With the number of breeding pairs down to 95 in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming (at more than 3 times the original goal), we continue to lose an incredible amount of livestock in addition to wildlife comsumed.

As of Dec. 8, wolves had killed at least 353 head of livestock, including guard dogs, in 2009, a rate of more than one per day. Officials with the Montana Department of Livestock add that for every confirmed wolf kill, they believe another seven cattle, sheep or horses are killed by wolves that aren�t found immediately and are fed on by other wild animals, so those deaths are known as unconfirmed kills.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...3ba4dee-f82d-11de-8345-001cc4c03286.html

Move 'em to Central Park,NYC. That would warm the hearts of the idiots.

If we can trap and relocate problem bears, I don't see why we can't relocate some problem wolf packs to other states (Iowa?) to help with over population of deer as well as some selective culling of the old, sick etc.

If there is still some domestic sheep left in those states better import a few more wolves.

Oh?

Up here the timber wolves can run amuck in the winter on the deer and spring summer on livestock. They also try to lure domestic dogs as fodder as well in the winter. I shot one late last winter in my back yard. They are predaters plain and simple.
Randy

Besides relocating wolves to central park, also relocating them up BrentD's azz would be appropriate too, although ineffective (for someone so stoopid).

My Lord - Why didn't we think of this sooner?!?

MtHtr: I am happy you brought this ongoing horror story to everyones attention!
It IS absolutely HORRIFIC what the transplanted Canadian Wolves are doing to the domestic animals here in Montana (Wyoming and Idaho as well!) let alone the Big Game Animlas.
But I need to take issue with a couple of things from the Billings article!
First of all the latest census (summer 2,009) of Wolves puts the population in the tri-state area at just over 2,000 animals!!!
Remember we were "PROMISED" (by the green sons of bitches and daughters of whores who are running this fiasco!) that ONLY 325 Wolves total would be the population where in once reached the states could manage them at that number!
So much for the lies of the green sons of bitches and daughters of whores!!!
The other part of the equation is that the Wolves have apparently NOT reached a density where they have "dominant" breeding pairs as yet.
The Wolves are breeding on a "come one come all" basis!
Where in (according to the game biologists) ANY female is likely to become impregnated!
NOT just the dominant "couples" but any female may be breeding/reproducing.
Thus the incredible explosion in population from 50 Wolves in 1995 to over 2,000 in the summer of 2,009!
IMAGINE where we are gonna be in 2,018???
Our Bighorn Sheep, Moose and Elk populations are suffering to the extreme in MANY areas of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana right now!
And thats a damned shame!
We (as sportsmen!) worked LONG and HARD to establish our Elk herds (and Moose and Bighorn Sheep herds!) now those herds are simply going up in Wolf farts!
Sportsmen be careful, VERY CAREFUL who you vote for!
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
On a personal note: I know several members of the Konen family and the harm that has befallen them and their ranching operations (very near my home!) at the hands (paws and fangs!) of the transplanted Canadian Wolves is much worse than was relayed in that article.
This whole Canadian Wolf transplantation situation is an absolute tragedy.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Virgin territory. When the range is at capacity, only the alpha male and females will be breeding.

Jeez, Man, think of all that good fur! (Ours here, have canine lice- making their pelts mostly worthless after December or so....)

Boston Commons and S. California too - surely these were part of their original range?

Relocate the bastids to Texas, and get them accustomed to eating hogs.

Well, I don't know if I ever saw that target number before but there's surely more than 10x that number now................hell, I just read another thread where Wisconsin is estimating nearly 700 in that state.

Only (sadly) solution is that a few people need to get killed by them to raise the alarm level..........but maybe that wouldn't even do it.

MM

I remember a target number of 35 breeding pairs for the state Of MT. being spewed out...IIRC

There are easily ten times that number now...

Must be a reason they call them "target" numbers.......


Ingwe

The best "Entrenchment" of a woof comes via the second "S" !

Gents, if you get a minute check out www.lobowatch.com . I have met with Toby and we are working on starting a chapter of Sportsman For Wildlife. He has garnered some support from some of the hunting industry and is meeting with folks from the RMEF this week. It is time to take a stand on the wolf issue and let the fish and game know we are fed up! Casey

No no no no no, the cursed things wouldn't stay on the south side of the Red River and we've only recently gotten good deer populations up here.


On the other hand, the hogs might get accustomed to eating wolves.

I had hoped Idaho would have had more Wolf kills by now with 140 down and 80 to go.The units that need it the worst just are not getting the quota's filled or maybe the Wolves have just moved on following the Elk.

The Wolf re-intro was a sad day for sportsmen/campers and outdoors men not to mention the ranchers and farmers.I doubt it will ever be the same in my lifetime.

Jayco

So lets say we poison all the grizzlies in Alaska? Would it not be a bit diminshed? A little less wonderfull.........
So why is Montana and Idaho better without wolves and a safe place for cows and sheep?
Now that you are finally able to hunt these wolves I hope there is more tollerance for a fantatic animal.

dooode you can keep your wolfs, healthcare, and firearm restrictions in Canada.

We don't want them.

Logcutter- Saddly, things will never be the same. We will never see the game populations in many areas where they have been before wolves. Oportunities for sportmen and women are diminished.

Tangozulu - One can't compare grizzlies to wolves. Grizzlies are mostly solitary animals that tend to have large homeranges. Grizzlies are omnivores, feeding on whatever is available (fish, plants, dead carcass, a moose kill, ect.) Wolves kill in packs and kill opportunisticly. They will kill the young and weak. They kill livestock because it is available and easy. I wish we could poison all the wolves!

ddj

Idaho had Wolves before the re-intro.I saw them on many occasions and heard them howling but that was not the plan to listen to the local people and FS studies.There minds were made up before the studies they ignored and here we are.

Your right trouthunterdj,things will never be the same..Except shooting Wolves legally means more to me than Elk anymore and it's a longer season.

Jayco

Tangozulu in BC we can hunt wolves whenever we want,no tags and in some areas NBL.It's a different situation south of the line,with the Feds telling the states what they can and can't do,and the bunny f**kers filing lawsuits left,right and centre.There basically is no management,and the wolves are multiplying fast.Poison isn't an alternative but control by culling and hunting is going to be neccesary if any of the game herds are to survive.Eventually the wolves will balance out,but by that time there will be nothing left for them to eat. Monashee

Well obviously "you" do.

I'll be the first to agree the situation has sucked up till now, but hey the hunt is now on. A mature wolf is a far tougher trophy than some old elk in my hunble opinion.

Now yer' thinking--hog control of the highest order.......



Casey

I'll be the first to agree the situation has sucked up till now, but hey the hunt is now on. A mature wolf is a far tougher trophy than some old elk in my hunble opinion. [/quote]

Man, I must be weird or something...I'd still rather have a big, heavy set of 6x6 elk antlers

From what I'm hearing, there's many folks in both MT and ID that are taking matters into their own hands, preferring that to waiting on "the system." It goes beyond the SSS, and I hope it's effective and nobody gets caught doing it.

We wiped them out once. If necessary and legal, we can do it again. It will be easier the second time. Better rifles and better poisons.

We exterminated them the first time for a reason. Their continued existence among ranchers and farmers was incompatible with the activities of such. That reason still exists. "Because they were there once" is no reason to re-introduce them. If you want them so badly, come up with something better than that.

Fast Ed

In the Helena paper:


"Keep eye on dogs; wolves out on prowl"

http://www.helenair.com/news/article_2f1d4624-f9bf-11de-92b2-001cc4c002e0.html

"At last count, at least 1,600 roam in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho........."

Good but sad article.I wouldn't let my two dogs out to go potty when we were camped back in without me or someone packing was with them.Sad we have to do it that way nowadays.

Jayco

We exterminated deer, elk, bighorns, pronghorns, and moose, too--what was the reason again?



Casey

It ain't DisneyLand out there--never has been.



Casey

Food?

Thanks for the warning.I am new at this outdoors stuff.

Jayco

It was good for farmers and ranchers?

Was out in the yard a few days ago, just 50 yards from the house, and had a wolf chase a deer right past me. The deer was only a couple of feet ahead of the wolf. Both were really fast! I've had wolves in the yard, and have seen wolves chase and/or kill deer out farther from the house, but right past me, 10 feet away, 50 yards from the house was a new one. It was way cool, the hair up on my neck, my .357 drawn. Way cool. I followed the trails for a few hundred yards where the two trails separated. Looked like the deer got away that time.

Too cool! I love living here.

Any dog,I see chaseing a deer, gets shot.
dave

I'll shoot them too.

I live part of the time in the middle of bear country--even had muddy bear prints on the picture window for a while this summer (again). But I don't spend my time looking over my shoulder.


Casey

Yep--that and subsistence hunting by early miners and settlers. And the ranchers and farmers screamed bloody murder when deer and elk populations began to be plentiful again.........even using the same phrases and threats I see on these wolf forums.

I guess history does repeat itself.



Casey

I've lost count of all the dogs I've shot running our livestock, or running deer and elk on our place during the winter.



Casey

I have lived and worked in Idaho's worst.Spent most of my life in the outdoors either working as a dumb old logger or living there 24/7.I remember 25 years ago before the reintro of Wolves while hooking for a tong jammer and the Linkbelt 98 broke down and I was asked if I wanted to come back up that dang 85% grade for a while and I said no..Sitting there I saw a big Wolf walking on the trail whom stopped and starred at me for about three minutes while his lady walked by on down the trail,then he left.

It's different now with the Canadian Wolves..There in-bred by Canadian activist to attack all livestock and pets and herd the Elk North over the border.

So I protect my pets.

Jayco

I killed 1 mature wolf this year and could have killed another as well as a cougar.

I saw a total of 2 elk (both cows) throughout both the archery and rifle seasons this year.
I elk hunted about 25 days this year.

As much as I am going to enjoy that wolf rug on my wall I would rather have good elk hunting like I did back in high school.

If we let the wolves get out of control, the only thing we will have to hunt is wolves. You don't have that problem with elk and pronghorn. They don't eat each other. Wolves are incompatible with the needs of the human race. For all who think their re-introduction was a good thing, the damage they will do far outweighs any interest mankind would have for their continued population increase. I'll say it again, "because they were there once" is not a good enough reason to destroy the rest of the natural balance.

Fast Ed

For my entire hunting career here in the Northern Peninsula of Michigan we went without wolves and things were just fine. In the last ten years the idiot, liberal, peace loving, dope smoking, clueless dinks from California have rammed wolves down our throats. Now you might as well stay home instead of deer hunting because the wolves have screwed everything up. WE got all the problem wolves from Minnesota, Wisconsin and else where. But THEY say we have lost our deer due to hard winters. Because hard winters are a new thing up here. WOLVES SUCK plain and simple and there is only one cure for the parasite. Better yet make it a one for one ratio wolf to wolf lover.

http://www.counterpunch.org/palmer1109.html
I think fair is fair. We have the wolves here. We should reintroduce the grizzly bear to California. They even have them on their flag.

It must have been fantastic to see those bears in their day. Unfortunately short sighted policy's of the day wiped out what was a fantastic population. At least wolves allow the clock to be turned back. Sadly, the bears will never be able to do the same in California.

tangozulu,why not? I think it would be great to see the great majestic bears roaming their historic range. The enviros. can just set-up a fund to pay for damages caused by the bears (just like they did for the wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. All of us "out-of-staters" can dictate to Californians how it needs to be done. Tim.

Wish you'd dictate a lil harder on how to manage our mountain lion problem.

uncontrolled subsistence hunting and flat out market gunning had alot more to do with it than any "plan" by farmers and ranchers .....of course alot of those subsistence hunters were the early farmers and ranchers .


I'd bet they were not overjoyed when the cheap meat supply dried up......

Start by shooting every one you see.

That would help create a lot more mountain lion habitat from all those abandoned ranchettes and ex-urban developments. It would help the lion problem a lot! Tis a capital offense of course....

You are absolutely right--but I didn't suggest otherwise.........

But what I will flat out say is; when uncontrolled subsistence and market hunting was curtailed and weird ideas like wildlife management, seasons, and hunting licenses were instituted, the resentment back then appeared to be similar to what we are hearing on this thread about wolves.........they just hadn't invented the word "enviromentalist" yet...........


Casey

We are trying my friend, we are trying.

(legal kills)

Was under my deck...


One of 9 lions that neighbor has legally killed on depredation permits.



http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d63/HunterHarry/2-3.jpg

My point is that re-establishing a grizzly bear population would be just about impossable. It does not just involve dropping a bunch of bears into the Sierras. It is far easier to kill off a species than to try to bring it back.

Doubt the subsistent and market hunters used traps and poison.

I'd think the bears would do better in downtown San Francisco.

I suppose dropping a million buffalo back into Kansas would be tough on fences and traffic.

The road hunters from Oklahoma and Missouri would have them all shot off within 50 miles of the state lines pretty quick. Outfitters would sell Buffalo hunts on the internet to folks from Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. Our state legislature would place a buffalo mainentance surcharge tax on any landowner in the state who still had any transplanted buffalo left alive on their ground. The buffalo would be shot off,,,again,,,.
I don't think 1 million would be enough.

THe grizzlies would do best in their historical strongholds,the Los Angeles plains,and the Big Sur coast,where they preyed on the seal and sealion colonies,which have now recovered enough to support the bears(the White Sharks aren't having any problems!).The good people of California DESERVE a thriving grizzly population.They have been ever so busy dictating how the rest of us should live with wildlife.In my case they don't think that the expanding grizzly population in BC should be hunted at all.I live here,they can take their holier than thou atitudes elsewhere! Monashee

I can't imagine how a few grizzlies roaming the streets of Compton could hurt the neighborhood much.

I've posted this before, but it fits this conversation.

This is an authenticated California Grizzly bear skull that was unearthed while excavating the foundation of my house.
One of the biggest ever recorded.

A true family heirloom.








And BTW, this Californian has no problem with you guys killing Grizzly Bears...

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1151/mee1kk8.jpg

Nice one Salmonella!!!! By the way,I wasn't trying to denigrate ALL Californians,I'm sure you know who I'm reffering to!Cheers, Monashee

Man, both of those grizzlies are nice ones. Where was the more recent one found? Is it Russian?

Looks like you sure are doing your part! More of us need to be having that kind of success.

We would love to have the Grizzlies back, but unfortunately, the California Golden Grizzy is extinct, and cannot be re-introduced.

BTW don't blame us for ALL the wolves, the east coasters are probably more rabid than the average Californicator about their "greenness". If it was up to me, any wolf outside of Yellowstone should be shot on sight.

The problem is that more and more people live in cities, and think all beef etc comes in a plastic container, just like canned soup. The greenies are totally unrealistic about real life and nature, but they can outvote us.

As an aside, we have black bears, and it's legal to hunt them. They are a real problem around the Lake Tahoe area, way too many.......

Kinda like New Jersey!!!!

What gets me is that the vast majority of "pro" wolf/grizzly people (even those here in MT) have never seen one let alone have experience with these animals. By experience I mean had them come into camp and chase horses around on the picket line, run cattle through fences and such.

At most they "saw the back of one in Yellowstone".

There are exceptions to this of course, but very few IME.

Hell, I camped out in Land Between the Lakes in KY this past October and the damn red wolves showed up both nights doing their damnedest to lure my German Shepherd out for dinner. The first evening there were four of em, three hid and a bitch wolf tried for 45 minutes to get Buddy to come to her.

I BAD wanted to give her a dose of .40 cal lead poisoning, but there were a bunch of fuggin' tree-huggers camped not far from us. Fortunately I had Buddy on a leash or chain the whole time we were there.

I am sure most of the anti-wolf crowd has never seen one either. Half seem to live in states with no wolves.

Of course, black bears, lions, and coyotes have all done the same thing--but we don't hear the same vitrol about those critters.......



Casey

You are likely correct but IME the vast majority of people who have actually seen and interacted with these animals have strong negative feelings about them.


Yes, you are correct too. However, I don't believe I have ever had a rancher not allow me to hunt those critters on their land when I have asked. I know lots of ranchers in MT and ID that want every bear, lion and coyote on their land killed. Many still shoot every predator they see, regardless of the law to include birds of prey. That is just the way they are. Like it or not many still do things the way their fathers and grandfathers did.

I am not in the mood to be getting into a pissing match with you two. I gotta go check traps in the morning. Goodnight.

Night.




Casey

Doghunter, wow, this a great arguement here for illegal activity:



What a f'ing joke.

So, if my father and grandfather poached elk and deer I somehow get a pass because thats just the way it is if I choose to follow in their footsteps?

I dont care one way or the other what personal feelings people have regarding wolves. But, to condone any type of illegal activity because of how someone was raised...is irresponsible and flat wrong.

I highly recommend that if you really do know of someone illegally shooting birds of prey or big-game animals like bears and lions...I suggest 1-800-tipmont. That type of behavior is wrong, and I dont care how a person was raised and I dont give a $hit what their Dads and Grandfathers did.

No excuse for the illegal killing of ANY big-game or protected species.

Good luck on your trapline...I'm envious.

Knowing quite a passel of such folks personally, I find exactly the opposite. I could point you to the father of game management himself, Aldo Leopold as a well known example of that, but in fact, everyone I know that actually deals with them on a regular basis has extremely positive feelings about the need for predators back in the landscape.

Whatchya trapping?

I happen to agree with both Dog Hunter and you, but must clarify. In Dog Hunter's point he is most likely talking about non-game management people, "salt of the earth" people. You are most likely talking about game management people, animal rights groups, federal, state and local agencies.

To cite Aldo Leopold as an example of the people you are talking about is a stretch. Do a little background check on Leopold and you will find that until he took a professor position at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, as an employee of the U. S. Forest Service in New Mexico he firmly believed that removal of predators would benefit wildlife populations and ultimately hunters...he advocated the extermination of wolves and mountain lions. What changed his mind? He was immersed in one of the most liberal universities and liberal cities in the world. To survive economically and socially in that environment he became a wolf hugger.

rottenoak, you are sadly ignorant, again.

This is a typical PETA response when they are confronted with some opposing view points.

Perhaps land owners should be allowed to kill off all the elk and deer eating their grass intended for sheep. Why just preditors?

Roundoak, I try to stay out of wolf arguments, but if you've read the Sand County Almanac, especially the chapter "Thinking Like a Mountain" when Leopold killed what he believed to be the last wolf in the Gilas (or was it Arizona, can't remember off the top of my head), his argument for wolves to remain on the landscape had everything to do with balance and ecosystem management. During the 1930s, some of the worst big game die offs in history occurred precisely because they had completely outstripped their resources after the removal of most of the major predators.
Anyway, just trying to point you to where Leopold's exact words on the subject came from. Not making an argument for or against anything.

For a second there I thought a few of us were actually going to have a civilized conversation for once.

Buzz, being halfway polite this time jumped to conclusions again.

The Sand County Almanac seems to be the bible for so many pro wolfers. I fail to understand why. I read that thing a few times in college. I never did agree with much of anything he had to say. People act like that book is the final word in game managment. This in not directed towards you exbiologist. I was in a conversation with my yuppie (but absolutely great) Ecology TA about a year ago and he kept referencing this book. I showed him pictures of my riding horse's scars (I am sure you can guess what from) and he finally admitted he sees light at both ends of this controversy.

By the way, I had little sucess on my traps this morning. I mainly have coon sets out, but only snared a single non target fox. This is a pretty poor year all around. Oh well, it is still fun.

A lot more than half....................

I'm not claiming he's the be all end all of anything, just stating where you can read his thoughts on how he changed his mind on predator management

Exbiologist, I am slow to anger, but this Brentd fellow finally pushed me over the edge with his hoity toity position on many topics in the fire. He always portrays himself as the enlightened one and rest of us are dumb as a post. When someone offers an opposing view or flushes him out he behaves in a predictable manner...start mudslinging.

Aldo Leopold was required reading in my college studies and in my youth was influenced by his works. Later, I realized he was not the last word in wildlife management. Sure, the man has some valid views but as much as Leopold would have liked, you cannot suspend human activities and re-set the world condition to a pre-determined time. Rather, I subscribe to the survival of the fittest condition which effectively places mankind as the ultimate predator. Not only is this biblical it is reality.

You are correct there were some wildlife die offs in the past due to removing predators, however this was a temporary condition at a time when there were not hunters on the landscape in the numbers we see today. One can make the arguement that there are wildlife populations in certain areas of the US today that have maxed out their habitat ability to sustain them. My answer to that is if the Federal and State regulators would get out of the way hunters could solve that.

In my state of Wisconsin, wildlife managers have micromanaged the whitetail deer for profit...not for deer - habitat ratios.

Leopold may have watched "a fierce green fire dying in her eyes" and lamented later, but he was the ultimate predator in the drama of survival of the fittest.

Thank you and best regards...you are welcome at my fire anytime, but I reserve the right to refuse Mr. Brentd

I feel sorry for you guys in Mt. I"m planning on moving out there in the near future and hope to harvest and elk someday. Plus, I wouldn't mind a Mule deer and antelope. I've never harvested any of those three.

We once had Mt. Lions here in Pa. and I was telling some wolf lover at work about an article I recently read in Predator Xtreme about all the hell the wolves are creating in Mt. They both said they were nice to see and thats one of the things they wanted to see at Yellowstone when they vacationed there. I then asked them if they would enjoy in having the Mt. Lion reintroduced here in Pa. I could see the light bulb go off, and the answer was no.

Dog Hunter, does your state pay for wolf predation?

Here in Wisconsin the state and Feds are protecting the wolf and pay livestock owners and dog owners for loss due to wolves. A relative in Northwestern Wisconsin had a colt maimed by wolves and had to be put down. Got a check from the gov't and he has figured that financially he would be better off to raise horses for the wolves because the overall horse market is depressed.

As a side note...fur prices in this area are really depressed and trappers in my neighborhood seem to be trapping just for the excersise and skill maintenance. An amigo and I dropped some coyotes at the local fur buyer last Monday and averaged $11.00 each

oak,
Leopold was never ever the last word on game management. He was the first word. The Sand County Almanac was not a scientific treatise of game management but a philosophical perspective on it. The primary literature is full of the actual science, but I know you don't want to go there. Meanwhile, the field has moved on a good long ways, and it is well demonstrated that wolves can have a real and positive effect on the environment. You only need to look as far as the recruitment rates of hemlock in your state to get an idea of how far out of bounds whitetail deer have become.

What you and many others at the fire don't like is someone that fails to walk in lock step with the prevailing attitudes here. I don't mind doing that where I feel it is valid and where I know something about the topic. This is one of those issues. I don't suppose you are going to change your mind. You are rather locked into narrow group think. But there are others here that can think outside of that little box, though they do not speak often since they are only going to be berated by the loudest members here.

This is not a place for independent thinking but I like to reprove that fact every so often. Just to see if anything has changed.

Brent, you need to step back and take a deep breath. You have contributed to this site for sometime now and it should be apparent this is not a knitting society website. This is a huge sandbox and there are individuals that do not play well with others, yet you continue to participate. Sure, there are bullies and loud people posting here, but I dismiss them as less than 10% of the population and look forward to communicate with and learn from the other 90%.

You have pegged me wrong as I do respect philosophical perspectives if it can be verified by accurate science. In the instance of wolf studies, I have seen much dissertation that is weighted to a predetermined outcome. I think one could call it junk science, maybe that is too harsh. I learned long ago that one can not hang their hat on the philosophical musings of Leopold. He could not grasp the fundlamental law of survival of the fittest and pined for a natural world that he never experienced and existed only pre-historcally in North America.

Regarding deer impact on regeneration of flora in Wisconsin and elsewhere... it does concern me. I see it in my woodlot up close and personal. I do not have a fool proof solution, but it would help if the Federal and State wildlife agencies would get out of the way and let the ultimate predator, the hunter, become more involved. But that will probably not happen because those agencies manage big game as a natural resource...right it is a resource...a source of revenue to further their expermintation.

I started forming my opinions on the wolf's role in todays world in the early 1960s while doing deer pellet counts in northern Wisconsin. At the time there was a remnant wolf population and the occasional emigrant from Minnesota or Michigan. One January morning our work crew snowshoed into a known deer yard just south of the Bad Indian Reservation and experienced a rare encounter with an adult and yearling wolf eating on a live button buck. We chased the two off and dispatched the deer with an axe. Two weeks later another crew reported wolf carnage in a deer yard on the Totagatic River. Our crew had to see this for ourselves and we snowshoed in the next day. 11 deer carcasses and one set of wolf tracks.

It has been stated here in this thread that Leopold changed his negative outlook on the wolf upon watching the fierce green fire die in a female wolf. He wrote later that the wolf and other predators need to be protected.

In my case my outlook on the wolf changed from favorable to un-favorable. That view has been sustained today with the current circumstances of promoting the wolf in todays world. Simply...we can not re-create a landscape where the wolf was a dominant predator. All the reasons are obvious.

I think George William Featherstonhaugh summed it up best: "The scythe of what is called "civilation" is in motion, and everything will fall before it."

No. Leopold wasn't called the father of game management for nothing--he was the one who advocated scientific process in the management of wildlife. And it didn't take long for the scientific approach to demonstrate a lot of the prevailing ideas were wrong. And because Leopold subscribed to that approach, and seeing what was happening on the ground by the 1930's, he realized some of his earlier ideas didn't jibe.

Leopold wrote at length about some of his earlier beliefs and how they didn't work out.

More so, most "salt of the earth" folks don't like ANYTHING competing with livestock or farming--that would include any species of wildlife that creates conflicts. Despite all the press wolves recieve, deer and elk still do more crop and forage damage in dollar terms than wolves, by a long shot.

As an added note, the uncle of a childhood friend of mine was the first person to go to federal prison under the Endangered Species Act--as a sheep rancher he got caught shotgunning eagles from a helo in the early 70's outside of Craig, Colorado.


Casey

They do pay here, assuming the kill was PID as a wolf kill. Problem is the investigaters don't always get there in time and the site is cleaned up by scavangers. I know of 2 hgound dogs in the last week killed: I am not sure if hunting dogs are considered "livestock". Ranchers in the big hole are loosing calves nearly daily, but its just buisness as usual to them anymore. I have no idea what kind of cash their getting or dead livestock, but the loss of productivity due to being run around so much is still unpaid. I was talking to a rancher at the range today and he has feds flying over his spread taking a few out. At least their doing SOMETHING.

As a side note to your sidenote, I only trap bobcats for profit. The quota is full now, so I just trap other animals for fun and to get rid of critters near houses. I don't even waste my time skinning coyotes/fox/coons anymore. I give some to the Bio dept at the U of M, the others get thrown in the bushes. (Please nobody start arguing about the ethics of "wasting" predators and unprotected wildlife)

Despite Hunts, Wolf Population Holds Steady in Northern Rockies
http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...d516e7a-0c77-11df-ad87-001cc4c002e0.html
We killed over 500 wolves in 2009 and ended with the same number of wolves. Interesting!
_______________________________________________________________
Big Game Animals Scarce in Hunt District 310 along Gallatin River
http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...68faeb8-e06b-11de-a34e-001cc4c002e0.html
Elk numbers drop from 1500 in 2005 to 200 this year. FWP saw a dramatic drop in Elk numbers when wolves arrived in the region.


Another benefit to the wolf Introduction
A study published in the October issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases documented the first instances of the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus in Montana and Idaho wolves. The study found that more than 60 percent of the 60 wolves tested from Montana and 63 Idaho wolves had the worms.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/article_dc285eb4-fb34-11de-9b39-001cc4c03286.html

Back in the day I can't tell you how many owls, eagles and hawks we killed on the farm in order for our chickens to "free range" This before everyone realized the birds of prey were disapearing...still I wonder how chickens free range these days.

If any of you would like to introduce wolves, mountain lions or grizzly bears into our state capitol in Sacramento while the legislature is in session; I would be more than happy to watch the ensuing excitement on pay per view.

I have the excerpt that others have mentioned here, if anyone's interested. Lets let Aldo tell about the why of his mind change with this excerpt from his writing:

"We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.

In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy; how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable side-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes�something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.

* * *

Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers."

DPole - After seeing the destruction from wolves and game populations decreasing, I am unmoved. We need to allow hunting of wolves just as we do coyotes. They are a predator not a game animal.

If we as hunters have an unified voice, hopefully we can continue to limit and decrease their populations.

ddj

I think most of us support wolf management. SSS doesn't qualify.

When it is the ONLY option, it will be used. Until there are options, it is what it is. Doing nothing is not an option.

I wasn't condoning SSS. I believe they should be listed as a predatory non game animal with a continous open season much like coyotes in most states.


ddj

Thanks for the clarification, though I didn't assume you were in favor of it. I was condoning it. Your solution sounds perfectly reasonable and would allow for plenty of wolves to live and breed. It is highly unlikely it will ever be considered by the bunny huggers and fish cops, so that leaves only one viable option, sadly.

Dpole, I stated in an earlier post that Leopold was in favor of removing wolves from the landscape and I will give another quote here that he penned in 1921. "It is going to take patience and money to catch the last wolf and mountain lion in New Mexico." Now I will fast forward to 1944 when Leopold was the Commissioner of Wisconsin Conservation Commission, he stated publically that he believed there were too many wolves in Wisconsin and was in favor of a bounty and he lent his support to a bounty bill that became effective in 1945.

So just exactly when Leopold when and why he changed his mind is not clear because of his flip flopping. First he was for exterminating wolves, then he was against it, then he was for it. This action does not lend itself to a credible vision, rather it appears he was waxing poetically over the death of a wolf.

However, in defense of Leopold his game management positions in the state of Wisconsin placed him the political arena. I am sure he felt the stinging effect of that when his deer population calculations resulted in a very liberal deer season in 1943 that was considered by the public to be a slaughter. Leopold admitted IN WRITING that his figures he used in estimating the deer herd numbers was GUESS WORK. So much for a scientific approach to game management. I do have to cut him a little slack in the political area because he was in the hot bed of the Lafollete progessive (liberal)movement in Madison. The liberals thought they knew more about game management then the professionals in the field. Leopold tried to appease this group or was forced to and he felt the wrath of the public.

My point in all this was Leopold was not without warts and because people choose not to look under the hood he is held high...saint like. I do respect the man for the changes he helped bring about in conservation and preservation of our natural resources. I looked under the hood...but, I subscribe to Ronald Reagan's philosophy. Trust but verify.

you guys are arguing too much. the wolf population in the northern rockys is way out of controll, no question about it. So lets kill the damn things. No reason at all to have them as part of the landscape.
I am going to the NWT in 2011 and I pray that I will get a shot at one of the wolves up there!!!

They are a terrific trophy in their own right.

+1

Domestic sheep have done more harm to wildlife and flora than wolves ever have. Domestics have spread so much disease to wild sheep etc and destroyed so much natural flora that we should not subsidize the farmers one bit. In fact, we should ban domestic sheep from anywhere there is a possibility of them spreading disease or eating endangered flora.

P.S. We should also be allowed to hunt wolves where their populations are sustainable.

I thought I was in a debate...not an argument.

It is a debate..only we are suppose to all aggree with the anti-wolf crowd or face name calling.

Imagine that.....a wolf is a PREDATOR....what gave it away? The forward facing eyes and big canines?

Whip SHHH no one would take matters into their own hands!!

I love listening to wolves howl. The big gray wolf hanging on my wall is beautiful to my eyes. But, here in Alaska the wolves have devoured moose and caribou populations in some areas of our state. They also get lots of help from bears. Especially right after the calves are dropped. Our Fish & Game departments attempts to manage their numbers through aerial shooting is met with law suits from well financed groups that do not live in Alaska. Some folks confuse this air plane shooting with what the majority of "sport hunting" ethics fall under. Big mistake. We are just trying to kill a meat eating predator in the fastest and most efficient way possible. Wolves belong in our wilderness areas, however, their numbers have to be kept small or they will kill and eat everything they can. I would really like to see grizzly bears re-introduced into their old haunts in the river drainages and salmon streams of California. Oh yeah, give them federal protection. They really do need some sows with cubs hanging out in some of the residential areas like we have here on the Kenai.

Its easier to quote the man than to speculate on his emotional evolution. Thought it might help.

Actually, I've been studying Leopolds' works since about 1969(?). My favorite Leopold is Luna B.

The main reason I have that Aldo quote is that its one of my favorites to present to Leopold admirers, who mostly have not heard of that side of the guy. They have a hard time believing Aldo would do such a thing.

Here is another famous Aldo-quote (I think its right) that sounds real purty, but doesn't really make much sense. In fact it seems...well...stupid:
"Only a mountain has lived long enough to listen to the howl of the wolf objectively."
I know its supposed to be an insightful thought about man's emotional reaction to wolves, but I mean, really!! "Only a mountain"? How about a tweety bird? Does a tweety-bird give a S? Maybe a tree; does a tree care? At least a tree is alive, unlike Aldo's mountain. I anally digress...

But Aldo was great and brought stuff to the public's attention with artful prose. He made folks think differently. He deserves to be "held high", despite his warts.

No doubt about it Leopold had a way with words and those words could conjure up a signifcant thought process in the minds of those who were exposed to his literary works. In many respects the world is a better place because of it.

Overall I do not have a problem of individuals speaking highly of the man but not in an idolatrous sense.

Wolves kill hunting dogs!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2439741/posts

Bingo.
A friend of mine is the main aerial shooter in unit 13 in Alaska.
I have a photo of him with 97 wolf hides tacked to a barn.
He manages wolves very well.

That is a great start!!!

How large are the wolves he is taking? Do they compare with these brutes we have here?

Can anyone tell us why we didn't go to Minnesota for wolves instead of paying for these large artic wolves? David Mech says this is the largest of the wolf sub species.

Even with the taking of 500 wolves last year there was a spike in livestock kills. What will 2010 be like for livestock producers?

I doubt you had to pay for them.

we killed wolvrs off a hundred years ago and we need to do it again this time for good.

Built bigger fences? Cattle are the path of least resistance for a pack of wolves, seeing as there was basically no wolves before and now there is, theres going to be big impact on any species originally hunted by them.

It's weird.

We've got wolves here - always have had them. Lots of them. Lots of game too. We also have farmers, domestic animals and all the rest also. Up here - they all co-exist.

But the minute they get south of the 49th parallel - it's as if they turned into vampires or werewolves or something. They transform into these wicked demon-like creatures that destroy nature, kill all the game animals, destroy hunting opportunities and put farmers and ranchers out of work.

It must be something in the DNA.

North of the 49th parallel - they act like just one more cog in nature's tool-box - but south of it - they transform into the wicked beast of myth, fable and nightmares.

Weird how that transformation works....

In canada they have been allowed to grow and adapt with the environment and the environment with the wolves. This has happened in certain locales in the lower 48 as well. But introducing wolves has been an ecological disaster in most of the West. They aren't allowed to managed, hunted and controlled.

Dropping off wolves into a area rich with game is like giving the town drunk the keys to the bar.

I was not a advocate of reintroduction of wolves due to no plan to limit their numbers and we still don't!


ddj

Kinda was thinking the same thing Brian.
I've killed quite a few of them but never hated any one of them. Even let some walk away.........

Well until recently, no one in the lower 48 could legally do anything but let them walk away. That could be at least part of the reason for the differences you and Brian are seeing.

the Canadian situation is hardly comparable to that of the lower 48 . We don't don't have hundreds of miles of deep wilderness and big game habitat.....

our game animals subsist on islands of habitat in the midst of a sea of humans.......

Here's the deal.
Let's use Utah as an example.
Arguably the best trophy elk hunting in the world.
Extremely limited opportunity for the nonresident hunter.
Only 1-4 nonresident tags in the best units.
You let the "Yellowstone" wolves continue their migration south and what do you think that is going to do those precious few nonresident tags?
Exactly.

Well lets see..............Utah elk have few people hunting them (very limited tags) and no 4 legged preditors either, sounds like a high fence without the fence.
We have become use to elk scoring 400 plus behind every other tree which was never normal in the real world. Before fencing, winter feeding and eliminating the competion (wolves) Check the facts.............there were only a handfull of them untill 20 years ago when Hollywood game management became the norm. Kinda when silicone became all the rage with the girls.

Idaho, and Montana each had a general season. Idaho's is on going. Add that to the fact that the states are aggressive on wolves that get into trouble and it makes your post irrelevant.

It what was the disaster was the reaction of some of the depts to the extra mouth to feed. The Livestock industry in Montana is more to blame than the wolf for our low elk numbers.

That's not true, in Montana and Idaho we have the habitat. That's why the WS put them here after many years of comments. There's more wild land mass areas here than in much of BC and Alberta.

I'd call bull on that . You might have habitat where wolves can survive alright , and Montana and Idaho might be fairly wild by lower 48 standards alright , but still not comparable to BC or Alberta .

Elk habitat is really limted to parts of the national forest in lower 48 for the most part , with the winter ranges particularly limited .

Take a look at a map of BC sometime , and then realize there is no place in the lower 48 farther than 20 miles from a road .

You have the right to call bull on anything, doesn't mean your right. I live in Western Montana, and 6 miles to my west roads stop, and don't start for another 50 air miles. North they run for over 300 miles North and south with only a few roads cutting through the wilderness. The Bob is about the same size as Yellowstone park, without roads. Like I said in my post in the lower half of each Provence there's not many areas that are that wild. Go to google earth and let me know what you find. Wolves have been in these habitats forever.

Elk habitat isn't defined strictly by National Forests. Lots of great winter range is on private property.

Montana does have a fair amount of wilderness but it in no way compares with British Columbia or Alberta. Just drive to Muncho Lake once and you will see....or just look at a map.

ddj

yep , which means the winter range is particularly limiting ; and also not suitable for wolf colonization .

I'd like to see this place in the lower 48 where wilderness runs 300 miles solid.....

the Selway -Bitteroot and the Frank Church go maybe 120 miles north to south , and they are not all that wide east to west as the crow flies....

check this out.http://saveelk.com/index.html

Hey Slinger...maybe you should check your facts...the Frank Church/Selway Bitterroot combined is just shy of 5 million acres (thats including the Gospel Hump Wilderness). The only road seperating the Frank and 'Root is the Magruder Corridor.

You may want to check a map sometime, its more than a pretty good clip "east to west",...been there done that...and I dont care how your crow flies.

For your viewing pleasure...a few places I've been to in the Frank/'Root...mean chunk of real-estate...not to mention vast.

I'd pay to see a dang wolf eat a dang liberal...a lot.

yeah Buzz , I've heard Idaho has some mean real estate , and I don't doubt it's a good "clip" to traverse the Selway or Church by foot or horse.....


but for the record , how many air miles do those places average east to west ; MAYBE 30- 40 miles ? yeah , I did check a map....


5 million acres is about 7800 square miles , which is a chunk of ground not quite 90 by 90 miles . A good little chunk , but not much when you look at the whole of Idaho , Montana , or compare it to BC .

I think its a tad farther than 30-40 miles...throwing out the Magruder road. Hamilton Montana to McCall Idaho...dont really know the East-West mileage on that.

Its a long hike.

Just about killed a horse in there this year...he rolled twice in about the only place he could without being bear-bait...quite the wreck. Found out on the way out, the local FS packer has found a dozen or so dead horses on that section of trail over the years.

I never said 300 miles solid. I said 300 miles with only a hand full of roads. Now looky on your map start at the cabinets wilderness on the Idaho/Montana border, then scroll south to Boise, tell me how far that is, and how many roads you cross from A to B.
You've got 4 major wilderness area's in that region and lots of acres that aren't in wilderness but could be.
Just saying!

The Muskwa-Kechika wilderness area in the Northern Rockies of BC is 6.4 million Hectors (2.2 acres) so is pretty big. All that said I see no reason why wolves need only be in valst wilderness areas. If there is prey, a few wolves is a good thing as long as they are managed.

That is what we haven't had....management

That is where the problem is.


ddj

In B.C - they are nothing but yet another species for us to hunt - same as everything else.

This is as it should be - in my opinion.

The SHOULD be here. They should - ALSO - be hunted.

B.C. is bigger than most people realize.

It's about the same size as Montana, California and New York State combined.

Most of it (except near Vancouver) very sparsely populated.

We havent had wolf management?

Really?

The USFWS, along with state agencies have been killing wolves for over 10 years.

MT and ID hunters killed a bunch this year...and portions of Idaho are still open to hunter "management" of wolves...

If you're worried about a lack of management...go buy a tag and become part of the management solution instead of continuing to part of the problem.

I'm tired of the whiners doing nothing.

Exactly why your Canadian situation is not analogous to the lower 48 .

Plus I'd guess your wolf hunting regs are quite liberal......compared to a few token tags in Idaho and Montana .

BC also has 7 times the wolves as Montana. So what's was the problem? Your token tags. Idaho has a counted population estimate of 900. Their quota was over 200. They also killed a lot of wolves for other reasons. Montana has a estimated population of 500 to 600 and our quota was 72. It filled, and the livestock predations accounted for over another 130. That's pretty good management don't you think?

Buzz -

The ultimate in mismanagement was the reintroduction of the wolves. If regulating elk populations was the driving force behind the wolf plan, hunters would have paid for tags to hunt and bring their numbers into check. It will be interesting to see what the success rates were for the hunters in Montana and Idaho after the first wolf hunts.


ddj

Mismanagement according to whom?

You know whats funny...I attended a couple dozen scoping meetings in Montana on the wolf reintroduction...I listened to the public commments, made some myself. I went home, I read the draft EA, the draft EIS...did the same with the final EIS.

I applied my comments and got involved in the process.

I also clearly remember a majority of people responding in favor of wolf reintroduction. Of course, there were people who opposed it, but maybe 1 out of 10 people objected to the reintroduction. There were a few hundred scoping meetings held in various locals across WY, MT, and ID, the same thing at all of them.

Where was everyone then??? Playing Rip-VanWinkle?

Too late to drain the swamp when you're up to your a$$ in alligators...reactive hunters whining about it NOW is doing NOTHING.

The facts are that a vast majority of the people that responded to the EA and EIS process and attended the scoping meetings were in favor of the rintroduction. Hunter complacency in getting involved isnt my problem...I was there trying to address the problems...were you?

It wasnt forced on anyone...I was there and I saw what happened, I've read the EIS, I've looked at the public comments...all 90% in favor.

...and no hunters couldnt have kept the number of elk in Yellowstone in check. It was tried for 40-50 years and despite liberal winter range hunting between Dec. 1 and Feb. 28th the elk population was at an all-time high of right around 20,000 in the Yellowstone herd. Hunters werent controlling jack...

At first glance to me it would look short .


At 5 to 600 , that would be roughly 100 packs in Montana,,,,if a pack kicks out a litter of 4 , you just doubled what the hunting season plus USF&W took out......and the wolf population goes up by another 200


yeah , in my book 72 tags is a token amount for Montana.......

At 600...they killed 1/3 of the population this year by whacking 200.

Leaving 400...likley not 100 packs with a total population of 400.

You arent going to recruit 200 new wolves this year in Montana.

This is a fact that many anti wolf reintroduction experts don't know, or refuse to take into consideration.

THE WOLF WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE WITH OR WITHOUT THE REINTRODUCTION! Might have taken about 3 or 4 more years to populate down to Wyoming, but rest assured they were coming. We are also going to have to figure out how to live with Grizzlies. They are going to be wide spread in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho within 10 years. That's without reintroducing them. At least I'll be spared the spew on the non native larger than normal beast grizzly that WS introduced. LOL

Buzz I'm not quite sure how reliable your info is on how many people favored reintroduction.I was at meetings in 5 different counties here in Idaho and you are correct in the 90% part,however it was not in favor of reintroduction.

I have to call Bullsh!t Dpole. You're saying you were out in YOUR yard and you're packing? Where do you live, San Quentin? Why you keeping heat on you, you afraid of the big bad wolf? Let me guess, you also pinch a duece on the toilet while strapped because you're afraid of Brown Trout biting you in the arse? Give me a [bleep] break already.

The best way to get rid of any game species is to let it NOT be a game species. Let the wolf be protected and eventually it will be extinct. As far as it's impact on game. I agree it takes it's toll on game animals and should be managed. Hunters will only get the stupid, young and feeble animals. Look at the coyote. The smart ones don't answer to calls and rarely are fooled by even the best trap set ups. Coyotes have been hunted, trapped and poisoned for generations. They still are far from being extinct. As far as habitat being gone for wolf populations to thrive, that's a load of BS. How do explain a pack of 12 wolves roaming the streets of Ironwood Michigan, plundering garbage cans and the local pet population. A team of "Federal Hunters" had to be called in to take care of the pack. If you think that is a load of crap well, they were recorded on a surveillance camera by a local business owner who was told that he was full of crap. They adapt like everything else. I really don't see the hang up on hunting them. Make them valuable by making them a game species. The smart and healthy will survive and the hunters will take out the weak and stupid. Just like everything else. I will say one positive on the wolf population that I can't even deny. As much as I dislike them the deer population has had one benefit. The deer I do see are healthy and big. Although my average deer sightings have gone from around 30 a day to about 5 to 8.