johnnyray
Trail Wise!
Argle-Bargle, Jiggery-Pokery, and Applesauce
Posts: 2,050 
|
Post by johnnyray on Nov 12, 2015 5:04:43 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 6:49:17 GMT -8
Last two paragraphs of the article: The possible lawsuit will be something to keep an eye out for. It sounds like the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife wants to follow Wyoming's bad example of poor science and repeated court challenges. Thanks for the link. |
|
|
|
Post by Outdoor Union on Nov 12, 2015 14:28:30 GMT -8
Not lobbying for either side of this but yet again the ongoing saga of delisting and listing wolves will be tied up in lawsuits for years. If such a big deal was not made out of wolves every time a delisting happens, I wonder what the perception could possibly be.
Hopefully they do not end up with the mess we have in Wisconsin with wolves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 14:58:32 GMT -8
If such a big deal was not made out of wolves every time a delisting happens, I wonder what the perception could possibly be. Moral of the story: If fish and game departments don't want a "big deal," they can follow the rules and the best science. If they are not willing to do that, then the big deal is conservation of wildlife — and that includes wolves. |
|
johnnyray
Trail Wise!
Argle-Bargle, Jiggery-Pokery, and Applesauce
Posts: 2,050
|
Post by johnnyray on Nov 12, 2015 15:51:42 GMT -8
I've probably made this comment before. The thing about the ESA is that it protects the habitat of the targeted species and therefore enhances the whole ecosystem. Often delisting has much to do with the desires of mining, logging, or drilling industries not just ranchers and trophy hunters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Outdoor Union on Nov 12, 2015 17:39:03 GMT -8
All I can say is Wisconsin wanted their wolf numbers at or around 300 wolves when they started their rebuilding process. We sit at double that right now depending on the time of the year.
25-30 years ago the people that advocated for wolves being listed would be ecstatic with the numbers today.
By no means am I saying 81 wolves in Oregon is a great number. My point being regardless of science or rules, there is no given number out there that will be good enough. Groups will continue to find courts across this country to make sure the delisting stays bumbled up in courts for as long as they can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 17:59:48 GMT -8
All I can say is Wisconsin wanted their wolf numbers at or around 300 wolves when they started their rebuilding process. We sit at double that right now depending on the time of the year. 25-30 years ago the people that advocated for wolves being listed would be ecstatic with the numbers today. The fact is that you do not know that. But regardless, if you are in the market for a new car, are you going to shop for something 25 to 30 years old? The science of 25-30 years ago is not the science of today. That's true for motor vehicles and that is true for wildlife. Why should anyone be content with the wildlife science of 1985 when so much research has been done since then? By no means am I saying 81 wolves in Oregon is a great number. My point being regardless of science or rules, there is no given number out there that will be good enough. Groups will continue to find courts across this country to make sure the delisting stays bumbled up in courts for as long as they can. This country was founded on the principle of three branches of government. One of those is the court system. Its legitimate duties include ruling upon controversial questions. People who get distraught over court battles need to understand and accept the fact that that is the way our system works. Or do you think the founders of this country "bumbled up" when they established three branches of government? Are 300 deer in Wisconsin enough for you also? |
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,996
|
Post by BigLoad on Nov 12, 2015 18:25:08 GMT -8
Predators must be eliminated so that deer and elk can be chained to their assigned positions for the hunt. If God wanted there to be predators, he wouldn't have invented a Department of Fish and Wildlife. Let's quit wasting our breath and just cave in to the people who think a $50 license entitles them to dictate the fate of every living thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Outdoor Union on Nov 12, 2015 20:44:05 GMT -8
Travis I love how you put words into peoples mouth for them. I forgot your views and opinion should be viewed by all.
My point has nothing to do with our legal system being at fault.
You are correct, 25-30 years ago has nothing to do with what the land can hold for wolves today. If anything it is more than likely the land can not hold as many. Open free land and forest land has been bought up and people have moved in. This has taken away habitat that wolves would use.
As far as chaining up deer and elk for hunters. We already have that. High fence hunting is a big industry. This has only hurt our deer and elk herds and contributed to the spread of CWD and EHD. High fence hunting is nothing but a bad thing my opinion.
My whole point being what is good for one is not always good for another. The listing of wolves is backing states, hunting groups and animals rights groups into corners and no one can come up with a plan for the future. This is where the legal system is a problem in my opinion. Why would a court system in a state without wolves rule on what any given state should do with their animals.
By no means am I saying that we need to kill wolves so that game numbers can thrive. It makes absolutely no sense why Wisconsin needs to do the same as Oregon and Oregon needs to do the same as Montana and Montana the same as Wyoming.
|
|
|
|
Post by llamero on Nov 12, 2015 20:47:05 GMT -8
...bumbled up in courts for as long as they can. That's the game isn't it. Both sides of an argument use it to protect their gains or limit the setback. Just the way it is and probably the way it was intended. The trick is to have your guy in place to make the call. There are new studies everyday reputing what was given as gospel yesterday. Big Load I agree, it seems that the ODFW is taking a position to protect itself and its stakeholders. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 22:33:47 GMT -8
The listing of wolves is backing states, hunting groups and animals rights groups into corners and no one can come up with a plan for the future. What do you mean by "no one can come up with a plan"? Oregon has a state wolf plan. The issue raised by the article linked was whether the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife followed that plan. It's not the end of the world yet. You talk like you're having nightmare-flashbacks about Wisconsin when the state is Oregon, and no one has even filed suit yet. Your consternation is so absurd that it is comical.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Nov 13, 2015 4:05:45 GMT -8
Ranchers and hunters still scream that wolves are slaughtering everything in sight in MT but still completely ignore the fact that it's not happening.
True there are are a few cases here and there but not the wholesale destruction claimed.
I have a simple question for hunters that none can answer when they insist wolves are "killing off all the elk!".
Really? Then please explain how these animals managed to coexist very well for 100's of thousands, even millions, of years before humans got involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 4:20:19 GMT -8
To clarify yesterday's dialogue, wolves have not been federally delisted statewide in Oregon. They are still protected by the federal Endangered Species Act in the western two-thirds of the state. The action by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife department removes state endangered-species protection for the entire state, but federal protection remains for the western two-thirds. (See High Country News.) Yet with 81 wolves remaining in the state, about seven wolves have been poached there so far this year. Federal ESA protection was removed from the eastern zone in 2011 by an unprecedented congressional budget trick which completely bypassed normal ESA delisting procedures. (See Christian Science Monitor.) An Oregon state Wolf Management Plan has been in place since 2005. It was updated in 2010 and slightly amended in 2013. Annual Reports are linked from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Opposition to the state delisting has focused upon the lack of peer review and the fact that wolves occupy only about 6% of available habitat in Oregon. According to Ralph Maughan: A map of management zones is provided below by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife:  |
|
Image Credit / Coolkat
