Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Wolves

Elkslayer,

Nope, but they certainly prefer to - it's a lot less work.

Jog,
Is not the term best used to elxplain a wolf's eating habit as ,"opportunistic"?

Around here they take what is available for the least amount of expended energy!

Mike

Here are my thoughts...not that they matter....<sorry for coming in late on this....I've been out of town>....

Humans are humans...with human interests. Wolves are wolves...with wolf interst. Human interest and wolf interest, no-matter how you dance it, can't co-exist. They oppose each other...in a time of limiting resourses/growing consumption/population increases/etc.., and something has to give.

Personally, I'd like to see more wild creatures and wild habitats.....than people and cement/cell phone realities....but it ain't gonna happen....ever.....period.

Introducing wolves back into an already dissappearing landscape....well.....it makes no sense...for the wolves....or for the humans.

Wolf re-introduction is about idealism...not reality. Ultimately, it isn't about the ecology/long-term success of the spp....it's, quite simply, about a population of humans that want the cake and eat it too reality....and that fuggles my buggles <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> !!!

HoundGirl

And humans do what....(?)....aside from doing it better? Excess (?)....ever been to an "all you can eat buffet"....or the average household table??

A successful animal....is an opportunistic animal. We are, in that realm, no different than the wolf. We kill/eat/live in excess....we exhaust our resourses, when allowed, and we are nomadic/prolific/violent and territorial but highly social. We are, in fact, a lot like the wolf....with regard to ecology and life history strategies...hence our persistence/success, and theirs....

Can humans and wolves co-exist? As long as there exists habitat suitable for both. Should wolves be re-introduced cuz some people got a warm fuzzy for the "ideal"?? Nah, that's no answer...and it isn't good for the either animal, human or wolf.

HoundGirl

Just this week in the Great Falls Tribune the biologists who pushed the wolf introduction in Yellowstone admitted they were wrong in thinking the wolf would just prey on wild animal herds and leave livestock alone. Several hundred thousand people from MT, WY, and ID could have told them that and many did. They didn't listen. I had no problem with the wolves that were here at the time, but getting them jammed down our throats by eastern do-gooders who never left the city was rather upsetting to say the least. A friend of mine drew a coveted moose tag in MT this past season and didn't go because there were no moose to speak of in his area since the wolves moved in. (Second hand knowledge on my part) Now desease is hitting the wolf pretty hard it sounds like. Maybe there will be moose again.

I can feel for you, and hope you don't hold the biologists too responsible. Can only imagine the pressure they were under for the "agenda".

I can well remember Durwood L. Allen telling us one day in class that all wildlife would be considered 2nd second class citizens by the human species. I don't think he envisioned the politics that would become involved twenty to thirty years in the future.

Allen was a good prof and learned, but the vision that he and Lepold had somehow got twisted from doing the best we can, with what we have, to one of some people wanting to shove their politics down the throats of others..

Started recognizing that trend myself, in the early seventies or thereabouts, and decided it was time for me to find another career.

You will probably have the moose again someday. If the ranchers AND the biologists are not able to do anything to moderate things, then you can bet the "towbnies" will when their citties, doggies, and childfren become pety. And they will, if the wolf is starving. Of ocurse there might another FFA pop up then, due to politics. Thatwould be the Friend to Feed Alpo.

Of course, that will only happen when the moose is gone, the wolf is starving, the kittie, doggies, and children are eaten, the wolf is again killed out(Alpo won't work to curb opportunistic "instinct").

Then Friends of Animals, Sierra, or the like will want to reintroduce the Moose back to it's native habitat to reestablish the population. Of course there won't be any hunting allowedfor Moose until "established" goals are met.

Hum, kind of sounding like a plan now, isn't it!

I can feel for you, and hope you don't hold the biologists too responsible. Can only imagine the pressure they were under for the "agenda".

I can well remember Durwood L. Allen telling us one day in class that all wildlife would be considered 2nd second class citizens by the human species. I don't think he envisioned the politics that would become involved twenty to thirty years in the future.

Allen was a good prof and learned, but the vision that he and Lepold had somehow got twisted from doing the best we can, with what we have, to one of some people wanting to shove their politics down the throats of others.

Started recognizing that trend myself, in the early seventies or thereabouts, and decided it was time for me to find another career.

You will probably have the moose again someday. If the ranchers AND the biologists are not able to do anything to moderate things, then you can bet the "townies" will when their kitties, doggies, and children become prey. And they will, if the wolf is starving. Of course there might another FFA pop up then, due to politics. That would be the Friends to Feed Alpo.

Of course, that will only happen when the moose is gone, the wolf is starving, the kitties, doggies, and children are eaten, the wolf is again killed out(Alpo won't work to curb opportunistic "instinct").

Then Friends of Animals, Sierra, or the like will want to reintroduce the Moose back to it's native habitat to reestablish the population. Of course there won't be any hunting allowed for Moose until "established" goals are met.

Hum, kind of sounding like a plan now, isn't it! Being pretty cynical here, but think they say (and believe probably correct, IMO) cynics are made, not born.

Think Houndgirl made a good summation previous with her "opportunistic" comment - this case the opportunistic being PP....., people politics. Sad thing is, everyone loses in the long run, people, the moose and the wolf.

Check this out and see what you think:

http://www.yellowstoneassociation.org/membership/yellDiscovery.aspx

Two quick thoughts from quick read on the Northern Elk Herd:

I find it hard to believe a real biologist would NOT include drought and "other"prey species into a overview of possible affect on future ecology, and any "computer" program that did not include this in a model is invalid. Me thinks a real biologist (or scientist) has had the thumbscrews applied, or has a hidden agenda.

Another thing: Since when is ecology complete, it constantly changes its direction and outcome. Any scientist should know this. No one can predict the future of course. But to ignore issues that have been problems in the past, is nothing short of inepitude.

Besides it doesn't relly matter anymore, the "experts" are predicting the volcano is ready to go anytime in the future, and wipe out most of West of the Mississippi, and cause the return of global Winter. Any time now, as soon as the lava core gets large enough to erupt.


Sorry for rant again, and if I missed something I should have read in the "journal", my dumb.

I just start getting suspicious when I hear terms of completeness, did not include, even more complete, (obviously wasn't complete to start with), just sounds like a whole bunch of doing nothing to make appear doing something to me.

If they want "completeness" for the Park, then they should let those outside the Park determine their "completeness". Diversification is NOT "completeness". You can only diversify an ecosystem so much, and past that point you are going to began running out of ecosystem!

I like your posts remseven

I have not read all of the pages in this thread, but in my opinion, GOD put man in charge of all the critters of this planet. As I understand it, this notion was offered down to man long before the animal rights crowd showed up with their views of things. I take that to mean and favor the common man and his interest, not what the minority extreemist views of the anti big game animal "conservationist" PeTArds, nor the court systems that they can hoodwink and bullshit to further their flawed adgenda.

Modern day wolf appologists (peta types) would rather see big game animals and their offspring desist at the wolves expense. The flawed logic of theirs is that if man were not a predator of big game such as elk, moose, deer, then the animal rights wacos, such as FOA and Peta, would have a 180 degree stance from what and where they stand today. By that I mean that if man did not hunt big game animals, there would be incentive on PeTards part to save the big game from predation of wolves.
Hypocrites at best.

That said, I'll have a wolf tag with me while moose hunting this fall.
Would give me great pleasure to post a pic of a dead wolf in a couple of months from now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In closing, I must say I grin whenever I hear or see SSS

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Why yes I do blame the biologist who made those claims to bolster the the politicians and animal rights groups plan. It is one thing to really believe what they were saying, in which case I wonder what academy of higher learning they graduated from, and another to say things they know are untrue to get what they want. Pick which one. I do not know which excuse they have. I do have my own ideas on that one.

Like I said, I have no problem with the wolves that were here. MT had packs killing livestock before the wolf introduction in YNP. This was happening around Glacier. I would think that alone would have told even the most inept biologist that the wolf would not just prey on wild game.

It is true that wolves prey on the weaker animals in a herd. Well what's weaker than a cow or sheep that won't or can't jump a fence to get a away. Also, having witnessed both elk and cattle on a full run my money will be on the elk to avoid the wolf.

Like the old saying we used to tease each other about in griz country, "I don't have to be fast. I just have to out run you."

I live in Northern Virginia just outside of liberal anti-gun & anti-hunting Washington, D.C. I was past president(2 terms) of the local SCI chapter & you cannot imagine the anti-hunting flack we receive in this area. SCI is working with their lobby group in Wash. D. C. to have wolves declassified as a huntable species. This is an on going process. My wife wore her coyote coat(I shot the pelts) to the Kennedy Center & was jumped by an anti-fur nut who threatned to spray paint her coat. Lucky for both my wife had left her legal(not in D.C.) handgun at home.

tbear;

Good luck on getting wolves through as a huntable species.

Time and again, it's proven that the best way to manage any species is to have it hunted and have it pay its own way.

And, yeah, I can believe the anti-hunting flak y'all get; and it ain't pretty.

The point being on the biologists, is chances are he would have lost "that" job, or had a difficult time doing what "real" wildlife biology was needed, if choosing to buck the "higher" ups.

In other words, he is looking out for his "living" or career, as anyone else would be concerned. This is one reason we are losing so many of the better ones in the government agencies.

So as a result, you or whomever gets the next "biologist" more than likely is GOING TO GET THE BIOLOGIST WHO MORE FITS THE MOLD OF THE AGENDA OF WHO IS IN CONTROL!

So what to do about it then? Blame the biologists if you want, he may be guilty of what you say for being responsible. Even if you were able to get a biologist that "fit" your agenda, think he would get it pushed through.

IT IS POLITICS! Read some of the stuff on Yellowstone, the experts there (that term used VERY loosely) can't even determine though THEIR STUDY whether "forage" or "space" is enough or not. That is pretty basic stuff there. Already you know they have said how many wolves are enough, from the past. Have they exceeded their quota or not. That is a simple yes or no, and if they think not now, then they didn't KNOW WHAT THE H*#L they were talking about when they established a goal number. Hold who made that decision responsible - which by the way will probably be hard to do, as they will pass the problem on to someone else, or stymie and stall all they can, until finding another way out of that problem.

It is a complex problem, not because of wolves, cattle, moose or the like. The problem is the people and their agenda that they promote. The wildlife (all kinds) lose first, but in the long run ALL people lose, on both sides of the pendulum. This includes the anti's and those who are for utilization of resources.

When you have a group of people arguing another group has no right to manage a resource, then in turn have to resort to management of that resource due to the problems their agenda create, then something is very definitely SICK with what is happening. And there is no doubt then where the SICKNESS is, and with what animal!

Many of you know of Orofino Idaho and have hunted Bear with some of the outfitters in the area.Here is a view posted in the Grangeville paper from a man that spends 5-days a week on horseback in the hills of Idaho and his view on what he has seen and more importantly,not seen.


Jayco

The practice of grazing cattle in the National Forest has been around for a long time and it directly competes with the wildlife. I am glad the wolves are keeping the cattle population thinned down. The more cows they eat then the more food available for the elk and deer and the less elk and deer the wolves will eat. This seems to be a real good solution to a whole set of problems. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Same goes for the dogs. People want to turn their dogs lose to bite some animals, then I think it is only fair every once in a while for the animals to get the opportunity to bite back. I believe it is called a fair fight. But then what sportsman really wants the animal to have a sporting chance. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

buffalo bob-You would fit right in here in a Logging and Ranching community.Come on over and have a few beers at the local establishment and share your views!!!Otta be interesting at the least.Loves the tourist,yes we do!!!

Jayco