Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Tom O'Riley, Oct 10, 2011.
I'm waiting for this threads page count to hit 20+ before I start spending any heavy ammo
There are issues with the wolves. If you do shoot one just walk away like nothing happened then drive like heck. Idaho has lost millions of dollars in Fish and Game revenue because of the wolves. The Washington wolf commision will be sending out their recommendations pretty soon. I personally carry most of the time and I am not too worried. As soon as the ranchers start sueing the government for loss of property then you might see a difference.
With one of the saving money ideas is to stop the free legal to anyone group (Wacko or not) can get reimbersed. The groups who cannot afford the legal will be doomed. Sounds like progress to me.
Is there a report or document somewhere that we can read that verifies these millions of lost dollars? This thread has been so full of opinion and bullshit it's been hard at times to know which information is factual. As regards free legal, there is none. It's customary in tort law in the US that when one party sues another for some loss, they are entitle also to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees - if they win. The law doesn't care if you're a good guy or a bad guy, but if you win, you may collect. Are you suggesting that if I damage property of yours, and you have to hire an attorney to sue me for those damages because for some reason I decide to just not cough it up for you, that I shouldn't have to cover your attorney's fees for your lawsuit against me? Are you sure that's what you consider progress in American law? Because that's what it reads like you're asking for.
Your for less bullshit, less uninformed opinion, and more facts,
From the beginning, there has been money set aside by the Feds and by private non-profit organizations that support wolf reintroduction to reimburse ranchers for bona fide losses to livestock by wolf predation. No program is perfect and I'm sure that there are some losses that cannot be verified, just as there are some claims that are not losses due to wolves.
Wolves don't attack people unless you work at a logging camp deep in Canada and you've been feeding them scraps for months.
States without introduction of wolves ( Colorado, NV, AZ, NM) increased license sales this year.
I personally know 8 guys who no longer hunt ID because of the wolves negative impact on elk and deer populations. That translates into lost revenue and laying off F&G employees. Reading posts from this thread and prior threads there are more than a few on here that would like to see hunting on publics lands ended and for nature to back to it "natural state".
Thanks. At least the reduced revenue is verifiable. Do you also know that IDFG employees were laid off, or is that an inference you're drawing? I'm not doubting that some were, but this thread is a classic example of opinions and inferences being represented as facts. Consequently I've become interested mainly in separating the BS from the truth.
Since wolves eat ungulates, I don't doubt for a minute that deer and elk herds are reduced. I'm just fascinated that people are willing to post so much BS that they cannot back up. Then I realize this is a fishing forum, so now it's all beginning to fall into place (jk).
I heard a news report(actually a couple) that mentioned several western states had declines in hunting licenses(and other tourist visits). The main factor was the economy.
"States without introduction of wolves ( Colorado, NV, AZ, NM) increased license sales this year."
That could be hunters staying closer to home to save money.... that in turn increases license sales locally.
This article may be from the associated press, from Yahoo, and full of fallacies which may make me dishonest... So be careful, I am posting it anyway :thumb:
Wolves are making it into oregon....
"The increase (up $43.25 to $300 for deer, up $44.25 to $415 for elk)."
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, with some certainty, that this has a lot more to do with Idaho's lost revenue than wolves. I don't really have an opinion on wolf reintroduction -yet- but at those prices the wolves can have it.
So in summary before we hit page 20, just to make sure I've read things right:
Bunch of anti-wolf propaganda and rhetoric gets posted.
Level headed individuals point out that while they don't disagree with wolf hunting or management, the obvious rhetoric is getting in the way of real action.
Anti-wolf fundamentalists come out of the woodwork and insist that we're disagreeing with the conclusion as opposed to the knee-jerk bullshitting.
Level headed individuals again try to point out that they're not arguing the conclusion, just the large amount of bullshit involved.
Several people continue to argue against the boards non-existent pro-wolf supporters.
Not a single person in this thread is on team Jacob.
We're all here because we're interested in angling. Hunting follows the exact same vein. As anglers, we understand that fucking around with mother nature can have major repercussions. This is true whether you're removing a species, changing habitat, or even re-introducing species. But the means we choose to interact with nature gives us a unique perspective on harvesting animals. It's why hunters and anglers drive environmental conservation. Not the PETA-tards.
Sadly, the anti-wolf fundamentalists have lost sight of reality and tried to remove the ESA in it's entirety this year--despite countless hunting and conservation groups pointing out how stupid that is. Even the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation--one of the main groups being politically and judicially active to limit wolf predation on elk, considers the fundies to be complete tards.
So just to re-route this to more relevant discussions, what are people's opinions on the chances for wild steelhead should the ESA go away due to the rabid anti-wolf lobby?
I returned from a hunt in MT last week, and while there was surprised to hear that despite the large number of wolves in the area, and the number of licenses sold, that few hunters there could manage to "fill" their tags.
As with anything, proper management will rely on good data coming in, to make effective decisions in the field - "Shoot, shovel, shut-up."
Tags for elk/deer or wolves?
They seem to be doing ok for wolves.
The only thing I know for sure is most of this tread is like the story of the three little pigs , a fairy tale that gets old after the third time you hear it.
44 wolf tags filled in Montana and 100 filled in Idaho. Hopefully they will fill 500+ tags for each state this season. ONly costs $31, thats right only $31, for an out of state wolf tag in IDaho, and $350 for an out state wolf tag in Montana. I think the best way preserve the larger non indiginous canadian wolves here in the lower 48 is to take one to a taxidermist.
"One hundred wolves were harvested by hunters through the end of October. Hunters killed three wolves
in August during the first two days of the season, 30 wolves during September, and 68 wolves in
October. In comparison, hunters had killed 84 wolves by October 31 during our first season in 2009,
including 67 during October. Just under 30,000 wolf hunting tags for 2011 had been sold as of close of
business on November 7. Additionally, 71 wolf trapping tags have been purchased for the season that
opens November 15. Hunters purchased 26,428 wolf tags in 2009."
Here is an up to date link to show you how many wolves have been harvested. Looks like they are up to 142 wolves so far.
Good summary Flyborg.
Where is it said that anti wolf fundamentalists want to get rid of the ESA in it's entirety? I read they wanted to remove the wolves from the ESA (which they have) but not the entire ESA and every species on it?
It says it in the Bible.
I'm not really interested in e-scholastics. Nothing I present needs to be construed as fact, and anyone taking me seriously does so at their own risk. You of all people should know that, and really, that should apply to everything on the internet.
Disclaimer aside, there were several groups trying to press for a more aggressive gutting of the ESA, using the anti-wolf banner to rally the frothing masses. They wanted to essentially give the states the right to bypass the ESA. Luckily, the guys who do the actual lobbying understand the concept of wildlife management and more level heads prevailed. Thus the delisting passed. It wouldn't have stood a chance taking aim at the ESA in its entirety. If you dig around the various environmental/wildlife/hunting sites for January posts, you'll see references to the debate. If you actually take the time to do it, you're not browsing enough pr0n.
We don't live in a bubble, (although apparently, kids are living in cages). Wildlife management is an essential part of successfully living on a planet with 7 billion people. That's why fundies on either end of the spectrum are tards. On one end is PETA and the various e-terrorists (now reinforced by scores of twihards). On the other end is the countless commercial interests hurt by ESA listings, the hunters and anglers too dumb to realize you can't fucking kill everything, and the frothing masses with guns that believe every bit 'o etruth they read. Both sides spew exaggerated facts, which is getting in the way of actually managing the wildlife. Intellectual Integrity is completely overridden by paid-for rhetoric, derped-up hillbillyisms and enviro-truthiness.
Of course, a part of me wishes that wolves would start eating more people. A part of me also wishes people would start eating more people.
LOL, You BAstAge
Wise observations that could be roughly applied to politics these days as well.