Colorado Cattle Association sues over Wolves

MtPockets said:
This is exactly why I believe the ESA needs to be abolished.
The intended purpose of the Act was a noble one, but for far too long the ESA has been weaponized and used to limit or eliminate States' ability to manage wildlife that is in ZERO danger of extinction.
It is also used against individuals and business' that don't follow the Lefts narratives.

This is one issue that nobody is talking about, yet as long as the ESA is intact our way of life is threatened.
Click to expand...
Nailed it!

The American model of conservation was saving the wildlife long before ESA.

Imagine what we could do with some of the $$$$$$$ RMEF etc auction. Or at least if they paid lip service.
 
These units are where the wolves started in Idaho. This is a five year elk count difference, just to give you an idea what you'll see.
IMG_7855.jpeg


Here is one from Yellowstone.
IMG_7858.png


Wolves were transplanted into Idaho in 1995.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get into an internet shouting match about first hand information, but I have been involved in wildlife counts in areas, supposedly bereft of animals, again due to first hand accounts and with several aerial surveys and photography the empty zone was not so empty.

So without documentation....
 
shaughn said:
Current continental U.S. numbers of wolves 5000 . Canada's population of wolves is 60,000 of which annually only 12 percent at max is harvested .

While most of the extreme southern reaches of Canada are wolf free or have minimum numbers only the cities could be said to be garaunteed to be wolf free, but coyote and foxes probably take up the slack.

The reintroduction of wolves is only hurrying along, the process, there is no force field along the border , between Canada and the U.S.

Before you blame low numbers on the wolves, find out if the high game numbers were artificial in the first place.

Not a wolf hugger, but someone who has lived with them all his lifetime and been around enough game management systems built for government gain to look at things with a bit of suspicion.
Click to expand...
Mt recollection is BC, and Alberta began spending big dollars a few years back eliminating wolves, and female cats to save the Caribou in the southern portion of those Provinces. With some success. So a bit of a force field maybe.

We gave free rein to the USFWS, and now have none. We're from the Government and are here to help plays out again.

Artificially high could have easily been dealt with, by issuing more tags, and extending seasons. Great for local economies as well.

Government gain? Does raise the question where does the money come from, and what are we getting from ours.
 
shaughn said:
I don't want to get into an internet shouting match about first hand information, but I have been involved in wildlife counts in areas, supposedly bereft of animals, again due to first hand accounts and with several aerial surveys and photography the empty zone was not so empty.

So without documentation....
Click to expand...
So, you don't believe official numbers nor do you believe first hand accounts?
I guess you'll need to move to Montana, hunt hard for 20-30 years, then report back.
 
The wolves will destroy the wildlife for sure, in addition to being a problem for ranchers. I've witnessed what they've done in my state already. I hope the lawsuit gets some traction.
 
MtPockets said:
So, you don't believe official numbers nor do you believe first hand accounts?
I guess you'll need to move to Montana, hunt hard for 20-30 years, then report back.
Click to expand...
I have hunted and trapped for 45 years still keeping active on trapping even with no money in it at one time wolves brought in a a fortune, now a pittance, numbers thrown around by bureau heads are always suspect, when I can actually get the papers that they got the numbers from and talk to the people who did the actual in field research. Did they round up or down, what is the statistical error, how thorough was the actual research and who did it and what are their creds.

First hand accounts are anecdotal, without pictures or attendant documentation or verifiable data I am sorry to say that they are hearsay, and need to be verified before they can be trusted as fact.
 
In my post I was part of an aerial survey that went in after several first hand reports that no moose (in this case) were left in the area. This is part of an area that has a designated trail set up, no vehicles off the trail network except for game recovery.

The moose were actually deep in a bog mixed willow swamp quite large, and if we were to go by all first hand reports it was to be closed to all hunting, instead a limited number of tags were issued after it was verified by other means to have a viable population.

I reread my post and it seems I wasn't clear, sorry.
 

Similar threads

D
How many of you are cattle ranchers - & cattle farmers ?
2 3
Replies
29
Views
3K
Blackdirt Cowboy
Blackdirt Cowboy
4
Varmint Hunter Association.
2 3
Replies
28
Views
7K
goodgrouper
G
idcwby
Mexico sues US Gun Manufacturers
Replies
11
Views
479
crazymonkey
crazymonkey
royinidaho
As debate rages over wolves, Wood River Valley sees less of predators
Replies
4
Views
1K
winmag
W
T
Columbus Sportsman's Association Election
Replies
0
Views
553
Terry Balding
T

Recent Posts

Top