Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Two dead wolves....

Troll!

Bish!



Ingwe

My apologies, I was new here. So a Campfire Bwana is kinda like a security guard with a 3 inch pecker and a homely wife?

I'm done !

Ingwe

Come herer acting like an azzhole what do you expect? You are nothing more than a fuggin sheep herdin' troll. Live with it. Thank goodness you are done. Adios troll.

Thanks ingwe!

I read this whole thread, I can honestly say WOW!

Here's the facts that some of you non sportsman have overlooked.
1) Intelligent states had a season this year! One is still in progress, if you want to kill a wolf do it legally or loose your hunting privileges. Between the hunters, and the depredation hunts, 200 of the 500 counted wolves in Montana are known dead. That happens to be the management you morons are claiming isn't going on.
2) Most of you Bitches claimed that would never happen.
3) Most of our elk have left the hills in the back of pickup trucks. My little corner of the world had 5000 head killed in 5 years in 2 hunting districts in Montana.
4) Bears are the number 1 killer of elk calves. I don't see any of you rocket scientists screaming SSS of bears.
5) The Montana legislature mixed with the livestock industry is responsible for the low objective numbers for elk. Then responsible for mandating hunters, to over harvest elk in the state for the last 5 or 6 years.
6) If things are so bad in Wyoming, then why can you shoot 2 elk, 5 antelope, several deer, etc. with over the counter tags?

7) I pray" Molloy" (judge to over see the case) doesn't read this. If he or others that haven't made up their minds yet do then I'm sure we're done.

If indeed you fellas are the average sportsman, then we are finished.

OK, smartie pants, 200 to 500 dead. How many over the 360 TOTAL for the WHOLE NW, as we were told in the begining are still running free?
Go hug a fuggin tree

I haven't read this thread,

based on the title, though, I have reported you and this website to the appropriate authorities.

GTC

OH dayam

I better change that overly aggressive bloodthirsty unPC avatar huh?

FWS releases depredation numbers
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
December 7, 2009

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that as of the first week of December 2009, these are Wyoming's depredation numbers:

A total of 195 sheep were killed, with 14 wolves killed in responding control actions. Thirty-seven sheep were killed in the Upper Green, along with six wolves; 113 sheep and three wolves in the Big Horn Mountains; and 45 sheep and five wolves in the Dog Creek area of the Snake River country.

Twenty-one head of cattle were killed in eight areas, with 16 wolves killed in control actions. All but about 10 of the cattle were killed in various areas of Sublette County.

In addition, seven dogs were killed by wolves in Wyoming so far this year.

And those are just the ones the USF&G KNOWS about.
WY is in a pissing contest w/the feds over predator/trophy status so we have NO legal control except thru Game & Fish and the feds.

But there is one thing about folks who have been ranching here since the 1880s.....they really don't give s chit about silly laws that cost them cattle or sheep. They won't pay the "wolf tax", figger that's why God made backhoes.

The wolves are all the way to CO border and Mr Griz is expanding his range 30-50 miles per year. Pretty soon you won't be going to the outhouse w/o your 45-70.

Ya gotta love "progress".....maybe we could get wing nuts, biden & pelosi to go hiking in Y-Stone....just a thought......

oops nailed it.............




Casey

A little light reading on the subject of dead wolves.

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_363230013.html

You're wrong on practically every point, Brent.
And on the ones you're right you're viewing in wrong perspective.

Do you recognize the difference between people working together with gov't agencies to introduce and maintain hunting populations of species like sheep and deer and elk for hunting and introducing wolves to end hunting? Introducing wolves to appease liberal idiots from cities? Introduce wolves against the expresseed wishes of the people who live there?

You should also notice the difference btween wolf introduction and game animal introduction in that STATE game agencies are working towards solutions of over population. They're too slow about it, but at least have goals in mind and are willing to try. And the feds aren't standing in the way of that, either. Do you notice a difference here? The feds seem disinclined to allow management with their damned wolves. There's an agenda with the wolves, and an alternate motive they'd like to remain under wraps. We already know they want guns taken from America, attacking hunting from various angles is one of the strategies towards that end. Can't you see things for what they are? Are you so bent on liberal ideologies and so programmed to receive media BS that your mind no longer functions in the realm of reality?

Yes, we all know wolves weren't introduced there. But the same problems are arising. Do you not hear the other posters on this thread (and others) describing problems the wolves are causing? Their numbers are too high and the fed won't allow the state or the people to keep them in check.
We also know it's not the same kind of elk (and other game animals) introduced. But those elk aren't killing off the naturally occuring population of elk. And the elk weren't put there to destroy hunting opportunities. They were put there to create them. Your arguments are apples to oranges. Geesh, can't you see things for what they are?

Wolves are fine, if their numbers are kept VERY low. If you're seeing wolves regularly there's WAY too many of them. Sightings should be rare, very rare. Same goes for cougars. That the feds won't allow the state and the people who live there to keep wolves down to a few thousand shows they have other things in mind for them. They want the wolves to do all the hunting and take humans out of that. For permenant. You already know the goals of government. They want control over the people. To obtain that certain lesser goals must be acheived along the way. The way you argue this, and other topics, I believe you're on their side even though you purport to be a 2nd A supporter. You and a few others on here always take the side of the liberals. Always. That is very telling.

Exploding deer populations (and other game animals) is an easy problem to handle. Numerous ways to go about it without pissing off people and threatening their livelihoods. Allowing wolves to overpopulate and keeping them on endangered or threatened lists (where they never should have been place in the first place because it was never the truth) is sign there is a plot afoot. One that has an end goal. Instead of crying along side the liberals in favor of the wolves and in direct opposition to conservative American values and the desires of most of the people why don't you recognize this problem for what it is, an attack on liberty and an effort to gain and maintain control over the people, and man up for once, by being a patriotic American for a change.

Your post I'm commenting on here was clear back on page 6. Now I'm gonna go read the remainder of the thread and see what other typical liberal nonsense you and your fellow left-leaners have been spouting. In the meantime, try to get a picture of the overall picture. Wolves should not be a problem. They are. There are many species that belong on the endangered lists and really do need the help of government initiatives. They're wasting far too much time and money on their damned wolves and neglecting species they should be focusing on. People like you are helping that. Forcing them to neglect other species. They can't do their jobs and work on things they'd rather be working on and that are much more deserving of effort while playing these silly, useless, destuctive and VERY expensive wolf games. If you can't receive that last point for the simple fact that it is then you're the one who's a hypocrite. You're the one "ignoring the roots of the game." You're the one causing "The Erringtons, Leopolds, Roosevelts among so many others, roll in their graves in disgust." Plus, those people weren't out to remove the rights of the people. Liberals and the government ARE! do you see the difference?

I believe that's all anybody here at the campfire really wants in regards to this topic.

I hope I live to see the day it happens.

Prove it.

PLEASE!!!

Ok. I read the remainder of the thread.

tsk, tsk.

got a question for ya, Casey.

How many sheep do you suppose were killed that the government would't admit were killed by the predators the study focused?

Many a rancher has reported that to be a problem. Gov't just flat refused to admit the obvious truth. Because often times if the gov't admitted it, they'd have to pay the rancher, so there was motive to lie about it or require proofs that couldn't be produced such as material witnesses and such.

45 out of 330,000 seems a very small number (I think I'm quoting that correctly). Do you believe that to be honest and PERFECTLY accurate numbers? Do you think there's anyone out there in the study area who would disagree with those numbers? or are they rock solid God's honest gospel? No more, no less.
In other words, has anyone ever called the results of the study you participated in a lie?

The management your touting in point 1 is TOO LATE and way too few in the opinions of people having problems with them. I think you're the moron, and you're ignoring the more important facts while touting touting the ones of little consequence.

On point 4 that bears didin't seem to be a big problem before. At least I never heard anyone complaining about how many elk they killed. Since the wolf packs started growing there's been a steady stream of reports. And I've never heard of bears engaging in wanton killiing sprees, nor doing so in packs.

On your final point (un-numbered) that is their end goal. To put an end to hunting once and for all. Please read my post to Brent D for more explanation. When the government disallows sportsmen and biologists to come up with plans, or severely limits plans that would address problems and produce solutions, there's a big problem. There's still WAY too many wolves. 10 fold the numbers that will be taken this season need eliminated. I believe you're underestimating the problem. ANd over estimating the meager results of their too late and rather lame excuse for management.

I think most of us are not averse to the wolf in general.. After all it's part of nature's course.. But, as usual, government gets involved and screws everything up.. In TAX HELL WISCONSIN, I remember a DNR missive that said they believed 300 wolves was the stated goal.. I figure they picked that number outta a hat.. Not too long after, it was reported there were approximately 600 wolves in THW.. They're somewhat native to the northern regions of the state and have been seen often.. However, the higher numbers due to DNR meddling and federal laws are causing the wolves to branch out and seek newer territory..

I've been hunting east of Minong, WI. for over 35 years.. Until 3-4 years ago, I never saw a wolf track.. But since then I see them regularly and have noticed how the deer population has been decimated.. There's too many wolves and the ecology's unbalanced.. A customer of mine who has a cabin and hunting land west of Minong told me this year he saw not ONE deer track on his land, but plenty of wolf tracks.. He's thinking of selling the whole package - what's the point of owning hunting land when there's no animals to hunt?

Two years ago, I saw my first wolf (in person) sitting in a cowyard about 2 miles west of me.. The land belonged to a Llama breeder and this wolf was watching the Llamas.. I called the farmer and warned them about this animal.. The lady thanked me and said they had one animal that was either lame or down (I can't exactly recall) and she was going to have her husband get it inside a barn for protection in case the wolf decided on a lunchtime buffet..

Wolves are fairly rare around here, mainly due to the excess and expanding human population.. However, they are getting bolder and farmers are beginning to see some animals maimed and killed due to the occasional wolf. The further north you go, the higher the incidence of loss to farmers.. (On a side note, coyotes were rare too until 12-15 years ago, now they're found in beau coup numbers)

Over the decades, farmers have always had to deal with wolves to protect their herds.. But now the feds, in their exquisite wisdom, have made the animal nearly completely off-limits to farmers when they wish to protect their animals.. In some states, it's truly sad how massive the losses from these predators have been - in some cases driving them out of business.

I don't think there's a person here who wants to eliminate wolves entirely - it's just that the numbers must be kept in a boundary that allows us all to coexist.. But our idiotic government and it's representatives (who have no clue but insist they know what's 'right') are being circumvented by others with enough common sense to understand there must be a balance of numbers. So they take matters into their own hands and fix it on their own.. To them, I say 'kudos'..

A bold, hungry wolf in our area here can make for real danger not only to dogs and farm animals but to humans as well. I don't give a rat's azz if a wolf is a 'protected' species or not, if I happen across one that's attacking my dogs or my neighbor's animals, I may address the problem and government be damned...