I understand that biologists set the #s that would correspond to a healthy wolf population in the the Bitterroots and the Idaho side of the Tetons. Once that number is exceeded the animal is no longer on the endangered species list. Idaho is thus advocating to have local control to keep the herds, two seperate with one in each range, thinned and consistently at the # that keeps them off the endangered species list. Call me a meat loving redneck but that sounds pretty fair to me. Hunting is just the method of choice in these parts of ensuring that the wolves don't get too numerous and threaten our delicate ecosystem.

The wolf comepensation fund is a joke and if you are not aware of that I am sorry. I would think some small research on market rate of sheep, pigs and cows compared to the #s they publish as having been compensated for would make that obvious to you. Further, it goes back to federal verification. Perhaps you are not familiar with the size of these ranges but it is pretty conceivable that after roundup your numbers might be down and you might never find your lost cattle. In fact I bet you would discover that ranchers have been losing more since the gray wolf was reintroduced and frequently they are unable to produce the proof neccesary to receive their small compensation. The plan doesn't work and the gray wolf is a threat to their livelihood- and the threat goes far beyond public lands as those gray wolves just don't seem to recognize when they are wandering onto private property.

Aaahhhhh private property. I believe that is a big crux of the wolf shoot craze. IIRC, the Idaho law empowers land owners to clear off unwanted varmints from their private property. Wolf comes on my compound, I shoot it. Pretty simple and fair, IMO.

As far as your conclusion you are 100% correct. While the gray wolf is an economic threat to the ranching industry the issue goes much deeper. It is one of self determination and the rights of Federal Politicians to force something upon folks under this guise of protecting public lands.

Rachers are not prissies who only wish to rape the land; but their self-interest causes them to support bad policies at times.

Some good policies would hurt ranchers, and that's okay.

The bottom line is that the enviro wackos and the rich elitist assholes on the coasts think of the west as their monument to mother nature, their playground, their backyard. They want people OUT of their backyard. It's NIMBYism at it's worst.

I agree with this. Are there any government studies supporting the vast abuse of BLM lands the envirowankers are asserting?

As gramps used to say, "shoot, shovel, and shut up!"

Yep -- that's it exactly.

Difference is I expand the sphere, and I think I should have a say too, even if I live back East, in how the people's natural resource is managed. The wolf belongs to all of us.

Problem is that people in Idaho/Wyoming/Utah/Montana have to pay a disproportionate share of the price, but the money issue can be solved, and the Wolf Compensation Fund, though imperfect, is part of the solution.

How to heal the sense of injustice of having the national government set policy on a national issue, not sure how to do that, but I'm sure blasting away at the wolves will help you drown out the pain.

Tons, and I've already linked to some. But we're talking about one right now: the ranchers' opposition to the wolves.

Wolves are good for the environment, for the elk, for the deer . . . They were a part of the environment before we killed them to the brink of extinction; they shaped the deer and the elk to be what they are. A West without the wolf is artificial and manufactured.

Fundamentally I disagree that persons who do not have a direct interest in land management should have a say in it. Why should somebody in NYC be able to dictate what happens to ranchers in central Nevada, all the while being a big recipient of the benefits of federal tax dollars through contributions to the municipalities via the tax shifts.

I don't want to dictate to Idaho what should happen in Idaho.

I tend to believe we have found alternate methods of managing deer and elk populations without the help of the gray wolf. The West with millions of human beings is artifical and manufactured, but they are here and some changes gotta be made to accomodate them. The gray wolf was naturally selected as one of those changes. The impact to the delicate ecosystem was absorbed through what we out here refer to as huntin' seasin.

So do we get a say in how you run 50-80% of your state's land? Oh wait, the fedgov owns little land east of the Mississippi. How convenient for you guys. Tough cookies for us I guess.

I do have a direct interest; I'm from the West; I visit public lands where cattle graze multiple times each year; I vote for my politicians based on their views on issues affecting the West . . .

But I think you miss a major point about public lands -- they are not Idaho's or Utah's or Nevada's. They belong to the American people. It is not about dictating what you can do on your land, but what you can do on our land. You're being provincial. Just because you have the happy circumstance of living nearer to public lands doesn't mean all others should shut up.

Wow...it's hard to get more condescending than that. I'm sure that ranchers who bust their ass every single day would be so grateful to hear that you think their lifestyle is worth preserving (in limited quantity, of course).

I've been to many places in SE Idaho that my Grandpa used to graze his cattle on. They pretty much look like all the other areas around that were never used for grazing, and there are still plenty of trees to hug.

Tell you what, I don't want any of the gray wolf. You can have my share. You keep 'em, feed 'em and love 'em. Unlike the cow they never shit anywhere, so you ought to love 'em. I will keep the cows you detest so much. You do in your neighborhood with the wolf as you please and I promise not to tell you how to run your shop, can I be afforded the same privilege with my cows?

Yep, exactly. Just consider yourself lucky, unless you really want Idaho to become the new New Jersey.

How is it, again, that the Feds came to control this land? WHy is that 80% plus of land int he west is fed owned but eh numebrs are reversed (or less) in the East?

Perhaps you are the exception to most of the environmental extremists. You do visit here at times.

I still disagree with you about how the land should be managed because folks in the east who have never been out this way want to do things that have a real impact on my family members who depend on the federal lands for a living.

Archaea was waxing eloquently about the toughness and glory of the cattle rancher's life; how people have lived it for generations; how it is a wonderful tradition. I agree with all that. But it doesn't mean that for some, it may have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

LOL, yes we have the feds to thanks for saving Idaho from New Jersey's fate.

This statement encapsulates the problem. Take your deep concern for us and our state and cram them so far up your ass you will belch out Bitterroot for time and all eternity. Honestly, we made do without your help before and we will make do without your help again. Kindly ignore us and we promise to reciprocate.

I agree that those in the West should have a large voice in how public lands within their states are managed, but it's ridiculous to maintain that the rest of the American people should shut up about how their land is managed.

I wish predators could be reintroduced in the East; problem is, the mid atlantic and southeast was never a part of the historical range of the wolf. The northeast was, and I hope, if the Maine Woods become a new national park, that the wolf would be reintroduced, if it's feasible.

You all just have the lucky fortune of living in a place where it's still feasible.

Spare me the self-pity. I'm not patronizing you. I'm from where you are. And no, I won't ignore how our public lands are managed. You can't confiscate them, thank goodness. For reasons of historical chance, we're from a place where the federal government on behalf of the American people gained ownership of most of our surroundings. Deal with it. If you can't, then move to a State where the federal government has little say over how land is managed b/c it owns little land -- like New Jersey.

I meant spare me the persecution complex. But self-pity applies too.

You're soooooooooooooooooooooo persecuted b/c the national government has a say in how national lands are managed.

The feds, conveniently, through their obtrusive intervention have controlled how much land is owned by private citizens. In the East, you can wax eloquently about public lands because your lands aren't controlled or owned by the feds.

So we have these non-benevolent landowners in the east who are controlled by whackos telling us locals how to live our lives. We can out to the frontiers to escape you whackos and now you follow us out here.

Persecution is rarely a function of government having a say, but rather the stupidity that inevitably follows when government acts upon that right. Take for example your issue about being upset that Idaho wants to keep the gray wolf herd thinned at a level that keeps it just above endangered species status ( I believe you refered to it as eradication until someone asked if perhaps you were exercising some hyperbole) and using the fact that the wolves wander onto private property to do so. This is not a public lands only debate and framing it that way demonstrates an ignorance of the issue, as what big brother does on his private property seems to impact what us potato gleaning po folk do on ourn.

GN throws a pity party for himself every few weeks.

I'm glad the CB crowd doesn't see it. They might lose respect.

Obtrusive intervention = haven't sold public lands as speedily as you wish.

And my point is that the "non-benevolent landowners" have been entirely too benevolent. The ranchers have been too powerful in setting the policy at the expense of the overall health of our public lands.

Ranchers should remain, but in a more tightly controlled and reduced manner. The price is worth it.

The heart of bureaucracy and why I hate the Democratic Party and Eastern Bureaucrats. F... em. They wish to tell people and economies what is moral and what is not.

Anarchy is preferable to the controlled atmosphere of eastern living.

Now you're sounding more reasonable. Where public land management affects private landowners, then accomodations need to be made.

But your accomodations -- kill 40% of the wolf population on public landsin one year, and allow private citizens to kill wolves indiscriminately, whether on public or private land if they "worry" livestock or domestics is not the proper accomodation. But it's typical . . .

Since you're from Las Vegas, i can see why you believe that. It's a wonderful place out there.

Hmm, Atlantic City versus Vegas.

I'm glad Levin is here. I was getting tired of carrying all the water.

The fact is, public lands have to be managed . . . Ranchers would agree with that. But the ranchers don't own those lands, and so they can't do with them what they want. Americans get a say.

Keep it up tuff guy, now landpoke is smarter than you as well!

It seems to me that the biologists have set the numbers with respect to the gray wolves. Once that number is reached the gray wolves find some effective paco rabanne aphrodisiac all winter and wax female gray wolf ass like they are friggin porn stars and the end result is that a 40% thinning is neccesary two or three years later to get the number back to agreed upon benchmark, why are you envirowankers pulling string?

Why do you want to keep the gray wolf endangered on the brink of extinction?

There is no "agreed upon benchmark" ya moron. Getting the wolves back to endangered status is the goal of the ranchers, not the goal of the American people.

I told you your attitude will result in the West looking like New Jersey.

Other than saying, "it's our land," you haven't given any persuasive argument. Those directly affected should have primary input.

And unless it is worthy of a national park, it should be sold off and privatized. I'm against public ownership of lands which are not used for parks or for the national defense. Aside from that, it should be sold off to the public.

If what is done on public lands spills onto impacting private lands, the private landowners should have more say than some faggit hippie in Portland or Greenwich Village. However, a heterosexual hippie is allowed more say than the faggit hippie..even gray wolves don't like stool pushers.

Question is, should the feds own 50-80% of western states land? I say no. All BLM land should be ceded to the individual states.