It was only a matter of time.

Numbers fall to 2,236 elk counted. The Montana Elk Plan established in 2004 called for a population of between 3-thousand to 5-thousand elk in the portion of the Northern elk herd that winters in Montana.

http://www.ktvq.com/news/gardiner-elk-hunt-falls-victim-to-wolves/

In the early 90's I worked on a study to develop more winter range for the Northern Yellowstone herd. I guess that is no longer needed!!!

It is time we as hunters and sportmen take a stance against wolves. Our voice to our elected officials needs to be louder than the "huggers" and wolf lovers! Wolves need to be listed as a predator and have the same protection as a coyote.

ddj

Bigger is better when it comes to Wolves. These aren't the small Buffalo wolves that used to roam Yellowstone. Here is an article showing a 143 pound wolf from the Molly pack. They do get that big.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...8b301a8-c5ca-5d6a-8ddb-f82dd124d713.html

The reason you worked on that study as a student is because there were too many elk for the habitat. The reason for the late season hunt is because there were too many elk. Hunting did not reduce the numbers to desired levels. Now, predators, including wolves are managing the number of "northern herd" Yellowstone Park elk at a "natural" pop level. Montanans will decide where they want a natural elk pop level (probably in "wilderness" and/or "trophy" areas) and where they want a higher, managed elk pop level. Wolves will be hunted and numbers controlled to provide a level of elk numbers acceptable to the public.



It is time that you stop trying to speak for all hunters and sportsmen. We have already spoken, and gray wolves are here to stay. Get used to it. Take the time to learn what a wolf looks like.

So, now hunters are not allowed to speak out any more?

Is this "The debate is over!" defense?

You can't deny them the right to speak out any more than you would want your rights to speak out diminished.

A lot of people don't buy into your position. Get used to it.

Well Dpole you don't speak for me either. I live in Mt with the wolves. Do you? People like you really know alot about what we want hear in MT. We had these Wolves shoved down our throat and now we can't even control them due to Liberal Judges or out of state interests. We as Montana or Western hunters don't have a very rosey outlook down the road. When will people learn that without hunters there will be no Game management. We put money on the ground for wildlife, not pita. Daryl Shehan.

Dpole - You are exactly right about the reason I worked on that study. There were too many elk in the Northern Yellowstone herd at that time and/or the habitat was degraded north of Yellowstone. With the cooperation of landowners, doing prescribed burns of less than suitable areas we could make areas where usable forbes and grasses would have been enough to support that population.

The shortsighted choice that the Feds made was to reintroduce wolves instead of increasing opportunites for sportsmen and women. The Gardiner hunt was one of the premier hunts in the country. Now it isn't open. We are going to see more closing of hunts and a loss of oppotunities for deer, moose and elk. The Gardiner hunt was the first due to its proximity to Yellowstone. The more elk herds that are decimated by the wolves the louder the opinions against wolves will become.

Grey wolves are here to stay, I agree sir, but the need to be limited as much as possible.

I don't speak for all hunters, just myself.

ddj

One other point - With there being less elk, there is going to be less revenue for the Montana Game Dept. How do you think they are going to make this deficit up? They are going to increase tag costs! They are going to Increase tags in areas that may have been managed for trophy quality! Wolves ruining the Northern Yellowstone herd impact the whole state.

Where is the money that was supposed to be from tourists coming to see the wolves???


ddj

It has been proven over and over, that the individuals involved with making our decisions are NOT for the majority. Just look at a few of the poles taken recently.

My vote; Mr. Wolf, pack your bags, your out of here....

Don't you think this image sums it up?

That pictures sums it up...extremely sad!!!!!


ddj

Those dogs look big to me...

I just wish te guy in the helicopter or plane had a rifle. That elk met a cruel end!


ddj

There are so many things wrong about this....
I hate the argument, that these are endangered species...

That photo is obviously a fake!

Everyone knows that wolves would never attack a healthy bull in his prime. They only prey on the old, the sick, and the weak animals in the herd.

In fact the wolves have done the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd and us all a big favor by unmercifully killing the 10,000 to 12,000 old, sick, and weak elk from that herd.

Where's Dtroll to tell us how nice wolves are??


ddj

��and gray wolves are here to stay.� � We�ll see�

Had it not been for an abysmal performance by Dirk Kempthorne when he was a senator from Idaho, we could have had a reauthorized ESA that contained language that would have allowed the Agencies to address unacceptable consequences of species recovery in a swift business like fashion. But more importantly, we would have also had an Act that contained enhanced language that would have required that all recovery plans fully address conflicting economic, social and resource issues though all phases of execution. And a streamlined Cost-Benefit analysis to allow for an authorized walk-away from species that are determined to be cost prohibitive to recover in today�s world.

In theory, the current Act allows for or even requires USF&WS to do some of this stuff, but anyone with any whiskers in the resource management business knows that in practice all other considerations and concerns have been subordinated to the recovery of endangered species by all of the Agencies. But times they are changing. Once we get through this next election cycle, I am confident modifications to the ESA will be forthcoming. And if anyone believes that the concerns in congress about the ESA today are limited to rural western delegations- you would be wrong. There have been too many �takes�, too many unintended consequences and too much money spent for the ESA not to be amended. CP

I don't even know why I bother opening these threads anymore.
Wolves aren't even close to the biggest problem we're facing right now as hunters in Montana.
They're here to stay, they will kill elk, they will be managed, now get over it and lets be productive about this instead of advocating poaching like a bunch of morons.

I see nothing advocating poaching in this thread. I have witnessed the brutal killing of hounds to wolves. The Gallatin elk herd is nearly gone - FWP reports this is due to the predation by introduced wolves (not to mention the moose). I, for one, would be interested in some productive dialog - care to offer some?

We just went over this on another topic. The Dept. of FW&P was giving out 3000 antlerless tags just 8 years ago. They slowly reduced the number but it was to little to late. The breaks should have been slammed down hard. Hunters helped make this mess. I never saw anyone complain about killing to many elk when it was going on. The wolf is being managed, and the numbers will fall. The real threat to our hunting heritage comes from the Montana Dept. of Livestock and the Montana Stock Growers Ass. Just check out what they are up too.

Sorry, SSS hasn't shown up so far, but it was only a matter of time.

The problem that most people aren't realizing is that in order to be able to continue to manage the wolves, we need to keep the numbers high enough to stay off the ES list, which is right where they are now. Chances are, if we drop the numbers down to where they're re-listed, we aren't getting management back for a very, very long time.
The numbers of wolves within the park are already leveling out, and it'll happen in other areas too. We need to understand that we will have, and need to have, the amount of wolves that exist in the state right now in order to keep them at any sort of constant.
Yeah, it sucks, some elk herds took a nose dive. The herd I hunt is about 15% of what it was ten years ago. But populations are a very liquid asset, they're going to go up and down.
It's not like there aren't going to be enough elk to sustain a hunt in these areas though, I still killed a bull this year, and know many others that killed elk near the park. My fiancee had a Gardiner tag last year, passed on more bulls than either of us will likely ever see in our lifetime hunting.
Yeah, there's less elk, but it ain't exactly the doomsday situation everyone keeps trying to convey online.

That happened to be the largest wolf ever weighed in Yellowstone NP. The article went on to say the 80 to 85 pound wolves have better chances at catching elk. That doesn't bode well for the large wolf theory.

What are they doing(to decrease elk calf recruitment)?

Ding ding, 4100fps just stuck his dick in the hole, priority number one needs to be figuring out a way to shoot down the god forsaken elk management plan they adopted.

I was fortunate enough to draw an either sex late tag for the Gardner area 7 or 8 years ago and if the 360 class bull I shot saw his brother about to be eaten alive by a pack of wolves he owes me a big smooch for putting him down with one shot. There is nothing more cruel than the way a wolf kills. Coincidently, the local TV stations ran a several day segment on wolves in Montana this week and a group of puppy lovers from D.C. were here saying tourism created just by the wolves generated $53mil in revenue for the state while livestock kills only cost the state app. $67,000. Anyone who participated in the late hunts knows how busy Gardner was in Jan/Feb. Now with the hunt over they ought to ask the motels/restraunts/outfitters/taxidermists/butchers/gas stations/fish & goose dept. license/application fees, etc. and it's obvious the media and canine lovers don't want the rest of the populous to know the whole story. Sad,Sad,Sad

As far as doing something about it, I and several hunderd other Montanan's attended and spoke against reintroduction at the EIS hearings. Out of over 500 people, I only heard one speak in favor of it yet when the U.S.F.W.S. announced they were moving forward with the project they announced with "Overwhelming support from the people". I queried several friends that attended other meetings in Montana and Wyoming that I couldn't make and they all reported the same results as I'd seen. So it is our opinion that the hearings they held in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho was their way of checking a box and bowing to the desire of those not having to make a living in this economy.

I have heard that in recent years that Colorado is having an elk issue. If I were you, I'd keep my mouth shut about that and just take care of it or the easterners are going to pick up wind of it and all they'll hear is "Alpo on the hoof" and you'll be dealing with it next.

There is no doubt that we need to manage elk habitat better (ie. better winter range) but these issue have been circulating for many many years. The wolf just greatly added to an existing problem!!!!!


ddj

Sam, if you don't have the cows then your not going to have the calves. The Montana Stock Growers Ass. Through SW Montana Legislator Debbie Barrett, passed a resolution about 8 years ago. What it did, was direct the MDFW&P's to come up with objective numbers for elk in each district in the state of Montana. These numbers were greatly influenced by the livestock, and ag communities. Most all of these districts were given population numbers that were less than they were at the time, and were totally social, influenced by tolerance from those communities. Then the same person got another resolution passed that mandated the MDFW&P's, to get all those elk management units at or below the objectives by 2009. They did, along with the help from all the predators we were protecting. In most cases, over on the west, and around the part, they over did it. We don't even have any livestock community to speak of anymore.

The thing to do is revisit the EMP or Elk Management Plan, and get the numbers up to support the hunters as well as the predators that we have on the landscape. We know we have to limit the predators to do that. Bears, Lions, coyotes, and wolves all need some killing. We'll have to save every cow we can until we start getting back up the hill.

Yep.
Wolves certainly aren't helping the situation. I can see where they are beneficial inside the park but outside, not so much.

Sam
It seems as though the solution would be to let the wolves live in Yellowstone Park, and have an open season on them outside the park. That's too simple a solution to ever be put in place, I guess.
Fred

These wolves look pretty large compaired to that bull elk. Having an 80 pound dog at my feet, I would guess these four wolves are in the 100 pound range and seem to be having no trouble chasing this big elk.


80 to 85 pound wolves "Have a better chance" at catching Elk, not that larger wolves like those in the picture don't kill Elk on a regular basis.

The genetics are there for big wolves.

I gotta add on the size thing, that they really do look a lot bigger than they are.
I don't know exactly why that is, but my guess is just how thick of a coat they have when they're most visible in winter.
The two guys that I talked to that killed them (one last week, get on it Idaho and fill those quotas already!) were both really surprised how small the actual bodies on the wolves were, compared to how they looked on foot.
The couple I've seen in the summer though look more like lanky coyotes than wolves.

I believe the same problem has happened in Alaska with wolf packs just decimating moose populations in some areas. I don't know what makes wolves so great that another species has to suffer just so some ass can feel good about re-introducing wolves. I understand that they are part of an ecosystem and play their part, but if they get out of control they need to be brought back in to control.

Au contrare--try to defend the existence of wolves and watch the name calling begin in an attempt to shout down anything that may smack of science or conservation.

Wolves were supposed to reduce the number of elk--it was only reported about, oh.....a thousand times in the run-up to wolf restoration.

But if nothing else, selective memory prevails in the wolf threads.


Casey

But your trying to attach human morals and standards to wildlife that eat each other--personally I leave Walt Disneyism to Hollywood.





Wolves indeed generate a lot of revenue--and the same Gardner businesses that opposed wolve restoration are now selling wolf T-shirts---but I've only written that at least a half dozen times in the past year......




The late season Gardner hunt was created as a depredation hunt--which are supposed to be temporary. But like any government program, once a constintuency is created, it's sometimes harder to kill than it was to start.

Same thing is happening in Colorado--the days of easy, plentiful cow tags are over. The elk herds have been reduced closer to objectives in many areas--and man, you should hear the bitching and moaning.......it's all a communist/terrorist/environmenatist/socialist plot........


Casey

Seems like one of the astute law firms could find a way to make those who pushed for wolf reintroduction help bear the burden of the loss of hunting revenue.

But can it feed my kids?

Right here, watching you troll me up by making up stuff about me and calling me names. Good job. Good little troll.

I've never said wolves were "nice." 4100 and others have summed it up well.

Have you learned what they look like yet, dumbass?
Don't put yer wolf tag on somebody's pet.

Folks around here, in NE MN where there have always been wolves, have opinions that seem to be like folks in other places that are used to the wolves; pretty much just "what's the fuss all about." And of course with "threatened" status: "Just wish we could legally protect our pets." We even wonder what the other animals (like bears) think about the "special" status that wolves hold. Like this cartoon in this week's local newspaper :

I remember when Outdoor life called the Gardener hunt a Blood Bath. If we as hunters continue to call the elk predation devastating the anti's wil use the same word for the hunter harvest.

Only your kind of "dog" Dtroll!!

It continues to amaze me how we can not find a common ground on the wolf/ elk management issue.

Before the reintroduction of the wolf. Landowners were begignning to see the value of their elk herds as another possible form of income. Landowners North of Yellowstone were open and some even excited to learn how to increase forage base by prescribed burns. The federal ground had already been doing this for increased winter range and "pull" elk off the private ground for more hunting opportunities. Instead we brought in wolves which are going to limit our hunting opportunities instead of enhancing them.

Not my idea of stewardship!!!


ddj

Wolves indeed generate a lot of revenue..........

I have found a new plan for Obama to take to the hill. Honestly even my dumb arse knows this is a crock. Wait I say that while I sit hear in my wolf hat and tee, these are really big in Hollyweird right now.

Dpole, I've just read that the average size of the wolves taken in the ID hunt is just over 100 pounds. What is the average size of the wolves in MN? Do the wolves there run in big packs like those in Yellowsone do?

A recent article in the star talked about the declining deer herd in Northern MN. What are you seeing? I don't remember hearing about bad winters there for a while.

Thanks.

trout- If you were burning brush north of Yellowstone, you sure weren't working for/with Carl Wambolt...

I met Carl once in Red Lodge but my professor was from Montana not Montana State.


ddj

Dpole, is the moose decline in Minnesota due to mostly wolves, or other factors?

I hear guys yelling about the elk, for the most part i think the elk are fine..but the moose are dropping like flies in western WY.

(I am not trolling, it is a serious question!)

Kats, Grizz, how's a Utard to keep 'em straight? A prof. in grad school refered to Dr. Wambolt as a "sagebrush hugger". Unfortunately I heard that before I read much of his work, so it did color my perception abit. 'Course I can now see why they used that phrase!

Pointer - If he was a sagebrush hugger he wouldn't have liked us, we burned a ton of it!!!


ddj

No dj, you are the troll here. You proved it beyond question.



Common ground? You attack anyone who doesn't hate wolves, and lie about our positions, trolling folks out so you can "win" a fight. I would much rather discuss the subject reasonably, but new-guy dirtbag poachers like you keep coming out of the woodwork,........... So, lets talk about you for a while.

You seem to think that because you were cheap labor in a HI project that you know something about the subject, much like many young punks who've had a bit of school then think they are the fountain of knowlege.

You are a liar. You lie about the positions of others. Just in this thread, you lied about my position; saying I think wolves are "nice." Further evidence would be things you claim I think about wolves and their management. You've claimed many times that I think MN wolves and Mn habitat are the same as western habitat and wolves. You claim that I don't know anything about western wolves because I try to treat them the same. You lied. Not only are you a liar, but you are apparently vary stupid too. You would have to be aware of Minnesota habitat, our wolves, western habitat, and western wolves, know the nuances of each, and be positive that those differences would result in differing behavior. Since you don't even know what a wolf looks like (proven on another thread-its all archived and I copied the photos), you cannot claim such an advantage over me. Only a very stuipid person would not realize this. That would be you, stupid.

You are a dirtbag poacher/criminal type; the kind of person that invited into a house for a cup of coffee, would be busy casing the place. You posted in Handwerk's thread that he should use a snare to get rid of the wolves. You seemed very proud to explain just how to set a snare (you apparently wanted to show everyone you knew how to set one, as if we don't already know). That would be illegal take of listed, threatened wildlife; poaching, criminal activity. You apparently are too stupid to understand that Handwerk would most likely catch a deer or his neighbor kid's pet dog. I've had to race down to the vets office to show the new vet how to remove a snare from a little girls dog, as the little girl sat sobbing, wondering if her new puppy would die or live as a three-legged cripple. "Daddy, who did that to my puppy?" "Trappers, honey." Yup, you friggin hero wolf-haters really made a friend of trappers there. Way to go, dick breath. What a dumbaas!!

You also apparently know little if anything about your namesake. You are not a trout hunter. The real trout hunter was a conservationist, who greatly valued the last of our wild places with free-flowing rivers and the howl of the wolf.

With a POS like you, I could go on and on, and will if you persist, but I'd rather get back to civil discussion.

60-120 pounds. They are indeed a bit smaller than the western wolves. However, it seems that all (not just western) wolves are commonly overestimated in size by the general public. Its not unusual, and you can't really blame the individual for the error, as it seems a common one. Recently, genetic studies have pointed toward the buffalo wolves as the real heritage of our wolves. Other subspecies determination (before good genetic methods) made in the past linked the MN wolf with the Eastern Timber wolves, and at one time, the Algonquin subspecies. At the time of western wolf intro, our wolves were considered to be relative to the Algonquin, thus unsuitable for western transplant. Also, the wolves chosen for intro were partly chosen because their prey included elk, which was thought to be an advantage for success. MN only has a couple dozen elk and most wolves have never seen one. Our wolves concentrate on moose, deer, hare, etc...
Here is a link to MN's wolf page if you want the "poop" from officials.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/mammals/graywolf.html

You should probably understand the historical deer pop levels of N MN before making sweeping judgements about direction of numbers. Yes, we had fewer deer in this area last hunting season than the year before. But we had what the managers called a scarry overpop of deer here. First, you should know that our deer herd is controlled mostly by hard winters and heavy snow. I'll try to be short, but..... I started hunting deer in the mid 60's. At that time, you bought a statewide deer license that let you tag one deer (and a bear) of any sex. After a couple hard winters, our deer season was actually closed; 197something...I forget. I know I didn't like it. And it should also be reported here that the early 1970s was the time of our lowest wolf pop; about 700 total. Our wolf bounty was stopped in the late 60s (timeline is fuzzy-I should probably check the record...). Protection through the ESA given shortly after and the wolf pop has grown and wolf range expanded until about 1998. Its been stable since. Late 70s: The rules changed to "bucks only" seasons where we could by one tag, but we could harvest only a buck. After a few years, we started drawing for doe tags in areas where pops allowed. You purchased a license and entered a drawing for doe. If you were successful, you could kill a doe OR a buck. Not both-only one deer-not like western doe drawings. Our doe tag drawings are still conducted the same way. I'd have to check the record to be sure, but I think the first doe tag drawing in my zone was in the late 80s, but the early 90s brought more hard winters and the deer pop tumbled again. So, what I'm trying to get at is the large deer herd in this area never did exist until very recently, and it all happened while our wolf pops were growing and reaching their current max. The deer season of 2007 was an immense one. The managers were so worried and wanted the pop down so badly that we could buy up to 5 tags. You could kill either a buck or doe with your first tag and you could kill up to five additional doe. We had a surprisingly high winter kill after that deer season which reduced the herd pretty well, but it was still considered to be too high, so we were able to buy two tags last year. Its not been a hard winter so far, so I hope for another good season next year. What I'm trying to get through is the fact that although our deer herd is down from 2007, it is certainly in no danger.

The fact is that the average deer harvest has been about 1/3 by hunters, 1/3 by predators (black bear, wolf, coyote,...), and 1/3 by car collision. Most of our deer yard near Lake Superior during winter and the only highway goes right through 'em. The truck drivers laugh about it.

Everyone knows, despite the lies invented about some of us on this forum, that wolves and other large predators affect prey pops. Its not a big secret. The balance of nature doesn't always go well with what prey pop levels folks desire. That's why we need to be able to manage wolves and other predators, just like other wildlife. Hard winters mostly determine deer numbers here, but of course comming out of those depressed deer numbers, the wolves will make for a slower deer herd recovery because we can't control harvest numbers by wolves. We can't control the number harvested by vehicle either, although it is more density dependant than the wolf predation, which is fairly steady. The only harvest we can control is hunter harvest, so the predators and the cars win. We are just getting a bit tired of waiting for the courts; we want to be able to protect our pets and property. Hunting and trapping seasons are in the wolf plan (also on that web page) and I for one, cannot friggin wait. I called in and killed two beautiful gray-colored wolves in Ontario, but at the time, bringing the pelts back to the US was a hassle. I sold 'em in Canadania, so I need a couple more for a nice coat.

What else...oh yeah, pack size. Pack size here varies a lot, and it is difficult to find the perfect reason, but they are known to have pack sizes somewhat in proportion to prey size. Big packs can be successful with large prey. It does make sense that there needs to be enough of each kill to eat for all pack members. I know of very large packs that hunt moose, but I know of no really large packs that hunt deer around here. It seems to me that packs in Yellowstone are larger than most of our packs. And I'm sure that simple litter size is an important factor. But you should probably seek the pros on that question. My opinions and gathered facts about western wolves are gotton from the pros in those states. I really don't have a good enough handle on western wolf ecology to answer those questions with authority.

I guess I struck a nerve with Dtroll

I will debate wolves but not the obscenities above.

Dpole if I made you sound "pro-wolf" then I apologize.



ddj

An interesting point to the wolf debate is in the research and studies of Dr. Valerius Geist. He has researched the predator pit in accorandace with wolves. Basically it states that wolves first feed on the young calves, next the cows and lastly the adult bulls. After game has been wiped out the wolves move on to the next population or an easier population such as livestock.


ddj

The MN moose pop lives in the very-most southern part of the Canadian moose range (central US anyway), so their existance is always on the edge. There have always been both moose and wolves here; it can't be "only" wolves. NW MN had a small, huntable pop of moose that appeared for a while, but has now dissappeared due to high mortality from various things. Parasites and such are a major cause, but lots of moose were found dead in the field for seemingly no good reason. Managers have actually taken to calling it "tipping disease" or some such thing. They've never figured it out totally, but have studied the moose carefully and recorded causes of death of many collared moose. All the numbers are avail from DNR, but wolf predation was not considered the major determining factor. But, since wolves were expanding into that range during the moose pop growth of the NW and during the demise of the pop, I'm not sure one could blame wolves for the demise, yet many have. One thing is certain, wolves ate some of them, but they are not blamed by the pros, because a healthy moose pop in healthy habitat of required size......should be able to sustain wolves without complete loss.

The NE MN moose pop is also in decline and managers are working hard on the problem. Remember that there have always been wolves here, so the moose pop has done and is doing its thing, all with a stable wolf pop. This county, like much of "the arrowhead" of MN is mostly public land. My county is around 90% public; the Superior National Forest-about three million acres (containing the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wildernes 1 million acres) is about the size of Yellowstone Park. Like most National Forests, there used to be much more timber harvest than there is now. I and many others think the moose decline (because they are in those unharvested wilder areas-not like the whitetail which are mostly nearer Lake Superior and the private land where they get fed during winter) is more about the lack of young forest. Yet, again, the wolves eat plenty and we do hunt the moose here, so harvest does enter the equation- and again, predation alone will not lead to the demise, as a healthy herd in good habitat can sustain natural predation levels. Of course, the DNR are officially big global warming believers, so many managers believe (and have the data) that average summer temps exceed temps condusive to moose survival. There is good evidence gathered from many moose herds that support this.....heck if I know.

There was a big moose conference recently that discussed this subject. I wasn't there, but managers agreed that the best possible management scheme to increase moose numbers is to get rid of the whitetail deer. The deer are carriers of parasites that are not lethal to deer but are deadly to moose. Its been a problem known for many years. They want to make it illegal to feed deer during winter in this area, so they will die. Since moose hunting is a "once in a lifetime" resident-only opportunity, one you get yer chance, its all over. Now, what do you hunt? Whitetail, of course. Good luck getting the public to give up our deer herd!

The intro of large predators into a new range will certainly cause lots of changes. I think most managers agree that in many western cases, wolf intro was the cause of declines. Western moose problems likely don't mirror MN's. One Montana study claims that generally, the elk have become harder for hunters to find because of behavioral changes, more than they are gone because of predators. I think I have the study around here somewhere, but it probably doesn't apply in the cases you speak of. Anyway, anti-wolfers are focusing on the Gallitin more than the rest of the state, so that study probably doesn't count. I don't know, A Montanan wrote it.

Anyway, I sure wish we could have gotten states' management of wolves earlier so we could manage them more wisely and at lower levels. But we're left with what we were handed and must deal with it. Susceptible Moose, sheep, goat, etc. herds suffered uneedingly. It would have been way better and more acceptable by the public if we would not have been hit so hard with the relentless court proceedings. I think Western wildlife managers are very capable, and now that some have state management, things will balance out. Good luck with your moose. They are a great resource. Support your state managers when they need help with their management goals. The politicians could really screw things up.

I don't visit this site as much as I used to because of all the hatred spewed around here, so please don't think I'm ignoring anyone (with a few exceptions) if I don't reply to someone. Its just because I have not read your post.........

Question to all the wolf supporters on here who actually hunt. How long to you figure before they close down the Elk season all together because the wolves have taken the population down to levels where the herd cannot sustain a hunting season.

This was the plan of the anti's from day one.

No, it was just time to throatkick you a bit. You don't have the knowlege of the subject to debate-get off the internet and let these westerners discuss their wolves. All your dumbass attacks, lies, and poachin' talk is in the archives. Its easy to find. Everyone can see for themselves. You are too stupid to lie your way out of it. I have to get ugly from time to time to get rid of the total dumbasses like you that attack me. Back off, troll. And you continue with the fake apologies, all part of the trolling plan. FU, dirtbag. I've dealt with way worse than you could ever muster.

Thanks for the write up Dpole, interesting.




I wouldn't say I am a wolf supporter, but they are here. and they will not be wiped out again. So its time to come to terms with that..I would love a trapping season.

All the folks on here who don't hate wolves are hunters. Your assertion that we are not hunters is just another dumb-ass ploy. Divide us from "hunters". Go ahead. You need to answer your question yourself. Give me a date. Then we can sit back and see if you are correct. Get back to me when there is no more elk hunting.

Here's one for ya: I've been getting attacked by wolf haters on hunting forums (this one since 2002) for long enough to make some changes in my support of public land use. I used to be all for grazing rights even though cattle destroy our trout stream riparian areas(avid angler here). I supported motorized access on most public lands, mostly because hunters of all capabilities should share in our heritage. I could go on, but suffice it to say, and I really hate to say it, but I'm not so sure any more. I've learned not to trust my fellow hunters. I've learned not to trust ranchers to follow our wildlife laws. I don't trust hunters or ranchers to not illegally kill protected animals, including wolves, on our public lands. If the push to fence off, demotorize, and remove cattle from our public lands continue, I'm not gonna step up against it. You fellers are on your own. That's about the only thing you guys have taught me. You have lost an ardent suporter.

I don't love wolves and I don't hate them either......... I am a hunter. I have been lucky enough to succesfully hunt 5 rams, numerous elk and moose (all mature bulls), caribou, grizzly, black bears, white tail and mulies all unguided, OTC and public land.
I have even killed off more than a few wolves.
There are far greater threats to my access to elk or any other game animals than a bit of competion from their natural prey.
Wolf haters are confusing the issue. When you wake up and can no longer hunt elk it won't be due to wolves.
Please stop blind siding fellow hunters when they need to open their eyes to the real threats.

A trapping season would be nice!! Unfortunately the wolf lovers will never let in happen for the public. Wolves are here to stay, there is "no use closing the barn doors after the horse escapes" but now it is a matter of management. We need as aggressive of a management strategy as we can pass. Don't allow the greenies and bunny huggers to make rules that are detrimental to our game populations.


ddj

Here is an interesting read about wolf encounters with humans.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/01/28/when-do-wolves-become-dangerous-to-humans/


ddj

Thanks for the info on wolves in MN. I was told they were smaller in size and packs were less also.

As far as making sweeping judgements about the deer herd size in MN, I was reporting what I had read in the MLPS Star regarding lower deer herd numbers (http://mobilesports.startribune.com/articles/195808779?paging=off).

I killed my first buck in NW MN in 1975 and have hunted there just about every year since then. After moving West in 1992, it harder to keep track of the deer and how the hunting season is shaping up. When hunting, we stop by the check stations and butcher shops to see what in checked in each day and get a feel from the officals about how the harvest is going. We have noticed that numbers are down the past several years.

I remember seeing wolf tracks while hunting just East of Skime in the Beltrami Island State forest. We would heard them at night as well. I don't remember their tracks being as large as the tracks I've seen out here.



Thanks again for your thoughts.

trout- We've been tearing a bit of it up ourselves, but opt for the Lawson vs. the drip torch. It's all good...

Yeah we were in a lot of remote areas and the aerator might not have been an option. We did everything by drip torch.


ddj

I understand. I was just cautioning against judging that wolves are responsible. I thought you were going there. No problem.



I saw my first "up-close" wolf in about 1980 at Itasca state park. I was intent on killing a deer with my Blackhawk .45 colt. I was huddled up on the ground, against the trunk and amongst the lower branches of a spruce tree, about 10 yards from a deer trail, in the really thick stuff. I wanted to be close. I heard a "deer" coming and cocked the revolver. The big male wolf trotted past me, and since there were not supposed to be any wolves there, it was a bit unexpected. It looked about 250 pounds at that instant; I suppose that being taller than me sitting, and only ten yards away, its size seemed a bit more than reality. I thought it was about the coolest thing I had seen in a while.

One thing that may help in reading my previous post that I didn't make real clear is that I've only lived in Cook county (tip of the arrowhead) for 20+ years. I grew up in N Central Minn and did most of my hunting, etc. there before I moved here. So I have not always lived and hunted where there were wolves. However, I did kill a 48" bull moose in 1975 (I think) In the BWCAW- Ada Lake, Sawbill Trail, which is just a bit west of where I live now. My very first deer hunt (1961?) was near Blackduck.

DPole - We have something in common. I hunted near Blackduck for several years when I lived in Minnesota.


ddj

Me too. However, if you don't hate wolves, you are considered a "wolf lover" here.


There ya go! A TRUE "wolf man."

It seems that it might be partly due to hunters like me who don't trust some other hunters on critical habitat. Sorry. But if hunters can't behave, we'll have to make it harder to poach by reducing access. Ironic, ain't it? I've written this before, but I've been posting against radical anti-wolfers for eight+ years on hunting forums, thinking that it is important to show nonhunters that not all hunters are slob poachers. Its ironic that I probably convinced no nonhunters of this, I've likely changed no minds here despite my efforts at reasonable persuasion (only drew trolls and gained enemies), and I've actually had my own mind changed from trusting hunters to follow the law, to not trusting fellow hunters and other public land users. The tyranny of the vocal majority here has simply convinced me that more wilderness and less access is needed. Where there are less roads, there is less poaching. Most of the poachers (including the rash of moose poaching in this area this year-only took the heads) drive the roads at night. Yup, we need more public lands with less access. Hopefully, we can continue hunting it, just not as easily. I just sent another nice big check to the RMEF (they buy private critical habitat and give it to wildlife, and the public) and I'm starting to look for pro-wilderness groups, as long as they are not anti-hunting.

Users have already come to agreements about wolf management, and these agreements are written into states' management plans. Now, its just a matter of getting management authority to the rest of affected states, and out of the courts, so we can implement these agreements. Anyone who thinks that nonhunters, anti-hunters, hunters, livestock owners, and other resource users have not already met "in the middle", simply was not there when all the studies, roundtables, public comments, etc were accomplished. Its only the implementing of the plans that remains.

There is a good article in the latest field and stream about wolves and there impact on the Western game populations in the latest Field and Stream.

I know this isn't a peer rieviewed article but it does make some interesting points.

I wish I could find a link to it, maybe someone else can.


ddj

Here is another excellent article.

http://www.lobowatch.com/FiringLine.html


ddj

Trying to prevent animal suffering is not attaching human morals and standards to wildlife - you've confused subject and object here. He's *applying* his human morals (he's the subject of the applying not the wolf) to the situation, which is right for him to do, because he's a human. He's not asking the wolf to apply it, he's wanting to eliminate the wolf as an object so the suffering doesn't happen. There's nothing particularly human about suffering, I think most would agree with that...

DPOLE; It's not Montanan's who make the choices there anymore. It's the fruits and nuts from California that have overrun Mt. like a major pollutant pouring into the water and making it un-drinkable. Former Gov. Marc Rosco once told me that the Cals. come in here and treat Mt. as if it was their personal playground and want to do and dictate whatever they want. Just because you have a Mt. drivers license and lived there for 6mos doesn't mean you know anything about running the state or managing it's wildlife or anything else for that matter. How is it that they know better than people that have lived there for generations. Oh yeah, they went to school at Berkley. Thats it, just turn Mt. into another Ca.. Seems to have worked out really good there. If you don't like the way Mt. is then leave and take your, "brother", wolf with you! Mt. did much better before you got there and will do better after you leave! If you are not from Mt. or don't live there, BUT OUT!! It's none of your business. What ever happened to states rights and people's rights. Like the right to make a living raising food so you can have a steak or a hamburger when you want. What about the costs of the whole mess? There is no win to wolves being there, none!! What do wolves contribute that hunters and wildlife conservationist,(if you can find a good one), don't already do. Should we howl at the moon? And we don't kill livstock and threaten people. Do wolves contribute to local economys? No, they cost people money. The whole thing is just liberal foolishness.

mustanger,

Try educating yourself...you wont look like such a tool when you post next time.

For starters, the wolf issue was not just a "state" issue...wolves were already moving into MT before the reintroduction and were classified as threatened under the ESA. That gives statutory authority to the Feds and that in turn becomes a national issue.

Also, in case you werent in Montana at the time, or have forgotten, of the comments received in Montana in the EA and EIS processes...70% were in favor of reintroduction. At the national level, over-all comments were 90% in favor.

This isnt a states rights issue, never has been. Trying to make it one makes you look like an uneducated hick.

You're right wolves dont dig out their pocket books and contribute to the local economies, but PEOPLE do. They pay a boat load of money annually for the chance to see a wolf in Yellowstone.

I'll have to look up the exact figures...but I believe the MTFWP and IG&F made a pretty nice sum of money through the sale of wolf licenses. Some units are still open in Idaho, and I bet theres a few hard-core hunters out there still trying...spending money the whole time.

Where someone was born, has no bearing on national issues, and a guy living in NYC has just as much right, and just as much interest in things like wolf recovery as someone who was born in Montana.

Further, a majority of the habitat that all big-game occupy is owned by the Federal Government...again giving ALL citizens the absolute right to comment on the management of public lands.

I'm tired of the people in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho pretending like they should have more of a "say" in federal issues than anyone else. Its just not true, its a ridiculous arguement used by the ill-informed and bar-stool experts that reside in each of those states.

Oh....and before you rip on me about where I live...I was born in Montana, lived there for 31 years and have lived in Wyoming for the last 11 years.

Where I differ from most is that I'm not so arrogant as to believe my opinion regarding FEDERAL issues is any better than anyone elses who lives in within the borders of the UNITED STATES.

What you're spewing is pure garbage, there is a distinct and needed seperation of powers between federal and state issues. Obviously, you must have slept through civics...

Can you say suedo-intellectual socialist. Try reading the Constitution. Never fails, if liberals don't have a factual arguement they claim stupidity on the other side. You are delutional and no point in taking this any farther. But feel free to do your thing. I am tempted to counter the points you made in between insulting me, but there is nothing to be gained by it. Try to have a nice day!

Mustanger,

I give you enough credit that you realized stepping away was the best, and obviously only, way you could save face on the issue at hand.

...oh, and I've read the constitution plenty...maybe you should try hooked on phonics...yes?

Not quite sure what a "delutional" is?

Now there you go again. Tell you what, I will overlook your mis-spelled word if you overlook mine. Let me help you out,sep-A-ration. DELUSION; a persistant false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. I gt mi moom tu reed thet fr mee froom the diksionery. You should really check your own spelling before you make jokes. By the way, my face is still here. Have a nice evening!

I wonder what former governor Marc Racicot thinks now?

Thanks for correcting me Toolelk!

mustanger,

Its really not your spelling thats the issue, more an issue of comprehension...and basic understanding of the issue at hand.

Once the wolves obtained protective status, it was inevitable that these problems were going to occur. The huggers knew they could use fed. regs. to their advantage and block limited hunts and/or de-listing. The huggers knew that the wolf was going to be a game changer with their breeding abilities and the efficiency of their hunting techniques.
Game management is a balance of a number of factors. When the wolf is allowed to roam and hunt unchecked, diminished numbers of big game will occur. It would be similar to having no wolves and allowing hunters to harvest elk all year with no limits. The system is out of balance.
The enviro-huggers love wolves because they are killing big game and pissing off the hunters. I know this cause I have acquaintances that say this all the time.

bigwhoop; Much of what you said applies to what they did with the buffalo in Yellowstone too. The Feds ignored their own enviromental impact statement numbers of a sustainable herd of 1500. The animal rights folks couldn't allow hunting and thinning of the herd as they wandered out of Yellowstone, so the herd grew to 5000. That created huge problems for Mt. when the buffalo migrated north searching for food to keep from starving. There were animal rights people out there harrassing hunters and wacking them with ski poles and stuff. Throwing blood on the Governer for trying to stop the buffalo migration. Yellowstone,(Feds), is like a really bad neighbor who won't manage their own livestock and range, with encouragement from anti-hunting, animal rights folks. They might as well face it, it will never be like,"Dances With Wolves", again in this country. (Unless they pass cap and trade) Then we will all go back to the stone age!

Many of the groups, organizations, biologists, and legislators who once supported the wolf reintroductions have changed their stance. The Rocky Mountian Elk foundation support the reintroductions in the mid 90's but have since seen a lack of prpoer management is more harmful than exploding herd numbers.


ddj

mustanger,

You're so wrong about the bison issue in Montana its laughable.

Republican Governor Stan Stephens folded like a cheap lawnchair, and he STOPPED the bison hunt because he thought it was a "black eye to hunters".

The Yellowstone bison were being controlled in the late 80's by a legal hunting season. IIRC, there were about 1300 or so killed in 88 or 89 by hunters.

The good old GOP Governor though, he acted on his own and decided whats best for us...to save us from ourselves...gotta love the GOP.

Further, it was a Democrat Governor that brought the bison hunt back...which never should have been stopped in the first place.

Excuse me, but it seems you are saying the same thing I just said. Except you just tried to make it political and take it personally. Why is that? I never mentioned a political party or bias. I only spoke of animal rights activists, Yellowstone Park Service, the Federal Government, hunters, and an un-named Governor of Mt. who was forced to deal with the situation. I am new to this forum, but I have to say I'm having some fun so far. If for no other reason just to unintentionally watch you flame yourself out over an opinion thats different than yours. And even when it's not. "...which never should have stopped in the first place." Seems we are on the same page here to me. Except for the political posturing. Feel free to correct my spelling, thank you.

That is what Wyoming's plan was, the plan that was and is still rejected by the feds/courts.

FWP put on a presentation Friday about wolves in Montana. The recovered number for delisting was supposed to be 10-15 breeding pairs. That number was reached at least 8 years ago. FWP stated that would have been 80-120 wolves. The difference in numbers being how the Feds classify a breeding pair. Montana's minimum number of wolves is over 500. They only count the number of wolves actually seen when they are doing their counts. They admit that the quota they had last year was way too low and that the low number was picked so the court couldn't say they were being unreasonable. The number they say needed to be harvested was closer to 400.

Another concern they have is disease in the wolf population. Disease is a far greater threat to wolves than hunters as disease could wipe out entire wolf populations in a very short period of time.

While I don't agree with the way they are doing it, FWP is trying to play within the boundries set by the court and the feds. I expect to see legislation concerning wolves being passed in the next legislature as well.

Mustanger,

To clarify, animal rights activists had nothing to do with closing the bison hunt in Montana. There was not a court case, there werent even any hearings. The NPS, USFS, BLM, FWP,...all had nothing to do with the closure.

Montana hunters were sold down the river by a Republican Governor on that issue, with NO chance to even comment, recommend, etc. He was not forced to do anything.

mtmisfit, Nearly 300 wolves were killed in Montana this last year, 72 by hunters and another 200 by USFWS, FWP, etc. Dont know how many more bit it from other causes.

Sounds like they really werent far off their "target" number if the FWP really wants 400/year gone. In fact, counting natural mortality in...more than 400 may have bit it in Montana this last year.

Problem with that is they spent $100,000 to kill those 200 wolves. They would have spent more but that was all the budget they had.

As I have said before, as elk, deer and moose populations continue to fall dramatically, the States Game and Fish revenue will decrease due to lower tag numbers. The states are going to make up that difference by increasing tag cost for both residents and nonresidents alike. Also, lower tag numbers means less opportunity for sportsmen and our children. Less new hunters is only going to hurt us years from now. Now that the wolves are here, we as hunters need to make our voice heard about keeping their populations as low as possible.


ddj

mtmisfit,

Who payed $100,000...the state or the feds?

I'm not sure how many wolf tags were sold in Montana...do you have any numbers?

I know Idaho was anticipating selling 70,000...not sure how many they sold either for sure.

If MT sold 10,000 at $10 a piece...they'd be at least breaking even.

I dont know the exact numbers.

ddj,

Lots of other factors besides wolves involved in elk management and reduced hunting opportunities. Many, many factors.

Its ridiculous to believe everything that is wrong with hunting is because of wolves. Hunting opportunities have been sliding since long before wolf reintroduction.

MT sold 15,514 resident tags, 89 non-resident tags. $325,916 total revenue

rl11,

Thanks for the info...

Does that cover 15yrs of management. Manpower, vehicles, tracking devices, helicopters, loss from fewer big game tags issued over the years, payouts for livstock losses, first re-introduction costs, administration costs......just curious.

BuzzH - I agree there are many factors in the game management. My opposition to the wolf reintoductions is that they were short-sighted and a lack of stewardship. Instead of trying to increase or enhance winter range, improve habitat, or increase hunting opportunities, we reintroduced a predator we can't control. Not our best hour!!!


ddj

ddj,

Its a complicated issue (game management). One of the major things that most forget about is that the various G&F agencies can not just enhance and make habitat improvements on federal lands, they have no authority to do so. They dont own the land that the game occupies. All they can do is make recommendations and work in cooperation with the BLM and FS on habitat enhancement. The only thing they can control is the legal harvest.

I also dont agree that we cant control wolves...seems like a lot of them have been "controlled" since reintroduction, including 500-600 this year.

BuzzH - I have seen first hand the difficulty with various agencies, land owners and feds working together. However it is possible.

We haven't "controlled" wolves from expanding into new areas. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington all have wolf sightings. Our lack of a reasonalbe management plan allowed wolves to explode. Also, wolves are the mascot of every treehugging, bunnyrubbing liberal. There will always be red tape and litigation with every wolf hunt. How are we supposed to manage them with our hands tied.

Furthermore, I am not willing to trade 500-600 wolves being "harvested", mostly by govt hunters/trappers, in exchange for huntable populations of elk, deer and moose. We have lost huntable populations and our children have lost!!


ddj

There's no doubt that the wolves are impacting wildlife. Buzz has already pointed out the facts. Our DFW&P's here in Montana have their hands largely tied by the courts right now. The main problem in this wolf issue was the fact our State Legislators passed a resolution that mandated the DFW&Ps come up with elk numbers for each of our districts here in Montana. Those numbers were picked from tolerance levels reached by the Livestock Industry, and not science. Those numbers had been reached years earlier in almost all the districts, so the elk populations where already over objectives set by the Dept. The next thing the Legislature did was pass another resolution that required the Dept. to get the elk populations at those fictitious levels by 2009. That meant liberal hunting seasons. We had 10 week either sex seasons just 2 years ago. Some area's you could kill 2 elk.

There were plenty of elk for predators and hunters. Our legislature got involved and they are responsible for the downward trend we now are dealing with. The situation wouldn't be as bad had the legislature stayed away from Wildlife management.

In British Columbia we have an expanding wolf population that cannot be controlled by sport hunting.We have very liberal wolf seasons,most areas have a 3/season limit while heavily impacted areas have no bag limit.The bottom line is that wolf numbers will continue to increase,as long as there is an accessible prey base and no Government controls.Sport hunting will not limit wolf numbers.As we are blessed with the same big city wolf lovers as you are it is unlikely that the Government will have the balls to initiate a control program. Monashee

Unfortuately, I think you are right. In British Columbia you have more roadless areas and fewer people. If we could get wolves to have predator status, we might have better chance of controlling them.

I do think we will look back on the reintroductions as an environmental disaster.


ddj

I think wolves definitely need to be regulated, yet not exterminated

In most areas with lots of wilderness it is IMPOSSIBLE to exterminate wolves.The vacuums created by control programs will be filled from outlying packs as long as the prey base is there.What control does is buy you time and it is not a one-shot deal.Even after many years of Government hunters and poison campaigns there were still wolves in the Western US and in time they would have repopulated many areas.That's why importing wolves from Canada was stupid and unneccesary.I can only believe that some of the Biologists involved were anti hunters,as they knew damn well that the wolves would not stay in Yellowstone and what the result would be to ungulates in surrounding areas.Eventually there will be a balance but there will be damn few animals to hunt by then. Monashee

I know some local guys who were very good at gettin their 10 bag limitevery year. They will focus on wolves in Feb and March during the rut. I was quite amazed when the gov dropped the limit to 3 in some areas as only a few guys are very good at hunting wolves.

Don't forget that they can and should make funding available to do habitat projects. IME, the amount of $$ contributed to habitat projects by the state agencies is not nearly what it should be...

That $100k doesn't come from license sales.

If I remember it correctly from the testimony during the last legislature....feds give it to FWP, FWP gives it to the Stockgrowers Assn, Stockgrowers assn pays the feds to kill the wolves FWP authorizes to kill.

Buzz,

Much information has been discussed here but the numbers are far from correct. USFWS will publish the 2009 numbers by Friday of this week. In 2009, 273 wolves were dispatched by wildlife management organizations (there are several responsible) in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Oregon (this includes one in Yellowstone National Park). In Montana, 72 taken during hunting season and 143 by various other management means - total of 215. Idaho took 134 during 2009 hunting season with a few more taken this year (season ends this March 31). Montana accounted for the highest percentage as our plan is the most aggresive and the area is more concentrated versus Idaho. As stated, the numbers will be released very soon.

This (link to) an interesting read.
Warning: not pro wolf.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/20...gray-wolf-introduction-into-yellowstone/

Wolf Population Increases in Northern Rockies

20 More Breeding Packs!!! Just what we need. Probably just as many new packs that have not bred yet.
[size:14pt]

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...554e65e-2d9a-11df-9001-001cc4c002e0.html

I can honestly say, I don't know why anyone with a gun that came into contact with a wolf wouldn't smoke it, and walk the other direction. We cannot revolt against our government, but we ought to be able to revolt against a damn wolf!



You are thinking about this all wrong. What will happen instead is a major cut in elk licenses! Welcome to Colorado. Our deer herds are so pathetic, that we have to pray to draw a tag now. My home unit is now taking 5 years!

"coincidentally" once our beloved DOW introduced lynx, trapping was banned in this state. Now there is no trapping, and most of the lynx are dead anyway.

Good luck!

dogcatcher223 -

You are right! They go hand in hand. As you lose tags you lose revenue. Worst of all we lose the privilage to hunt elk, moose, and deer.


ddj

It all hit home to me a couple years ago when elk hunting in the southern part of the Idaho panhandle.

Dawn had just broken and we were up on a high ridge glassing for elk. Down in the valley, about 1500 feet below us in the thick trees, we heard a pack of wolves chasing something. The memory of that sound raises the hackles on the back of my neck even now. You could tell that the wolves caught whatever it was they were chasing.

When we came out late that afternoon we ran into another group of hunters. They had been down in the valley and had watched that wolf pack take a cow elk.

We all had expensive out of state tags that would have allowed us to take a cow, but our guide made us pledge not to, as wolf predation was becoming especially hard on the cows. He was seeing the elk populations fall off rapidly in the few years since the wolves had moved up from the south...or west from MOntana.

Goes without saying, I will not be wasting money on another out of state tag in Idaho.

ddj,

Can you tell me how much the MTFWP has cut general elk licenses in Montana?

I'll save you the effort of looking...that would be ZERO.

They still sell nearly 140,000 elk tags in MT, not counting additional cow elk tags.

No lose of the privelege there........

Not yet....but wait....trust me



ddj

ddj,

I'd be willing to bet some serious coin that general elk tags in Montana will not be going away anytime soon.

With the low cost of resident elk tags...the only crack at revenue they have is to sell 140,000 of them.

Plus, you must not be too familiar with the departement and various sporting groups in Montana...all opportunity based decision making.

The privelege isnt going away...

Buzz - Here is the truth and facts! One or more of these are going to happen. Tags costs will increase, Tag numbers will decrease, or success rates will decrease. I think we are seeing this happen already. Montana is contimplating increasing tag costs and we have seen historic hunts canceled. Only time will tell.....



ddj

Hard to tell what will happen first. It is time for Montana FWP to stop managing hunters and start managing wildlife.

Maybe this is missing the point a little bit.... But does anyone know what wolves taste like?! On the bright side.. For the sake of just getting out and hunting, at least there's wolves to hunt now!

If they are Montana residents, they are Montanans and have a say in how the state manages their wildlife. How many years do you think they should live there before they have rights? Is 11 years enough, or does Varmint Guy have to shut up about wolves.



Nonsense! And Montana is managing their wolves now. Your point is moot.



Did someone take that "right" away from you?


What about it? There is always a cost to wildlife management. How much did you pay?



We get to hunt them. You like hunting, don't you? Their fur makes a good coat, and I want one.

But there doesn't have to be a "contribution." Wildlife has its own value, far beyond enriching man, although their presence enriches man in other than monetary means. You must understand the value of a beautiful mountain valley amidst a wilderness setting. What value does such a mountain hold for you? Just for you to hunt on? Just for you to tear down in search of coal? Just for you to raise cattle on? Or is there more?

Ask any tourist trap around YNP what T-shirts are the best sellers. Wolves are popular.



Go ahead, let it out! You might be surprised.



What?!?! We kill nearly all livestock. We eat them. We attack and rob and kill each other all the time. Hell, I've been threatened many times on this forum.



Yup.



Its called "conservation." We conserve animals like wolves and bears and eagles. Conservation is not "liberal." Its "conservative."

Get a grip. Montana and Idaho have management authority now, and are beginning toward desired wolf pop levels. Wyoming is still pushing their lawsuit, I think. The feds won't do anything there untill Wyoming "submits." Minnesota is hopefully only two years away from trapping and hunting seasons (see the MN wolf plan).

Wolves are here to stay, and I am delighted. Wolf hunting seasons are upon us and I am delighted. Doghunter harvested a wolf in 2009 and I am delighted! He even posted it on the "Big Game Forum", and I am delighted! The wolf haters are crying in their stupidity soup, and I AM DELIGHTED!!

Pffffft!

Lewis and Clark wrote that their men liked them better than bison.

They were hungry SOBs. Those wolves were the American variety. Does the Canadian taste any different?

Associated Press | Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:16 pm MISSOULA � State wildlife officials have authorized killing a pack of wolves that killed four miniature horses near St. Regis.

These wolves must be giving the local deer and elk a break.

While wintering at Fort Mandan (sp?).......comes to mind. The Canadian "giants" would have lots of meat on 'em. I ain't eatin no dogs though. I'll wear 'em, but I ain't eatin' 'em.

If I eat an Elk a day, a little change in diet to Horse meat is okay isn't it.
only good wolf/ sss
Charlie

As of right now the best way to kill wolves legally is if they are on your property and are threating your pets or livestock, then you can kill as many as you see until they leave your property. The other is SSS.