There has been a flurry of press and opinion about the wolf delisting rider attached to the budget bill and the ongoing negotiations in Wyoming to change their wolf management plan in the last several days.
Some of the reporting is good and some misses important elements of the controversy but the issue has become very well publicized. By all reports I’ve received, members of the House and Senate have received a huge number of calls about the issue but, unless the bill is defeated, there is likely no way to remove the language from it.
Below the fold is a long compilation of just the articles which have appeared in the press in the last two days.
Wolf delisting appears likely as measure joins federal budget bill
April 13, 2011
Montana Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both Democrats, placed a rider in the 2011 Appropriations Bill reauthorizing a 2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule delisting the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains.
Bozeman Daily Chronicle
April 13, 2011
Local conservation groups are all but accepting that congressional action will make way for a wolf hunt in Montana and Idaho within the year.
The only question remaining is how many animals the states’ fish and game departments will allow hunters to take.
Congress, in a first, removes an animal from the Endangered Species List
New York Times
April 12, 2011
Congress for the first time is directly intervening in the Endangered Species List and removing an animal from it, establishing a precedent for political influence over the list that has outraged environmental groups.
A rider to the Congressional budget measure agreed to last weekend dictates that wolves in Montana and Idaho be taken off the endangered species list and managed instead by state wildlife agencies, which is in direct opposition to a federal judge’s recent decision forbidding the Interior Department to take such an action.
Federal budget deal strips protection from water, wild lands, wolves
Environment News Service
April 12, 2011
WASHINGTON, DC, April 12, 2011 (ENS) – Conservationists are angered and disappointed by the deal struck between Congress and the Obama administration to authorize the federal budget for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. Protection for clean water, for wild lands, and for endangered wolves will be lost if the deal is enacted as it now stands.
Wolf rider attached to federal budget
Oregon Public Broadcasting
April 12, 2011
Idaho senator Mike Crapo doesn’t take credit for the budget rider that delists wolves.
The Washington Post – Opinion
April 12, 2011
AMONG THE POLICY riders added to this year’s budget deal was a measure removing the gray wolf in Idaho and Montana from the endangered-species list , ending a years-long battle between environmentalists and ranchers in those states. The measure has bipartisan support, and neither party’s base is going to war over it. Still, there is reason to worry about this one, too.
Hunters, ranchers claim victory with wolf rider
April 12, 2011
MISSOULA, Mont. — Hunters and ranchers claim victory as a rider to the federal budget bill aims to delist wolves in a large portion of the Northern Rockies. The plan would put wolf management back in hands of the Montana and Idaho.
Environmentalists say the time to fight has “come and gone.” Now they’ll focus on keeping the states in check.
Animals we’d like congress to declare un-extinct
April 13, 2011
Mazel tov to our friends the Rocky Mountain wolves! According to Congress, these animals are no longer endangered. “A rider to the Congressional budget measure agreed to last weekend dictates that wolves in Montana and Idaho be taken off the endangered species list and managed instead by state wildlife agencies, which is in direct opposition to a federal judge’s recent decision forbidding the Interior Department to take such an action,” The New York Times reports. Nice! Wolves: what lobbying firm are you using?
Making sense of wolf management
International Wolf Center
April 12, 2011
With the myriad media outlets releasing daily write-ups about wolf management, it is hard to follow the issue, let alone keep track of the facts. The discussion over how to ensure that wolf management decisions are grounded in science has become overshadowed by political agendas of individual states and their elected officials. The proverbial squeaky wheels are getting the grease.
Wolves still protected – for the moment
Idaho Mountain Express
April 13, 2011
The wolf I remember
April 13, 2011
Held 10 weeks, the pair was released into the wild and began what, for better or worse, is the most notable and controversial wildlife conservation experiment in American history.
New York Times
April 13, 2011
Gov said to consider larger state wolf zone
Jackson Hole News & Guide
April 13, 2011
Wyoming politicians, sportsmen and ranchers are considering expanding the area where wolves would be tolerated should the state come to control the species, a hunting outfitter said Tuesday.
State wants larger wolf zone
April 12, 2011
Montana senators succeed in attaching wolf delisting to federal budget bill
April 12, 2011
Tester, Simpson sneak wolf-killing rider into budget bill
Center for Biological Diversity
April 12, 2011
WASHINGTON— Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) today placed a rider on the must-pass federal budget bill that removes wolves in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Utah from the federal endangered species list and sets the stage for near-term delisting in Wyoming. The rider bans citizens from challenging the wolf delisting decision while preserving anti-wolf litigation brought by the state of Wyoming and others.
The rider was approved by Democratic and Republican leadership. The budget bill is expected to be voted on Thursday.
Montana FWP chief responds to wolf ruling
April 11, 2011
On Saturday, a federal judge ruled that wolf management in Montana and Idaho will continue to be handled by the federal government.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled against a plan by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and 10 conservation groups to lift the animals from the Endangered Species List.
April 12, 2011
Wolf provision under scrutiny
April 11, 2011
April 13, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Thanks for posting this Ken.
“Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s “administration is not likely to reduce Montana’s wolf populations too drastically, but Idaho may, and our next Montana governor could,” he said. “The biggest threats to wolves are now the state legislatures and the anti-predator hunting groups, both of which can put a lot of pressure on state wildlife agencies to kill off a lot of wolves.”
I think Idaho is really going to kill as many wolves as they possibly can. You can throw science out the window because Idaho is run by a legislature and politicians that are avid wolf haters.
April 13, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Unfortunately being Republican today means that you have to reject anything that has to do with science. I seems that they reject anything factual these days. It’s all ideology, myth and emotion.
April 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM
Even if this thing passes, UT is not done with the issue – they say they can’t implement their “management plan” for the entire state, whatever that entails. And do recall UT wants no wolves period, if they had their way.
Geez, is there no rest. You cannot blink an eye without a new change or nuance on an issue cropping up.
April 13, 2011 at 1:35 PM
Sorry, I forgot the link to the story:
May 6, 2011 at 6:20 PM
Utah’s DWR is heavily influenced by Don Peay and the “Sportsmen” for Fish and Wildlife. They are constantly lobbying to reduce cougar and bear populations and have been “crying wolf” since #253 was trapped in Utah (and returned to Yellowstone) back in 2002.
April 13, 2011 at 2:06 PM
“Unfortunately being Republican today means that you have to reject anything that has to do with science. ”
Well, it’s within the power of the Democrats in the Senate to defeat this, which was introduced by a Democrat in the Senate. We’ll see if they’re any different from a Republicans.
April 13, 2011 at 2:18 PM
Please call your US Senators and your US Representatives and ask them to vote NO on the Budget Bill- The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. It is very important that you do so and ASAP, like now.
Just Google for the phone numbers of your US Sentors and Representatives. No questions are asked – it is easy as pie.
April 13, 2011 at 2:36 PM
So I suppose we can expect a rider on the upcoming Federal Debt Ceiling legislation calling for the delisting of the grizzly bear, spotted owl, and eliminating the prairie chicken from ever being listed, all w/o judicial review …….It will not stop with the gray wolf. Spineless Dems selling out the ESA….Nice precedent being set.
April 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM
How about a rider to end subsidized ranching.
April 13, 2011 at 2:47 PM
One of the terms was to cut 350 million in Milk Subsidies…
Upward and onward to Defense Slashing!
Go Tea Party!
April 13, 2011 at 2:49 PM
there is already speculation floating around the grizzly bear will be next.
April 13, 2011 at 4:31 PM
I heard that,too,
April 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Of course they will. This is what Tester’s rider does. Every “controversial” species will now be held hostage in must-pass bills. I can’t wait to see this piece of garbage lose. At least I know what to expect with a crazy Republican. Tester is a fake, and no one likes a fake.
April 13, 2011 at 4:18 PM
This is the biggest problem. Any radical goon from Idaho/Montana/Wyoming can hold any species hostage whenever they want.
Tester is an a$$hole for doing this. I would have never expected the largest attack in ESA history to be coming from a democrat.
April 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM
Oops…in my post above I meant sage grouse, not prarie chicken. Carry on.
April 13, 2011 at 4:30 PM
And I meant “prairie” also. Onward
April 13, 2011 at 2:50 PM
What I am curious about is the constitutionality of this legislation. The Constitution gives courts the authority for judicial review it doesn’t seem to me that simple legislation could deny this constitutional right. Otherwise Congress could pass all sorts of laws saying that the courts could not review the legislation. Does anyone know if there is any legal precedent with this type of law?
April 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM
I don’t get that either unless it’s just budget bills that are exempt from judicial review.
April 13, 2011 at 3:20 PM
Perhaps it comes from this???
April 13, 2011 at 3:38 PM
Congress has the authority to limit Judicial Review on any matter that isn’t a Constitutional issue. And from what I have read there are those in the legal system who would argue that Congress can even limit Judicial Review on some Constitutional challenges.
This power was granted in Article III section 2.2 of the US Constitution:
“, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
From what I have studied on this matter Congress limited Judicial Review quite a lot in the early history of the US. As time has progressed they have used it less and less, mostly because it is hard to pass legislation in Congress when opposing parties may not challenge said legislation in the courts.
In this case regarding Wolf de-listing, Congress is well within their authority to tell the courts that they may not review any legal challenges to their legislation.
April 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM
To my lay-person way of looking at things “no judicial review” is kind of like passing a law that prohibits our rights to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
April 13, 2011 at 8:48 PM
One can always contest the issue of Article Three, and it isn’t just a matter of the language, as folks like Scalia who have seances with the Founding Fathers would tell you, but the interpretations of those cases that will govern whether a challenge is worth the effort.
But, the larger issue is that does it tell you about a party and its members who think that the best way to get things done is to deprive citizens of their rights under the three part democratic system of our government? If this was done to the conservatives on issues like the Roadless Rule or Wilderness…my god, they would be shooting people in the streets…
I challenge those of you here who are anti wolf, anti Fed to find a liberal issue where we denied judicial review to people who disagreed with us. Bottom line, you won’t. It is not the Republican Party…It is the “whomever pays the most” party…This country is on a downward slide, and it is mostly due to the conservatives…
May 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM
Mrs. Sal writting not Mr. Sal
Depending upon if you subscribe to the exansive view (congress has complete discretion) or the limited view ( Congress has control to a point but they can not bar the judiciaries constitutional role in enforcing the constitution), Wyo Native is correct that Congress can limit appellate jurisiction of the Supreme Court.
However, there is a long standing history of cases that speak to the constitutionality of this legislation. This rider looks to violate the separation of powers. In United States v. Klein (1871) the Supreme court held that Congress can NOT pass legislation that would determine the particular result of a case. As the state management of the wolf population is still an open and pending case this rider would determine the cases outcome in full violation of this long standing rule.
A case that does not speak to this exactly but that I believe may be relevant is Ex Parte Quirin (1942). In this case the President declared no judicial review would be allowed of the trial of 6 German saboteurs (a case they normally would have had appellate review of). The Supreme Court came out of summer recess and convened just to prove to the President that he could not bar judicial review. Though Congress has the power to limit the courts judicial reveiw this is usually done by removing catagories of cases from their purview not one specific case.
Sorry I am late to the reply…I have been studying for finals and my husband just showed me the post.
The court is very protective of its powers. That Congress came out and said that it did not have judicial review of this one case could very well Backfire against its authors. Though Congress has the power to limit the courts appellate jurisdiction this is usually done by removing catagories of cases from their purview not one specific case.
April 13, 2011 at 8:19 PM
Wyo Native-in my teaching of American Government, I never understood that provision to be interpreted as you suggest, but I am certainly not an expert. Article III gives Congress the right to create jurisdictions, but I don’t know of any way that Congress can deem a law unreviewable…Tim Z-you might be on to something with that. Ralph where are you—Poli Sci 101?
April 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM
“Aasheim estimates if there’ s a hunt, the amount allowed would fall somewhere between 75 to 185 wolves. Currently there are a minimum of 560 wolves in Montana.”
I can only imagine what idaho’s #s would look like.
April 13, 2011 at 8:17 PM
One can hope that sane heads take control and a season such as the 2009/10 is sanctioned. We all know it is going to happen sooner or later. Hope springs eternal that so much of the noise was just that. As others have said, these politicians have bigger fish to fry than wolves, and the last thing they would want is for a public uproar about wolf slaughter to come back and bite them in the ass. A lot of people are watching this.
April 13, 2011 at 8:44 PM
“A lot of people are watching this.”
You got that right immer!
April 14, 2011 at 4:53 PM
Please join one and all at the ordaination of Montana Senators Tester and Baucus, allegedly Democrats , as they are anointed “Anti-Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing ” at a brief ceremony in Wolf Point, Montana at the popular Stockman’s Club. No cover, and the door prize is a tanned wolf pelt from last year’s attrition hunt.
Seriously , the Tester delisting wolf rider attached to the desperation federal budget bill, now sent on to Obama for his signature after an 81-19 vote in the Senate Thursday afternoon following House approval in the morning , was a keen example of How NOT To Legislate or make policy.
The wolf rider, being w-a-a-a-a-a-y far out of context with a budget appropriation , was a cheat. Or blackmail. Your choice. But either way it is not how to make legislation , or sausage, for that matter.
Now we turn our attention to Wyoming where Wolf policy is getting interesting with some potential for peril , but on a different tack altogether. ( administrative)
April 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM
Cody, or anyone who can answer this, does this rider mean that no one can challenge it in court to reverse it? That is what seems like the rider is saying from some of the articles I have read that have been published by these presses.
Also, can this rider ever be voted on to be taken off before, or even if wolves do not decrease to critical population levels?
April 14, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Based on what I have been reading and what various lawyers are saying that have studied this, nope, they can’t sue to reverse it, it will have to be monitored and acted on accordingly based on what the states do in their management of wolves..if the President signs the budget, wolves in Montana and Idaho will again be delisted..
April 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM
sb, have you heard anything about bill 414 in Montana? Did it pass?
April 14, 2011 at 6:16 PM
As far as I know, it passed the house, but I have not heard anything further, I suspect if it makes it to the Governor it will be vetoed. there has been very little information in the news about it..
this was posted on the destroyersofwildlife blog on the 2nd.
April 14, 2011 at 6:21 PM
Reason why I asked is because dow are saying the bill is dead and than I see this today.
Reconsideration WORKED on SB 414 – wolf control
April 13, 2011
Your efforts to get the House to reconsider its failing vote on our wolf control bill, SB 414, WERE SUCCESSFUL. The motion to reconsider passed by 62-38. We turned 13 votes!!
SB 414 will go to Second Reading now, and I hope this 62-38 vote holds for both Second Reading and Third Reading. Then it will have to go back to the Senate for Senate concurrence with House amendments. The Senate concurrence with House amendments should not be such a problem, however the Governor may veto despite his recent grandstanding about wolves.
We had a setback for our bill to encourage the manufacture of ammo components in Montana. The Senate failed to concur with House amendment by 20-30. I’ll get out a separate email about this.
Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
author, Gun Laws of Montana
Why do you suspect it might get vetoed? Just curious.
April 14, 2011 at 7:57 PM
SB: What about relisting? Is there any way wolves could be relisted before they (if they) get to an extreme low in population?
April 14, 2011 at 8:07 PM
Based on what has transpired, I would expect that if they fall below a certain number they will be relisted, as I remember the 09 delisting called for a 5 year monitoring period, so much has gone on as of the last couple of years, I get things mixed up, but again, I believe their was a provision to relist if they fall below a certain level.
That said, I don’t expect they will..
April 14, 2011 at 8:12 PM
sb, what will most likely happen to the wolves in WA and OR? Will they be hunted given their low populations? What happens to a low wolf population that gets delisted and is under state management?
April 14, 2011 at 4:55 PM
Well, the bill passed both houses of Congress today, and I’ve heard nothing about the rider being removed. I’m heartbroken.
April 14, 2011 at 5:16 PM
I had a long conversation with a staffer in DC yesterday expressing some frustrations about Democratic Senators not even issuing the mildest expression of protest at the beginning of the gutting of the ESA. Basically, the White House sacrificed the Western issues with Salazar’s cooperation for his rancher buddies, and the cooperation of Senate leadership because they think Tester can win in 2012.
Not without the votes of Dems he can’t and he can’t afford to have any defections.
I have a feeling the results of this budget betrayal will go down in history as one of the worst environmental defeats in history…right up there with Hetch Hetchy, Glen Canyon and a few others that still hurt to this day.
April 14, 2011 at 6:30 PM
Obama doesn’t care about wildlife. He’s a social issues man. Not to say that those championing social causes have fared much better than wildlife advocates. To me it’s a bad omen to have two seriously inept presidents serving one after the other.
My fear is that the political atmoshpere has morphed into something that our best and brightest are no longer willing to participate in on a professional level.
April 14, 2011 at 5:22 PM
April 14, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Latest from the Missoulian
April 14, 2011 at 6:49 PM
“It was a little hard persuading Sen Boxer and Sen Cardin that we’re not gutting the Endangered Species Act, Baucus said in an interview. “They don’t have the same understanding of the wolf problem that we have”.
Funny thing is the majority of people in this country don’t have the same understanding as Ranchers who expect everyone to kiss their ass just because they supply 3% of the food supply. All the hunters that kept whining about decimated game herds and spewing all the misinformation about wolves will have that opportunity for revenge now. They have even less respect and credibility after their SSS and gutshooting rants.
April 14, 2011 at 6:18 PM
April 14, 2011 at 8:12 PM
Here is what I am understanding from this decision on the budget and the riders.
1) Basicaly, people no longer have freedom. Unless you are in the upper higher class that has the money, then you have no power.
2) The role of judges and the court system has no important role anymore if Congress does not agree with the rulings.
3) The sole power in this country does not come from the citizens, it instead comes from the the people in office. I understand that we are still “supposedly” a freedom filled country, but these decisions are made not from the people who make up the country, but the higher powered individuals. I really hope things change in this country quickly.
April 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM
I wish we knew what went on in the back rooms as this 11th hour 50th minute budget bill was being debated last week. Aside from the brouhaha over defunding NPR and defunding Planned Parenthood, the Wolf Rider was the standout item , in that it was definitely a NON-budget item. It was pure policy , an ideological aberration, a ‘ gotcha”.
But who got whom ? What did Senator Tester— allegedly a Dem— give and get from the Obama admininstration policy minders. Did he pledge allegiance to the items in this bill that many in Montana would disagree with in exchange for a Nolo Contendre from Obama’s negotiators on wolves?
My own feeling is yes, indeed, wolves were sacrificed on somebody’s ideological altar . But it was worse than that in the long term, by which I mean it gives the science hating ESA-EPA hating Republican vandals a blunt instrument to take to any law they don’t like. Remember, this whole budget thing starts anew come Monday morning heading toward the September 30 finish line for the new fiscal year , already six months in arrears.
Last week was a budget battle. The ideological War is upon us.
Nobody can be proud of calling themselves a Democrat today . Especially Jon Tester , and in this case his sidekick Baucus.
What exactly did those two give and get, and how did it go down ?
April 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM
The right wing attack machine is in full force. The far right legislations all over the country are ignoring the will of the people and voting for special interests.
From the last few weeks:
Iowa- legislation to prevent video evidence in factory farms cruelty cases
Missouri- legislation to roll back puppy mill abuse
Colorado- Legislation to start a spring bear hunt- after 70% of Coloradans voted to not allow this type of hunt.
After voting to raise the debt ceiling more than a dozen times during Bush- as he doubles the national debt from 5 trillion to 10, Republicans are planning to attach defunding the health care bill to the debt ceiling vote!
This undermining of the ESA by these Ranchers- Tester , Baucus, Salazar with the rubber stamp of approval by Cardin and Boxer, was special interest politics at it’s worst.
I’m sure all the details will come out.
April 15, 2011 at 10:23 AM
Colorado is trying to gain support for spring bear hunts. They haven’t even voted on it yet. Yes, 70% of Coloradoans voted for the spring bear hunt ban in 1992, but ya know, sentiments change over time. Many don’t realize what they are voting for or against and the ramifications that can and do occur because of there ignorance.
Look at Obama, it didn’t take 2 decades for people to come to there senses (Like spring bear hunts in CO), it only took about 2 weeks w/ Obama. I want change! 😉
April 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM
I don’t think that will pass. There is a very good reason why some places don’t have spring hunts on bears anymore. Spring bear hunts have been proven to orphan many cubs each year.
April 15, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Just whip up some more of the fear about bears killing people huh Wolf Moderate. There is nothing scientific about leaving cubs motherless so a bunch of hunters can claim the bogus “conservationist” label. I have an idea- before they decide to start killing bears do you think maybe if they found out how many bears there are in Colorado would be a good starting point? They harvest 12,000 statewide now! I went on the Colorado legislation website- look at the vision of the guy who introduced the legislation- He’s a St&*^bagger through and through- another inheritance baby with a mandate from God.
April 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM
William, shooting bears in dens and shooting bears only to leave cubs orphaned are 2 things a real and true conservationist would be against.
April 16, 2011 at 10:06 PM
The Colorado lawmakr says “We want to give more power to people to hunt the bears…”. Wow! As if we already did not have enough power over wildlife.
April 16, 2011 at 10:26 PM
“another inheritance baby with a mandate from God.”
I really like that quote, did you make that up all by yourself?
It’s illegal to hunt bears and cougars w/ cubs. Yes, from time to time accidents happen, but it’s really not an issue in the grand scheme of things. there are lots of black bears in in the US, they are no where near threatened. However if you are just against black bear hunting, I can respect that. But that view would have nothing to do w/ re instituting spring bear hunting though…
April 16, 2011 at 10:58 PM
wolf moderate: I believe the bigger issue is hunting bears in the spring where the cubs are new to their surroundings outside of their den. It takes a large amount of energy and time for an adult bear to replenish its strength to increase its body temperature when coming out of hibernation. This puts them in an even more vulnerable stage to where they would not be of any use in defending themselves or their cubs. Even field? Helk no.
April 16, 2011 at 11:08 PM
It’s illegal to hunt bears w/ cubs.
April 16, 2011 at 11:28 PM
wolf moderate: I know it is. It is basically illegal to hunt any animal with young, but how do we know this proposal will maintain that rule? Let’s take out the fact it is illegal to hunt bears with cubs, even adult bears are very vulnerable coming out of hibernation.
April 16, 2011 at 11:33 PM
That’s why spring bear hunting is popular lol. Any other time of year it’s near impossible to harvest a bear w/o dogs or bait (which I don’t condone). Spring time is the best time to hunt bears using spot-n-stalk methods IMO.
April 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM
That’s the problem with today’s hunter Wolf Moderate. Most not all expect immediate results from hunting. In my state the success rate without using dogs to kill bears is about 18%. Spring bear hunting may be popuar with hunters but in Colorado over 70% of people are against it. We are in a political climate where the will of the majority be damned- special interests rule. There is nothing ethical about spring bear hunts. My comment about the st^&%bagger is accurate. Look what he stands for- he would prefer no taxes but expect the same level of services. These people have no clue what government does for people- to them it’s bad, a talking point to drive home the twisted SH&^*bagger message.
April 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM
It was 70% in 92′. I would bet that it is closer to 50-50, but it really is a moot point. Spring bear hunting using spot-n-stock is NOT easy lol. How many bears have you seen in your lifetime?
You say 18% of spring bear hunters are successful (when not using dogs or bait). I would like to see the F&G statistics for that figure.
Personally the “%^$#Baggers are a force to be reckoned with. I was actually part of the “GOOOH” project a couple of years ago until I realized that they were nothing more than another special interest group. It started out as an excellent idea. Also, was interested in the Tea Party “movement” until they began attacking the social issues. Honestly, I feel they are dead on as far as the fiscal situation goes, but when they start talking about abortion, gay marriage, etc…I have to cut ties.
Anywho, I wouldn’t call 18% success rate (Which I find bull chit), an instant gratification hunt. If it were 68%, then your point would hold water.
April 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Spring hunting of bears is only populat to hunters because they are the ones that are killing the bears. I call bs on your comment that it’s more like 50/50 now. There are by far many more non-hunters than hunters in Colorado. If you were to ask the non-hunters what they think of spring hunting of bears and bring up the fact that spring hunts cause bears to be orphaned because their mother is killed by hunters, I bet the most of them would agree that spring hunting of bears is disgusting and they would be against it. It’s a proven fact that bears have been orphaned because of spring hunts.
April 17, 2011 at 10:40 AM
And the fact that they banned spring hunting proves that a lot of people were against it. You might think you hunters are the majority, but that is false. How can anyone claim they care about wildlife when they want to kill it in the spring and risk their offspring being orphaned?
April 17, 2011 at 10:56 AM
You don’t have to hunt to see the value in managing wildlife in this day and age. Ya know, all the rich people buying “ranchettes” and then getting pissed when an animal munches down lassie. Any who, this is a dumb argument, because neither of us live in Colorado, thus have no control over what the voting electorate decides.
April 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Pay attention. I said that in my state the average success rate was 18%. My state does not allow a spring bear hunt. Why are you saying that i am giving you a figure of 18% for a spring bear hunt? I issue is simple- hunters are moving the bar and getting away from “fair chase” methods to justify management hunts. Unfair advantage is unfair advantage- it’s not rocket science. Treeing an animal with the use of dogs or any other “tool” is not fair chase.
Sh*&(baggers are hypocrites. Wailing andwhining about taxed enough already when tax rates are the lowest they’ve been since the 50’s is ridiculous, and it makes these people look foolish. They don’t even realize that when they advocate for less environmental regulation that they are working against their own interests
April 17, 2011 at 11:08 AM
And to add the point- Do they really think that the idiot sons will save them a seat on the private jet when the East or West Coast falls into the ocean from the effects of climate change? They are being used
April 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM
I’m hoping California falls into the ocean 😉
April 17, 2011 at 2:43 PM
In the first wolf season in Montana and Idaho there was no prohibition on shooting wolves with pups, sex of wolves or age of wolves shot. the season was of such a length that wolves well into the breading season or even already dropped cubs could be targeted. That is unlike any other species of “big Game” (wink wink). On the other end of the season there was no valid reason reason to shoot a wolf as the pelt was still in summer phase and useless/ worthless except to the completely clueless in this respect. The state of Idaho even tried to make people believe that a summer pelt was still a Worthwhile trophy. I would answer that just try and sell that pelt to any furrier and then see how far down the street you can hear the laughter as you leave.
April 17, 2011 at 2:52 PM
Idaho extended their season, Montana did not extend their season.. I suspect that most that hunt wolves and get one, have no interest in selling the fur. They are hunting wolves to mount them..
April 17, 2011 at 2:56 PM
I don’t consider wolves trophies personally. I’ll be elk hunting and if I see one (W/O pups) I will probably take it to reduce the population. We’ll see though, might not have the heart to do it lol.
I guess if I get one I’ll tan the hide and put it in the family room.
April 17, 2011 at 3:01 PM
……useless/ worthless except to the completely clueless in this respect……
I suppose if it is just shooting in order to kill somthing………… if that is the justification
April 17, 2011 at 3:10 PM
I didn’t make a judgment, I simply stated a fact…there was no extension in the state of Montana so more could shot wolves…people have their own reasons to hunt wolves. I am not a wolf hunter and never will be…
April 18, 2011 at 7:44 AM
Sorry I was not real clear in my reply. Montana in fact did not extend that season. however like Idaho the season did start when wolves were still sporting the summer coat which again is nearly worthless for any type of quality tanning much less taxidermy work. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I suspect that most that hunted wolves and got one made a quick stop at the county landfill shortly after the mandatory F&G check.
April 17, 2011 at 9:38 AM
Read George’s article. Hunters will continue to push for these unethical practices at their own peril