho wolf hunting season is hurting environmental and progressive politics in the Northern Rockies, and will hurt wolves badly in the future as a result.

    4-To ensure public acceptance of wolves on both public and private lands, a limited wolf hunting season is necessary. Personally I don't like it, but it can be done in an ecologically reasonable fashion.

    5-The current political stalemate plays right into the hands of the right wing extremists that hate environmental laws.

    That's Countdown for the 2,082nd day since Mission Accomplished. You thought that would change? Are the troops home yet? Keith Olbermann January 20, 2009

    by Ed in Montana on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 05:32:50 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  There were problems with the hunting season (10+ / 0-)

      Many wolves were being taken deep in the widlerness that were not livestock eaters. In effect, what the hunt did was kill the "behaving" packs. IMHO too many wolves were taken overall.

      What Montana, Idaho and Wyoming need to do is come up with hunting regulations that mesh with a growing human population and start managing this based on science.  At some point, due to habitat degredation, ATV access and overpopulation, there is going to be very limited hunting for these animals. May as well start writing science-based regulatons that accept this reality.

      •  True (5+ / 0-)

        The problem with the wolf hunting season was that hunters were taking animals of opportunity, wherever they saw a wolf. This did nothing to control "problem" packs that wee predating on livestock and other domestic animals.

        These problem packs were shot by federal wildlife agents, and the kills were subtracted from the total allowable hunt. that was a good thing, in my opinion.

        You mentioned:

        What Montana, Idaho and Wyoming need to do is come up with hunting regulations that mesh with a growing human population and start managing this based on science.

        Easier said than done, of course.

        That's Countdown for the 2,082nd day since Mission Accomplished. You thought that would change? Are the troops home yet? Keith Olbermann January 20, 2009

        by Ed in Montana on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 07:06:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can you explain this: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fishgrease, Onomastic, DawnN
          Montana had a reasonable wolf hunting season for one year, which was both ecologically and politically defensible. It was thrown out by a federal district court's decision last year, not because the hunting season was wrong, but because Wyoming had never submitted a legally acceptable wolf management plan.
          Are the two state's plans dependent upon each other to warrant such a decision from the federal court? Would this be a basis for appeal?

          Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

          by CanyonWren on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 07:14:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is confusing (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            yuriwho, CanyonWren, Onomastic, DawnN, SuWho

            Wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are managed as one whole population under the federal Endangered Species Act, although in reality they are probably several distinct populations.

            In 2008 with wolf populations reaching recovery levels, each of the three states were allowed to submit limited hunting seasons for federal approval. Montana's and Idaho's wolf hunting regulations were approved by the feds and their hunts went on for one year in 2009.

            Wyoming submitted an unlimited hunting season on wolves found outside of the state's two national parks. Wolves would be managed as "vermin" not game animals in this scenario. The feds rejected the Wyoming wolf hunting regulations (or the lack thereof).

            A federal district judge, Judge Melloy in Missoula ruled that since the Endangered Species Act viewed wolves as one population in the Northern Rockies, that all legal hunting must stop until Wyoming submits a federally approved wolf hunting plan.

            As a result, Wyoming right wing extremists have sabotaged the wolf hunting compromises reached in Idaho and Montana.

            That's Countdown for the 2,082nd day since Mission Accomplished. You thought that would change? Are the troops home yet? Keith Olbermann January 20, 2009

            by Ed in Montana on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 07:35:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ed in Montana, Onomastic

              The question I have then, is how can wolves be managed as one population within three states when those three states have their own policy?  It seems inefficient, and with the turn of events seems like it goes against the purpose of the ESA which is to protect threatened and endangered species above all other policies.  In other words, that glitch seems to shore up both arguments--it can be used by ranchers and it can be used by environmentalists.  Seems like that should be challenged, no?  

              Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

              by CanyonWren on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 08:03:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  What humans need to do (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, BlackSheep1, Onomastic

        is get the hell out of living in the wilderness and return to the urban population centers and their environs. There is no need to destroy everything in the wilderness just to be a pretend cowboy or caveman.

        •  Yes and No (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Onomastic

          The thing about wolves (unlike grizzly bears) is that they are not a deep wilderness animal. In fact most wolves avoid the high mountainous areas that are official wilderness areas in Montana.

          Instead, wolves hang out at the edges of mountain ranges in lower areas where their prey herds hang out on their winter ranges. These lower areas tend to be near or on private ranch lands, and that is were wolves cause depredations on livestock and other domestic animals, such as cows, sheep, lamas, dogs, horses etc.

          That's Countdown for the 2,082nd day since Mission Accomplished. You thought that would change? Are the troops home yet? Keith Olbermann January 20, 2009

          by Ed in Montana on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 12:34:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, Gallatin, what needs to happen is (0+ / 0-)

        humans need to stay the hell out of the wolves' country. Humans are unnatural disruptions to the wilderness, and if they choose to venture into it they should live by its rules. Period.

        It's not there to support their lifestyle, be that ranching, mining, guiding, hunting, fishing or otherwise mismanaging the resources.

        It's there so that the planet and its species survive.

        LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 09:18:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm certain there's some truth to this (7+ / 0-)
      2 - Montana had a reasonable wolf hunting season for one year, which was both ecologically and politically defensible. It was thrown out by a federal district court's decision last year, not because the hunting season was wrong, but because Wyoming had never submitted a legally acceptable wolf management plan.

      But surely there's some information missing. I'd like to read the actual decision, which in my anger, I hope you'll forgive my not having done yet.

      ---

      The governor is doing extreme wrong, with attention to only a part of the citizens of his state. I'll bet that part made some contributions. He's kissing extreme ass. That makes him a Tea Bagger... to me. In generally defined terms, you're certainly correct that he's not.

      Would you vote for him?

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 07:06:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well I did vote for him (5+ / 0-)

        Twice, and actively campaigned for him. Schweitzer is in his second term as Montana's governor, and although there is no law preventing it, two termers do not run for a third term.

        As sort of a lame duck at this point, our Gov may be seeking more attention by taking controversial stands on many issues, not only with wolves. Some of my friends think he has basically gone nuts. But Mr. Schweitzer has never been a shrinking violet and he does not care whose toes he steps on, including mine occasionally.

        There is speculation that Governor Schweitzer will run for US Senate when and if Senator Baucus retires in 2014. I think he would hate serving in the dysfunctional senate.

        As you can see, even I have a hard time explaining what the heck he is doing at times.

        That's Countdown for the 2,082nd day since Mission Accomplished. You thought that would change? Are the troops home yet? Keith Olbermann January 20, 2009

        by Ed in Montana on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 07:44:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't think about this before I asked. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ed in Montana, Onomastic

          But up until just recently, given the opportunity, I would have voted for him as well.

          Looked back through my records. I contributed to his first run for governor. Him and Dave Freudenthal here in Wyoming, $75 each on the same day.

          It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

          by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 12:26:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Damned if we do (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fishgrease, Onomastic

            Damned if we don't.

            It would be nice to vote for someone that I didn't have to weigh the good and the considerable bad with.

            That's Countdown for the 2,082nd day since Mission Accomplished. You thought that would change? Are the troops home yet? Keith Olbermann January 20, 2009

            by Ed in Montana on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 12:38:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I can almost understand all of it except (7+ / 0-)

      for this:

      the state will defy federal protections for gray wolves and kill packs that have been hurting elk herds.

      That has nothing to do with Wyoming or any other state. That has to be considered a step too far. Doesn't it?

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 07:30:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site