Comments on: Idaho's Lolo Wildlife Management Zones Devoid Of Elk

By: harold

harold — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:36:06 +0000

having just read the article i have to agree with the facts he puts out there . my son and i hunted the lolo zone 10 and 12 the last two years . it has been shocking the difference just from one year to the next . in the ten days we hunted ,walking game trail and old logging roads we covered nearly 60 miles glassing far rigdes and peaks only saw two live elk in the distance but came across so many carcasses we lost count . one thing to remember the wolf that was reintroduced is the canada grey wolf (120 lbs) not the timber wolf (65 lbs) a pack of grey wolves can take down a 1200 lbs moose what chance does a 500 lbs bull elk have or 350 lbs cow , calves have no chance . as what normally happened in the past is happening again man thinks he is smarter than nature sticks his hand in and everthing gets out of balance . won’t be going back to idaho in the future .

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:47:07 +0000

Tom,
Thanks for listing the criteria – this type of information and sources are not easy to find.

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:41:09 +0000

Sorry, I spelled it wrong: Dichato, Chile. A fishing and tourist village with a beautiful sandy beach.

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:32:05 +0000

Subduction zones on Earth have certainly been deadly and very destructive for people in the past couple of months. Have you looked at the destruction in Dechato, Chile – not directly by the earthquake but by the tsunami that followed?

By: Tom Remington

Tom Remington — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:29:06 +0000

The following is a list of criteria that must be met in order to list a species. Be it noted that the same criteria must be fulfilled before a species listed can be removed.

SEC. 4. ø16 U.S.C. 1533¿ (a) GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary shall
by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.

More here: http://epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf

By: Greg Farber

Greg Farber — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:36:05 +0000

If the above 1984 human made documents are of any validity then so are the 1974 Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History document on the 24 sub species of wolves which is proof the wolf reintroduced into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are direct violations of the original endangered species act.. They installed the wrong species of wolf..

The professionally sanctioned taxonomy of mammals is published by the American Society of Mammalogists and follows taxonomy in Mammal Species of the World used by the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History. The gray wolf taxonomy currently recognized by the American Society of Mammalogists continues to be based on Mech (1974), which identified 32 taxonomic subspecies of gray wolf worldwide, including 24 subspecies in North America. The scientific community has yet to formally endorse and accept a revised gray wolf taxonomy. The current taxonomy identifies C. l. irremotus as the wolf subspecies that historically occupied the Northern Rocky Mountain area. The range of C. l. irremotus abutted the ranges of C. l. occidentalis and C. l. columbianus some distance north of the Canadian border, and it abutted the range of C. l. nubilus on the east. Under a strict interpretation of the current taxonomy, wolves that were introduced to YNP and central Idaho were from founder populations of C. l. occidentalis and C. l. columbianus. In the 1978, rangewide listing of the gray wolf, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated, “The Service, however, can offer the firmest assurance that it will continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for purposes of research and conservation programs.” The ESA [Sec. 3.(3)] defines “Conservation” as meaning, “… to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary” (i.e., the species can be delisted). Additionally, National Park Service policy states, “The NPS will manage the natural resources of the national park system to maintain, rehabilitate, and perpetuate their inherent integrity. The NPS will strive to restore native species to parks whenever all the following criteria can be met: (1) Adequate habitat exists and a natural population can be self-perpetuating, (2) The species does not pose a serious threat to safety of park visitors, park resources, or persons or property outside park boundaries, (3) the species used in restoration most nearly approximates the extirpated subspecies or race, and (4) The species disappeared, or was substantially diminished, as a direct or indirect result of human-induced change to the species or the ecosystem” (USFWS 1994:Chapt. I, p 4). ( This is only the first paragraph ^^^^)

Here is another document these frauds like to ignore
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/calu/all.html

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:22:01 +0000

wolf reintroduction plan

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan.pdf

By: Greg Farber

Greg Farber — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:03:16 +0000

” what was the definition of the word ‘endangered’ and what was the criteria for getting an animal or species onto the list… and getting off that list? Isn’t there like several levels. It’s endangered its threatened”..

These clowns have twisted this definition so many ways and so many times it is just retarded now.

” As stated in section 2 of the act, it was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a “consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.”

Obviously wolves did not fall into that definition..

Imminent danger of extinction, a species in danger of going extinct, 107,000 wolves on the planet does not qualify the wolf of being endangered.

It is being misused and abused.. There is a mountain of documentation to dig through, it is like most things in governmental history, starts out good and right, good faith and good intentions are in the beginning of it, and then it gets hi jacked by thugs.. They use it to steal peoples lands, rights, etc. etc.

Right now they are using it to kill hunting rights..

By: jes

jes — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:06:01 +0000

Harley, even if you have an “open season” the wolves would still overpopulate an area….they are too cunning, and capable to get shot except on hap-hazard occasions when they are seen…and they are usually going to hunt in the dark when they are considered to be a hunted specie.
The last generation to “contend” with the wolf knew that, and knew they would overpopulate an area…that’s why they carried on an “extermination” program, so they knew they wouldn’t have to come back and do it all over again. I truly doubt that wolves can exist except on protected regions, like the Yellowstone, without totally depleting the deer and elk populations, and any other game as well as livestock…..Not that I don’t appreciate hearing them, or seeing them on an occasion, but unless they are seriously limited by hunting and trapping and aerial shooting, they will soon decimate all the game that hunters have worked so hard to restore. You might compare them to grizzly bears, in the sense of the damage they can cause, and that you don’t want them in your back forty, unless you want to live in a wildlife preserve…(of course, these days, people stay at home, and look out their windows and at the TV and internet, and don’t venture far into the outdoors, unless they’re hunters) That’s why hunters are more involved in this story…..and it’s not because we’re scared, it’s because they want us disarmed and impotent….

By: Harley

Harley — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:41:23 +0000

I think the one thing I’ve learned from this blog… ok there’s been more than one but the one thing that’s relevant to this is that hunters don’t want the wolf to go away completely. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe their concern is wolves, being reintroduced into an area that had elk numbers slightly declining to begin with. Now with the wolves spreading in an unchecked fashion, it’s adding to the downslide in numbers. It’s not a hatred for wolves. It’s a hatred for those trying to cram things down their throats without so much as a by your leave to look at evidence they see sitting in front of them every day!

Here’s a question for Greg because I’m sure he knows the answer. When it was first introduced, what was the definition of the word ‘endangered’ and what was the criteria for getting an animal or species onto the list… and getting off that list? Isn’t there like several levels. It’s endangered, it’s threatened and so on and so forth? Not meaning to imply anyone else out there won’t know the answer but I know Greg’s pretty sharp about these things and frankly at the moment, My head’s so stuffed it hurts to think of trying to hunt down that knowledge at the moment. I just remember, not too long ago, couple of years maybe that bald eagles were endangered and they they were moved off the list and it got me thinking is all.

And Lee, when you speak of not believing in a higher power, you and I must part any resemblance of a way were may have been traveling together. I give you the respect to believe in what you want to believe in. Or not believe in. I hope you do the same for the rest of the people here.