Michael J. McCasland
New member
Mike and Yellowhammer - Great posts! It looks like the ball is largely in Wyomings court and that is where the pressure needs to be placed.
Colorado DOW Wolf video
- Thread starter Furhunter
- Start date
- Status
mi_yotes
New member
Quote:
No, I think that would be "state" protected. Mountain lions are not "federally" protected as they do not have the authority to do so unless they fall under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, which they do not.
You are correct they are protected under the state Endangered Species Act.
I hope that Michigans wolf population doesnt become the problem that you guys are going through. People report sightings of them in the lower peninsula, but the DNR says it isnt possible and there has been no hard proof.
No, I think that would be "state" protected. Mountain lions are not "federally" protected as they do not have the authority to do so unless they fall under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, which they do not.
You are correct they are protected under the state Endangered Species Act.
I hope that Michigans wolf population doesnt become the problem that you guys are going through. People report sightings of them in the lower peninsula, but the DNR says it isnt possible and there has been no hard proof.
Last edited:
They will be in court again soon,Denvers 10th circut court...
Wyoming, federal government in appeals court on wolf dispute
By The Associated Press - 03/06/06
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Lawyers for Wyoming and its livestock industry sought Monday to pre-empt a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reject Wyoming’s plan for managing gray wolves, in arguments before a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The federal government argued that a 2004 letter written by the agency, objecting to Wyoming’s plan, wasn’t a final action that could be appealed in the courts. Wyoming countered that the Fish and Wildlife Service had all but made up its mind on a decision due within months, and that the agency’s decision was unwarranted.
Justice Department attorney David Shilton, defending the Fish and Wildlife Service, said it had a panel of 11 wolf experts review Wyoming’s and other wolf management plans ‘‘just to be helpful to the states.’’
That doesn’t amount to an official decision subject to court review, he said.
The judges grilled state and livestock lawyers on why the appeals court should get involved before the agency issues a final decision in July.
‘‘We don’t know what they’re going to do — that’s the problem,’’ said Judge Deanell Reece Tacha. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved plans by Montana and Idaho to take over control of the predator, but rejected Wyoming’s plan because of a provision to kill wolves outside the Greater Yellowstone Park area.
The federal government wants to remove wolves from federal protection and turn over control to the states, but contends Wyoming’s failure to draft an acceptable plan is holding that up.
Wyoming is standing by its plan. Outside court Monday, state Attorney General Patrick J. Crank said wolves are overrunning Wyoming, posing a threat to livestock and elk and moose herds.
Crank said Wyoming recognizes wolves in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks should remain protected and would provide a limited take for trophy hunters outside both parks in the Greater Yellowstone area. It’s outside those areas that the state believes wolves should be eliminated, he said.
Regardless of any official action taken on wolves, many Wyoming livestock owners will ‘‘most likely follow the three ’S’ rule: Shoot, shovel and shut up,’’’ said Harriet Hageman, a lawyer representing Wyoming’s livestock industry.
Crank said federal authorities took exception to Wyoming’s calling wolves ‘‘predators’’ outside protection zones. ‘‘They don’t like that word,’’ he said.
Wyoming’s plan calls for the state to manage seven wolf packs outside the parks, where eight more packs could survive, he said. Federal authorities want Wyoming to manage at least 15 packs whether they’re in or outside the parks.
Wyoming defines a wolf pack as five wolves, while federal authorities say a pack should include at least six members, he said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service released wolves from Canada in Yellowstone and central Idaho in 1995. They now number in the hundreds in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.
The 10th Circuit, based in Denver, is hearing cases from around the region in Utah this week.
Wyoming, federal government in appeals court on wolf dispute
By The Associated Press - 03/06/06
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Lawyers for Wyoming and its livestock industry sought Monday to pre-empt a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reject Wyoming’s plan for managing gray wolves, in arguments before a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The federal government argued that a 2004 letter written by the agency, objecting to Wyoming’s plan, wasn’t a final action that could be appealed in the courts. Wyoming countered that the Fish and Wildlife Service had all but made up its mind on a decision due within months, and that the agency’s decision was unwarranted.
Justice Department attorney David Shilton, defending the Fish and Wildlife Service, said it had a panel of 11 wolf experts review Wyoming’s and other wolf management plans ‘‘just to be helpful to the states.’’
That doesn’t amount to an official decision subject to court review, he said.
The judges grilled state and livestock lawyers on why the appeals court should get involved before the agency issues a final decision in July.
‘‘We don’t know what they’re going to do — that’s the problem,’’ said Judge Deanell Reece Tacha. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved plans by Montana and Idaho to take over control of the predator, but rejected Wyoming’s plan because of a provision to kill wolves outside the Greater Yellowstone Park area.
The federal government wants to remove wolves from federal protection and turn over control to the states, but contends Wyoming’s failure to draft an acceptable plan is holding that up.
Wyoming is standing by its plan. Outside court Monday, state Attorney General Patrick J. Crank said wolves are overrunning Wyoming, posing a threat to livestock and elk and moose herds.
Crank said Wyoming recognizes wolves in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks should remain protected and would provide a limited take for trophy hunters outside both parks in the Greater Yellowstone area. It’s outside those areas that the state believes wolves should be eliminated, he said.
Regardless of any official action taken on wolves, many Wyoming livestock owners will ‘‘most likely follow the three ’S’ rule: Shoot, shovel and shut up,’’’ said Harriet Hageman, a lawyer representing Wyoming’s livestock industry.
Crank said federal authorities took exception to Wyoming’s calling wolves ‘‘predators’’ outside protection zones. ‘‘They don’t like that word,’’ he said.
Wyoming’s plan calls for the state to manage seven wolf packs outside the parks, where eight more packs could survive, he said. Federal authorities want Wyoming to manage at least 15 packs whether they’re in or outside the parks.
Wyoming defines a wolf pack as five wolves, while federal authorities say a pack should include at least six members, he said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service released wolves from Canada in Yellowstone and central Idaho in 1995. They now number in the hundreds in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.
The 10th Circuit, based in Denver, is hearing cases from around the region in Utah this week.
Here in central Iowa. I have seen a "wolf" on two different occasions, over the yrs. Also seen a handfull of other canines, that I couldn't make out[long enough look] to satisfy my opinion. But none of them were considered "just" coyote, to me.
This Winter, another guy & myself were out spotting coyote. We came upon a coyote. That was kicked out of a fenceline by a farm tractor. That critter looked to be crossed with a coyote & a Long-Haired Collie. He was big, & a treat to see, for sure.
No doubt IMO, a rare wolf pass's on through Iowa.
This Winter, another guy & myself were out spotting coyote. We came upon a coyote. That was kicked out of a fenceline by a farm tractor. That critter looked to be crossed with a coyote & a Long-Haired Collie. He was big, & a treat to see, for sure.
No doubt IMO, a rare wolf pass's on through Iowa.
Rob Meyers
New member
Here's my prediction...Wolves will be reintroduced in Colorado near Grand Junction in the next couple years.
Rob Meyers
New member
Nonya..your probably right..A year ago I read an article about Colorado Wildlife Services personnel (federal trappers) from Grand Junction up here in Montana for wolf training from MT Wildlife Services personnel...I thought that was strange.
mikegranger
Active member
Here's my prediction. Nonya is trying to steer this thread the same direction of about every thread he comments on concerning wolves and mountain lions. Nonya, as one who knows everything about wolves and government conspiracy's, you should also know that if free ranging "wild" wolves were found in Colorado, they could not be classified as an experimental population and therefore be classified as an endangered species. They could not be controlled by the very same biologist that you think are looking for new jobs. Remember the snail darter. They stopped construction of a rather large dam. It's all in the Endangered Species Act. Go online and read it sometime. You might learn something.
An experimental population allows for taking of problem animals, as has been done many times here in Montana.
An experimental population allows for taking of problem animals, as has been done many times here in Montana.
and what about the population of wolves that were here before the reintroduction?What did they call them,Ill tell you what they called them when my family talked to them about it,COYOTES.They admit that they were moving down from Canada now but back then they refused to admit they were here,I have more first hand information on this topic than most of the "experts" here and i am harassed for expressing my opinions,i have never expressed that anyone should break any laws concerned with the topic either,I dont know why its so disruptive for someone to have an opinion that varys from the PC.Why else would federal employees from Colorado be attending wolf training?If the wolves in Co are remnants of the population from a reintroduction program in say idaho or Wyoming they would fall right into the federal control.
mikegranger
Active member
Nonya, you say the same thing over and over and over. I for one get tired of the ranting. PC has nothing to do with it. Yes, I'm for free ranging wolves. Yes, I'm for allowing harvest of wolves. No, I'm not for the indiscriminent slaughter of wolves. The livestock industry had their turn at predator management in the West for almost 100 years and as a result the West lost most if it's big predators. The Endangered Species Act was the beginning of change. There is a new West and predators have their place in the ecosystem.
Trust me, if biologists were calling wolves coyotes back in the late 80's it was to your benefit. If wolves were proven to be naturally occuring and free ranging in Montana, an experimental population would never have been allowed and the bunny huggers would be running the program right now and no wolves would be allowed to be removed until they were taken off of the endangered species list. Instead, the entire population was ruled as experimental which allows a degree of management. Either way, the wolf was coming back, on it's own or with a little help.
Trust me, if biologists were calling wolves coyotes back in the late 80's it was to your benefit. If wolves were proven to be naturally occuring and free ranging in Montana, an experimental population would never have been allowed and the bunny huggers would be running the program right now and no wolves would be allowed to be removed until they were taken off of the endangered species list. Instead, the entire population was ruled as experimental which allows a degree of management. Either way, the wolf was coming back, on it's own or with a little help.
Michael J. McCasland
New member
It sorta sounds to me like they were trying to work the "LEGAL" system to allow for future management to me. Here's a thought, if all the game management personnel were saying that your problem animals were coyotes and its legal to take coyotes ... even the big ones ... it looks like they were giving you an out to your problem. But once the big coyotes are officially recognized as being wolves, well then things change in an entirely different direction.
Your dealing with a government agency that works words through a legal system that only allows things to be said in certain ways. Common (common sence) language has little to do with how they are required to word their speach and legal documents. For instance we are able to take "Predators" on the San Carlos Indian Reservation with a $10.00/day tag. Predators are Fox, Coyote and Bobcat. But what about the Badger, Mountain Lion and Bears they certainly are predators! No the badger is a fur bearer, the Lion and Bear are Big game and require different Tags. There is a difference between reality and legal deffinition. I completely believe that you are fighting the shadow world of legal deffinitions here. You won't win until you can completely talk, understand and accept the minutia of their legal requirements. More than likely they know the wolf is/was there, but could not recognize them due to some sort of legal loop hole that they simply couldn't go through yet. Also take into account what Yellowhammer had to say. A true scientist can't take your word for a fact. They need to touch feel and test before they will completely believe.
This whole thing reminds me of growing up in New York 70 miles from Canada. In the late 1960's we started seeing wild dogs, BIG wild dogs. Then they changed from wild dogs to Coydogs, a Coyote Dog mix. But these dogs looked very wolfy to me and most other people, but the Fish and Game Dept. did not officially recognize them as anything. But, some serious studies were quietly underway. In the mid 1970's the State started to openly call them Coyotes, a year or so later they became the Aderondack Coyote and now I hear them refered to as the Eastern Coyote giving some recognition to the fact that they are generally much bigger than their eastern brothers. Some talk was circulating that they were actually Wolf/Coyote mixes. I have my doubts about that though. I can make one statement though, I've seen some mighty BIG german shepard looking coyotes in upstate New York. I'm still not convinced that we weren't seeing wolves.
Your dealing with a government agency that works words through a legal system that only allows things to be said in certain ways. Common (common sence) language has little to do with how they are required to word their speach and legal documents. For instance we are able to take "Predators" on the San Carlos Indian Reservation with a $10.00/day tag. Predators are Fox, Coyote and Bobcat. But what about the Badger, Mountain Lion and Bears they certainly are predators! No the badger is a fur bearer, the Lion and Bear are Big game and require different Tags. There is a difference between reality and legal deffinition. I completely believe that you are fighting the shadow world of legal deffinitions here. You won't win until you can completely talk, understand and accept the minutia of their legal requirements. More than likely they know the wolf is/was there, but could not recognize them due to some sort of legal loop hole that they simply couldn't go through yet. Also take into account what Yellowhammer had to say. A true scientist can't take your word for a fact. They need to touch feel and test before they will completely believe.
This whole thing reminds me of growing up in New York 70 miles from Canada. In the late 1960's we started seeing wild dogs, BIG wild dogs. Then they changed from wild dogs to Coydogs, a Coyote Dog mix. But these dogs looked very wolfy to me and most other people, but the Fish and Game Dept. did not officially recognize them as anything. But, some serious studies were quietly underway. In the mid 1970's the State started to openly call them Coyotes, a year or so later they became the Aderondack Coyote and now I hear them refered to as the Eastern Coyote giving some recognition to the fact that they are generally much bigger than their eastern brothers. Some talk was circulating that they were actually Wolf/Coyote mixes. I have my doubts about that though. I can make one statement though, I've seen some mighty BIG german shepard looking coyotes in upstate New York. I'm still not convinced that we weren't seeing wolves.
the first time i saw a pack of wolves in Mt we came up over a saddle on our place and 7 of them crossed the saddle in front of us ran all the way down the side of a clearcut while we watched,at that point we were all excited about seeing them and it was a neat experience,the next day my Dad called the state F&G and talked to a local warden,the first thing he told my dad was that the Fed F&G wouldnt want to hear about it regardless of where we saw them,he made it very clear that they had known for some time they were in the area.My father swears to this day that he saw a pair near our place in Augusta 2 years before they started thier program and one of the pair had collar on it,anyone who knows him would never doubt his word.I wouldnt doubt that they did somekind of expiremantal drop to see if the wolves would try to return to Canada,maybe thats what they did in Co?
mikegranger
Active member
Nonya,
If a wolf killed your livestock and they were not an experimental population, you're out of luck. If a wolf kills your livestock and they are an experimental population, more than likely you will be compesated for the loss. The government does not and should not compensate people for losing livestock to naturally occuring wildlife. Otherwise you and I would be paying people for losing horses to West Nile, cattle to anthrax, and the list goes on and on.
I live on windy hill. I don't expect the Government to pay for the wind blowing the shingles off my roof. The same applies when people move into wildlife habitat. Loss is expected, if you are unwilling to take the loss then it's time to move.
Again, the wolf was coming. A compromise was to declare the entire wolf population experimental. Therefore, you would be compensated for your loss. Now, if you would rather not be compensated for losses to wolves, you are a better man than 99.9% of most folks I know. The rational ranchers saw it as a better deal than having a free ranging wild population. Hypocrisy? Ask that question to the 357 ranchers who have collected $429,000 through the Wolf Compensation Trust Fund!
If a wolf killed your livestock and they were not an experimental population, you're out of luck. If a wolf kills your livestock and they are an experimental population, more than likely you will be compesated for the loss. The government does not and should not compensate people for losing livestock to naturally occuring wildlife. Otherwise you and I would be paying people for losing horses to West Nile, cattle to anthrax, and the list goes on and on.
I live on windy hill. I don't expect the Government to pay for the wind blowing the shingles off my roof. The same applies when people move into wildlife habitat. Loss is expected, if you are unwilling to take the loss then it's time to move.
Again, the wolf was coming. A compromise was to declare the entire wolf population experimental. Therefore, you would be compensated for your loss. Now, if you would rather not be compensated for losses to wolves, you are a better man than 99.9% of most folks I know. The rational ranchers saw it as a better deal than having a free ranging wild population. Hypocrisy? Ask that question to the 357 ranchers who have collected $429,000 through the Wolf Compensation Trust Fund!
Rob Meyers
New member
NONYA..your dad probably did see a wolf 2 years before wolves were released in MT...I have a book with a picture of Sherm Blom who was with U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (now Wildlife Services)with a wolf trapped from a pack near Deerlodge MT..The picture was taken in Sept. 1995...The fall before wolves were re leased in YNP and central Idaho.
Mike you have no idea what we have been through and I doubt you could look at the issue from any point of view but your own.My family has collected $0 for the cattle we have lost,not because we didnt try but because they make it next to impossible to qualify,losses are expected?Lol Mauser i think i saw her to!Rob i heard somthing about that from a retired F&G employee,Im thinking the ones he saw were some of the ones that moved down on thier own and they collared a few to track thier movements.
Cal Taylor
Active member
Predation and death loss is part of the ranching business. No way around it. You pencil it in and estimate what you think you are apt to lose and hope that you don't. If you can't sustain the losses, you move, or get into another business, or keep a better eye on your livestock. Wolves and bears are here to stay, and if you are in those areas you deal with it or get out. If you lose cattle in a blizzard, nobody steps up to pay for those losses. But on another note, I'm glad Wyoming has the balls to stand up and say that they don't want the wolves outside of the park, which is where they were supposed to be. I hope they stick to thier guns. This was a federal project and the wolves should have to stay on federal lands. Anything off of federal land should be fair game, any where, any time.
- Status