Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Judge: Wolf hunting may continue

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

Hunting Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Hunting
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

September 09, 2009
Judge: Wolf hunting may continue - 11

Wolf hunting seasons that have been approved in Idaho and Montana may continue as scheduled, a federal judge in Montana ruled earlier today.

A group of environmental groups had asked District Judge Donald Molloy to intervene in the hunt, essentially halting the Idaho season, which began Sept. 1, and the Montana season, due to open on Sept. 15. They sought an emergency injunction closing the seasons, arguing that the legal harvest of even a few wolves would irreparably damage the entire population of wolves, which were removed from the federal Endangered Species List earlier this year.

But Molloy, who had previously ruled that the wolves should be relisted, rejected the environmentalists’ claims, concluded that “there is no proof to support the assertion” that the death of a small number of individual wolves would be significant for the species as a whole.

That means that Idaho’s hunt, which will end when the harvest quota of 220 is reached, can continue. Montana hunters can harvest up to 75 wolves.

Molloy’s ruling had been expected for the past two weeks. In rejecting the petition, the judge acknowledged that the absence of his ruling hung “like the Sword of Damocles” over the future of wolf hunting in the West.

Comments (11)

Top Rated
All Comments
from babsfish4life wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

I love how the day before the judge made his final decision, some hunter poached a wolf out of season from the road. Come on guys, this is a serious and fragile situation. Be smart about it all so we can someday shoot an elk again here in Idaho.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from boss mare wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

If you would like to hear how one of the hunters that did shoot a wolf is being treated, please go to this link:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Harassment-of-Hunters1

after reading what AM had to say, it is starting to make a little more sense.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Lace panites, peticures and bubble baths that's how they roll.
They don't teach wildlife management, it's benefits or the effects of a population out of control. Perfect example of population that's out of control: Man
We are destructive and self destructive. We as a whole consume every resource we come across without a second thought until we realize often too late in the game that there a consequence for the action we just took.
Also We as a nation and as a society don't educate our kids anymore about our traditions. Our kids grow up playin video games, sittin on their rears and not experiencing the outdoor. The few that do are criticized and ostricized often stereotyped and looked down upon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ruckweiler wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

More hysteria from the friends of wildlife that they don't live near. Do the men who support this lunacy wear lace panties? Curious.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from boss mare wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Excellent comments from Pezmanix and AM! I hope more hunters of both sexes take these comments to heart and do what they can to further the understanding of the "underlying agenda" of the extreme evironmentalist. I knew there was another reason for all this bull malarky! Thank you for making it ClEaRer! Boss

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pezmaniax wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

AM,
I see your point. I think in the end we may be violently agreeing. :^) I am just continually frustrated by the ignorant characterizations of hunters as destructive to the environment and its wildlife. (Admittedly I live in the anti-gun and anti-hunting Northeast so perhaps I am more acutely exposed to these sentiments than others). I have many friends who don't hunt (including some shooters) and would never dream of taking the life of an animal. But after listening to a well balanced argument on what hunting really is in fact all about, and the profound benefit hunters (and anglers) have had on our natural world-they are stunned and sincerely grateful. There's an amazing story here which has to be more widely told about what outdoorsmen and women have meant to the preservation and conservation of Americas most singular natural resources. And each one of us must take it upon ourselves to tell that story in a clear and fact based manner. I am hoping the new Ken Burns series on our National Parks will jumpstart a dialogue that every sportsman and sportswoman must see it as their sacred duty to engage in. Too often we hide our passion for hunting for fear of public comment. But the more we keep our passion clandestine, the more we allow misconceptions to propagate. And in the end, our silence will only ensure the extinction of the way of life we hold so dear. And once that happens the toll on wildlife will be dire.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from HuntingEditor wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

To Pezmaniax's well-taken point, I did think quite a bit about my choice of words when I described the pro-wolf coalition as "environmentalists." I might have gone farther and called them "extreme environmentalists," but there is a big distinction between these folks and true animal-rights activists. For starters, the litigious environmentalists who have fought wolf delisting aren't actually all that interested in the welfare of wolves. For outfits like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, et al, the objective is to regulate human use of Western lands. They think if wolves and grizzly bears continue to be protected, then they can shut down human use of a huge section of wild country. They are more interested in ending logging, mining, roads, and even hunting, on public land than they are in in seeing wolves recover. You might note that the rabid animal-rights groups have been largely silent on the issue of wolf recovery. That's because even a casual understanding of how wolves survive means devastation to other species, and that sort of predator/prey relationship is something the every-creature-is-majestic animal-rights crowd just can't comprehend.

Andrew McKean
Hunting Editor

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bo wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Environmentalist have caused more damage to the environment due to their "helping" It is strictly apolitical cause designed to hurt the US economy and increase governmental control, Unfortunately it appears to have been successful.There is much more governmental control of everything, every facet of our lives, and most people are not aware of it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Colorado Samurai wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Sad, the Sierra Club used to stand up for all forms of conservation. Environmentalists don't make a lot of sense.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pezmaniax wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

I wish OL would think more critically about it's choice of words on this issue. OL and publications like it can set an example for the mainstream media when they pick up stories of this kind for national reporting. Are the plaintiffs "environmentalists" or are they in this case "animal rights activists? And if they are "environmentalists", are they any more so than the dues paying hunters who belong to organizations such as DU, PF or in some cases the very same "environmental" organizations as the above plaintiffs? Hunters cannot ignore the power of language in this debate. We must be very careful not to cede the hi-ground of environmentalism to such a narrow subsection of extremists who refuse to acknowledge that environmentalism is a total concept encompassing the responsible management of habitat and wildlife equally.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bo wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Partial cheers for the decision. This is not a true victory.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from Colorado Samurai wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Sad, the Sierra Club used to stand up for all forms of conservation. Environmentalists don't make a lot of sense.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from HuntingEditor wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

To Pezmaniax's well-taken point, I did think quite a bit about my choice of words when I described the pro-wolf coalition as "environmentalists." I might have gone farther and called them "extreme environmentalists," but there is a big distinction between these folks and true animal-rights activists. For starters, the litigious environmentalists who have fought wolf delisting aren't actually all that interested in the welfare of wolves. For outfits like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, et al, the objective is to regulate human use of Western lands. They think if wolves and grizzly bears continue to be protected, then they can shut down human use of a huge section of wild country. They are more interested in ending logging, mining, roads, and even hunting, on public land than they are in in seeing wolves recover. You might note that the rabid animal-rights groups have been largely silent on the issue of wolf recovery. That's because even a casual understanding of how wolves survive means devastation to other species, and that sort of predator/prey relationship is something the every-creature-is-majestic animal-rights crowd just can't comprehend.

Andrew McKean
Hunting Editor

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pezmaniax wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

I wish OL would think more critically about it's choice of words on this issue. OL and publications like it can set an example for the mainstream media when they pick up stories of this kind for national reporting. Are the plaintiffs "environmentalists" or are they in this case "animal rights activists? And if they are "environmentalists", are they any more so than the dues paying hunters who belong to organizations such as DU, PF or in some cases the very same "environmental" organizations as the above plaintiffs? Hunters cannot ignore the power of language in this debate. We must be very careful not to cede the hi-ground of environmentalism to such a narrow subsection of extremists who refuse to acknowledge that environmentalism is a total concept encompassing the responsible management of habitat and wildlife equally.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bo wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Environmentalist have caused more damage to the environment due to their "helping" It is strictly apolitical cause designed to hurt the US economy and increase governmental control, Unfortunately it appears to have been successful.There is much more governmental control of everything, every facet of our lives, and most people are not aware of it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pezmaniax wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

AM,
I see your point. I think in the end we may be violently agreeing. :^) I am just continually frustrated by the ignorant characterizations of hunters as destructive to the environment and its wildlife. (Admittedly I live in the anti-gun and anti-hunting Northeast so perhaps I am more acutely exposed to these sentiments than others). I have many friends who don't hunt (including some shooters) and would never dream of taking the life of an animal. But after listening to a well balanced argument on what hunting really is in fact all about, and the profound benefit hunters (and anglers) have had on our natural world-they are stunned and sincerely grateful. There's an amazing story here which has to be more widely told about what outdoorsmen and women have meant to the preservation and conservation of Americas most singular natural resources. And each one of us must take it upon ourselves to tell that story in a clear and fact based manner. I am hoping the new Ken Burns series on our National Parks will jumpstart a dialogue that every sportsman and sportswoman must see it as their sacred duty to engage in. Too often we hide our passion for hunting for fear of public comment. But the more we keep our passion clandestine, the more we allow misconceptions to propagate. And in the end, our silence will only ensure the extinction of the way of life we hold so dear. And once that happens the toll on wildlife will be dire.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from babsfish4life wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

I love how the day before the judge made his final decision, some hunter poached a wolf out of season from the road. Come on guys, this is a serious and fragile situation. Be smart about it all so we can someday shoot an elk again here in Idaho.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from boss mare wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Excellent comments from Pezmanix and AM! I hope more hunters of both sexes take these comments to heart and do what they can to further the understanding of the "underlying agenda" of the extreme evironmentalist. I knew there was another reason for all this bull malarky! Thank you for making it ClEaRer! Boss

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ruckweiler wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

More hysteria from the friends of wildlife that they don't live near. Do the men who support this lunacy wear lace panties? Curious.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Lace panites, peticures and bubble baths that's how they roll.
They don't teach wildlife management, it's benefits or the effects of a population out of control. Perfect example of population that's out of control: Man
We are destructive and self destructive. We as a whole consume every resource we come across without a second thought until we realize often too late in the game that there a consequence for the action we just took.
Also We as a nation and as a society don't educate our kids anymore about our traditions. Our kids grow up playin video games, sittin on their rears and not experiencing the outdoor. The few that do are criticized and ostricized often stereotyped and looked down upon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from boss mare wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

If you would like to hear how one of the hunters that did shoot a wolf is being treated, please go to this link:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Harassment-of-Hunters1

after reading what AM had to say, it is starting to make a little more sense.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bo wrote 4 years 44 weeks ago

Partial cheers for the decision. This is not a true victory.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)