Posted on 05/26/2017 12:03:19 PM PDT by Twotone
I’d like to see a lot more predators — they would keep down the population of crying baby liberals. Go Wolves! Let’s get some cougars in these neighborhoods to keep down the lap dog population!
What Canadian border controls to we have for wolves?
I suppose you could have federal border control for wolves even though that might be a stretch.
The real issue is unconstitutional federal commandeering of state lands. Wolves are the problem of each state. The feds have no constitutional authority to interfere with these issues at all within the state.
That’s right. The U.S. Constitution and U.S. sovereignty is only within U.S. borders. Seems obvious but maybe not to some.
The tenth amendment is confirming that federal power is expressly limited to that which is delegated by the Constitution.
The Constitution must be read as written and originally understood and intended. There are very important unexpressed assumptions in the Constitution that derive from the Declaration of Independence (DofI). The Constitution is mandatory authority but the DofI is persuasive authority.
More attention needs to be paid to the DofI which would probably help with the idea that the U.S. government is created by and power derived from the citizens of the U.S via the Constitution which has no authority over any other country because it is not tied to the people of any other country.
I would like to hear him explain how a herd of 17,000 elk was unstable.
It’s just a bunch of lone wolves. Nothing to worry about.
Wolves eat deer and elk. Deer and elk are big ticket items economically, bring hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fees, spending and travel. Wolves, well, the they eat the dollars conservation has expended ( conservation meaning both private and public efforts across the west and now Midwest/even S central states).
Do the math- hunting deer and elk bring in millions, wolves cost millions, the taxpayer/entrepreneur/hunter all lose dollars.
Wolves need to go. That said, several states have allowed wolf hunting, but the damage to elk populations is enormous and climbing.
The radical animal lovers ( well, not really, just feel good “let it be natural” weirdos, really) hate hunting and economic boon, they’d rather see no elk shot, only eaten by predators in the wild, They have never and will never kill and eat anything other than a salad themselves, so they hate those who are willing and able minded to get their hands bloody.
Do away with the wolves.
Everywhere they are, elk/deer small game decline rapidly. There is no balance until Elk are nearly gone and wolves are nearly gone too. Then they’ll eat sheep and cattle-that’s what it means to be an Apex predator- anything under you is food. Man’s economy is more important than wolves on other than specific reserves.
Africa is a totally different paradigm- there are few wild spaces on the dark continent. Management of all species is mandated IOT to see any of the large/dangerous game survive- and that is done by hunting concession. competition for a wildly expanding human population and land conversion. Not even on the same planet as NA wild life conservation.
No hunting in NPs. Therein lies the problem- indeed the elk did much damage to their own living room because of failure to manage- the cornerstone of conservation. Controlled hunts could have made the Interior department millions, wolves cost millions.
Shoot, shovel, shut up!
Looked like a Coyote to me?
How would you feel about that?
How much of our taxes and Pittman-Roberts funds go to manage this in Canada??
Yep. Elk/deer go to NPs and private land where they have less pressure. In southern Colorado land owners groom their land for elk. They'll tell you there's more money in elk than cattle. And the former division of wildlife, now parks and wildlife (emphasis on parks) hands them tags to sell or whatever they can get out of them. These same landowners then bill the state (hunters who buy tags) for "game damage" because they feed on their "cattle hay" on the land they groom for elk. Many of these "ranchers" vote and donate to democRats because they have a sweet deal going on. Just try to get permission to hunt on these ranches that bill or "game damage", they'll send you packing if you don't have $5000, $10,000 to $15,000 I you want a bull.
or = for, twice
I’m in the 10 area on the map, in Montana just to the left of the top of the 10. I have seen first hand how the elk and moose have been decimated on my land and the surrounding areas.
Wolf packs circle my home and wake me up with their damn howling. My land was an elk calving ground but the elk have moved on. I rarely see them anymore. And the moose have all but vanished. They don’t stand a chance in the deep snow against wolves.
It doesn’t relate to our constitution, but it does relate to Agenda 21. One of the methods used to move Agenda 21/2030 forward is to bypass our regular gov’t systems. Which is why they keep setting up ‘regional’ groups where the local folks don’t have a say in what goes on.
People never know about these things until they’re a done deal. I just moved to southern Idaho, & had never heard of this particular ‘initiative’. Now that I know, I’ll be having words with my state & local legislators.
There's something to what he says.
A herd that big can cause tremendous stress on the grazing and migration areas.
Used to be when the heavy snows hit Yellowstone Park 20,000 elk would come pouring out, through fences, ranches, across roads, looking for forage.
But then they would fan out and settle and most everything was good. Twenty thousand was too big a herd. Two thousand is a tragic joke.
They could have trimmed the herd by increased hunting. Instead they wanted to play God, and brought in the wolves, as least as much out of loathing for the people on the land as for elk management.
The Feds and local game authorities have been lying and dumbing-down now for thirty years.
Their latest stupidity showed up just a month or so ago. They were talking about an onset of chronic wasting disease, which can lethally afflict elk, deer and other big game.
At the meeting it was decided that the best method would just be to let the wolves sort it out. The main guy said, "Well, the wolves eat the elk, and the best part is that it's free!" (Which it is not, of course---millions upon millions are poured into "managing" the wolves.)
So the Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks' solution to a disease risk is to let the predators kill them all before they can get sick. Sheesh...
Bingo! Both Yellowstone and Teton Nat. Parks are surrounded by Nat. Forest lands where hunting is permitted. If they would issue adequate permits.
What the biologists seem to me to be missing is that prey animals have been significantly reduced in number and in range by modern society. That is not going to change. When North America was open from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Atlantic to the Pacific it wasn't possible for predators to decimate populations of prey animals. It is possible now because the ranges that elk have today are far smaller and consist primarily of the harshest zones of their historical ranges. High altitudes IOWs.
hunting them would keep them in the mountains or wildlife areas...
bears and cougars and wolves need to have fear of humans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.