First of all, again, my condolences to the man who lost his dogs to the wolves in Idaho. Losing a dog is NEVER easy. BT/DT.

Wolves.

Few words get such an immediate response as that one.

What I�m gonna say is not going to be popular with some folks, and some folks just won�t understand it at all. And, in response the expected knee jerk reaction, sure, go right ahead and reintroduce �em to the areas that I live and hunt. I�m fine with that. Eradicating them in the first place was wrong ecologically. That�s a fact. Fixing a mistake is often more difficult and more painful than not making it in the first place, but fixing a mistake is almost always the best option if it is available. With wolves, just like with grizzlies, and bison, and whitetail deer (in most of their range), and wild turkeys (just about everywhere), re-establishing the populations IS the right thing to do.

That said, I am not one of the people who thinks that the reintroduced wolves ought to be off limits from hunting. Absolutely not. In fact, they should be managed and hunted just like any other game species. Let them pay their own way, because the fastest, best, and most effective way to manage any species is to put it on the list of hunted game animals. Africa is modern day proof of that.

But, some folks will continue to say that any one wolf is one wolf too many. �Just kill �em all�. Sure, go right ahead; it was done once before, and to do it again, you�ll have to do it exactly the same way. Here�s how:

Get the federal government involved (again). Have them put a bounty on every wolf. Have them hire (at taxpayer expense) trappers and hunters to kill every wolf out there. But, as before, that won�t be enough. You�ll also have to decimate the prey populations as well. Take out a majority of your deer, elk, moose, and small game so that there is no food source for the shrinking, but increasingly wary wolf population. If you want them gone, that�s how to do it.

Of course, that would be a bit self-defeating, as the game we like to hunt would also suffer due to the prey population reductions that would be necessary.

Predator-prey populations do reach, and maintain, population balance levels. It happens with predators and prey at and of all levels, and it has, and continues to happen with wolf/prey populations in Alaska and Canada. Those areas have wolves, and they have viable populations of deer, caribou, elk, moose, and other game animals. It can/will happen in the lower 48. When it happens, and wolves do (as they should) start being hunted, the system can and will work. Of course, keeping wolves mistakenly protected in areas where they are a viable, huntable population is stupid. Like keeping cougars protected in the PRK; it�s just stupid politics and very poor, nonexistent science.

So, what�s the solution?

Get the wolf population to a self-sustaining, viable, HUNTABLE level, and put them on the game animal rolls. Manage them just like any other game species, with no other special protections. Will that cure problems like the dog attack documented here? No. Then again, why should it? Hunting predators (like bears, cougars, or wolves) with dogs is a potentially dangerous occupation, and potentially lethal for the dogs. It is terrible when a dog dies in these hunts, but it�s part of the hunt. Always has been; always will be.

I didn�t make this post and my position as clear as I�d hoped, but it�s about all I have for right now.

I expect that this one will get followed up on, as it needs to.

VAnimrod,

You make some good points, and in the main, I agree. There are a couple of misconceptions in there, though. I'd disagree with the idea that the wolves are reintroduced. They are, ecologically speaking, an introduced exotic predator. Now that you've swallowed your chew <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />, think about the difference between the West of 1900 and the West of 2000. The prey has lived for a century in the absence of large canid predators in a landscape that looks little, if at all, like the West of the 1900s. Instead of a landscape governed by natural events, such as fire, the landscape is coated by (mis)managed forests, intersected by roads, and the habitat is fragmented such that the movement corridors are gone.

The balance between prey and predator that you speak of probably never existed. The indians that set the fires that kept the forests in early successional stages have been replaced by a much more technologically advanced group of far more numerous folk, and the competition that exists between people and other predators for the limited stocks of game is far more intense.

I agree that we've got the wolf in the mix now, and there is no socially acceptable way of gettiing rid of them. We're going to have to live with it even if we don't like it one bit. I also agree that we're not going to be able to do that unless the wolves are managed just like other game species - and that means that the absolute protection that they are afforded must end. I hope it ends sensibly, rather than a second eradication effort based on losses of pets and people forcing a full-blown eradication effort. It is the long story of ecologically sensible conservation rather than disneyite preservation.

VaNimrod, Thoughtful post...
Concerning your thots RupertBear on the wolf being not re-introduced as an original predator which had been eradicated in another time.....I kinda agree.
Times have changed for both man and wolf.
I seriously doubt that the wolf or griz was absolutely exterminated from the lower 48 anyhow..
So much country, so few who have the ability, money to monitor those predators who 'went underground' so to speak.
Those who may have encountered them in the last century

( or this one) either were dissed because they were not credible-knowlegeable, or they just kept quiet and enjoyed the 'extinct' predators..or did the SSS number on them.jim

VA:

I don't want to cause grief for the gentleman who lost his dogs to wolves, either. I'm a dog lover. It would tear me up to see my dog killed by wolves.

But living in Florida gives me a different perspective on this. Fact is, a lot of people hunt with dogs in Florida, and some of those dogs are taken by alligators every year.

Don't have any numbers handy, though they might be available somewhere on the Net. But hunters run dogs in swampy areas here, because dogs are useful for moving deer out of swampy areas, and that's where the gators are. A lot of non-hunting dogs are taken every year, too. Sometimes right off the end of a leash with a frantic owner at the other end.

What's my point? I guess it's this: When you live in, or at least next to, wild areas populated with wild critters, I think a dog-owner assumes some risk. Risk that his dogs are going to be taken as prey by something with bigger teeth. Just my opinion.

By the way, you don't EVER want to go swimming with your dogs on Florida's Gulf shore. Sharks, like alligators, will snap them right up. Like candy.

Alligators were nearly hunted out in Florida some years ago, and a lot of people resisted when strict conservation measures were taken. Gator numbers have shot up at the same time Florida's human population has expanded. That means more dogs coming into contact with more gators.

You might think a lot of Floridians would now be calling for their extermination, but no. There's hardly any support for it. Gators ARE being hunted, but only to manage the populations. Not eliminate them.

There might be a perverse kind of pride in this among the people who live here. It's a screwy state in a lot of ways. But people seem to think there's something kind of unique or special about sharing your living space with large carnivores.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if more dogs in Florida aren't killed by other dogs than by gators and sharks combined.

My take on it is, if I can live comfortably with a population of alligators within the city limits where I live - and I'm not exaggerating about that - I think I could live comfortably in a part of the country where wolves existed. Managed, of course. (And I understand that wolves are more likely to prey on sheep and cattle than alligators.) Hunted, too. But not exterminated.

So I guess I'm with you on this. Despite the risk, wolves make life more interesting.

- TJM

About the only good thing about wolves, is they keep coyotes in check.

I also notice that most of the people who are "pro wolf" live in cities and don't own livestock.

RO

RiverOtter:

Quite right. Don't own any livestock, and have none to lose. I'm not insensitive to that. And if a stockman is losing calves or sheep to wolves, then I would say some increased management is called for. Hunting, in other words.

BTW, and I'm not referring to you or any other specific member on the 'fire, but I'm struck by the number of people who post here, saying they would love to go to Africa someday, and hunt some dangerous game.

Are we really so risk-averse a society that we can't tolerate any dangerous game in our own country?

Except bears, of course. Everybody seems to be okay with keeping a population of bears to hunt.

(Sorry, you didn't say wolf-lover, you said pro-wolf).

- TJM

The people who put the wolves back in places like Idaho don't live there either. They just think they know more than the people who live there since they have a piece of paper. It's easy for people to sit back and talk when they don't have to live with it.

It's different if you move to an area that has predators and then complain but if the predators are planted all around you after you lived there for 20 years and you get no say in the matter that is BS.

Ken:

I hope you'll believe me when I say I don't intend to rub salt into the wounds of anyone who's sustained the loss of dogs or livestock to reintroduced wolves.

I didn't have a say in putting the wolves back there, either. If anybody had asked me, I might have said no, don't do it. But I wasn't there, and I wasn't asked. And for what it's worth, I won't have any say in the matter if the wolves are taken back out.

- TJM

Wolves have been the biggest FUBAR in wildlife history.

We the sportsman brought back the elk/sheep/moose herds to the high levels pre wolf re-introduction.That gave Man (the apex predator) a high level of a renewable resource.

Anti hunters thought the wolf re-intro up.To limit your role
as apex predator.

So instead of people using the resource the wolves have decimated it.And are moving into new areas and expanding
thier menu.....

Of all the BS we were fed about the wolf re-intro,what was
actually true?They were not suppose to leave Yellowstone.
There were supposed to be a limited number of packs.
Domestic predation was suppose to be minimal.


Wolves have a place....on a coat rack.

Amen. Same thing is happening with the Mexican Wolves in AZ. They just won't stay in the area they are supposed to... and keep eating stuff they aren't supposed to.

Wolves have no place in the current ecosystem of the lower 48. The sheer number of open acres just aren't there. It took a hundred years to get rid of the damn things... and we should never have put them back.

We've got them in northern Wi also. Minnesota and Michigan's UP have them also. They are an out of control problem. Wi dnr wanted about 300 as a recovery number. Now we have 500plus. There is a fund to pay for livestock kills, but it is bankrupt way before the end of the year. They also kill a few bear hounds every year.I would like one though..... as a hide hanging on my wall.

Wolves killing hunting dogs in the NW part of the country, has not been unheard for the past 30 yrs, that I'm aware of. Suspect this probably also took plac during the time the wolf was "wiped out" of the Northwest. I'm somewhat astonished that the guy who recently lost his dogs to wolves had not heard, or was not aware of this. This was going on even when the wolves were supposedly "extinct" from that area, according to authorities. The fact is the wolves would have recently "reintroduced" theirselves without any help from man. The habitat was "ripe" for it, and they were protected being on the endangered list. Probably the ""best" reintroduction policy would have been for the Feds to ignore the SSS method. This would have tended to keep them in the "backcountry", and would have allowed those with a problem to take care of it theirselves. It also would have a tendency to keep the wolves FEARFUL OF MAN AND HIS CORE HABITAT. Something they need to practice with cougar, in many areas.

What many don't realize, is most of the funding and finances for these "re-introductions" are coming from private groups and individuals. They work to get an "authority" person and agency as a talking had, then micro-manage or outright manage the talking head. This done through their volunteering, donations, etc.

I think most of can guess where a lot of this is coming from.

Remseven,

"I'm somewhat astonished that the guy who recently lost his dogs to wolves had not heard, or was not aware of this. This was going on even when the wolves were supposedly "extinct" from that area, according to authorities."

So am I.
Experienced hound hunter in an area for 17 years. An area documented to have wolves for over 30 years?
Carrying no weapon, nor the tracking device.
Stuff left in the truck during what apparently was just another routine training exercise for the hounds...in bear, lion and wolf pack country par excellance.

All I will say is this:
anyone who continues to work his Labradow retrievers in alligator infested areas has put his own hunting dogs at risk.

Just a matter of time before the big black water dog(who does what he has been trained to do and loves the master) becomes chum for a big reptile.
The dog handler-hound man is responsible for his dogs..jim

Ramseven,

I hate to burst your bubble, but the introductions of the wolves were planned and conducted with money from two sources. One was the "public treasury" and the other was from hunter's pockets, in the form of P-R money. This disaster was inspired by private individuals and groups with no serious ties to reality, but the funding sure didn't come out of their pockets.

Oh Hell,

I'll jump in too.

I think both you guys are right about funding. The implementation $$$ may have come from P-R funds but the Public Relations money and political pressure came from PETA and the rest of the animal activists and agitators.

As has been noted in past discussions, they made one major error. They should have been reintroduced in the order of where that $$$ and pressure was coming from. Like San Francisco area, Barbra Streisand's estate, first; New York City's Central Park second; Washington, D.C. area third, and so on. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yes PR funds AND Dingell/Johnson funds were used, but check into where all the monitoring equipment, veghicles, radios, facilities expenses, are coming from. Also, check designated non-game funds many state agencies have set up.

Right or wrong, check into where the big bucks for the lobbying of various state and federal agencies are coming from. I'm talking fancy equipment, outdoor clothing, boots, coats, backpack gear, telemetry equipment, you name it. The bulk of it sure isn't coming from USFW, and P-R; D-J funds, or State DNR's, whom many can't even afford to give their trained personnel cost of living wages.

I'm talking Audubon, Sierra, Greenpeace, USPCA, Nature Conservacy, National Wildlife Federation, so on so forth. There are also many super rich who are funding some of this stuff. Check out the various websites for bear, wolves, cougar and yeah, even Bigfoot.

How many people in the city NYC think wolves have a right to exist on YOUR property, but can't even stand the thought of a couple of coyotes in Central Park, for fear of getting their "doggies" eaten.

Please understand, I'm not saying it is all bad, just that there is a lot of "behind the scene agenda" and crap going along with a lot of it.

We are running out of ROOM on this planet, and we need to tackle this problem head on with an agenda that will work, and not let the doomsayers, and naysayers from the fringe point the direction. Too many of the "fringe" get caught up in their dogma of "accomplishing" the task, and it becomes a career, entirely different than the initial goal, and not always for the better of the animal, land, or wildlife, and ecosystem.

Many wildlife species will surprise you with their ability to adapt to the encroachment of man, but doesn't man have just as much right to the ecosystem as any other animal. Whether you and anyone believe Man has that right or not, then why do they think you do or do not, have the right to protect what is yours, and in many instances impose restrictions on what you can do about a threatening situation.

Remember the small girlchild killed by the mountain lion in CA some few years ago. I'm thinking where the people started a fund to help with the funeral expenses for the child, but the orphan cub fund got beaucoup more donation than the fund for the child. To me that mindset is just SICK!

AMEN It's about time somebody told the truth of the matter that these people want to use the wolves and the bears to balance nature and keep hunters out. they want to return the wilderness to some idyllic plan of what they think it was before we came here and not what it was. It will NEVER be the same and wolves and bears don't have the brains to manage anything. They only know how to kill and often times do so for fun.

From: http://www.onrc.washington.edu/research/onrc/wolf/wolfreintrotoOlyPen.pdf

�Congressman Norm Dicks (D, Washington) and Defenders of Wildlife, a nongovernmental organization, have taken the lead in promoting consideration of the reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus) into Olympic National Park and
surrounding lands. Congress has responded by appropriating funds for an
assessment that will include a feasibility study, a prey base study, and a public
opinion study. The results of these studies will provide Congress with information
on which to base further funding decisions. While consideration of the idea
has garnered proponents and opponents, a government decision whether
or not to officially propose reintroduction will be based upon the results of
the assessment, which will be completed in 1999. At that time Congress will
control the process by either funding additional development of the idea,
including a possible Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or by choosing not to
fund further study of the idea.�

Note that the bulk of the funding mentioned here all comes from the Feds, not private or NGO sources. By the bye, an EIS is normally a million bucks and more.


To their credit the Defenders of Wildlife (http://www.defenders.org/an04.html) did pony up some money. �In a historic initiative, we began compensating northern Montana ranchers in 1987 for livestock losses to wolves, a practice that led to the 1990 establishment of our $100,000 Wolf Compensation Fund and a significant reduction in rancher opposition to wolves. The fund provided the pivotal argument in favor of wolves in the final months of the reintroduction process. We established a summertime wolf education booth in Yellowstone Park and collected more than 70,000 signatures from park visitors, all but 2,000 pro-wolf. And we created a Wolf Reward Fund to pay landowners for allowing wolves to den on their property undisturbed. Throughout we pushed for federal funding and support.
In January, 1995, the efforts of Defenders and our allies paid off. Amid much fanfare, 14 Canadian wolves were brought to Yellowstone National Park and another 15 were released in the wilderness of central Idaho. The following year, Defenders helped pay for the capture of 30 more Canadian wolves for release in the two areas. The wolves have now formed packs and had pups while causing few conflicts with landowners. There are approximately 40 wolves in each area, with more pups on the way this spring. The reintroduction has won wide praise from conservationists as a notable success.�
I do vehemently disagree with their last statement though. Praise from Preservationists, maybe, but not conservationists.

The bulk of the funding continues to be public money. From the Forest Service (http://fhm.fs.fed.us/em/funded/06/int-em-06-01.pdf) comes an attempt to prove that decreases in deer caused by wolves helps aspens flourish.

�INT-EM-06-01 The Influence of Wolves on Decline in Aspen Communities in Northeastern Arizona.
LOCATION: Northern Arizona
DURATION: Year 1 of 2-year project FUNDING SOURCE: Base �
Base, in this case means federal funds to the tune of about $30,000


Although they claim to have donated �significant funding� to DoW�s compensation program PAWS (http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/info/world/paws.htm) doesn�t tell us just how much �significant� is. They do say, though, that public money in amounts that seem �significant� to me, is being used in AZ for the Mexican Wolf introductions. �TAXPAYER COSTS ABE REASONABLE

Wolf advocates believe reintroduction of wolves is a worthy taxpayer item. Opponents claim reintroduction costs to taxpayers are unreasonably high. Even if USFWS received the projected $542,000 per year needed for implementation of Mexican Wolf reintroduction it would be trivial compared to the staggering costs of subsidizing industries which unlike wolves can devastate public lands. The current federal appropriation for Mexican wolves is under $500,000�


According to the Fish & Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mexicanwolf/pdf/MW_FYR_Administrative.pdf) there�ll be over 7 million dollars of public money, of which $634,000 will come out of Arizona Game and Fish department funds - that�s hunter�s money - for Mexican Wolf introductions.

So, Ramseven, some private money is going into the wolf mess, but I do believe that the data I�ve seen shows that the majority of it comes out of the public pocket.

We are being screwed royally and not even being kissed.

Remseven;

I don't know where you got some of your information, but I can personally attest to a good bit of it being wrong.

I have previously worked for The Nature Conservancy, and have many close friends still there, and in a couple other organizations you listed (Audubon, Sierra Club, and others).

Their money does not go anywhere near the programs you listed.

The can, except for TNC, and have, again, except for TNC, used money to have their members call representatives and senators, submit letters to editors, etc., just like anti-wolf groups have done. But, that's it. There is no vast left-wing agenda such as you seem to indicate.

The $$$, the manpower, and the authority come from the feds. Period.

I agree with you we are being screwed, but I would rather use the word mislead. I am sure there are "official" monies involved to a great extent, not arguing that at all.

Think I haven't made myself clear enough. I'm talking about over all expenses for a program. Not always, but when have had the opportunity to check many of these re-introduction programs, it has been a real eye opener to find where the push, influence, finances are coming from. And, when had the chance to do so, have found and been surprised how these influences effect, where, when, who, and WHY of the outcome. You mentioned public money, I want to know (for myself) what kind of lobbying did DOW finance. Also, what else did they do to "influence". Also, please bear in mind EIS is one of the ways they eat into the so called "public funds", that could be put to better use. I can recall one instance where the existence of one animal of a species, existed on an island and a "influential" group managed to garner enough political influence to have the island declared off limits to other uses (hunting of another species). Someone finally got smart, and began to question as why the other "invasive" species has not been removed, and it backfired on the original group. But the original group hasn't given up yet, as I see they are still at it again this year. I don't know the answer, unless searching for these other costs which in some instances are hidden. Another question comes to mind, how much of the public money will be used for the EIS you mentioned, will there be only one EIS needed over the long term to settle an issue. Will or will not, any of that result in court time or legal proceedings. These are also recources best used elsewhere. There is a good deal of this kind of thing going on right now with one of the states and the Federal attempt at de-listing the wolf as endangered. Where did that opposition come from, what is that costing in public money and other monies, hidden or not? These are all resources that could be well used for conservation and management of ecosystems that is wasted due to the politics. It is just another way that the "fringe" element eats into the finances for these programs. And, no doubt we all are getting screwed here. While these costs are directly obvious, the so called "agenda" as to purpose is hidden. While programs such as livestock depradation program is a smart one on their part, why if it was only going to cost them $100,000 did they not offer it to begin with, but only as a "last ditch" effort for cooperation.

I know there are well meaning people no doubt in all these groups. But there is also the fringe for lack of a better word, that becomes dogmatic in their approach as long as it suits their personal agenda. I am not against wolf re-introduction, as a hunter it is nice to know there are still wild places that exist. And, it is also nice to know there is flora and fauna to fill those areas.

There happens to be a wolf study right now, that is rehabilitating wolves, that are not born in the wild, but are born in captivity. Why and what are they rehabilitating for? The scientific explanation given to me certainly seems to be valid on the surface. At this point it appears to me eventually politics will determine the outcome of this project, not science or biology data. At this point, it seems that politics will determine the "best" use of these excess wolves when the time comes.

I have some involvement with a "group" who has been, and will be for the rest of the year (short term hope) getting the i's dotted and t's crossed for presentation of a de-listing. Why?
The answer is because they know it will be challenged, and it is their hope to head off much of the controversy with "good" data, so that the courts will let them get on with their careers, and other projects sorely needed. So in this case, another year "wasted" by not allowing them to get on with scheduled programs in waiting, extra expense again, and even more expense when finally getting to the next program due to rising costs. Sort of a Catch 22, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It is not always a case of donated vehicles, telemetry equipment, facilities, etc. Sometimes, it is a matter of hidden expense, some of them not even anticipated, because it shouldn't have been needed.

I believe sometimes it is best left to local communities and /or States to decide how to handle some of these issues. I also think it best to let the professionals in the field to develop and present the scenario in order to work out the differences for or against an issue.

Hope I've been able to make myself a little bit clearer. Complex issue to address, and difficult to do unless given plenty of time to form thought and address the questions involved.

Maybe it's time to buy some Irish/Russian Wolfhounds?

OK, you guys are right, I'm wrong. Sorry to cause any confusion.

Also, there is no left-wing conspiracy, nor is there a right conspiracy.

It is politics, period.

Deleted - double post

Shoot, shovel and shutup. Sorry if anyone already mentioned that.
I also think that any wolf outside of Yellowstone should have the same rights as his cousin the coyote.

+1 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> or out of Denali park

Hell yeah Marlin, and when all the tourists wonder where all the deer/elk are tell em to go ask the wolf. The same wolf those damn pork-eaters back in D.C just had to have ([bleep] you Bruce Babbitt).
Different times call for different measures. Instead of wolves man has controlled game population through highly regulated hunting along with mother natures occasional brutal winters. Of course we can't hunt inside the park but we can outside of it's borders during migration patterns. By the way the wolf isn't aware of any boundary so what's to stop his expansion and relentless appetite. I would also rather be shot than eaten alive by a damn wolf. Deep breath, count to ten, I'm OK now. Sam

The feds have turned Idaho's wolf management over to the state...or so they say. It's on paper only. The IDFG wants to remove 50 wolves from the Clearwater area to help the severly depleted elk population. So far, they can't get permission from the feds who still control it. So much for local management. All it did was shift the cost of management from the feds to Idaho's hunters as the entire IDFG budget comes from hunting and fishing licenses & tags. So, Idaho sportsmen are forced to pay to maintain a flock of elk killers who are eating enough elk and deer to reduce hunting. In turn, sportsmen buy few licenses & tags because the hunting is poor so the IDFG has less money to manage the wolves. Brilliant government economics.

Since we already have far more wolves that the original proposal, we can easily spare 50. If these were hunted and the tags sold in a lottery at, say, $500 each, there'd be no shortage of applicants and the IDFG would have an extra $25000 for wolf management.

Dick

Don't want to hijack this, but does anyone here have any handle or idea on what the deal is with the starving elk in Yellowstone? I would think it would be Wolf City if the case of being weak or too many numbers of elk.

Considering the timing of the wolf re-introduction, ie during a major drought in the Western states, elk and deer didn't stand a chance against the wolf. They were vulnerable in their search for forage and water. These days, sheep and cattle ranchers 50-60 miles from the mountains are routinely suffering losses to wolves, and must spend a considerable time and effort to prove wolf kills. Then hopefully there's still some money left in the State coffers to pay them a fraction of what there losses were.

Judge, I've read this till my eyes are fading out. I don't believe in protecting anything in nature that can harm humans be it wolves, snakes, aligators, spiders, Mother Nature needs a little help once in awhile. Mankind is first priority especialy your own child. Wilderness is shrinking more every day and wildlife will need to give way to humans and their food chain. JMO anything that harms humans needs no protection. -- no
- <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

I just reread my post and see where it could be misunderstood. Our game laws manage our wildlife and doing a great job. The coyote is not protected and survives most everywhere, my thought was about rattlesnakes and such. We have hunts every year bringing in many hundreds of snakes and they are still there every year. I didn't miss the wolves when they were gone at great expense and the wildlife florished with the protection of hunting regulations.
What the heck am I doing here in this mess, everyone has an opinion. Most here have never been back in a remote wilderness area miles from civilizationand it's like trying to explain a back injury, (and pain), to one who has never experienced it. I'm outta here. -- no

Yep. Somethin' kills my dog is gonna get killed back.

Up here in Minnesota Timbers "May be shot" if doing or about to do harm to livestock,pet's or people!
We're the only lower-48 state that has that ability so far.
But it it not without having to deal with the same problems that there seeing out west now.
The wolf numbers are high enough here that the state is considering a seaon/bag-limit for the 2007 season.

When the wolves were under federal protection over here,the state paid $383.00 for a milking holstein that was killed by timbers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you had problems with wolves you had to call the federal-trapper!
He would trap and take a couple young wolves then quit trapping.
After both my dog's and my mare were killed by wolves we trapped,snared and shot every wolf we came upon!
But as long as we stayed on the reservation the tribe had open season on wolves!
Off rez it was S.S.S!
Mike

Sapper,

Minnesota changed the livestock compensation level to full market value in 2001, as determined by county extension agents.

Idaho and Montana's problem hasn't been the Feds - the problem has been Wyoming.

Jog,
That helps but untill then you were paid at "salvage-rate"!
But heres the mix,whitetail deer numbers are at all time record highs up this country!
Leech-Lake,Cass-Lake,Red-Lake,Nett-Lake and White-Earth band members are selling hides that they take by trap or shot.
Mike

Now just a minute there pard.

The FEDS told us Wyoming people (I was at the meeting when they said this) that they wanted the wolves in Yellowstone NP and the Y-stone ecosystem. Well, they got'em there where they said they wanted them.

So, what is so damn wrong with having the bastards classified as a predator with a shoot on sight designation? As much as the rest of you would like to think Wyoming is not a massive unsettled area. Even the y-stone ecosystem is clogged with multi-millionairs homes. Areas like the south fork of the shoshone or sunlight basin. So, why do we Wyomingites have to put up with wolves OUTSIDE the designated area?

To me it is kinda like the ump calling strikes when the pitcher intentionally walks the batter. Those pitches outside the batters box are balls and not to be called strikes. They wanted wolves in y-stone & the ecosystem and they got them aplenty. We don't need them in the Snowy range, the Bighorns, or the Laramie range.

As far as I'm concerned, we are just making the FEDS do what they promised to do. Nothing more to it than that! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

DAMN STRAIGHT!
On reservation lands they have been never protected but still have a more than sustainable bunch's of different packs!
The reservations have the lowest whitetail counts,when compared to same area's adjoining to rez-lands but yet the timbers over there have been snared,shot and trapped!
All to the Fed's dismay! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Too many "bunny huggers" that think we should let the wolves handle the deer,elk,moose and bison populations and end the tradition of hunting!!!
That is my take anyway.
The Mexican grey-wolf use to be abundant throughout the sw-USA,to include Texas.
But Texas has a state statute against the introduction or re-introduction of predators on the books!
You gotta respect those cattleman for that foresight.
Nope this is a ploy against hunters,thats all.
Mike

Right on Elkslayer ! and I highly applaud Wyoming's stance ; the Wyoming plan is really not much different from Minnesotas law and apparently the Feds have no problem with that .

The big difference though , is that Wyoming has a bunch of public lands ranchers that enviro-weenies in the Fed system would like to harass , humble , or maybe even run out of business.......

Elkslayer,

Like it or not, there will be wolves in YNP - that game was played out 10-years ago. The best case scenario NOW is to have the responsibility for wolf management turned over to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. �Delisting� and subsequent wolf management by the states paves the way for population control, and yes, even hunting.

For that to happen, two key elements are required: a minimum wolf population and approved management plans submitted by the three states. Currently the wolf population is above the required criteria, and Idaho and Montana have approved management plans - Wyoming has yet to do so. Until Wyoming comes up with an approved plan wolves will remain on the endangered species list throughout the three states and primarily under federal management.

The wolf population reached the federal recovery goal in December of 2002. The wolf population is now at least twice that level and rising. The USFWS would like nothing better than calling the YNP wolf recovery a done deal and turning management over to the states. Proof of that is the USFWS�s recognition of the wolf explosion in Idaho and the extraordinary measure of the revised �10(j)� rule that does in fact return significant management authority to the state. The revised 10(j) rule is a direct response to the failure of Wyoming to gain an approved plan and the resulting effect on the Idaho wolf population.

The revised 10(j) rule is far from ideal because of the federal hoops that Idaho will have to jump through to protect elk and deer populations from wolves, but it�s a helluva improvement, especially for livestock depredation. The only thing stopping a full transition is Wyoming.

Multi-state wolf management is nothing new - Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan went through a similar program. The difference is that all three states submitted approved management plans and the delisting process has been allowed to continue. It�s a good bet that we�ll be hunting wolves in Minnesota in a couple years.

"It;s a good bet that we;ll be hunting wolves in Minnesota in a couple years. "


I sure wouldn't hold my breath for that one.............nor bet the farm either..........

Elkslayer,

To address your specific questions:

�So, what is so damn wrong with having the bastards classified as a predator with a shoot on sight designation?�

In a word � nothing. Most wolf experts, the real ones � not the wannabes, are in favor of exclusion zones where wolves can be shot on sight or at least heavily managed by hunting or easily obtained permits. The logic behind the approach is minimizing conflict between wolves and humans. Repeated conflicts could cause a public backlash the might set back recovery efforts.

We didn�t get �shoot on sight� in Minnesota and I sincerely doubt you�ll get it in Wyoming no matter how nice you play. Minnesota did get the next best thing - the green light to shoot wolves �about to do damage�. There�s probably not much difference between the two in practice�

�So, why do we Wyomingites have to put up with wolves OUTSIDE the designated area?�

Once Wyoming get a management plan approved and assuming the people of the state don�t want wolves outside the designated area � you won�t have to put up with it. It�ll take some time, but you�ll get there.

sdgunslinger,

The USFWS has been working to delist the wolf in the western Great Lakes region for the last few years. The public comment period for the new rules ends on the 26th of this month.

A similar proposal last year was deemed in court to be too broad - that the USFWS was releasing authority over too large a geographic area. The current proposal limits the area to all of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and sections of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.

Not exactly a federal power grab, eh?

Minnesota stated in its wolf management plan that hunting would not be allowed for 5-years after delisting, however, we are now so far above the population criteria that mange and parvo are becoming a problem due to the wolf density. The answer to that is "management" - it won't surprise me at all to see a hunting season proposed and approved.

Jog,
K-9 distemper has been linked to the deaths of four collared timbers in the WhiteEarth state forest area!!!!!!!
Becker/Clearwater county is the general area known to have diagnosed cases in wolves,yotes,fox and raccoon's,not to mention domestic dogs too.

Like you said, we are above the carrying load of predators so mother nature is thinning the herd or pack!
Mike

With all respect to a fellow camfire member, Jog, you don't know what you are talking about when you speak of WY getting a plan approved and the wolves reaching their population goals.

In short:

We have a plan that most of the scientists approved of, it just didn't fit into the political wishes of the feds.

Our plan would not call for any limits or controls in YNP.

The wolves have met and exceeded the population goals.

Not taking shots here, just saying that the folks who have the blue & white license plates with the buckinghorse on them are a bit closer to the situation than someone several states away.

BTW - our govenor has a direct line to his office, call it and find out what WY plan is all about.

Don't have a dog in this hunt,but I'll send mine in anyway. I've meet too many of these USFWS and Park Service types to know most are a bunch of wanna be hippies from big towns...with no idea of what America's real citizens deal with.

From the beginning I felt the idea was to reintroduce apex predators to ultimately eliminate the need for the evil of sport hunting.

This sounds nuts,but I swear it was in the local paper a month ago. The USFW types were woundering why pronghorns ran so fast when there were no predators anywhere near that fast in Amerika. Recent finds disclosed that we once had lions and cheetahs-bigger than the ones in Africa-about 10,000yrs. ago.So what's their solution? Well h*ll, turn African lions and cheetahs lose on the great plains.

It was only a couple of nut cases,but who knows where it will end? If I lived in Kansas ...I'd be carefull. Being as I live in WVA guess I can look forward to the re-introduction of the wooly mammoth.

Elkslayer,

Telling me I'm wrong is one thing, showing me where I'm wrong is something else again. I do appreciate the "With all respect to a fellow campfire member" statement.

My only aim here is to clear up the misconceptions surrounding wolf delisting and management. I like to blame the Feds as much as the next guy, but in this case the shoe doesn't fit.

I understand your concern about a guy from Minnesota sticking his nose into Wyoming's business. I'd feel the same way if the tables were turned - even if you were right.

ElkSlayer,
May your state get similar wording in your game-codes and state statutes as we have up here.
The late 80's/early 90's truely sucked for farmers up this way
as when you did have a loss you had to get a USFW yutz to verify the kill and then get a check for your holstein for what you might get when you sell her to the mink-rancher for scrap!
I mean where would you get a milking holstein for $383.00?
The state finally did see the error of their way's after 2000 and would pay actual loss rate for livestock.
The Federal trapper while trapping on our farm in 1989 was complaining about people "gut-shooting" timbers with 22's and letting the animals run-off to die deep in the brush,then how was he suppose to get a accurate count on the wolves taken in problem area's!
Up here in the summer month the bugs clean-up the carcasses quick,fast and in a hurry!
Not alot of open expanses for aerial spotting in the timber/brush country during the summer months and come winter the ravens and eagles eat there share of carrion.
Good Luck and Remember your S's! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Mike

I'm all for the re-introduction of the wooly mammoth! Now that would be cool! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

This is their stated purpose and they've stated it in print. I read it at least 15 years ago, back when most people thought wolf reintroduction was a joke. It took them so long because they had to get their people imbedded in the USFW & USFS.

Dick

That's just swell.

I wasn't joking about the lion/cheetah thing. It was in the Charleston Gazette-Mail about a month ago in the science section.

Okay,I was joking about the wooly mamoth but -yeah- that would be kinda cool.

Ok Outcast but you forgot to tell them you can't believe any thing in that leftist, liberal, pinko, Charleston-Gazette. By the way, I thought I saw a Wooly Mammoth the other day in Kanawha State Forest. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Roost,

As we both know it's a leftest, liberal pinko plot anyway of couse it was in the Gazette...the are the spokespeople for that crap. Did you see the article?

If you and a wooly mamoth were wandering around in Kanawha State Forest it's a wonder either of you survived the machine gun fire from the range.

If you don't live by what's happening,how could you even know?They are killing the Elk herds like I love Beer!!!There all gone from where I used to hunt only 2-years ago seven miles out of town by road.

Would you like to try and protect your dog from this out of the Grangeville paper?What about the kids with there pet's since this happened about 1-mile from the Fish Creek Campground.

What if it was a child instead of a man trying to protect there pet?

Out Of The Grangeville Paper This Week!!


He ain't no wuss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jayco

I stayed out of this,because it angers me..There are pictures in the local gun shop of Wolves downing a Cow Elk and eating up through and only taking the Calf Elk out to chomp on and leaving the Cow Elk un touched other than the Texas Eat Out!!!!!!!!!!

Same pictures of the Wolves taking on a Black Bear and whoopin a$$...Not to mention they are in the outskirts of town dining on Cow's regularly and driving the dog's crazy howling at night...... Someone better do something soon before some child gets killed

Lot's of local stories but shut up is just that..SHUT UP!!!!

Jayco

http://www.navajohopiobserver.com/main.a...amp;TM=22928.03

It's a crying shame and an outrage. If I lived where you do...I'd be shooten wolves like I love beer! Which would put the damn things back on the endangered specie list where they belong.

Outcast,
Welcome to Minnesota thinking! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Best hope no child is hurt or mauled with the numbers increasing and their ranges expanding.
Mike

Gentlemen...I've just read through your interesting, entertaining, and informative discussion (debate?). No one in British Columbia has seen the need to re-introduce wolves here, because, well...we still have lots of them. That has not precluded heated debate from time to time over the efforts of our provincial government's attempts to manage the wolf population, just as it manages other game populations. Things are relatively quiet on that front at the moment, but I recall a time when an imported Greenpeacer and a few of his whacked out disciples attempted to physically interfere with a Fish and Wildlife cull of wolf numbers (being conducted at the urging of, and with the support of local guides and outfitters) in the northern part of the province. If my memory serves correctly, the cull was conducted relatively succesfully, and some of the protesters eventually had to be rescued as they all but starved and/or froze to death in the wilds...which would have seemed a fitting end I suppose. Obviously, our situation here is much different from yours. Larger portions of our land mass are much less densely populated, and the competition between the two primary predator, man and wolf, for the available prey, is not quite so fierce...though it does exist. Unfortunately, the concept of "balance of nature" is highly misunderstood by much of the public. While it is indeed a balance over an extended period of time, that long term balance is maintained by environmental factors and wildlife population dynamics which can and do cause the numbers of specific species to fluctuate wildly in the relative short term. The balance of nature is understood by many to mean that populations remain in a constant state of balance, and it just ain't so.

Anyhow, I enjoyed your discussion, and thought you might like to know that in spite of much political pressure to the contrary, our provincial government still steps in when it is deemed necessary to control our wolf population, and much of the province has a year round open wolf season which permits a hunter to take three animals annually.

Just as an aside, many hunters here believe we have a real overpopulation problem with black bears in our province. There is both a spring and fall season, and in many areas, each hunter is allowed to take two bruins annually. My understanding though is that hunting pressure on the bears remains very low, and that the generous regulations are not as effective a management tool as they could be.

Icedog,
Between BC's blackies and her lion's you best walk well aware in the hill country!
Mike

i agree completely, north carolina needs about 20 breeding pairs. reintroduced from existing packs in the west. let us share our wealth.

Icedog,

There has never been any intention of striking a �balance� between wolf and prey in the Northern Rockies � �balance� being largely resigned to the scrap heap of game management practices.

In short, wolf predation falls into one of two categories: additive or compensatory. Additive predation means a wolf kill reduces the prey population. Compensatory predation means the prey was already doomed, and the kill has no net effect on the prey population. Example: A healthy cow elk being killed by wolves is additive, wolves killing a weak cow elk succumbing to winter is compensatory.

In the desired elk scenario, the elk population is high enough to provide a sufficient number of weakened animals to feed the wolves � all elk deaths would be compensatory. Of course, the reality is that predation will be both compensatory AND additive; the key to wolf management is minimizing the latter.

I am sucking at my vow to ignore �internet wolf debates�. This thread was flawed from the start (sorry VA) by approaching the question from the philosophical standpoint of �re-establishing� the wolf in the Northern Rockies. As the folks from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are painfully aware, the wolf IS established and has been for years � more and more all the time. From that perspective, the question must move from one of philosophy to one of practicality. In other words, the wolf is there to stay � what do they do about it?

Idaho and Montana have already answered the question. Both states have instituted approved management plans that ensure a viable population of wolves that minimizes additive predation (see my post above). Both plans are in regulatory purgatory until Wyoming follows suit. It�s that simple. The USFWS announced its intent to delist the wolf in a February 2, 2006 news release, paving the way for active management by the states. However, in an excerpt from the release:

�In making the announcement, Service Director H. Dale Hall emphasized that any future rulemaking on a delisting decision for Rocky Mountain wolves is still contingent on the State of Wyoming implementing a Service-approved state law and wolf management plan, as required under the Endangered Species Act.�

So what�s the hold-up in Wyoming?

Wyoming submitted their wolf management plan to the USFWS in July 2003. In reply, the US Department of the Interior mandated changes to two portions of the plan before delisting can proceed:

�1. The �predatory animal� status for wolves must be changed. The unregulated harvest, inadequate monitoring plan, and unit boundaries proposed for the state�s management plan do not provide sufficient management controls to assure the Service [USFWS] that the wolf population will remain above recovery levels. The designation of wolves as �trophy game� statewide would allow Wyoming to devise a management strategy that provides for self-sustaining populations above the recovery goals, regulated harvest and adequate monitoring of that harvest. As is the case with other trophy game in Wyoming, the state could establish management areas, season dates, and quota limits to control populations in a regulated manner. In addition, Wyoming could address wolf depredation concerns through regulations that exist for currently classified trophy game animals.

2. The Wyoming state law must clearly commit to managing for at least 15 wolf packs in Wyoming. We believe that wolf population management as trophy game would provide adequate controls to ensure wolves remain above recovery goals with well distributed packs in suitable habitat.�

So, let�s go to the blackboard. In item #1, Wyoming must treat the wolf like other trophy game animal and regulate the harvest. In item #2, Wyoming must commit to 15 packs in the entire state � currently Wyoming will only commit to managing 7 packs outside of national parks, assuming that 8 packs will always exist within national park borders. Going with the USFWS definition of a pack (six wolves), the difference is 48 wolves across the entire state. The balance of the Wyoming plan was accepted.

For that, Idaho has over 500 wolves, twice the number it needs to delist, and state management is on hold in all three states - Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

JOG,

You're making sense to me, and I'd be surprised if the biologists/wildlife management folks in B.C. weren't talking in terms similar to yours. Unfortunately, much of the difficulty associated with managing wildlife populations comes from the politics involved... dealing with special interest groups, and a highly opinionated, but often misinformed public. I have a cousin who is a career biologist involved in the upper echelons of fish management in Alberta...and the stories he could tell about back door decisions based on politics, false economics, and an apparent need to keep the public misinformed, rather than on sound management practice would make your head spin. He has been told repeatedly to keep silent on particular issues, and/or to offer only preapproved statements to the media or special interest groups.
What I was saying previously is that the general public has little understanding of wildlife population dynamics, and many embrace the concept of "balance of nature" as they uderstand it.

Icedog,

Your cousin probably couldn't make my head spin - BTDT <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, but you're spot on about the politics and misinformation. My (broken) vow to stop getting entangled with threads like this is not so much the politics, but the refusal of folks with a vested interest - hunters - to look for the facts. They'd rather parrot all the sensationalist BS than solve the problem.

I could be wrong about everything I posted, but not because I didn't dig for the facts. Somebody might come along that dug deeper and prove me wrong - it wouldn't be the first time.

Idaho has a proposal to the USFWS (April 4, 2006) that takes advantage of the revised 10(j) rule and calls for a wolf shoot in the Lolo Zone. The proposal clearly states Idaho's preference for hunters to conduct the 'management', but concedes the issue due to the current endangered species act provisions. Good on Idaho for setting the stage for future management.

The proposal, and the USFWS's reaction to it, will be a bellwether for future actions. On one hand, the Idaho argument for management is a little weak in specifics, but strong in overall logic. On the other hand, the USFWS prefers specifics, but supposedly revised 10(j) for just this type of management.

I've been tough on Wyoming, but if Idaho's proposal is rejected I'll be the first one to rip the USFWS a new azzhole. This is the type of issue we need to focus on and beat to death - not some sad but useless tale of some guy's dead dog.

JOG, as to your reference to sesationalist BS, there are numerous newspaper reportings of livestock, sheep killings in Wyoming at least 50 miles from the Northern Rocky range, by wolves. Regular folks, ranchers, hunters WILL respond to a perceived threat by growing wolf populations in their own way, as Game and Fish drag their feet. And dead dogs do matter to sportsmen and ranchers and campers. They will deal with the perceived threat in their own way as well. Your "scientific" relay of information is academic, as people will do what they have to to protect themselves and theirs. Not sensational, just reality.... As to elk populations, when healthy elk are driven from their normal winter range by wolves, they weaken from lack of sustainable forage and using up calories while on the run. Their range has been reduced as it is by "civilization."

Bearmgc,

I don�t consider livestock or dog predation by wolves as sensationalist. It�s when predation is combined with �This could be your child!� photos of dead critters and the like that I object. Your post illustrates a couple of issues though, so while I�m not intending to personally pick on you� I�m gonna pick on your post.

The mentality �people will do what they have to do protect themselves and theirs� is having the exact opposite effect � more wolves. You want fewer wolves and more responsive wolf management? Get the wolf delisted by having Wyoming obtain an approved plan. You want wolf predation to have less effect on the elk population? Same answer.

Reality? Wyoming also has twice the number of wolves it needs to delist and the population is growing and expanding. If as you say, regular folks are responding to this threat, then there aren�t enough of them to stop it. I�d put my energy behind something that will.

Jog,
Look at the numbers of Timbers that the DNR "thinks" we have, as for their estimated total.
Then look at the whitetail harvest's over the past five seasons!
We have the largest number of Timbers in the lower-48 and are having record numbers of whitetail harvested across the state in both the Timber/Woodland area's and the Farmland area's.
We had are problems back 18-years or so ago but we over came.
Now we have distemper and parvo to keep the wild-carnivores
in check inaddition to trapping/hunting/shooting.
Mike

Here in Wisconsin, we have more than 150 wolves over management targets and our fragile elk herd is now threatened.

Article on Wisconsin elk herd

Sapper,

The deer in northern Minnesota are a good example of compensatory predation - the deer numbers are so high the wolves have plenty of culls to work with. The Minnesota DNR has done a good job of managing the deer herd for numbers, although I'd like to see some more fiddling with quality management.

Jog,
I'm with you on that 100%!
We suffered through the transitional period of wolves but common-sense prevailed.
We now have a over-stocked prey species(deer)with predators declining due to sickness/disease.
It leaves the DNR to option the hunters to take additional anterless-only in the harvest to help controll numbers.
Mike

Sapper,

I wouldn't say the wolf population is declining any. According to estimates the population has been growing at around 4% per year.

"Shoot, shovel and shutup. Sorry if anyone already mentioned that.
I also think that any wolf outside of Yellowstone should have the same rights as his cousin the coyote."
________________________________________________________________
Montana Sam hit the nail on the head. The wolf has to many mystical qualities for the persons that do not have to reside near them on a daily basis to ever be controlled effectively. Once the Yellowstone ecosystem is effectively decimated (by the wolf) and the full brunt of living with the wolf out side of the wilderness areas is felt from coast to coast the management plans might finally be approved.

The only "management" I can see the DNR doing for Minnesota's deer herd is the luck of having a number of back to back mild winters.........as for wolf "management" that looks so far like it mostly amounts to letting them breed at will.

I fail to see where Wy is going to gain a thing by caving to the Feds on the issue of having wolves across their entire state........where is the Mn wolf season and if it was ever set , how many lawsuits will you have to stave off from wolf hugging orgs ?

sdgunslinger,
The wolf season isn't as of yet a open season.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammels/mnrecov/main.htm
And the illegal shooting of a Timber-Wolf in Minnesota is a Gross Misdemeanor,punishable by a fine of $3000.00 and upto one year in jail.
But as long as we stay on reservation we are exempt for state law and not bound to a limit we can take.
The rest of the state must practice the time proven method of the Tri-S!
Mike

I have Property In Northern Wisconsin. MERCER Wisconsin. 660 Acres, and the Wolves have done nothing but screw things up.
I have seen over the last 3 years the deer Population go down as much as 30%. Yes they are a Good Thing. Within Reason.! And Hell if You dare shoot One The D.N.R. will be all over Ya.
They Need to Have a Season on them With a Draw For a License I say.
and Bring things into Perspective.
Steve

1899sav,
When a pack makes it "swing" through a small area(10-sq/mile)it really screws up hunting for quite a while afterwards.
Now time that swing with the opener of deer season and it makes hunting even more of a challange.
In 2004 Minnesota lost but 4 dogs that were reported to the MN DNR.
How many arrest's for taking wolves? ZERO.
Nuff said!
S-S-S.
Mike

Outcast this is not directed at you, just a guy that lives in wolf country trying to clear up what I think are some misconceptions by most folks that don't live in an area that has a wolf population or if they do the population (or population explosion is fairly recent)

For the record, I like wolves, they are one interesting creature, but IME, they are a whole different kettle of fish.

Here's the problem as I see it, you guys are campainging to have them delisted so they can be hunted if I am reading this correctly.

Well guys, that's about like seeking government permission to use a squirt pistol to put out your house fire.

IOW's even if you get permission to shoot them, it ain't gonna do you much good, some maybe but not much IME&O.

They take wary to a whole new level. I've been so blessed to tramp around the woods more than the average joe, I've seen the aftermath of wolves quite a few times, lot's of tracks, heard them lots of times, but only have seen wolves 6-8 times, out of those I could have shot 2 if I'd been ready.

Since we outlawed aerial hunting, the wolves have come back strong here, too strong in many folks opinion, including mine.

Now we have limited aerial hunting (a good thing IMO) but it causes lot's of controversy.

All a guy has to do is read a bit, we used to do aerial hunts, poison (you think aerial hunting is non PC, bring up poison) and put a hurt to the wolf population even in Alaska. It turned it into a hunters paradise in the 50's, 60's and part of the 70's we had ungulate populations establish footholds in places they had never been, most folks thought that was a good thing.

But around that time the wolf took on a different role for lots of folks. They've bounced back strong, so strong in fact that even though controversial, we have aerial hunting again in places.


Bears are predators too and they take many a moose calf. If you want to open a season on bears to reduce their population, it would work well, again IME&O.

Send me a client that wants to kill a bear, I like my odds of making that happen. Send me a client that wants to kill a wolf.........WTF???? how am I supposed to make THAT happen.

We tried expanding hunting to keep them in check, we sold most everybody a $30 wolf tag when I was guiding, just in case. Compare that price for a tag to the other non res tags here. We took very few wolves.

Hunting wolves ='s using the squirt gun to put out your house fire, again IMO

Trapping wolves might be akin to them letting you turn on the garden hose.

Aerial hunting would be closer to having a firetruck on scene, might not save the house, but probably keep it from spreading to the neighbors.

Aerial plus POISON (I don't like the idea of that either, but it's effective) maybe you get the chance to save your house.

Not trying pizz anyone off, that's just the way I see it, and feel it's a pretty accurate assessment.

I already stated I like wolves (in limited numbers mind you) but being allowed to hunt them is much like being allowed to hunt an overpopulation of rats, you might put a small dent in the population with your rifle, but you're not going to make much difference IME.

Good luck to you guys that lives and livelihoods are being affected by this "great experiment" but I got a feeling that pendulum is gonna keep swinging against you for a while before it ever comes back the other way. I hope I'm wrong, but my study and my life experience leads me to think I'm way closer to the truth on this than I wish was so.

They are an amazing critter, but one of the amazing things about them is much like fire when left unattended or worse out of control it can get ugly in a hurry.

Spose you boys in Idaho were already aware of that, sorry not trying to rub salt in a wound. I just think people with little wolf experience are pretty clueless as to how wolves really are.

AKhunter, You speak from experience, and its likely your points are right on accurate. It sounds like we in Wyoming have a long row to hoe before the "pendulum swings the other way" as you said. As for Wyoming coming up with a Federally approved plan for management, I don't see it "caving" in to Federal wildlife "blackmail" any time soon. May be akin to pissing in its own boots, but this state has its own way of asserting its own notion of soveignty. SSS is a routine attitude/response by locals, especially in view of the disasterous protocol for compensation for livestock kills, which only provides, at this point in time a small fraction of livestock worth, and that's IF the rancher jumps through enough laborious hoops . I don't know of anyone using poison, but discretion would demand that one wouldn't talk about doing it in general discourse. I sure wouldn't put it past some ranchers to escalate to desperate measures, as physically securing large isolated acres 24/7 is impossible. Covert bounty hunting/trapping/poisoning wouldn't be out of the question for those who have been hit hard by livestock kills.

I don't have a thing against Wolves.We have had Wolves for years.I can remember when the jammer broke down years ago when I was chasing tongs for a living watching several of them just watch me 500 feet down from the equipment and noise.I have seen several hunting and working in central Idaho in years past "before" the re-introduction of the Canadian Wolf.I have howled at them in the 80's with reply's on the South Fork of the Salmon..Nope-I don't hate Wolves..

I do hate the re-intro of the Canadian Wolves that are multipling like rabbits out of control with the law and rules being...I cannot protect my property aka Dogs from being eatin right in front of my face without the possibuility of me breaking the law and ending up in a world of hurt from only protecting my pets on public land.If a human presents a danger where I fear for my life or my family's life,I have the right to use whatever means to protect my family,but not Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This last episode just 7-road miles from town with two grown men fighting for there lives and there animals lives right down to swinging branches or anyother object tp protect oneself from the lunging Wolves..Let's me know they have no fear of humans and if a child was in camp with his pet not knowing anything but his beloved dog,could end up being seriously hurt or killed......

They are out of control without fear of humans coming into town and snacking on Cattle right next to the house in a semi populated area.Is it just one rougue pack or is this the way of the Canadian Wolf?The Fish and Game has already wiped out packs for the same behavior in the mountains on Sheep but this is in town,basically.......Owe Well..

I only hope I am not put in the curcumstance of either running for my life or standing and protecting what is mine with the known penalty for doing so , to what is not to me, an endangered specie anymore if only by there population that know one even has a clue as to how many packs really excist without radio collars.Most think there are probably closer to 1,000 wolves in Idaho now because of the lack of abuility to monitor those without collars.

Jayco

1akhunter,

The little I know of Alaska is that its BIG and there aren't many people in it. Tiny in comparison, Minnesota has always had wolves to some extent with the current population something over 3,000 in the northern third of the state.

Combining our high wolf density, a large number of hunters, and the right time of year, wolves would take a pounding in a large part of its range. If wolf tags were issued during deer season there would be 200,000 or so hunters on tap in prime wolf country - a helluva picket line.

You Alaska guys worry too much about skill <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

You also bring up a good point about Grizzley bears and the toll taken on moose here. Moose numbers in Wyoming have plummeted in recent years, but Fish and Game attribute it to loss of habitat. 3 days ago, I was scouting some back meadows for fall elk hunting prospects, and examined some back country wallows/beaver ponds the north area of Sandy creek. I expected to see moose but not a one. The lab and I climbed a small moraine only to surprise a small Grizzley, probably fresh on his own this year, tearing up tree stumps by a pond. He yelled and took off with my lab after him, as this bear was too close for comfort. I called the dog back and he came forthright, but that Griz yelled one more time before disappearing into the high brush. I feared the 444, with Hornady light magnums would have to do some work to save the dog. And I wouldn't have hesitated. The Big Sandy trailhead campground was about 3 miles Northwest, filled with families and hikers. I hadn't seen even bearspray on any of the hikers earlier that day. This area is not even a tertiary proposed area for the Grizzley population. Its on the Southern most edge of the Wind Range/ Northern Bridger Range. You can't contain a "protected" predator; what are the dreamers of the Great experiment thinking? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Logcutter,

Idaho is stuck between a rock and hard place - no doubt. Tell your Wyoming pards to help get your wolves delisted.

In the meantime make sure you're up on the current laws. This LINK is an overview of the revised 10(j) rule. Wolves on private, state, or tribal land can be whacked for messing with livestock and dogs. If you want more detailed info let me know.

Jog-Believe me..I am up on the laws.All the land and hills around here are USFS.My only point is why they are putting us in the position to possibly break the law if one determines through the crime scene investigations that other options were available with there two or three days later,showing up.(The Feds).

This is why I posted the local paper column stating the local Sherriffs department is left completely out of the formula when they could easily be the first responders(within hours if that, not days) and have the knowledge to take care of the situation.I do not understand that!!

If I was in danger from an escaped Felon running from the law and used leathal force to protect my family in the far back mountains,the Sherriff would handle that and determine self defense or not, yet not with Wolves.

What is the situation that allows an escaped felon to kill your dogs in front of your eyes on public land and point his gun at your forehead and threaten your life because you were there.That would be self defense once he raised his gun after killing your animals, yet it is not when Wolves are the aggresser with possibly the same result.Does the 250 pound Wolf have to attack you first and draw blood with the possibuility you can't recover from such a large animals first strike surrounded by the others.....Hog Wash!!!

Change the rules of engagement so the average outdoorsman is not put in the position of SSS or the outcome of some one-sided Goverment investigation or let the local authorities handle it.

My opinion...Jayco

Game and Fish folks are hired not elected. I would love to see the Wolf delisted, and some concessions made in management plans done, in order for that to happen. If powers that be have a "traditional" vision of Wyoming, that impedes delisting, I agree it needs to be changed. But if ranchers have no Game and Fish Comission response to their outcry, the general consensus is we are not being listened to or considered in this plan. I expect that some political upsets will happen in the next election, but no real change in the Wolf problem will come because of it. Logcutter, you make a good point about the exclusion of law enforcement in wolf incidents. The two wolf incidents last year outside of Farson, were sealed for over a week with investigations by nonlocal enforcement investigators. We had Federal guys driving all over the place in addition to Fish and Game. It was decided that a female wolf with a bunch of cubs stealthed out a decimation of 14 sheep in a flat land sheep farm just outside of town. Look where Farson is located...

The main sticking point in Wyoming's management plan is the number of packs that the Feds want Wyoming to maintain, which is double the number that Wyoming is willing to agree to. While this plan lies in limbo, the pack number is increasing toward the number that the Feds invision Wyoming to manage. So, for Wyoming, its coming to a default pack number in the interim. We might as well just agree to it...

Logcutter,

You can kill a wolf that's attacking livestock or dogs on Federal land, but you're right, you'll be dealing with the Feds after the fact. There are certainly more hoops to jump through dealing with the Feds.

On any other state and private lands you'll now be dealing with the state game & fish (according to the revised rules).

This is one of the reason why delisting is so important - it turns all management over to state authorities outside of the YNP boundaries - the locals make the call.

You cannot kill a Wolf on Federal Land for messing with your dogs.A permit holder for grazing livestock on Federal land can but the normal Hunter/Fisherman or just camper,cannot.You must have a permit to graze your cattle on federal land for this to be able to happen.

Jayco

Bearmgc,

You're hitting on the Catch-22 situation Wyoming is currently in: Wyoming officials have so far elected NOT to modify their plan with the result of having no say in wolf management. The citizens are ticked off at Game & Fish for not doing anything, but the citizens outcry is what led to the failed plan in the first place.

The Feds and Wyoming actually agree about the number of packs - 15. It's where the packs are located that's causing the trouble - kinda like a wolf pack shell game. Wyoming has had at least 8 packs in national parks for quite some time and only wants to manage for 7 outside the parks, 8+7=15. The Feds want Wyoming to commit to 15 packs regardless of where they are located. The irony is that Wyoming is way over 15 anyway.

The big sticking point, IMO, is unprotected predator status. Wyoming will never get that to fly with the Feds. The other Wyoming classification is "Trophy Game", which would sail. The irony (again) is that actual management techniques wouldn't have to be that different. The big difference is the amount of paperwork. "Trophy Game" status would require Fish & Game to keep harvest records like it does for elk, etc.

While the feds say that they've turned Idaho's wolf management over to the state, I have yet to see that that's the case. Idaho's sportsmen get to pay the bill, though. We have a seriously declining elk herd in the Clearwater area of central Idaho. The IDFG wants to kill about 50 wolves to protect what's left but they can't get permission from the feds. So, who's running the program? If the state was, they'd shoot them. However, since they were 'turned over' to the state, the IDFG has to pay the bill and they're 100% funded by hunting and fishing licenses and tags. So, as long as the current situation continues, the IDFG funds will go down as hunters give up and stay home, elk numbers will continue to go down, and wolves will continue to increase unchecked.

If we could shoot the wolves, the IDFG could sell 50 tags at $500 to $1000 and make a pile of money to help finance the program.

Dick

Rock Chuck,

You�re on the right track.

The provisions of the endangered species act forbid the IDFG from ANY aspect of wolf management until approved management plans were obtained from the three states, the wolf populations goals were met, and the delisting process completed. After delisting, wolf management is turned over to the individual states. All the pieces are in place except for Wyoming�s plan.

The USFWS, in recognition of the wolf problems in Idaho, revised the 10(j) rules to allow IDFG a more active role in wolf management pending some resolution in Wyoming. As I said before, the revised rule is far from ideal but much better than the original. Keep cutting the IDFG some slack, because the USFWS still holds all the power. At the same time, cut the USFWS some slack because they�re twisting the rules in Idaho�s favor � the endangered species act doesn�t give them much wiggle room either.

I suck at Idaho geography, but I�m thinking the Clearwater area you mentioned is the Lolo Zone? If so, this is a copy/paste from an earlier post:

�Idaho has a proposal to the USFWS (April 4, 2006) that takes advantage of the revised 10(j) rule and calls for a wolf shoot in the Lolo Zone. The proposal clearly states Idaho's preference for hunters to conduct the 'management', but concedes the issue due to the current endangered species act provisions. Good on Idaho for setting the stage for future management.

The proposal, and the USFWS's reaction to it, will be a bellwether for future actions. On one hand, the Idaho argument for management is a little weak in specifics, but strong in overall logic. On the other hand, the USFWS prefers specifics, but supposedly revised 10(j) for just this type of management.�

On the money subject - delisting the wolf opens up a number of avenues for funding too. While the whole funding topic is mostly voodoo to me, many of the problems are associated with the states being understandably reluctant to pay for Federal management. Once the wolf is delisted and the state runs the show � you can apply a surcharge to tourist wolf lovers and non-resident elk hunters <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

I hope you guys in all your respective states have good luck in this "great experiment".

The one overwhelming thing that sticks in my craw is for folks that don't live there to have such effect with their input.

I vote Idaho for Idahoan's

Minnesota for Minnesotan's

Wyoming for WTF ever them cowboys call themselves. (grin)

I'm a big believer in State's rights, the Federal government is far too intrusive.

Dang Jog, 200,000 deer hunters! Is there enough room for everyone or is deer hunting kinda scary????

I like the idea of that many license holders, but am thinking I'd try something new and wear orange!

Firearms licence sales show that 626,211 total licences sold for the Regular firearm season alone for 2005.
Archery licence sales were 58,989.
Muzzleloader licences were 9,226.
The figure for statewide hunters in the field for the "opener" was at 500,000.
Mike

Mn has got the numbers of hunters , no doubt , but my opinion is with akhunter in that any sports style hunting will have minimal effect on wolf populations , and even if you get a Mn wolf season , their range will continue to expand .

JOG, thanks for clarifying the situation. I had my numbers crossed.

1akhunter,

I agree with you 100% that the citizens of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should have the final say in managing state and private land - hence the importance of delisting the wolf. It gets a little fuzzier with national parks, but the state should still hold most of the power.

My involvement in this thread has been non-denominational <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, I'm just trying to shed some light on the facts.

By the way, Minnesota actually has around 500,000 deer hunters, but not all of them hunt in wolf country. Blaze orange is required by law. I'll bet the overwhelming majority hunt with a round chambered.

There's plenty of land and plenty of deer, but most hunters tend to bunch up on state land near access points like you'd expect. Probably the most frustrating thing is scouting out a nice spot in advance only to find the Orange Army has bivouacked there on opening day. I avoid all that by mostly hunting on private land. The deer hunting is so-so, but the experience is much better. I can't say it's safer, because a hunting related shooting is really rare here.

I believe this Wolf program was designed from the "Witness Protection Program".They resemble each other in almost every way.No one,not even the local law enforcement,can mess with them without harsh results!!!!Thugs/Gangsters/Murderer's and Wolves all protected by Uncle Sam!!

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

Yes it is. Here's more of the story. The greenies are fighting the IDFG tooth and nail to prevent killing wolves. They say that declining habitat is the problem with the declining elk herd, not the wolves. It's true that the habitat has a problem, but the greenies themselves are the cause.

Back in 1910, that part of Idaho had one of worst fires in US history. It burned 100's of square miles. Over the next 75 years, it grew into premier elk habitat. Now, however, it's overgrown and the browse plants are declining because of the mature trees. To bring back the browse plants for the elk, it needs to be logged or burned again. You probably know what the word 'logging' means to a greenie. It's worse than global warming. Since the feds have almost eliminated public land logging, what's turning into old growth forest is a major cause of elk decline. But now, they've dumped hundreds of wolves on top of the decimated elk herd to deal it a death blow. At least 15 years ago, the greenies stating in writing that they planned to use introduced predators to reduce game to unhuntable levels. In this area, they're getting the job done.

Dick,

Rock Chuck,

Your post is the key to whole deal. The wolf population should exist at a level where predation is compensatory - a large prey base that ensures a lot of fringe (health-wise) animals. The wolves get to eat an elk just before it tips over from old age <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. The wolves will be fat and happy and so will the prime elk herd.

In the Lolo Zone, as you stated, the elk herd is struggling for a number of reasons and don't need the wolf wildcard thrown into the mix. Idaho did a great job with their management proposal, IMO, but it's long on common sense and short on actual science - that's not an insult as there are just too many variables to prove anything. My bet is that the USFWS will accept it any way, in part because it makes sense and also due to the support of Bush administration.

Write your congress critters...

Here's link to the Wolf Control Proposal in case you haven't seen the whole thing.

To beat the delisting drum once again, once the wolf has been delisted IDFG won't have to ask for permission for this type of management. Believe it or not, the USFWS and the US Department of the Interior would like nothing better.

Heres a little tidbit out of this weeks paper.


Jayco

Jog, are you saying wolves ONLY eat elk, etc. which are about to kick the bucket?

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