Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Must have forgot his shovel .....(Idaho Wolf)

I am living where the wolf is in his natural habitat. And no I'm not at one with him, talk about attemps at insults. You pretty much agreed with every fact I posted, how did I make an attempt to insult?
<br>
<br>Relax dude

I believe that your opening line was; "Finally a voice of reasoning and common sense". I do not think that was intended as a compliment to my stand on the wolf issue.
<br> As for MT. being in WY. and counting our elk, I think if you do a little research you'll find that; the Lamar herd travels from the park to the Gallitin National Forest on a seasonal basis. Which could/would give the MT. G&F opportunity and reason to count their numbers.
<br> The count on cow/calf ratio varies in several different surveys taken by different groups, from 10 per 100 to a low of 0 per 100. But, I believe that all will agree that the wolf has had a significant role in the calf decline. -memtb

the only place I would want them to introduce wolves in colorado would be in boulder to see if they could develop a taste for yuppie bunnie huggers fed on tofu and bean sprouts. lol tom

WyoWildernesHntr; I like to apologize for getting "ruffled". I'am pretty "thinskinned" on this issue.
<br> It appears that we probably have more common ground than not, but cannot come to terms on others. Perhaps letting it drop is the best solution on this topic.
<br> I personally wished no offense to you, even if it came across that way. -memtb

WyoWildernessHntr:
<br>
<br>I don't want to argue with your position on wolves, but I do take exception to statements like "There has never been a confirmed case of a person being killed by a wolf, period." I guess the rub is in the definition of "confirmed". Peruse the following link,
<br>http://www.natureswolves.com/index.html
<br>
<br>I can't speak for the validity of the info but it does seem that wolves have attacked humans...also seems hard to believe they (a large and potent predator) have never been successful in killing one.
<br>
<br>The DGF (or whatever they refer to themselves as) in Alaska used to state that there had never been a successful defense of a grizzly attack with a handgun...seems they have stopped printing that one...maybe someone finally did it, or maybe someone finally called them on it. IMO, both the "never" statements are likely to be someone's bs trying to stretch a half truth to an absolute.
<br>
<br>I hope you have arrived at your position regarding wolves with an open but discerning mind. My much less than .02, dvnv
<br>

You sir; are the voice of reason and common sense on this subject. While it makes good fodder for the main stream media and the left to deal in emotion and opinion you have simply stated the facts. The overwhelming majority of this great country has proven time and again that they wish to have wolves in their national parks and wild lands. I'm sure this is just how our founding fathers envisioned a democracy to work. Of course they never had to deal with the welfare ranchers of the west but I'm sure they would of stood steadfast and true on this subject. I concur with yourself and pointer that we are nothing more than poachers ourselves by condoning the opinion of shoot, shovel and shut up. That is one group that I will always seperate myself from.
<br>
<br>As always
<br>Spaulding
<br>
<br>

I'M WITH POINTER ON THIS SUBJECT, IF THERE ARE SOME GOOBERS OUT THERE THAT ARE GOING TO SHOOT THESE ANIMALS AND BRING MORE BAD PUBLICITY TO THE SUBJECT , WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE A TOUGH ROAD TO HOE IN GETTING THEM DELISTED. BUNNY HUGGERS, TREE HUGGERS, PETA , AND JANE FONDA WILL ALL BE OUT THERE PROTECTING THEM. DON'T BE A GOOBER, STAY AWAY FROM THE BAD PUBLICITY AND QUITE POSSIBLY THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO GO TO THE NORTH AND HUNT THEM MIGHT FINALLY GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO!

WELL PUT BUCK,
<br>
<br>
<br>FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO!!!!

Buckhunter,
<br>
<br> "the overwhelming majority of this great country has proven time and again that they wish to have wolves in their national parks and wildlands."
<br>
<br>Stated like a true animals rights supporter. Just where did you come up with your "overwhelming majority" facts? I don't remember ever getting to vote on any such thing, do you? Oh, you must be mistaking the vast, overwhelming majority of animal rights nuts who make enough noise to cover the silent minority- who have jobs, families, and responsibilities and can't spend all their time petitioning mindless shoppers, children, and politicians.
<br>I'm with Silver Bullet and others on this one- if we put wolves in upper New York State, Washington DC, and most eastern states, we would be having a completely different discussion right now. They would be finding any way possible to limit their numbers as soon as the first winter kill was added up or a person was threatened.
<br>It just happens that everyone thinks it is "handy" to dump their "reintrodcution experiments" in the West and stand back and admire what a great thing they have done. Of course, then they don't have to live with the consequences. Besides being a danger to humans IMHO, the numbers of cervids being killed (usually the fawns and elk calves), the numbers of sheep, cattle, calves, and other livestock and game animals taken is and will continue to have an impact that we will feel for a very long time.
<br>If you talk to many hunters, ranchers, and others in the West, you'll find that the SSS mantra is pretty much standard in states where wolves are not welcome in the West. - Sheister

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>It just happens that everyone thinks it is "handy" to dump their "reintrodcution experiments" in the West <p><hr></blockquote>
<br>Could that be due more to the fact that there is oodles more public land available in the West? I attribute much of this to the changing values of Americans towards public lands, but that's just my opinion.
<br>
<br>Large predators are also being reintroduced and protected in the East as well. The red wolf and Florida cougar are examples.
<br>
<br>My opinion of SSS is very low, no matter what species is involved. Work within the system or work to change the system. Circumvention in this manner, breaking the law, will not help in the long run.

After reading all of the above posts, all I can say is " heh, heh, heh, - why should Alaska have all the fun?"
<br>
<br>Don't yuu folks have state Air National Guards that need a little night flying? Heck, you could even put parachutes on them crates when dropping them into Hollywood and Central Park. heh, heh, heh.
<br>
<br>Actually, I like wolves - and we have more than enough here on the Kenai Peninsula. With declining moose habitat due to succession, and without more big fires, we are about to run into trouble. Our wolves are lousy, so their pelts are worthless, so hardly anyone traps or hunts them. Me, I'll shoot any that I come across, which is about one per year (I have yet to get one - they ain't easy)
<br>
<br>Bears get more calves than do wolves here, but wolves eat all year long. Figure a moose per month per wolf, or the equivalent in other animals. It do add up. Love to hear them howl, and I wouldn't want them gone, but reasonable limits on their population is necessary. Good luck on getting that by the PETAphiles.
<br>
<br>

If we are going to start reintroducing predators to our Nat'l parks and such in the guise of returning things back to nature then where is the "California Grizzly Bear Reintroduction Project?" You do gooder wolf advocates want to replace man as the predator in the scheme of things right? I have yet to see one of the pro wolf crowd endorse this idea. We could start just like they did in Yellowstone with the wolves by reintroducing the now extinct California grizzly bear back to California's Yosemite Park. Kick the tourists and their revenue out so they would be safe. The now overabundant black bear population would return to its "natural" level and leave the ole bear hunters out in the cold. Eventually a grizzly bear season could be established and the good ole days would be back right? Nope I don't think so! MtnHtr

Remember what the late Theodore Roosevelt(who started Yellowstone Nat'l Park) once wrote:
<br>
<br>" In a civilized and cultivated country, wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest againest all hunting and consider sportsmen as enemies of wildlife are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is, by all odds, the most important factor in keeping the larger and more valuable creatures from total extermination"
<br>
<br>So does the wolf qualify as a larger and more valuable creature? I don't think so, MtnHtr

Great quote Mtn Hunter. It's too bad more hunters don't take that to heart. Not saying that I do, but some do consider them larger and valuable.
<br>
<br>I feel that development is a far larger threat than any predator will be. The Park Circus has screwed up as much if not more than they've done good. Try to find some willows or aspen in Yellowstone.

I'm not sure if the average sportsman understands the full reason behind the introductions and the people who are behind it.
<br>
<br>I have followed this very closely in Washington state since the non-sense began. First look at the main groups of supporters and the past track record they have. It's almost all animal rights groups. They know what will happen to the game population when wolves are introduced. This is exactly what they hope for. When the "game" animals are reduced by the wolves, the hunters are reduced voluntarily. Maybe not right away but it will happen. Low success rates and depressed hunters causes reduced hunting by humans, it happens all the time. Who is going to make the effort to hunt an area where the success is near zero?
<br>
<br>Then the F&G steps in and makes the regulations even more strict by limiting or closing the areas due to low numbers. So few hunters remain interested in the area due to the poor success there is no argument or debate by the few remaining hunters. Now they travel to another area within the state to hunt better more likely successful units. One or two seasons of that will reduce the population so much the F&G must step in and limit hunting by lotto or "drawings" This then forces more hunters to travel further or just give up big game hunting.
<br>
<br>It's in the master plan of the Animal Rights people managing this. They have had the courts actually close whole wilderness areas due to the Breeding potential of the Grizzly bear. They did not want anybody in the entire wilderness area because the possibility of a grizz attacking a hiker was too high and the loss of that bear and cub would ruin the entire eco system.
<br>
<br>The area was closed until another group went to court to get it reopened. This was an enormous wilderness area the F&W actually shut down by court order to "save" one griz and a single cub.
<br>
<br>When the are was re-opened there was never a single conflict and to my knowledge nobody ever saw them again. There were even Eco folks outraged that this huge wilderness was closed to them when this occured.
<br>
<br>It's just a matter of time until the huntable populations of game are reduced to unhuntable levels through unmanagable means. F&W cannot account for the amount of game a wolf pack will kill the way they can with a human hunters. Once introduced they will usually be protected to the highest letter of the law.
<br>
<br>I have no problem with wolves being introduced to parks. However off the park property they should be fair game for anyone. If the Animal rights folks want them introduced they should spent their millions erecting a fence around the parks they are put into.
<br>
<br>In Washington and Montana I have noticed a very bad trend in the F&W officers. over the last ten years or so I have asked questions about bears for hunting purposes and the reply is always with great disgust from the F&W person being asked the question. I have been doing this now deliberately just to see the faces and hear the replys. These are no longer "conservationist employees" These are "Protectionist employees". This is especially true around the East slope of the rockies from Hamilton north to the border. These young people who take these jobs are about as anti hunting as anyone in Seattle would be. I'm stunned that they are even hired for this work by the state.
<br>
<br>When you ask one of them, "is the road to XXX open and driveable"? and they say "sure but it's really muddy and rutted, why would you be heading in there now?"
<br>
<br>My answer: " well it's a great spring bear area at first green up" so we need to get in there to get a couple bears"
<br>
<br>Their reply with great disgust on their face: " why would you want to shoot a bear? you don't eat them do you? or do you just want to have his skin for your wall as some kind of "trophy"?
<br>
<br>My usual reply is something like, It's game management and the tags pay your salary, I thought you might be a bit more interested and knowledgable about your job!
<br>
<br>Sometimes it's a 20 something female F&W officer with an older male F&W officer and the male is a great help with the younger female Officer looking sick to her stomach when we are talking about the best locations to see bears for hunting.
<br>
<br>Just to be fair I havealso had a young male F&W officer actually drive away while I was asking him about bears in the area for hunting. In mid sentence he just pulled away, we had a good laugh about that one but it's really sad to think they will mature a bit and look for any excuse to ticket you for a game violation.
<br>
<br>My wife and I were stopped and questioned a few years ago. She had shot a bear that evening. The two officers seperated us and began asking questions to see if our stories matched. It was the first bear she had ever shot. They were trying to pry out of her that I shot the bear and used her tag. She was quite proud of her effort and the perfect shot she made all the way out of the area. That was until this joker decided he would ruin her exciting hunting adventure with me. This questioning went on for about an hour, It seemed they wanted to just wear her down. She was in tears and I was about to go to jail for my next actions! That was about when the other guys in our group showed up and stopped to see what was going on. One of the guys in the group said to the officer in charge, you know this guy is the editor of Bear hunting magazine your questioning? His reply was "so what that gives him the right to break the law?"
<br>
<br>Then the other Officer hearing that said " I see nothing wrong here" and handed back our licenses and other paperwork. My buddy said to the officer, wise choice buddy, I would not want to be in your shoes when your boss sees this story in a magazine article! That officer walked back to me and said he was sorry for the misunderstanding and the "overzealous" nature of his partner. He reached out to shake hands with me and turned and left.
<br>
<br>This is unfortunately where F&W is headed in many areas. The people taking these jobs are anti hunting and they are fully supporting the types of wolf and bear introductions that will slow down and eventually stop hunting.
<br>
<br>If they are so dead set on making things perfect like it was in the 1800's why are there no Wolverine introductions? They are just as endangered and limited as wolves if not more so. I'll tell you why. Wolverines are not a serious threat to livestock, game animals or people. So wilderness areas will not be shut down and game populations will not be effected. The wolverine does not add the element of game management issues the animal rights people need to shut down sport hunting.
<br>
<br>I was always taught growing up that following a bad rule or law to the letter was better then going around it. By going around the law nobody would notice that is was bad because it was not actually being followed. By following it fully it would likely be more of a hinderance and then it would be noticed and changed. This works with most everything I know in life given enough time.
<br>
<br>EXCEPT this wolf issue. Following this to the letter of the law with the horrible one sided agenda that our taxes are paying for is like adding fuel to the fire regarding our future hunting. There is no time to see it will not work. By the time it's realized the hunting will be destroyed. Not to mention the amount of lost revenue in tags and licenses and NRA memeberships from the thousands of sportsman who will just give up hunting.
<br>
<br>I'm not suggesting what folks should do here, Just think about how this is being organised and funded. The wolf is just being used as a living tool for the anti hunting establishment in the western states!
<br>

JJ thanks for the excellent post.

could you tell me where in the east the red wolf is being reintroduced? i know there was talk about putting them in the adirondacks in n.y. and in northern maine, but i have not heard of it actualy happening.They may reintroduce themselves in the northeast as there current range in quebec is just north of montreal, which is not very far from the northern N.Y. , Vermont, N.H. , and Maine borders.

Thanks JJ, you did a better job than I had done!!-memtb

Red Wolves have been reintroduced in Smokey Mountain Natl Park (I got to see one, pretty cool) and I think the other place was Savannah River something or other. It's a research site for the governement.

Savannah River Plant..It's a nuke plant and production facility for weapons grade material...actually in S.C. on the East side of the Savannah River....If you drive through the area you aren't allowed to stop for any reason short of breakdown.(pre 9-11) Don't know if it is even still accessible now.
<br>
<br>Near Augusta, GA
<br>
<br>I think it also the largest storage area for depleted material in the Eastern U.S.
<br>
<br>
<br>Mike