I call that a good start, IYAM...

Read on:

____________________________________________
Reward offered in Minnesota wolf shooting cases.


One wolf was shot northwest of Grand Rapids in the Ball Club area while the second was killed northwest of Two Harbors.
By: John Myers, Duluth News Tribune

"The federal government is offering a $1,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of people who shot two wolves in northern Minnesota in November. "
_______________________________________________

Good luck, Feds... You morons just don't get it do ya??

Sic Pelosi on the case.. Maybe that dog can sniff out a lead..

dpole prolly did it.............

So the way I see it they have two apparent suicides.

Isn't that big of them to offer a $1000 reward when they would fine a person shooting a wolf $100K.

ohhhh now ya done it....

2 good wolves?

tell them to come do their wolf shooting in Idaho. It's legal, tags are OTC and unlimited, and the remaining seasons are open through March.

LOL

How much money will the DNR waste on an investigation???

Hope enough bullet was used so there's no chance of recovery...

I call that, SPOT ON.

A thousand reward.
Tens of thousands investigating.
How much has the government spent on these wolves? Between releasing, following, policing, law suits, etc etc.

Seems they're willing to spend more, too.

Maybe they've got a bunch of surplus cash laying around they're not telling us about...

Oh no.

sad part is, someone will turn them in.

I can't believe someone shot a wolf up there.

I hope someone turns them in.

Interesting to see the responses here. The indignation here when someone gets busted for poaching deer from a truck leads one to believe that folks here actually believe in game laws.

I've often thought about creating a website to collect donations to help fund legal costs for people that get nailed for shooting wolves.

I like that idea a lot!

Don't worry the tax payers will pay for it. Stimulus Money

The Christmas day feast must suck when granola, soy and tofu are the staples of the menu.

Well, BrentD you can bet your azz it won't be the guy that lives in this house!!!

Self righteous butt hole.

Yah a couple of you on this thread have ole Brent pegged.

Canadian Timber Wolves, like all other non-native species from pythons to ponies, should be exterminated.

Feel good story of the year. It's a start..

Don't count on any donations from BrentD.

They only killed two ??

They should have shot the whole damn pack....

Maybe I was wrong....it was dpole and BrentD. I think I need to contact the authorities and turn them in. How much was the reward?

"Game laws","Poaching" .... LOL. Tree Huggers licking wolf azz. Looks like a cure has been found. Pass it on. It's getting more popular in Wisconsin, too. There comes a time when regular people's common sense trumps over reaching of corrupt government. Looks like it's about time.

So far, when it comes to wolves, more have been caught than haven't.

But yeah, the absence of a conservation ethic here is definitely a black eye for the Campfire............


Casey

Only two dead wolves?
In Sconnie, 9 dead wolves were found during gun season, mostly up nort. Click to read a newspaper article about it.

Civil disobedience is an appropriate response to corrupt government!

WN

Heard of collars being found under ice in the U.P. Seems like someone likes to toss em into a river, minus the wolf...

Saw a bumper sticker a couple months back in northern WI:
"WOLF TASTES LIKE CHICKEN"......

I know it's hard to fathom but it wasn't adhered to a Subaru Outback or VW.

Sometimes game laws confuse me.

Here in Pa. the Game Commission will deny that we have any Mountain Lions. However---they said if you shoot one you will be fined. Now, how can you be fined for shooting something that doesn't exist?

Now I get their drift, but we have some wild pigs that have escaped and are starting to tear up the forest and they want you to kill any you encounter. But a Mountain Lion? Oh, that's different....

May there always be Wolves and Mountain Lions, and may hunters always have something to hunt. Because as soon as the deer are hurting because of wolves that season will be closed.

The big picture just may be bigger than the Wolf.

Here they like to toss them into south bound truck with IL plates on em.

Game laws aren't the issue. Idaho's imported wolves were introduced in violation of the ESA. They brought in exotic wolves which diluted the native gene pool. The purpose was to reduce game numbers to unhuntable levels. These aren't my words. They came directly from the anti's themselves, years ago.

If they'd followed ESA regulations, they'd have done everything possible to keep the Canadian wolves OUT to protect the natives.

BTW, apples to pomegranates my friend, apples to pomegranates.
������Never mind, I just checked your bio. You already have all the answers. Say "hi" to Keith Warnke when you see him.�������

Nice. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

I saw who did it........was a dude with a towel wrapped around his head blabbering something about the infidel dogs.....

I'm glad that KS doesn't seem to have wolves. Lions may be here. I really don't know of a deer hunter here that would not shoot a wolf or puma, and just leave them lay. Coyotes and bobcats are starting to be a problem here. You must have fur bearer license to possess, but I'm sure that they get dropped.

I don't know the problems you fellas out west have with wolves so I won't understand your mentality. For me, it's always been a dream to see a wolf in the wild along with a grizzly.

I'm sure if I lived with them my tune would change but for now I find the wolf a fascinating animal that I would more enjoy watching than hunting.

An eco system with top down predation is a healthy and balanced one. Ironically many hunters are unwilling to subject themselves to such an environment. Too many these days favor high fences and canned hunts.

rkamp

Well you are new here so I guess I'll give you a pass.

Not too many high fences and canned hunts here in wuf country.

Do your homework!

WN

There's a common saying up here that can frequently be heard in the woods of Northern Minnesota. It's called "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up." 'Think that pretty much sums up the feeling s of a very large sector of the general public. Oh yeah-Brent, your a real azzhat for that statement BTW. 'Hope your trained attack lap dog gets munched by one of these wolves your so enamored with.

I can understand that but it's one thing to see one and another to live with them.

Uh Huh, and you hunt what where?

someone in your profession should know wolves arent game animals.

They were exterminated for good reason.Hopefully,your dog is the one eaten on the porch, next time you visit.

Move to Alaska.

For you fellas who dislike wolves, is it more because of the hurting they put on your local game animals or is the general nuisance they are?

Even though I like wolves, I can relate to an extent because of the problems we have with coyotes. I'm sure if I lived with wolves and the trouble they brought, I'd probably quickly change my attitude.

If you have coyote troubles - multiply their size by 2.5 and IQ by 2. That's a wolf. Now figure out what kind of troubles you would have.

All in good time.

I'd assume my first problem would be with my dogs and then the drop in the deer population.

I'm just trying to understand what you fellas go thru so be a bit easy on me.

In Dubois, WY you used to be able to see many moose, cows, calves, and bulls in and around town. Not any more........

This is Minnesota, not some pansy western state. Our wolves never went away and we have twice the population of the western states combined.

I live just south of Austin, TX where I raise sheep. I primarily hunt feral hogs on my friends land in the mountains of N. CA. No wolves, but lots of deer, turkey, pigs and some cougars.

How about this, rrr, you maybe come on board with those who have actual experience with the decimation of game and the worry about livestock, kids and whatnot?
Sure, wolves are great in someone else's backyard, that's the entire issue. Put a wolf in with some Manhattan wolf-lover's 58 cats in her studio apartment, and we'll see what sort of attitude shift takes place.
We were mildly cool with wolves and a natural repopulation down from Canada, as long as there would be a time when hunting could be reinstated to mitigate the exacerbative effects of predation on herds, and definitely to protect the livestock of producers rather than have them go broke and sell to some Commie movie star.
But no, Bruce Babbitt rammed the concept down our throats, lying all the way, and now we have ten times as many wolves as we were told would be required for de-listing...and STILL we're waiting for a ruling from a judge that was trying a case for a Naderite spinoff when he was nominated to the judgeship.
So, if you don't know our problems, how about a little deference? A dream? Nah.

I used to work with the Terri Winger in this story.
story here

rrroae

Just to give you a perspective...bear hunting with dogs in WI/MI is common. However, in recent years, many bear dog hunters have lost thousands of dollars worth of dogs due to wolf attacks.

Just last weekend a guy was running a bobcat and lost one of his two dogs and the other was ripped up pretty bad.

A couple of wuf's are really no big deal to most of us but THEY ARE OUT OF CONTROL just like the DNR here in WI!

WN

I wasn't trying to be harsh. Guy next to our hunting camp lost 4 calves this year to wolves. They took out 4 healthy 400 lb calves. Now I have to worry about my 70 pound son or my dog or whatever else I wouldn't normally think about.

Read an article where a guy was running his dogs, 3 wolves treed him. He had to call for help from the tree. Upper Michigan. I read it in the Porcupine Press or MI Woods and Waters.

Here,here!!!!

Deer weren't introduced to the area against the wishes of the people who live there. Deer don't destroy the livestock they depend on for their financial bottom line. Deer aren't a threat to their pets. Deer aren't a threat to their children. Deer don't have a ridiculous level of protection from the government. They're allowed to hunt the deer and eat them. And if the deer become too populated in an area they can get predation tags and thin them out.

More importantly the government didn't waste countless millions of dollars putting deer out there and pissing everyone off by doing it.

And MOST importantly, deer weren't transplanted into an area where no one wants them at the request of whack job lefties who want hunting stopped and saw it as a way to try and accomplish that.

Brent D. Is the D for dork or dumbass?
Call someone a poacher who lives ther and has to deal with this overstepping of government and the liberal agenda they're following and you'd most assuredly deserve the punch you got in the mouth!

Plus, as has been stated so many times I think it'd soak in by now, the imports are different than the original population which BELONGED there and is now probably going to end up going extinct.

Course this thread is about the wolves in a different area of the country but the same principles apply. Introduced wolves need to be shot dead, all of them. And the ones where their was native population need to be carefully controlled to very small numbers. They're a dangerous animal. Liberals are an even more dangerous animal. It'd bother me none at all to see the majority of both of them shot.

Elk taste better.

Hey stupid..............why don't you do a little simple research before you run your dumbazz mouth off about people having black eyes on the Campfire..........

'It's a completely different predator'
by Brett French, Billings Gazette, Mar 18, 2008

TWO DOT, Mont. -- Her voice tinged with emotion and the video camera jiggling in her shaking hand, Tonya Martin filmed and narrated the scene she found behind her ranch home March 5 -- five sheep had been killed by a wolf and another five were wounded, three of them fatally. "In the end, it's hard to watch what your animals go through," said Martin, 36, while showing the location of the slaughter last week. "It makes me question what the future will be with them."

Martin was driving a tractor out to feed her cow-calf pairs around 8:30 a.m. March 5 when her mother-in-law, Katherine Martin, sighted the big black wolf. The wolf trotted out of the brush, crossed the county road, went under a barbed-wire fence and paused to look back. "We knew what it was right away," she said. "Our first instinct was to go after it."

At the time, Martin didn't know the wolf had killed five of her sheep. Had she known, the .222 rifle that always rides in the tractor could have been used to legally kill the wolf. It wasn't until the Martins investigated that they found the sheep flighty and hiding in the barren cottonwood trees along Big Elk Creek. Scattered around the drainage were five dead sheep and five others that were injured.

A veterinarian was called to patch up the five injured sheep, most of them with torn throats, but only two of those survived. "I've never seen anything like it," Martin said. "Some were hamstrung, their legs were broken and twisted. I'd never seen kills like it before. The sheep were scared to death." "It was a sad day, because I know he'll be back, and he'll be back with friends."

Tonya and her husband, Craig, are parents to the fifth generation of Martins on their ranch. The family's roots along the windy northeastern face of the Crazy Mountains reach back 114 years. This rural area has come full circle. The first sheep were herded into this part of the Musselshell Valley in 1876. By the early 1900s, it was estimated that rancher Charles Bair owned more than 300,000 head of sheep, making the area one of the top sheep-producing regions in the world. Sheep production has dropped precipitously across Montana and the United States since the 1920s, for a variety of reasons. But Martin likes having her nearly 400 head of sheep around as a way to control weeds without using pesticides. "They bring a lot more to the table," she said.

As sheep and settler numbers grew at the turn of the century, wolves were exterminated across the landscape. The hide and skull of one of the last wolves killed in the early 1900s in the Two Dot region hangs on the fireplace of Martin's neighbor, Mac White. His uncles used to hunt wolves with greyhounds and Irish wolfhounds. "They got rid of them for a reason," Martin said. But now wolves are back.

After being reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s, wolves have recolonized old territories and now number more than 1,500 in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. As wolf populations have grown, roaming wolves are breaking off to seek new habitat, new food sources. "Wolves are firmly established and all of Montana is within the dispersal distance of wolves," said Carolyn Sime, wolf coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Adult wolves have been known to wander up to 500 miles, crossing interstate highways, big rivers and there's even anecdotal evidence they've swum reservoirs. Sixty to 80 miles is a more typical traveling distance, which puts the Crazy Mountains, an island range, within reach of four other known packs.

The Martin ranch, located 10 miles south of Two Dot, has been no stranger to predators over the years. "We had a 350-pound bear killing sheep in the lambing shed three or four years ago," Martin said. The big bear eventually was shot by a Harlowton hunter, but Tonya said the situation was a bit too close for comfort. The family has also weathered its share of coyote kills in the 13 years that Martin has been raising sheep. But she sees the wolf that attacked her flock a bit differently. "They're vicious," she said. "It never ate a bite. It just killed for fun. It's a completely different predator."

Sime said sheep trigger some "hardwired" mechanism in wolves that makes them tend to kill more than just one, although she said there's no way to understand why the wolves do it. "I don't really know if a wolf thinks that's fun or not," Sime said. She also said a lone wolf will often kill and not return to the kill site, electing to move on in search of other wolves. "Wolves have a pretty big urge to move on because they're a pack animal," Sime said. "They're looking for other wolves."

When other predators such as coyotes, bears or mountain lions kill an animal, they usually return to feed, Martin said, and they don't typically return with many friends, if any. That's what concerns her most -- that the lone wolf may signal the start of a new pack in the area and more sheep losses.

Sime said that once nighttime temperatures get above freezing, a government trapper will be authorized to set leg-hold traps to try to catch the Two Dot-area wolf for collaring. When it's freezing, there's concern that the animal could lose its paw in a leg-hold trap. "That's a typical step for us when we have a wolf in a new area," Sime said. The state would like to know whether the wolf was a loner, or the mate of a breeding pair that may be looking to den and have pups this spring.

It's calving season, and the Martins are already putting in long hours tending their livestock. But since the wolf attack, they've been on high alert. Bellowing cows have them grabbing their coats, slipping on boots and rushing outside to make sure there's no problem.

Although the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife will pay livestock owners for confirmed wolf kills, Martin isn't so sure she'll apply. "Morally, it's kind of hard because they are funded with donations of people who wanted to put wolves here in the first place," she said.

It's a completely different predator. Billings Montana Gazette, Mar 18, 2008

Seems like he has a pretty level headed view of the wolf. He certainly admires them but understands the definite need to control their population.
Thanks for the link.

Looks like there was at least one person further up the chain than the wolfs.

I can understand that and appreciate you taking the time to let me know.

My dogs are very important to me. I'm sure I wouldn't take it very well at all if someone or something screwed with them.

Excellent post Archerhunter

Don't worry bud. I just want to hear it straight from fellas who know.

Sounds like some liberal college professor's walt disney induced BS pipe dream. Thinking things are more of cyclic in nature, you never achieve a "balanced" eco system.

rroae, there is a lady that comes in where my wife works. They have lost pets in the neighborhood and are afraid to let smaller children out at night. All this in a area where one should not need to worry. I used to live near there. It is rural, our dogs ran free. No one worried to let a 6 year old walk to the neighbors any time day or night.

The wolf problem runs deeper than less elk hunting opportunities and domestic stock losses. Both of which are happening.

I'm with you all the way rrroae, except I want to watch them and hunt them, not to the last one either, but not cause I'm askeered, they can't blow down brick houses anyway, and I am from the West too -- even from a ranch.

This is gonna sound very cold and callous but as I understand it, the collar is supposed to stay attached to the wolf as it limps far away from the point of impact.

Jacques, I'd be proud to name you an honorary Minnesotan, if you'd have it.

Athabascan belly ache. Gut shoot them and let them die somewhere else.

I don't think that anyone hates wolves. I happen live among brown bears and wolves I have respect for both, but unlike the wolf-worshipping eco-nazis I know and understand that their numbers have to be kept in close check. Otherwise they'll destroy all the prey species within their territory and move on to another an destroy it.

An average wolve pack traveling it's circuit will take down an adult moose or caribou about every 2-3 days. They are NOT carrion eaters. They are efficient predators that prefer fresh meat. We've had our caribou season shut down out here on the AKPEN for about three years now and there isn't any indication that the caribou herd is going to recover to huntable levels anytime soon. The main reason for the caribou decline is the wolf population. We are seeing them (and shooting them when we can) in populated areas. Never happened before in anyone's memory. Got one myself last spring.

No one wants to see them wiped out. They are an important income source and are necessary for a healthy predator/prey balance. But they do need to be thinned out considerably

That is what happens when the die too fast to run off.

Ive heard of them being attached to trucks at truck stops,headed for parts south.

Hey stupid..............why don't you do a little simple research before you run your dumbazz mouth off about people having black eyes on the Campfire..........


You are a mean little [bleep] with a pen!

As long as Idaho and British Columbia have a comon border.........there is no such thing as a "Canadian wolf." They have been moving up and down the flathead forever already.

I've heard of this. They can behave like a plague of giant, hairy locusts. Wipe out most or all of the food in an area and move on. Repeat.

Stevelyn,

To be picky, your post has nothing to do with poaching wolves in Minnesota. Wolves here have no overall effect on deer populations.

I assume this to be a tongue in cheek comment, right? Forgive me for having to check. The Michigan DNR estimates the wolf number in this state at slightly over 500. (Funny that this number never seems to go up) They attribute as many as 25,000 deer deaths to wolves each year. My father in law and I did a little math and find this to be a pretty conservative number based on some bits of research the DNR has revealed.

The $1K reward is chicken feed. Take a look at the reward offered for the wolf that was killed in the UP of Michigan. So far, no one has been arrested for this.

The wolf killer should be GIVEN the $7K as a reward for controlling the da*n things. The wolves are out of control and there's no end in sight.

http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=391845

I just wish that Wyoming and the USFS would settle their dispute so we could hunt them. As long as we have to let them live here we ought to be able to control them. The Feds have blown smoke up our collective arses about how many we would have. I don't mind having them at all, but let us control the population. Heck we had wolves before the "reintroduced" them. I saw wolves long before we got the Canadian variety. Like him or not, got to hand it to Freudenthal for not caving to the Feds!

Feds are bitchin because WY's plan is to have them protected in the park (of course), limited trophy hunting within a certain area outside the park. Outside the trophy area they are classified as predators. That is the part the USFS has heartburn about.

Source

I wasn't speaking for Michigan, but it seems you have the same problem as Minnesota - too many deer.

The MI DNR is full of BS as far as the wolves and deer numbers go. They should really come to the UP of Michigan and see what's really happening with the deer and wolves. I live here and see it every day. The deer kill taken by hunters from below the Bridge this past season was down 42%, so how does that equal too many deer? Many local hunters reported seeing NO DEER during the 15 day firearm deer season. Wolves however, appeared to be plentiful.

The MI DNR also stated that "they have to study the wolf/deer interaction to see what effect the wolves will have on the deer." Let's see if a person can figure this out for the desk jockey's in Lansing. A major predator and a prey species. I wonder what will happen if they interact?

In other words they've decided to waste a few million dollars and let it sit a while to ward off legal attacks from the liberals for a time. They'll get back to ya in about 10 years... by then there'll be too few deer to hunt and the liberals will celebrate their victory, at the expense of EVERYone.

If you've got too many wolves you guys better get to killing!

You're right.

The "Canadian" wolf thing is a lame attempt to suggest wolves aren't native to the lower 48.........of course, we could just as easily call all the wolves in Canada "American" wolves.............It's all the same DNA......


Casey

I'm with you there elk......



No, the feds ain't bitchin, Wyoming is. As I've written before, Wyoming sued --twice--lost both times, plus lost in fed appeals court, and held up the whole delisting process for Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for almost 3 years during the lawsuits.

Finally, USFWS circumvented Wyoming and let Montana and Idaho go ahead with taking over managment of wolves and begin sport hunting seasons. Then that was held up for a year with the enviromental groups lawsuit when the fed court granted a temporary injunction, but the suit was eventually dismissed by the federal court within the year.


Casey

Semantics Casey. Wyoming bitches...Feds bitches....don't matter...result is the same. States should be allowed to run things as they see fit and not be blackmailed. Feds would not agree with WY plan and WY won't succumb to blackmail!

Well, if our economy was dependent on selling Lattes to bunny huggers, I might think wolves are no problem. But since A. the wolves introduced are the larger, more voracious Canadian type and B. they kill stuff just for fun, costing our ranchers thousands, I want them exterminated. You like wolves so much you can have 'em.

Well, just about as I expected. I see that the hypocrisy on this site continues to rule.

Meanwhile, and for the clueless, wolves were never reintroduced to Minnesota. I know that is a foreign concept to a lot of you, but it might really be true. They have been there for 12-15,000 years, or 6000 for you 'Young Earth People'.

Meanwhile deer have been re-introduced to Iowa along with elk in Arizona and countless other species (turkeys, pheasants, misc salmonids, etc.). Deer and elk are, of course, quite destructive to livestock, timber, crops, automobiles, and humans when they propell themselves at high speed. So, they come at a cost, and many would love to exterminate them for it - or get government subsidies for damages (even better for the socialist farmer/rancher out there). BTW, the Arizona Elk, like the Dakota bighorns are most decidedly NOT the same subspecies that originally inhabited those places.

So, wolves decimate everything in their path and then move on? Interesting. In my lifetime, deer in NE Minnesota where I grew up have exploded in number. While the wolf population has similarly grown. Seems to be no shortage of deer up there, nor wolves. How can that be?

I can see that the future of hunting is really not rosy. Hunters today are not interested in the wild. They are interested in targets. Hunting is not an ethical/emotional pursuit, it is a political objective. And the mouthpieces of the hunting community are doing themselves no favors in ignoring the roots of the game. The Erringtons, Leopolds, Roosevelts among so many others, roll in their graves in disgust.

Brent

I wish the Bison (the state "animal", I believe) could come back here on grand scale; yet talk about damage....

That one would get rejected back to the Stone Age.

Are your eyes brown????

Sorry, I'm definitely not your type. Check out the movie Broke Back Mountain for something more along your tastes.

Here I go......



Unfortunately for us free, independent, rugged individualist westerners, our economy (especially where much of the ranching occurs) is dependent on Federal lands. Which in case you aren't aware, are owned by all Americans--consequently all Americans have a say.



Larger and more voracious than what?, do tell.......



(Not true, but I'll play along)......
Sport hunters kill just for fun.



How much does public land below cost livestock grazing cost the American taxpayer?




Remember sport hunters kill just for fun--Now you may want to exterminate yourself, but leave me out of it, OK?

And before you make any assumptions, my great uncles homesteaded outside of Laramie over a century ago, and ranched Wyoming and Colorado. I grew up with my family running cows on public lands on the West Slope. I'm well aware of the perils and actual threats posed by predators. I'm also well aware of the cost differences between private and public grazing..........


Casey

If I ever see a Wolf I want it to be in my crosshairs. Cougars have already done enough damage to Deer and Elk numbers here in Oregon. Ken

Did anyone ever consider how many more elk and deer and even trout there would be in the mountains, on public land, if the cattle and domestic sheep were moved down to the prairie where we own our land. Most of those broke ranchers in the mountains that I've seen have helicopter pads, Lincoln and Cadillac SUVs, and hundreds of thousands of acres to graze that they don't even own. But you better have the latest maps and know where you are at or they'll tell you that they own everything for miles every direction -- even if it is BLM or Nat'l Forrest land.

How is a capitalist rancher on private property supposed to compete with that? Especially when they get those leases for nearly nothing and get to "count" their own cattle when they settle the grazing fees. When they fill the salebarns with cattle, they knock the heck out of the price of beef, and we had to pay several times what they did for pasture if we lease it. Most of you would be flabbergasted as to the size of the wild herds that could be sustained in the high country if the cattle hadn't of grazed it all off.

About every senator and congressman, state and national, that has come out of this state for a long time is tied to that gov't land, and you hear mostly what is best for them IMO. Wolves are just part of this hype too. It gets in their pockets. Outfitters, will say the same, they hunt those ranches too.

Yeah, They want to keep the game numbers high as well, then charge you a $1000 bucks or more to shoot "their" elk, but those herd numbers would be even higher yet if somebody told them not to graze land if it's not worth the going rate that it is on the private property at the bottom of the mountain.

Funny ...not! I was eluding to the fact that you are full of schitt! Damn straight you ain't my type! You are a liberal and a boy to boot. Sorry to disappoint you but I like women! Funny how you gayboys always refer to that movie. I never heard of it.

Common guy, we all know you are one of those closet types. They always scream the loudest. You just keep up your cover boy. Some guy out there will find you plenty cute (if not to bright).

Ahh, I see Brent beat me to it.

Like I said before, the one thing I am the most surprised about on the Campfire is an absence of a conservation ethic..........most of the guys here appear to have no idea how much of the wildlife (especially large mammals) was restored in the lower 48--replete with a lot of opposition and controversy, but without the benefit of the internet......



Casey

Funny, I ran into said Senator last time I hunted out there. He wasn't very nice, even though his BLM access was paid for.

I think he just wanted to chew some ass, as he had no ground to stand on. We even had his permission in writing.

No schit.

Alpine, rather than go through the whole tiresome point by point thing, I'll let you do your own watching and reading.

Wolves kill 122 sheep in Montana

Save our elk

Feds kill 2 wolves in Oregon

Casey,

To your point, NW Minnesota has had plenty of controversy over the reintroduction of elk and crop damage.

It is too not to smart azz

funny how you gay boys always resort to insults when someone proves you wrong....have to say if you were to say that to my face, which you won't ...you would be picking up teeth.

Once again Brad, you come through with a truth--most of the larger "ranches" in the Rocky Mountains today are owned by the wealthy who want to play cowboy--and they take advantage of the taxpayer as much or more than the former ranch owners who were just trying to make a living off the land.

Honestly, I would MUCH rather see livestock than coal mines, gas wells, condominiums, ski areas and 10,000 sq ft "cabins" that cost a few million to build. Livestock are easier to manage, and good grazing techniques can minimize impacts to the land.


Casey

I agree with you on that Casey!

Jacques, interesting points. Glad you and Casey chimed in as I respect both your opinions.

I'm still guessing I'll never fully grasp this debate unless I was right there in the middle of it.

You are right--the restoration of large mammals have almost always created opposition and controversy. It's just that there is such a visceral over-reaction to predators, and so much intentional misinformation about wolves.

But how many folks on the Campfire will cheer an illegally killed elk?


Casey

I wouldn't cheer...shoot, shovel, and shut-up.

Or baste, barbecue, and be quiet.

Well, I would take the ranches over mines and ski resorts too, but I would take an all wild, wildlife approach over that, wolves included on public land. Ranchers on private land should shoot 'til their hearts content at them though, wolf populations should be managed on public land as well as all the other wild animals that belong up there.

I think the ironically part is that this comes from a guy from TX.

Conservation ethics are alive and well at the campfire.

If folks here figure they have a wolf problem in their backyard, well I'm not going to try to tell them they don't.

You Lee24 a page full of stats and accuse the campfire in general of lacking conservation ethics. The truth is there is an ever growing intolerance for a specific protected canine species here. This isn't a flash in the pan hollywood trend. This is real, people are upset, they have been for a long time.

You can choose to revert to your "stats" or you can ask yourself "why are these people so upset?"

The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Me personally, I hope & pray that more states will become envious over funds generated in Idaho & Montana on this years wolf tags.

Looking for a brown eye eehhh?

Maybe you should just leave then Brent. You hate everyone here and think that most of us are just [bleep] on your boots...
You contribute nothing but bad vibes... Adios mo-fo...

Wolves are scary smart. Built for killing. I've seen 2 while hunting but heard several dozen. I don't have a problem with the wolf really, but I have a problem with how they're managed and handled by the government.

I have no doubt that MN, WI, MI, and the other states can handle wolves, but they go unchecked, and then become a problem.

They absolutely devastate the deer population in an area, and then move out to the next.

In the 80's I worked on what was at the time the largest cougar study ever undertaken.

The study area had approximately 320,000 head of sheep that grazed on it all or part of the year (both public and private land).

On average, approximately 45 head of sheep were confirmed cougar kills (and of course, there were coyote, bear, and domestic dog kills too--and dogs probably kill more sheep than all the wild predators combined).

That works out to roughly 1/10,000 of 1 percent of the sheep population were confirmed as killed by cougars.

But, most of the sheep that were killed occurred in a relatively few number of incidents. But like Lays Potato Chips, the cougars couldn't eat just one. No, they usually had to kill 3, 4, and on occasion 10 ewes at a whack. Those relatively few incidents (aorund a dozen or so) made up the bulk of the 45 average head of sheep killed each year.

You wouldn't know that by the local newspapers scattered up and down the West Slope. When a cougar killed sheep it would make the front page of every newspaper. So on average once a month here would come a headline, reporting multiple sheep being killed.

It gave the impression that the domestic sheep population was being SLAUGHTERED by cougars. But it was only 45 head out of 330,000 sheep. If you think about it, the cougars were probably showing a heck of a lot of restraint--because cougars probably had the opportunity to kill THOUSANDS of sheep if they had a mind to.

Was the study controversial?--you bet! And some of the misinformation, and misunderstanding of the facts by the reporters (kind've like the anti-gun media) was mind boggling to me. I learned a lot how issues like this get out of hand and misinformation takes on a life of its own..........


Casey

I know plenty of guys here in NW MN where I live that would cheer an illegally killed elk. We call them farmers.



And I don't understand the term "reintroduction" in regards to the NW MN elk herd????


There are a few herds up here, the grygla herd has a hunt which is a lottery hunt, same with hallock. The DNR constructed a corral years ago & herded elk into said corral as best they could and attempted to "relocate them"

It was a disaster.

Survival rate was poor from the project & those that were actually trailered & transported seemed to find their way back.

My opinion, don't [bleep] with mother nature. don't try to move chit because you feel like playing god, don't put wolves here or elk there... just leave it alone & manage with laws, reasonable laws.

Stick to beer and football on TV Bart--you know, something you're good at.

For a guy that hasn't been around long....you're really starting to bore me.

Kiss my ass dickhead... You talk to kids like that,not me... I don't suffer fools well and you qualify...

I concede the point on how things can get out of hand quickly. However, people in the target areas intially and vocally protested the introduction of wolves and the feds said "screw you, you're getting wolves cuz we know best." Now they're population is expanding beyond all projections and people are doubly annoyed.

The numbers you cite are impressive, but 120 sheep seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom as to wolves killing more than they need. The things I've read from the 19th century regarding wolves seems to indicate that this behavior isn't unusual, just largely buried because it contradicts all of the "information" we've been given about wolves. The fact is that these wolves are great, big, appetites with feet. If they can be managed through hunting, I'm ok with that. But thus far, the wolves are treated as sacred. Makes me wonder what else is in play.

Amen Brother Bart,

What's your problem azzhole..... that movie stars you and BerntD apparently. funny how you guys stick together and know all the terminology........what schitthole you pop out of? You're just another troll.

When deer began invading orchards, and the elk population really began booming here on the West Slope, there were a lot of farmers and ranchers who looked upon the deer and elk as nothing more than crop predators, and they were saying the same thing about deer and elk as the boys are about wolves.

The species may change, but the rhetoric is the same.




It's not reintroduction. They were never introduced--elk are native to the upper midwest too. Technically it's called restoration in that situation.

And technically, Manitoban elk are the native subspecies in the upper midwest--not the Rocky Mountain elk that are currently being scattered across the USA.





Most of the elk in the interior west were transplanted from the Jackson Hole Elk Refuge in the 20's, 30's, and 50's. And they were transported in rail cars--I'm sure that was a rodeo.....

.....but without it, places like Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada probably wouldn't have as many elk--or it would have taken MUCH longer to acheive current levels. Depending on who you ask, Colorado probably had as few as 5,000 elk left in the state by the 1920's--most of them in the White River area and Gunnsion Basin. Today Colorado has 250-300K elk--and a lot of elk were shipped down here from Jackson Hole in the 30's.

Same with most bighorns, and many pronghorn populations--Shiras (Wyoming) moose were transplanted into Colorado starting in the 70's, and the population is booming.


Casey

I think all critters need to be re-introduced into whatever cities such laws come from and be protected. If there is not enough food, such should be provided by the municipality or state legislators with golden hearts.

There might be some preference to what stays and what goes. Thinking ungulates and birds may be on the bottom of the lists.

I'd not want the mayor telling me by law a skunk should live in my house.

A little common sense and middle ground helps. With wolves it seems there is no middle ground; perhaps there shouldn't be.

Yeah, but with all the photoshopping going on here recently, it IS kinda' funny.......


Casey

I moved to TX from N. CA over fifteen years ago. I still can not get over what constitutes hunting out here. It's nothing more than a business based on who can pay to shoot a farm raised whitetail with a large rack. I use to sell my well fed Barbadoe sheep bucks to the local game ranchers, but stopped. I figured I might as well sell them to the Greek, Mexican, and Middle Eastern folks to eat.
A while back my dentist showed me a "Mouflon" ram he had mounted in his office. I messed with him and told him that his name was "toots" and that my kids had bottle raised him since it was a lamb. Wasn't Toots, but looked a lot like him though. Point being how could you mount and take pride in a domestic animal shot over a corn feeder? Unfortunately this lack of ethics is transparent to the non hunting community.

Although wildlife also inhabit private land, they also inhabit public lands. And when 40-50% of the land in a county is public, it always presents a challenge to wildlife management.

We could always sell all the public lands, national parks, to the highest bidder (the Ted Turners of the world would love that) and then the landowners could do whatever they want with their private land


Casey

Would be if you did it, but a troll..not so....

Moved from California? Well that explains alot...
Guess what? We don't care how you did things in California... You,and your fellow transplants from the west coast are part of a growing problem here in Central Texas that you brought on yourselves...

Foul-mouth internet bullies like you don't impress me--much less concern me--and I always talk like this to blowhards.

Go back to your beer.



Casey

Boring would be reading some of your 8,700 some odd posts Mr. Campfire Outfitter. Being a member does have it's privileges.

Does calling me a bully make you feel better?

DFTFT guys, and you two children knock it off, Bart....Casey, don't make me whup you both at the same tiime!

We would LOVE to send some Mr Griz to CA as then their flag would not be BS. Let's start with Golden Gate park.......(GRIN)
Could even throw in some wolves at no extra charge. Would love to see the "greenie" reaction from Pelosis' syphophants. (LOL)

Wow, Bart fighting and name-calling. Who'da thunk it.

Some things never fail...

I live in Tennessee, and if I ever see a wolf all the way down here....

HAMMER DOWN!
Same goes for cats (not bobcats, they aren't hurtin anything, and Yotes

Wunderbar, The Prince Troll is here!

Nah, I wanna see Grey Wolves re-introduced in Central Park, that's all!

Les... You gotta stop playing with the campfire superhero...He's a fool.

Looky here... BTDT is back....

They don't want them -- it's too hard on the livestock!!!

Nah, You and Casey, I like, both of ya have yer moments as I do, Brad on the other hand isn't worth the energy to wipe my azz, he just bring new meaning to dipschit antics. This Noob rkamp needs to go back under his bridge.

California dude wantin to fight??????

Maybe I'm just a dumb TN redneck, but I don't think nobody from my neck of the woods is scared

Yeah, yeah, headlock us both.......



Casey

It seems that landowners cannot do what they want with private property, at least when wolves enter the equation. Maybe Ted Turner can.....

My point is that re-introducing (any)large predatory animals to native areas requires a little more than a bat over the head, "this is what needs to happen" mentality. Hell, re-introducing large ungulates can get farmers seething.

If given a poll or referendum for making a case to the public and private entities over say elk or wolves, your not gonna get wolves, even in ag areas, period. Might be reasons for that; they might not even be grounded in reason. Man just doesn't like to be associated with food, by nature.

People have to live with what is being mandated here, and it seems those who are farthest away from it get to mandate.

May the spotted skunk find refuge in a statesman's home....

Les... How come I can't recall a dead critter or hunting pic that your buddy Casey has posted?

Like hell, you'd get turned on ya pervert.

He's on the western side of the hills, probably ain't figured out his camera yet. Those guys on the Western side are a little slower than we are.

Or... He just sits behind a computer during hunting season?

Don't confuse stats with facts--the numbers I gave are available to those who want to know.

Wolf restoration has been the most popular restoration program ever--period. And there has yet to be any poll--from pros or cons--that doesn't put those opposing wolves in a very small minority. Of course, those who don't want anybody to touch a wolf are also in a small minority.

And yes, a good conservation ethic includes at least a semi-objective look at the issue, before all the blather about shooting wolves, decimated deer/elk populations, etc. There is a distinct lack of of even an attempt to understand the issue surrounding most wildlife management here on the Campfire--I continue to be surprised.

Wolves are here to stay. They should be treated and managed like every other game animal.


Casey

Go back to your beer, internet bully.

I think that we just found out who Lee24 really is...

Once I learn which way to point those new fangled digital cameras............




Casey

Your credibility is slipping....

It figures, your measure your worth by photos you post on the internet......

I truely hope I have no crediblity with you--if I did, I'd be embarassed.

There is a definite pattern here...Deflect.... I think I figger'd it out...

That's because you are a fool for all to see...

I just want to reiterate...

I'm sure rcramp, beastd and liar24 are all one in the same ignorant azzhole troll.

All youze young idjits should cool it,...

go have a brew, or sumpin'

Just after I invented Wolves, I invented spears, and gave them to men to KILL wolves with.

teasing Lee24 is a natural thing, it's been done in caves around the planet, ....since I invented him.

I'd like to see ya'll lighten up on him, and one another,

just sayin'

signed,

God

Troll eehh! If you want to see a troll get a flashlight, climb into bed, pull up the sheets and see who you are sleeping next to tonight.

That one right there will get you the boot... Dipshitt...

Adios Hitler with a Banjo!

Don't let the door hit ya in the azz on your way out.

No chit....

Same statement I made to the troll brentd I will make to you...you say that to my face azzhole, insult my wife like that and you will be picking up more than teeth off the ground.

My dogs leave smarter stuff on the ground in the backyard than you and brentd.

Geez....

The Outriggers, the Downriggers, the planers...everything that could be used for trolling was out tonite!

Ingwe

Wolves, stats, trolls, snot flying all over the place,....


Definitely Christmas time at the fire.

Still waiting for that hot chick Jessica.....

Feel the love!


Ingwe...out...

She's mean why would you wish for her to come out???

I'm waiting to read about the wolves???/ LOL

Krapp...I was ready to bail... but now I gotta do this..



Ingwe

I can't tell you how much LOL pizzes me off! Crime in Italy I hate that fuggin acronym! No offense 378Canuck!

What wolves??

Ain't it past your bedtime?

Troll!

Bish!



Ingwe

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

I'm done !

Ingwe

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

Thanks ingwe!

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't read this thread,

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

GTC

OH dayam

I better change that overly aggressive bloodthirsty unPC avatar huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Casey

A little light reading on the subject of dead wolves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope I live to see the day it happens.

Prove it.

PLEASE!!!

Ok. I read the remainder of the thread.

tsk, tsk.

got a question for ya, Casey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep. Until then, folks who live with the effects of the uncontrolled wolf populations will continue do what they need to do. At great personal risk from their "overlords". Some things are just that important. Shrug...

The "huggers" can moan, pizz, whine, cry, chit, puke, thrash, threaten, etc. when excess wolves are killed. It should (and does) happen. If they would put just a tiny fraction of their efforts towards allowing responsible management, regular folks would not be required to do their jobs for them.

Eradicating is not possible, or even wanted, as poison, trapping, snaring, bounty, etc. will not be used, as it was so many years ago. If EVERY hunter was issued a tag for a wolf along with the game tags that are purchased, there would STILL not be a high success rate. Wolves are a very effective predator & are rarely even seen.

Until the various state and federal treehugging bunch of [bleep] are purged, or by some miracle become reasonable, there are quite a few folks willing to do their part to clean up their messes.

The "Ethics" people here are a constant source of humor. Don't worry, some folks are less brainwashed by the .gov and their tree hugging lobby. They can determine and follow through with the correct actions.

It is nice to see new trolls, as the old ones were getting boring. Triple "S" is alive and well. Sadly, it is required. Gladly, it is becoming more common. Wisconsin DNR is a glaring example of a state agency, out of control. I really hope my home state wakes up & figures out how to wrest back control from the dirty bastards currently ruining the state.

oulufinn, I don't really have much problem with wolf hunting per se (as opposed to the wolf poaching that is preached by the choir here on 24hr). But who do you suppose that the uncontrolled wolf population in Minnesota allowed all those HUGE increases in deer populations over the last three decades?

The mighty here at that campfire, of course, have personally prescribed authority and bottomless knowledge to create their own variances in game laws, because they are superior beings. But that applies only to the choir members, sort of borrowing from the "Elitist Liberal Tradition" of course.

Has a sheep or cow EVER died on public graze land (more farmer subsidies) that wasn't killed by a lion, wolf or bear? I doubt it, esp if in areas where the farmer gets paid 7x market value if it just happened to be allegedly bit by a wolf. Oh, the socialized subsidies of it all!

'Tis a sad and sorry bunch so many "hunters" here have become.

Brent, whaddya say we introduce wolves in southern Iowa.
We'll see how that goes over. No one but a couple of soft shoes wanted them here in the first place.

Your generalization concerning the future of hunting is irresponsible and myopic. Hunters spend millions of dollars to protect it and it also provides an honest living to the many outfits throughout the states and Canada. And, believe it or not, in a very roundabout circle, it also keeps arrogant azzhats like yourself employed.

Show me. Show me a single--even halfway credible--survey of public opinion in Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho, that suggests those who oppose wolves outnumber those who support wolves. Show me-- from a legitimate polling organization. Show me--even from a local newspaper, that more people in those three states oppose wolves than support the existence of wolves in their respective states.

And I won't EVEN send you on the wild goose chase to try to find a national poll where there is a majority who say they oppose wolf restoration--'cause it doesn't exist.



This is a very good example of a small group of people continually reinforcing to one another a minority idea, and convincing themselves they are in the majority. They get mad when somebody offers countervailing ideas, and when they hear something they don't want to believe.

Archer, your posts in the past have seemed to be reasonably intelligent and a bit willing to look at other ideas, so that's why I'm picking on you.

So, show me where the majority of residents in the Northern Rockies oppose wolf restoration.


Casey

Where are those areas where you get paid 7x the market value if a wuff theatens to bite your stock ?

I wanna move my cow operation to one of those areas.

thankyou

That would be awesome! I'm all for it. But I'd like to see them in all of Iowa. And I'm still hoping we will soon, introduced intentionally or not, there are plenty of groceries for them.



Not really. Not even sorta. In fact, you can see the decline underway right now, and it will only get worse. And when folks like these here, become the mouthpieces and stereotypes for hunters everywhere, the decline will steep even more. Just a matter of time.

NW Wyoming. And of course, all your cows will mysteriously die of wolves, over night. Just like that.

You vote socialist no doubt. They will love you in Wyoming.

A pity throwing out insults don't constitute logic, else some folks here woulda won by a landslide.

But really, if they loosened up the regs everywhere so that wolves could be shot on sight, much as is legal for coyotes in many locations legal for lions in Texas, would wolves be actually extirpated anywhere?

I doubt it.

Birdwatcher

comparing the wolf to deer ratios in Minnesota is not as clear as you think it is Brentd.
Mn has a very large deer population in the southern half of the state. In fact hunting south of highway 2 is much better than any hunting north of the highway.
South of highway 2 there are no wolves. Its mostly open agracultural land with limited forestland that is suitalble for large predators.
I grew up in way north mn and can still remember when there was a trapping season on wolves. hunting was booming in the north then. people came "up nort" from allover to hunt.
There has been no control on wolves in the state since the 60's by anybody other than the fed's.
Deer hunting and deer populations in the south are booming, but hunting and deer populations in the north are not what they were when the state controlled wolves by allowing trapping.
The same senarios as are reported in Michigan and Wisconsin happen in Mn.
Wolves move in - deer populations nose dive.
If we have a high snow year it's even worse.
Deer yard up in deep snow and the wolves have a field day, reducing further a herd thats already struggling through a hard winter.
In small towns in the north it;s not unusual for wolves to come into town and snack on dogs and cats in peoples backyards.

Ungulate populations are tied to more than just wolf predation, such as weather and habitat- but to many wolves can have a fierce effect on overall numbers that most tree huggers choose to gloss over when romanticising about the "wilderness wolf"

Yep. Far NW WI is in the same boat. The lack of deer is astonishing.

Oh, I'm SURE they'd be very welcome in downtown Davenport.. Yeah, elementary schools with kids at recess... (Well, you said 'all' of Iowa)



I truly wanted to stay out of this little foray, but the comments of BrentD above show an incredible dearth of any common sense..

I'm sorry I started this entire thread.. I had no idea it was going to degenerate into such a pizzing match....

Birdy, they would be extirpated under those rules. Plenty of people scattered across the landscape in the lower 48--unlike Canada or Alaska.

Wolves do not have the densities of coyotes--a LOT more coyotes can live on the same acre of ground than wolves. For example, same thing exists with grizzlies vs blackies--grizzlies need many more acres than a black bear.

When Montana and Idaho took over management of the wolf this year, one of the important aspects was the change in status and the respective states rules concerning protection of property. Plugging a wolf that is threatening life or property (truely threatening) is now a lot easier without fear of legal reprecussions. (Meanwhile Wyoming continues to shoot itself in the foot--so to speak.....)

In Colorado, the law has always been one can shoot to kill any critter (including domestic animals) that are clearly a threat to life or property. And that goes a long ways towards keeping predators "honest".

I've plugged a lot of domestic dogs chasing my livestock, or deer and elk, on my property. And domestic dogs and cats are generally the biggest predators here in the west--they kill more sheep than all of the "wild" predators combined.


Casey

It always does with wolves.........


After a while,one can take only so many empty threats about illegally killing wildife..........



Casey

"Archer, your posts in the past have seemed to be reasonably intelligent and a bit willing to look at other ideas, so that's why I'm picking on you."

Much appreciated, Casey. Same for you, except the picking on part


You're not making a very strong case.

Mob rules.... right?

You're pitting city folks who don't have to deal with the wolves agaisnt an obvious minority of country folks who do.

Not fair. Not fair at all. ONLY the people who live there have a voice the way I see it. Cities filled with liberals who want to hear the howl of the wolves have no stake in it, other than their liberal agendas. And even if there is a majority in the country setting who want the wolves, do they want such high numbers of them? And if their livelihoods aren't being threatened do they really have as much of a say in it as those who are? Too many wolves is hurting some of the people. gov't won't listen to them. Feds are mandating something they've no business even watching, let alone making policy. The state and the locals are the only ones who should be at the table discussing it. It just ain't right, no matter how one looks at the problem, it jsut ain't right.

Take a vote among only the ranchers and farmers where the wolves are causing problems. If things are going to skewed towards one side of the debate or the other, why must it be skewed in favor of the liberals and the govenment? Doesn't make sense. And it really doesn't fit with the picture I've always had of you in my mind. You've always seemed a very reasonable fellow with what's best for the liberty and freedoms of Americans in general at the forefront of your thinking. I'm sure there'll always be things you and I disagree on but for the most part those are few and minor. In this topic you seem willing to allow government to overstep the boundries. Most on here agree, myself included, wolves are fine and dandy. But I beleive, from what I read of posters who live there, they need to be thinned drastically and the federal government needs to get the hell out of the way and put back in DC where they belong, as is always the case...

Um........ WHAT?

wiki better update it's data. MN is in a deer slump friend. I know you are just going to run to some fountain of data & post estimated populations which will likely contradict my statement here.

But the deer harvest right now is down, (it really is & you cannot dispute that fact) and it isn't because we all forgot how to hunt.

Now I'm not going to tell you the wolves ate all the deer or anything as simple as that.

Population (deer) is & has been increasingly out of control in metro areas which coincidentally are not populated as heavily if at all by wolves. (unfortunately these deer do count as part of the state's population even if nobody wants to hunt them)



There are pockets of deer. Like anyplace else we don't have an even population per sq mile across the state. Lots of things determine where the deer hold up. Food, snow depth, cover, predators etc.


Wolves are not holding tight to the timber any more. They are becoming open country roamers. Transition areas where ag land meets forest areas are common places for wolf sightings. It is becoming more common to see wolves out in open country that only offers small wooded parcels here & there. They are really stretching out from the timber to hunt. This is causing problems for turkey farms, cattle.. any livestock operation as well as for rural homes with pets.

The wolves eat plenty of deer but the real cause for the recent slump in our deer harvest IMO is too many years of bonus & management tags sold to hunters. For many years now hunters have been able to take as many or more than 6 deer per hunter. It's been too much for too long & they have run the populations down in the greater traditional hunting areas of the state. What deer are left are hunted & pressured 24/7 by wolves so even if they don�t fall to the tooth of the wolf many will fall to the elements being forced to herd up out in the wind of the frozen tundra where they can watch for predators. If mother nature throws a hard winter into the mix it�s going to wipe a lot of deer out & we�ll be back to the old days of bucks only tags ( for areas open to deer hunting), applying for a doe tag in areas accepting applications and many hours of sitting out in the woods and watching squirrels & birds�. No deer.

Well, he DOES work for the dnr, so.....

If you survey 1000 residents of a college town in Montana you will, no doubt, find sympathy for wolves.

If you ask 1000 residents of rural NW Montana I doubt you will find little sympathy, if any! I wonder why?

If you are going to assess "public opinion" you really need to be talking with the stakeholders. Urban elitists don't have a clue when it comes to living and earning a living in the country.

WN

Get used to living in Fascist (not Socialist!!!) Country controlled by the metro bi-coastal elites. It'll last a few years until the bubble really bursts and the food wars begin.
Then we'll see who thinks a bear or wolf is worth protecting....LOL! They (the wingnut's lovers) be eating each other in Chicago!

Hmmmm , the data at this site

http://www.defenders.org/resources/...e_foundation_wolf_compensation_trust.pdf


shows a net of $362 per head paid out for verified cattle , sheep , and other domestic animals lost to wolves since the Yellowstone reintroduction . Hardly 7x the value .


I love how a guy that is probably !00 % on the govt. payroll throws around the word "socialist"


But yeah , I think I would get along well with most of the folks in Wyoming .

If the domestic dogs were protected,and you went to jail for shooting them,then you would know how alot of people feel about wolves.

Aint that cute?

We live in farm country here in central WI, nothing else you could call it, and we have wolves. So I know they roam into it. My wife told me she saw a wolf in a hay field less than a mile form our house, and I told here it was a coyote.

She told me it was as big as a deer, so we jumped in the truck and went to see if it was still there. Sho nuff it was. Trotting acoss the hay field, bigger than hell, and it sure wern't no coyote.

We don't have feral dogs or cats. The wolves have killed them all.

did you bring the shovel?

I completely disagree, again.
You're only looking at the surface and ignoring ALL the underlying issues. You're on the gooberment's side. That much is painfully obvious. You're also on the liberals side. That's really too bad. Shows exactly who and what you are. Something/someone who's forever going to be viewed dimly by people of common sense and people who appreciate what America is supposed to be.

"'Tis a sad and sorry bunch so many "hunters" here have become"

No sir. Tis a sad and sorry bunch that "public servants" and their cronies have become. And a sad-sack bunch of liberals, too. You're a goooberment employee FIRST AND FOREMOST. Secondarily a liberal. Tirtiarialy, you're a hunter. It's obvious the third catagor is WAY down the list and takes a very, VERY far back seat to the other 2. You're like that knothead Dpole. Atop some high pedistal looking down on humanity as a bunch of idiots that need complete regulation and oversight. You two's view of authority and how it should be projected on the populace is deplorable. You're both bad boogie. Very baaaaaad boogie. Dancing to the tunes of very anti-American songs. I consider you both POACHERS! Poachers of right and reason. Poachers of all things proper, correct and true. Just plain bad boogie.

i,m always suprised by the emotional attachment some people show for wild animals.
The above response is an example.
wolves are not big dogs, if you were the only food they could get at - they would eat you!

The following is an article that appeared in the 12/25/09 edition of "Wisconsin Outdoor News".

"Joggers Packing"
"The northern WI deer season had a unique mix due to weather, hunters, joggers, cyclists and power walkers. All had one thing in common: They all packed pistols. This begged the question, why? So I asked Martha, a 68 year old power walker, had been stalked twice by wolves.. Ron, a cyclist, was chased and credited his speed on the bike for his escape. Jan and Bob were followed multiple times. The bowhunters we talked with had many encounters with wolves and bears and carried pistols while hunting.

Mike told us his story. His neighbor called. The neighbor's girls were dropped off by the school bus. They came in the house terrified, having been followed by three "dogs". Mike came over packing and watched three wolves. He than took more notice during the next several weeks:not only his neighbor's girls, but his own kids were being trailed to and from the bus. He and his neighbor notified the DNR. They were told that unless one of the kids were attacked there was nothing that could be done. They were also told that the wolves were just curious and would not do any harm.

Mike and his neighbor now walk their kids to and from from the bus now. Is there a preditor problem in northern WI? I suppose you need to define "problem"."

Sooner or later someone is going to be attacked.

Two words Archer--show me.

It is often repeated in these Wolf War threads that most people in the wolf restoration states oppose wolves. I really want to see that.


Casey

not with all those holes in them,they wouldnt

did you bring the shovel? [/quote]


sssshhhh.

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

You come up with opinions for facts. Impressive! You think I'm a moron. I think less of you, though would rather debate the situation rather than call names. People without any facts to support their stance resort to name calling.


Again you knowledge in lacking in fortatude. Idaho studied bear elk relations and went to a 2 bear a season structure for years in some regions to help the elk rebound. Bears are top predators of elk in summer



According to your math, in Montana, there will be over 200 wolves killed. Now if we go off your 10 fold theory then that would make us holding some 2,000 wolves.

I trap all winter. My observations on wolves have been less this winter than in the past for sure. I still see way to many lions though. My opinion.

There are no polls, Casey that I know of.

There has been no public vote among those effected, either, so far as I know.

There is only money spent and government tossing its weight around and dictating to people.

There are even state authorities and personnel that were/are strictly against it. Fed gov't didn't listen to them either, just trampled them under and turned their wolves loose. And now won't get out of the way and let the state do their job, or at best only allow them to make a token effort at it.

I'd say a good indicator the number against is the threads like this one on the various hunting forums. There's usually only a very few like Dpole and BrentD. There's alwyas a few that argue more along the lines of yourself and argue from a more moderate perspective. But the overwhelming majority seem to be opposed to the wolf reintroduction. That's the best I can offer in the way of polls. And a very large portion of the argument presented by those against it always seems to be government over reaching their authority and doing as they please, in accordance with the crying of the liberals and in direct opposition to what's actually best for the hunting and the for people who work and live on the lands. Those are far more important to me than a few fricken wolves. Wolves were fine in the areas where they ranged. This whole thing has been totally needless. It has caused a lot of ill will and bad feelings and strife. It has cost a lot of money.... hasn't it... Money that could have been more wisely spent, too. And the ONLY thing any of it REALLY accomplished was give the liberals who would see our rights taken from us a new victory upon which to build and allow government authority to exercise against people when they should be in Washington DC taking care of important issues.

All I see is a big waste and power grab by out of control government. And something that in a sane world would never even have been discussed let alone carried out and then allowed to go to the point it has. Imagine if all this money and effort had gone to securing our southern border. or reigning in MSM propoganda machine. Or anything worthwhile and needful. Wolves. Oh my God. How ridiculous can things get...

I called names in return. You went first, I jsut turned it around.

I've never seen threads started about bears. Hundreds of them about wolf introduction... hundreds.

That last part is good to hear, except the cougars. I really hope the wolf and cougar numbers can be kept low, as they should be.

Released May 5, 2006, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. For information on Cattle Death Loss call Mike Miller at 202-720-3040, office hours 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.

Cattle and Calf Death Losses

Cattle and calf losses from animal predators and non-predator causes in the United States totaled 4.05
million head (excluding Alaska). This report provides detailed breakouts of cattle and calf losses by predators
and non-predator causes, as well as data on non-lethal predator control measures.

Cattle and calf losses from animal predators totaled 190,000 head. This represented 4.7 percent of the total
losses from all causes and resulted in a loss of $92.7 million to farmers and ranchers.

Coyotes and dogs caused the majority of predatory cattle and calf losses accounting for 51.1 percent and 11.5 percent respectively. (wolves accounted for 0.11 percent in 2005)

Cattle and calf losses from non-predator causes totaled 3.86 million head or 95.3 percent of the total losses.

Respiratory problems was the leading cause of non-predator deaths accounting for 28.7 percent, followed by
digestive problems at 16.8 percent. (9.5 percent were killed by lightning)

Farmers and ranchers throughout the United States spent 199.1 million dollars on non-lethal methods to
control predators. Use of guard animals was the most common method at 38.0 percent. Exclusion fencing,
frequent checking, and culling were the next most commonly used methods of preventing cattle and calf
losses at 34.0 percent, 21.8 percent, and 19.6 percent respectively.

This report is released as a cooperative effort between the National Agricultural Statistics Service and Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services and Veterinary Services.
_____________________________________________________

It looks to me like your cow is nearly 90 times more likely to get hit by lightning than killed by a wolf and insurable in either case.

This sums it up nicely, and is valid for neighboring Wisconsin, as well.
Archerhunter also has a good point about "Cities filled with liberals who want to hear the howl of the wolves have no stake in it, other than their liberal agendas." Oh, but it feels good.

Birdie, they did that. And that is how they lost the wolves the first time. Pretty much a proven point now.

Northerndave, you ain't old enough to know what a deer slump looks like in NE Minnesota. Believe me. I grew up hunting deer north of Highway 2, north of Highway 1 for that matter.

Try again.


Archie, "Tirtiarialy" What the hell is that? You don't understand the definition of poacher do ya? Look it up.

So?

Can you say "poison"? Get the story straight if your gonna tell it.

We have polls and stock kills taken nation wide given as examples?
Would be hard to debate such far flung BS even if I was good at it.

Why don't we poll the folks here in the NW how gators populations in Florida should be handled.

Same ol left field, run on emotion crap, gezzz

The most profound and factual writing in this whole thread. Thanks, Archerhunter.

I have an ultra-liberal, somewhat wealthy mother living in protective suburbia that donates huge chunks of money to the wolf cause, and she has no problem confirming EXACTLY what Archerhunter stated above as far as the left liberal agenda is concerned towards hunting and guns. I've had numerous arguments on the subject with her, and they all end when I tell her it's none of her business; it's the business of the folks that live in the area where the problem occurs. The argument ALWAYS ends when I ask her how she'd like it if the wolves were introduced into her subdivision and they killed her Scottish Terriers.


I've been around wolves my whole life at our properties in Canada and have managed to coexist with them during my time up there. I can no longer remember how many times I've been stalked, followed, watched, etc. on hikes in the bush. I've only had one nervous moment when a very large Alpha got aggressive and approached; we were in some tall grass on a logging road parallelled by timber, and he quickly thought twice and went back into the timber when he heard (and then saw) the Rotties.
Where we go, there seems to be a decent enough balance between predator and game animal. I don't know for sure if it's just plain good conservation technique from the MNR, or good SSS from the locals. I don't believe in their extermination, but in just good plain common sense game/predator management.
From what I've heard and read about the problems in the UP, upper MN and WI, and the western states, the problem is real, the balance is upset, and the management is poor.
Jim

Just what I needed, another Libtard with his mass of estimations!!

and I wonder why that happened?

Keep in mind they also exterminated the deer in Iowa, the elk in Arizona, turkeys everywhere. All good right? They sure thought so, how about you?

Regional and Sportsmen's Group Surveys

Wolf supporters also outnumbered opponents in surveys of states and counties with reintroduction sites. While there is a tendency for wolf support to diminish in rural areas, polls show that, even in areas directly impacted by reintroduction, public opinion still largely favors the wolf.
Amazingly, these trends even hold in areas subjected to anti-wolf campaigns. In Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, for example, cattle and sheep interests financed a major education effort. Yet, even here in the heart of cattle country, the public saw through the propaganda and chose the wolf. Likewise, in North Carolina where an anti-wolf group was loud and persuasive enough to convince the state legislature to pass a law allowing wolf killing on private lands, over half the residents supported wolf recovery.
Although traditionally considered anti-wolf, big game hunters polled in separate surveys conducted in northwestern Montana and Michigan's Upper Peninsula expressed positive opinions toward wolves. In these studies, hunters who favor the return of viable populations of wolves outnumber those who do not.



The graph on this page depicts survey participants' responses (%) to attitudinal statements about wolves and wolf reintroduction. Survey figures were obtained from the following studies: USFWS (1993); Statewide Surveys of Montana and Idaho Resident Attitudes Toward Wolf Reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park, A. Bath & C. Phillips (1990); Statewide Survey of the Wyoming General Public Attitude Towards Wolf Reintroduction In Yellowstone National Park, A. Bath (1987); Colorado Residents' Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Reintroduction of the Gray Wolf into Colorado, M. Manfredo, et al. (1994); The Attitudes of Utah Residents Toward Gray Wolves, K. La Vine (1995); New Mexico Residents' Opinions Toward Mexican Wolf Reintroduction, M. Duda & K. Young (1995); Arizona Game and Fish Department (1990); Public Attitudes and Beliefs About the Red Wolf and its Recovery in North Carolina, P. K. Quintal (1995); Public Attitudes and Beliefs About the Wolf and Its Restoration in Michigan, S. Kellert (1990); Public Opinion on and Public Attitudes toward the reintroduction of the Eastern Timber Wolf to Adirondack Park. M. Duda (1996); America Wants Wolves to Stay!, Lauer, Lalley, Victoria Inc. (1998)


Also of note;
More than 48% of the land in Wyoming is owned by the U.S. Government, which ranks sixth in the US in total acres and fifth in percentage of a state's land owned by the Federal government.[7] This amounts to about 30,099,430 acres (121,808.1 km2) owned and managed by the U.S. Government. The state government owns an additional 6% of all Wyoming lands, or another 3,864,800 acres (15,640 km2).[7]

The vast majority of this government land is managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service in numerous National Forests, a National Grassland, and a number of vast swaths of public land.
-----------------------------------------------------
Or 84% of the Wyoming land where the wolf problems are reported from.

You're right-widespread poisoning extirpated or practically extirpated most of the predators in the western US. But poisoning wasn't nearly as common in the upper midwest.




Been through this entire thread, don't remember anybody giving info on national polls. Can you show me?





Once the anti-wolf BS is confronted, the name calling BS starts flying--it's happened every time........





Start yer' own thread, this one is lively enough..........




Yeah, the extreme wolf haters and extreme wolf huggers make any kind of debate--much less discussion--generally impossible after a short time--they're two birds of a feather.

And that's the problem, most folks are in the middle, and their voices get crowded out--here or in the general public discussion.


Casey

Be careful Brad! You've been able to stay above the fray--you're gonna get flamed!..................

(Now watch them think about it for a while, and then come back with a new Red Herring).......

Either that, or your post will just kill this thread.


Casey

Looks like your data is a wee bit dated!

10-15yrs ago we didn't have the overpopulation and problems with wolves that we have now. Locals that once thought seeing a wolf was cool think differently today!

I doubt it.

where are YOUR data?

A WOLF AT THE DOOR

Wolves are dispersing to southern counties in Wisconsin. I snapped this picture in the winter of 2008-2009. The wolf was approximately 20 yards from the back door. Sent picture to DNR and their attitude was Ho-Hum...another wolf picture...Oh well, what do you want us to do? I replied...send a warden out and examine the tracks, because you probably think I took the picture in Northern Wisconsin. They replied...we will see if we can send someone out. No one showed.

When was the last time you were in northern WI, MI, or MN for any length of time? Go talk to the stakeholders there and you will get plenty of fresh data!

Do you support wolf reintroduction?
Yes 48%
No 48%
Who Cares 4%

This was the only non pro wolf poll I could find in a quick search. It's last update was today. Most were on web sites like "Defenders of Wild Life" etc.

If we the public had not been lied to.
If wolf populations were managed properly.
Had the Federal Government NOT forced this issue down our throats.
I suspect most of us against the wolf would see this entire issue in a completely different light.

Good post.

Folks see heavily edited nature programs and think wolves are just misunderstood wild dogs. Not nearly true, and typical of the ignorance of those who live in cities and don't like the idea of people hunting with guns, or otherwise. There's been some beautiful photography of wild wolves in recent years, but it doesn't change the fact they can be ugly to deal with.

One of Capstick's books dealt with man-eating animals, and on wolves he stated he'd never been able to find a documented case of a wolf attack on a human in North America. European wolves, on the other hand definitely do attack people. His theory was that man was a relative newcomer to North America, and wolves tend to regard us as competing predators, not as prey animals. I sure as heck don't plan to test that theory, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so. If a couple of coyotes can kill a person, I expect one wuf would have no problem with it, either.

The earlier post of the wolf killing several sheep, without eating any of them reminds me of the same problem with sea lions on the west coast. They commonly swim up the Sacramento river into fresh water, and have a field day eating fish with no predators around. I have personally seen them take one bite out of a catfish, and leave it flopping at the surface. They likely are partly responsible for the salmon decline, and there's too many of them, too. It may be even harder to get rid of them, than it is wolves.

I've got nothing against shooting wolves legally either, in fact I can't hardly wait until they open a bounty on them.

I am not aware of a single poll that suggests more people oppose the existence of wolves than support--and that was my point to all of those make the claim. I'm not just singling you out Archer.

See Jacques post.



Absolutely! Most state legislatures don't want wolves--even though most of their citizens do support wolves (just like other issues discussed here--illegal immigration anyone?) The Forest Service, the Park Service, BLM, and even the USFWS ain't too keen on wolves. Why? Because wolves are a big management challenge, and they don't want the headache. They don't want different sides screaming at them that they favor the other side and it's all a liberal/conservative/communist/terrorist/environmental/logging/mining/ranching/energy/big business conspiracy. Those guys get tired of it.

But government's purpose is not about making it easy on themselves--never has been.




Couldn't disagree more. Those that bash wolves on these hunting forums are a tiny, tiny minority--even in the west. And even in the rural west they are still a relative minority.




The same thing could be (and was) said about the restoration of elk, deer, bighorns, moose turkeys, native fish, etc, here in the Interior West--they've all had their controversy at one time or another. Wolves ain't much different, just a new generation of people get to fight the fight.

Besides, if the states chose, they could do it themselves--indeed, states are encouraged to do it themselves--indeed, if even the federal government doesn't want the states to restore a native species, the law is generally on the state's side.

Witness Colorado and Lynx--and they did it for pennies on the dollar compared to the Feds (the feds entirely approved in this case--they definitely didn't want that headache).

But if the states can't or won't do it, the federal government has the responsibility and right to do it if they so choose--that was decided in the mid 1800's............

And don't forget how much of the west is federal lands, this is something those outside of the interior west don't always understand.


Casey

I want to go wolf hunting too.

When I was stationed up in Alaska and went moose hunting, I decided to save my meager money and not buy a wolf (pelt?) license--sure enough, I had wolves standing in front of me 3 different times--and one was a fairly big male.


Casey

Put a hunting season on them!--I'll hang the sea lion "pelt" right next to my wolf pelt!......



Casey

One minor correction. That is something that those INSIDE the interior West don't understand.

Read that they were perhaps the highest quality leather coats made. Almost bought one from Northern Ontario a few years back. Then learned that the tanning methods used there the leather didn't do to well in a warmer climate of Idaho. So I passed but have always wanted a good seal skin coat.

Doesn't matter who commissions the survey. What matters is who did the survey. Was it a legitimate outfit, or was it some ad hoc faux survey with an offical sounding name that loads the questions to get the answer?--I've seen that little game played by both sides in the natural resource game. The logging companies have been especially suspect in the past.

I know who commissioned the survey that Jacques posted, and I know who they hired to do the survey.


Casey

Condescending diversion, who saw that coming?

Stay classy BrentD, stay classy.

To the original point I was responding to. You baited with the idea that we are possibly to thank the wolves for rising deer population in the past 3 decades in MN.

I however believe we are currently in a decline from where it seems we peaked out recently.

And I know all about a slump in NE MN even though I didn't originally post specifically about NE MN. (and yes, not far from hwy1)

Myself and most of my party failed to fill tags for a stretch from the mid 90�s into the 2000�s.

Poor hunting is poor hunting & I don�t know how much worse you can get than going several seasons on end without even seeing a deer while hunting. Unless you were hunting in 1971 when they canceled the season entirely, I guess that would be worse not even having the oportunity to try.

I don�t hunt with those guys in NE MN anymore but I understand they are starting to see some deer around there again now. It�s not good hunting but they are seeing some deer again now.

Where I have my camp now the hunting is simply terrible but it has little if anything to do with wolves. More to do with the bovine TB disaster.

Its Bush's fault.

JD338

Typical Communists both of you - Instead of questioning whether or not the Gov't should even own such vast proportions of our land, you pretend to hide behind libertarian ideals and blame the people who are smart enough to take advantage of idiots like you who allow the Gov't to own everything.

Envy looks so good on Commies.

Maybe.

I would argue traps and poison tipped the balance rather than shooting, same as how 1080 {??) explosive poison traps temporarily eradicated even coyotes from some places.

Still is legal to shoot mt. lions as vermin across Texas, tho I would agree they are a special case, being as elusive as they habitually are. We have 'em within the city limits at times.

How about shoot wolves on sight on private lands?

Certainly any wolf seen around livestock is a threat, at least equal to a stray dog. Leastways I would think so if it was my money on the hoof at risk.

And just to correct an earlier point: ALL predators kill for the joy of killing even when not hungry. Pretty much an established principle of animal behavior that the various components of predatory behavior are rewarding in of themselves to the animal, independent of actual feeding.

Birdwatcher

Up to 20 plus year old surveys that only ask about Yellowstone somehow don't seem very relevant today concerning wolves state wide.

Won't happen. That would require him DOING something, and would create factual information from something other than theroies.

Is this for real? I grew up ON highway 2. Hunted north of there all my life, and yes including very near HWY 1. From the time I started hunting until the mid 90's, there simply wern't many deer at all up there.

Oh man, I got a good chuckle out of that one!!!

I never allowed the government to own anything, heck if I didn't think that I'd get shot for it, I would take over the National Forests!

I was however raised on a 24,000 acre private ranch in Wyoming of not which one acre was owned by the Federal Gov't, so my version of Capitalism doesn't include cheap Gov't land leases for those in tight with the right politicians-- we paid a lot more in property taxes than most public grazers (The same ones who are charging you for access to public land, and the same ones who are crying "wolf"), pay in leases every year per acre.

I'm not going to get in a name calling game with you though, I have too much respect for most of the campfire members on each side of this issue than to have anything to do with that kind of nonsense.

I'm afraid that is your imagination going off on a trip again. I didn't say that. I said that both increased. Understand correlation and how it differs from causation. This is not complicated.



Did you not say north of H2? As if you thought I might not know about H2, having driven it so many times, I can damn near recite the curves in order.



You really don't know what poor hunting is. And perhaps, maybe you just can't hunt. Ever consider that? Try the 60s and 70s. You failed to fill out - as if you understood the history of deer hunting and wolves in the NE. What a joke. You're a babe in the woods, boy.



I was there, with the wolves.



Did the wolves go away? Of course not.

Do they smell like fish once you get them home?........



Casey

i for one am old enough to remember hunting back to the mid 60's.

The late 50's and most of the 60's were banner years for deer hunting in northern mn.
it was a combination of widespread logging that increased deer habitat and preditor control in the form of trapping and hunting.
Deer hunting in the seventies declined severly due to several bad winters in a row and an increase in large preditors.
I still remember many letters to the editor in local papers by farmers decrieing predation on livestock during those hard winters
Montana and Idaho have done well to get a hunting season on wolves as fast as they did, The best recourse in those states now is management. They,re pretty much there to stay.
I have no problem with a wolf population in Mn - We just need to manage them.
We can have both animals in the same ecosystem, but man as top preditor must be the check and balance to make it work for all parties concerned.

Made by the locals using traditional methods, and yes odor was one of the possibles.

See what I mean? Once again somebody shows up without reading the entire thread, goes off on a tangent, and starts calling names--impossible to have a discussion- or even a halfway civil debate.........

And by the way Barry, in just about every wolf thread I let myself get sucked into, I suggest we sell all that federal land and end all the hoopla--but you won't find any of these free, rugged, independent boys out here biting on that suggestion--such a thing is unthinkable.......

Nor am I advocating it


Casey

I didn't understand why some of the others jumped on you so hard before this post even got revved up.

But I do now.

And now I get the joke "BTDT"

And it's damn funny.

no I never mentioned Hwy2, you have me confused with one of my fellow Minnesotans that said something to the effect of a wolf boundary existing roughly in that area.



What does that mean? You were with them? Were you the alpha male?



You have really exposed yourself here, condescending remarks & name calling.

I don't know what poor hunting is...

Oh you're right Brent, I also don't know what an apple is, or a shoe, or a house cat, or a rock... Well, I kinda know what those things are, but not nearly as well as YOU know.

Please forgive me.

Calling me "boy" (by the way, this boy is a decorated combat veteran of the United States Marine Corps that fought to preserve your right to call me "boy" You are welcome.)

Telling me I don't know how to hunt.

Whatever helps you stay above the rest of us in your mind Brent.

"I was there, with the wolves"

wow.

I'm not going to call you names Brent, I can see that you do enough damage to yourself.

What an excellent post.

Forgive me for I am a capitalist and see a opportunity to take advantage of the increased populations of wolves in MN and WI. No deer to shoot in the "up nort" so there are cabins, cottages, deer camps, 40s and 80s coming on the real estate market. Should be able to pick up some fine real estate in the near future...CHEAP.

I am old enough to live through a large part of the deer hunters cycle of life in Wisconsin. In the beginning the north was practically logged off and the wolves shot to hell. Young timber appeared in the slashings and the deer population exploded. There was no deer in the south to speak of so in the 1940s and 1950s us farmer boys put our nickels together and bought 40s and 80s, put up shacks, cabins, cottages, etc. We joined the mass migration up north every November...fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers...life was good. In time the north timber began to mature and deer population slowly declined. Central Wisconsin became the hot spot for deer. Many of us broke tradition and bought 40s and 80s there...put up cabins, cottages, shacks, etc. But then again many diehards stayed up north...life there was still good. In the late 1950s and early 1960s deer came on the landscape in southern Wisconsin...not explosive populations as appeared in the north and central Wisconsin, rather a steady population increase. Many of us in the south decided not to make the drive up north. We found out that we did not have to hunt a 9 day season. We could hunt weekends and Thanksgiving Day. More deer hunters left the northwoods, but life was still good...that is until now.

I want to take advantage of the northern diehards (the last holdouts) who sit in the cedar swamps and mature forests hours on end without seeing a hair...wolf hair, but no deer hair. Buy them out lock stock and barrel. Deer was and still is big business in the north, but the future is not bright. When people won't take it anymore there will be pressure on the state and Feds to do something about it. All the left wing wack job animal groups and tree huggers will be suddenly defeated in our courts and the wolves will be shot to hell. Deer populations will increase, people will want to hunt in the north again...life will be good.

I won't be here to see the end of wolf as a dominant predator, but my kids will and they can sell all the real estate I acquired to the pilgrims wanting to hunt deer "up nort."

He was...right there dancing with them.

well,you is smart.but,I hardly think you qualify as an unbiased opinion.Do wolves qualify as "just plain cute"?

just how does global warming fit in to all this wolf controversy,Brent D?

fluffy I think you're on to something LOL.

After reading this whole damned thread, about all I can see is that wolves make people emotional, on both sides.


I'm a non-stakeholder here, so I'll keep my yap shut, but I tend to default to the farmer/rancher side of things, since that's my background. If they don't want 'em, that's good enough for me.

You might be real soon, seems to me, that if theres room in kentucky for thousands of elk, theres room for wolves as well.

Im still waiting for the judges order to reinstate them in northern new york, vermont, new hampshire and maine to be enforced, after that it wont be long till some of the bunny huggers here on the east coast get a real up close and personal look at just how loveable a wolf really is.

Hey now, don't just quote me halfway, quote the whole thing . I'm on the farmer/rancher side of things, if they don't want 'em, I'll back them all the way.

I was just out that way (Yellowstone) back in June/July, so I heard a LOT about the wolves, from both sides of the argument. Since my family raises cows in Missouri, LOTS of cows, I tend to side with the ones who're putting meat on my plate.

Wolves.

I remember stalking along the Gakona River in south western Alaska back in October of 1998.
A large pack of wolves were sunning themselves on a snow patch illuminated by the sun.
I was fortunate to drop two from the pack.
Unfortunately my camera was back in the super cub.
A mistake that haunts me still today.
We skinned them and continued to hunt Grizz.
I didn't find the big bear I was looking for on that hunt, but the wolves remain among my most prized trophies.


I took this pic out the hatch of a cub in 1996.



A friend of mine has killed hundreds of them over the years.
Trapping, snaring or aerial, he is their worst nightmare.












[img]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d63/HunterHarry/13-1.jpg[/img]
.
.
.
.
.


In tangling with emotionally disturbed wolf huggers I generally always have the same response....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[img]http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6073/wlf5tk.jpg[/img]

My....what a beautiful cabin you have.

Awesome!!

That is cool, I want to make one in Wyoming just like it someday!

They won't let me add wolves to my piles yet though . . .



See not everyone who wants to see some wolves is a liberal bunny hugger!

That is a really cool woof mount

nice yote pile!! coons too!

trapped? i don't see much fore holes

About half were, the rest were ran down with a snow machine and '0' buck. That is a weekends worth in 2005. I haven't been trying so hard lately.

lol, Your cool Rat, I was mearly commenting on that you might be a stake holder soon, and while I dont wish wolves on you, the bunny huggers in the eastern big cities need to get an up close dose of reality on just what a wolf does for a living.

that snowmachine stuff can be dangerous... so i've heard.

You should of seen some of the piles from back in the 70s and 80s when they were worth something. I wish now that I would of carried a camera back then.

A snow machine ain't nothing like sliding a dirt bike under barbed wire on purpose, or trying to keep up with a drop boxes of Greyhounds and Wolfhounds across the sagebrush with a pickup.

Sorry. typing fast and I misspelled it. My spelling ain't the best. Big deal. Tertiarily. It's not a difficult word, esp given the context. Should have been easy to figure out. Primarily, secondarily, tertiarily. I misspelled exactly the same way and google figured it out in about 1/10000th of a second.

Yes, I do know what poaching is. You can shove your legalities up your azz. And your wolves.


Thanks for posting that, Jacques. I'm surprised. Very surprised. I wonder though, if it'd be the same results today, after the fed spending all that money and all the liberals with their law suits and all the other trouble. That's kind of old.

Thanks to you too, Casey. Good info.
------------

I learned something today.... I really did.

That there are more stupid people out there than I thought Wanting wolves around is pretty dumb if you ask me. Although I must admit, I'd like to hunt them too. Thing is I don't want to hunt them in my own back yard.... And I'm sure if they start showing up here and I hunt them here, they'll be like lays potato chips....

No way, Barry. That goes too far. Not that I or anyone else needs to stick up for Jacques or Casey, but that's not accurate at all. They're some of the good guys....

...they're just infatuated with wuffs for some reason

The wolf is actually alive, the other critter is....stuffed......




Casey

In the early 80's I went with a couple friends to Montana who drew elk licenses. I bought a small game license for the heck of it and took my rifle--glad I did. We had already been calling coyotes in Colorado when the prices were good, but we plugged several big male Montana coyotes and took the time to properly flesh the hides--practically paid for our trip.


Casey

Casey, the reality of the wolf here at ground zero is different than the academic, sanitized, intellectual version of the argument.

I'm a relatively tolerant sort that didn't exactly balk with the idea of the wolf introduction... what I've become, after years of observing the entire drama firsthand, is a supporter of SSS.

The PETA's and WWF's of the world have deeper pockets than I/we do and they have a vested financial interest in keeping the litigation going.

I'm one that finds the howl of the wolf the jolting beacon that life is a brutal struggle, and that I'm part of it... however, nothing is quite as simple as it seems. This whole thing is so full of political maneuvering it's disgusting. In an ideal world, I'd support the wolf reintroduction... in the ACTUAL world, not so much...

LOL

Some truth in that IMO...

Prezactly. Same in WI. Ask a lib in Madison how they feel about the wolves and you'll get a unicorn's and rainbow's response. Ask a deer hunter in ANY part of the state and you'll get the 180. No one, save a small minority, wants them exterminated, we want them controlled. The problem with our state is the Department of Natural Resources cannot come up with a way to accurately count not only the bears but the deer as well - and, even if they could, there would no doubt be political pressure to somehow do otherwise anyway. It's not difficult to surmise that they're entirely off on the wolf numbers either. Wolves were put here to control the population of deer in our north woods - simple as that. Now that there are seemingly no deer, a bear population count that was off by 50% and an overabundance of wolves, something has to give. The wolves make an awfully nice start.

And, BrentD, you have little understanding on what makes the world go round and cash registers sing during the fall season in WI's northwoods. If you choose to think it's the Birkie crowd gathering to hopefully catch a glimpse of wolf utopia, you'd be sadly mistaken. I choose to applaud the people that take matters into their own hands when it comes to "management" of lupus because there isn't a damn person in Madison doing a thing about it. Contrary to your belief, there ARE sportsman with a better understanding of what's happening in our forests than there are under-informed biologists,"ecologists" and pompous, politically-appointed puppets that choose to shine their seats with their derriere's rather than getting said derriere's out there for a first-hand observation of what's happening in the real world. And they'd do quite well to use their ears more and mouths less as well.

You'd also do well to take your science and formula's and mix in some god-damned, down-to-earth pragmatism for a change.

Amen.

If I could of found something newer, I would of posted it. I don't know if it has changed all that much though, at least that is my speculation. Most of the ranchers that I know down here where we still own most of the land still feel the same about the elite class of "cattlemen" that get all the Gov't handouts in the high country. I'd also say that most, but not all, of those lawsuits have been brought on by the minority who opposed reintroduction to begin with -- and they are not done fighting over it yet. In fact I would consider my neighbors on private property more conservative than the public grazers who are fighting the Libs.

Amen brudda.

I don't know Fluff. How does it? Tell me about it. I'm sure you know.

Sorry I had to slip out and kill another deer before they all got eaten by big bad wolves. Got lucky and it's hanging in the garage now.

I'm sure you all wanted to know....

My sentiments exacalackely!
I just don't like to type that much.

It must have been "recess" time in Iowa!

Good post, SKane. Excellent!

open hunting seasons on the wolves, thats the only answer, keep their numbers in check, even a little low wouldn't hurt.

and stop the name calling and trying to be badasses online.

Yep, shoot on sight anytime, anywhere, just like coyotes.

Problem is the wolves are reproducing faster than the low harvest number will accommodate and the various FWP's don't have the financial resources groups like PETA and DOW have... wait til it's in your backyard, you won't be so philosophical...

Brad- We have a concerned group of sportsman in WI that are assembled under the acronym HNP - Hornady, Nosler and Speer. They're doing wonders in fighting back.

Glad the debate has turned civil again. Lots of good info and opinions being given for those of us who have little understanding on the issue.

This was just on the local news. I wonder if the wolf huggers would mind if this was their pet that was killed by a wolf/wolves.


http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=395570

Dog killed by wolf

DNR official confirms wolf was the likely culprit.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 6:47 p.m.

Read more: Local, State, Outdoors, Wolf Attack Endangered Species List Upper Peninsula Wolf Pack Beagle


SENEY STRETCH -- A Department of Natural Resources official confirms that a dog killed near the Seney Stretch on Wednesday was likely killed by a wolf or wolves.

The dog, a 13 inch Beagle, had ventured about 40-60 yards away from its owner who was snowshoe hare-hunting, when the dog was apparently attacked.

The owner, a Munising man, didn't see the attack, but said his dog suddenly let out a high-pitched bark. The man found the dog's bloody carcass moments later.

Terry Minzie, the DNR's Eastern UP Wildlife Supervisor, inspected the carcass Wednesday afternoon.

"It appears it was probably wolves," Minzie told TV6. "You can tell by the size of the punctures of the two canine teeth. And we know that we've had a pack of wolves in this area for several years."

The attack occurred about midway between Shingleton and Seney.

The grey wolf is on the U.S. List of Endangered Species.

It's estimated that as many as 600 wolves may now live in the Upper Peninsula. Twenty years ago, there were apparently none living here.

They work with the Triple S group, don't they?

MIV-

That sort of thing is a monthly, if not weekly, occurrence in northern WI, and, frankly, it sucks.

Why YES, they do. And, in partnership with the Accubond Society.

"Climate Science Initiative" ?
If anyone has some answers,it should be you.

I drive that area on my way up to our property in Ontario, Canada several times each year; M77 between Blaney Park and Seney. I always drive at night, it saves a lot of time. The past few years I have nearly tagged a dozen or more wolves in this stretch of highway, especially near the Seney National Wildlife Refuge. I used to dodge deer on this stretch and the trip east to the Sault along M28. I haven't seen a deer along there in several years. Lots of fox this year as well.
I have little doubt that there is a large wolf population, at least in this portion of the UP around the Hiawatha National Forest.

I keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting to be informed/enlightened by BrentD.
I, like many here, am over-edjamacated and pompous in something other than wildlife biology and/or global processes and could stand to learn a thing or six. And, I keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting.





tick, tock, tick, tock.......

MIV, Almost every other time I am horseback with cowdogs along, I will see coyotes that will approach and try to lure the dogs into a chase. Sometimes several times the same day. The farther you ride, the more coyotes are probably lurking just over the hill or out of range. A few of the braver coyotes will probably move in closer and yip and tease the dogs. If they can get the dogs far enough away from you to get them they do. There are usually some more coyotes out there as well, and it becomes a gang war fast. A few shots over them (you don't want to hit your dogs either) will put them on the run again, but if your dogs chase again, there will be another fight. Of course by then we are in hot pursuit horseback and always have saved the day. Older dogs know better than to chase them too far away from you. By the time you get to them, you will have some cut up dogs though -- this is with two or three Aussies or Healers, a lone Beagle doesn't have a chance.

I wouldn't even suggest that a wolf would not do the same, and to bigger dogs too. I'd just say that Beagle was still more likely to have been coyote lunch anyway, or would of been in my part of the world anyway, if I couldn't see what he was getting into. I never let them out of my sight in the woods either.

Brad, it is the two (minority) extremes. One is afraid the other will get the upperhand, so it's the go-for-broke thing. It is EXACTLY the same kind of partisanship we see in Washington. It's sorta' what Jacques suggested--the two extreme sides haven't changed one bit, and yes, to a degree one side is winning because it has more support--including financial support.

It would have been nice if the feds could have restored the wolves in Yellowstone, and the surrounding states could have handled the other--supporting--populations (and those supporting populations are necessary). But it was apparent that wasn't going to happen, and we end up with what we see.

Remember, wolf delisting was first proposed seven? eight? years ago? It would have been nice to have the states take over management within a year or two of the proposed delisting before the population got so big (bigger than anybody predicted). Because I will agree looking at the population dynamics that the wolf populations under the current harvest levels could continue to grow larger.

BUT, the current harvest levels are intentionally low, because Montana and Idaho want to see how it goes--my New Years prediction is you may see increased wolf harvest quotas in the near future


Casey

I hope you are right, Casey.

Cootes sure will lure dogs away and gang up. I've seen a two year old Walker hound killed by 5-6 coyotes in a few minutes before we could get there.

My male Aussie was exceptionally fast, and he amazed me when he twice ran down single coyotes and tripped them up, and my female bringing up the rear would pile in. Then they would tag team and stretch the coyote--but I hoofed it over fast because I knew the chances were other coyotes were around.

Besides, they minded, and if I called them off they would stop--I wouldn't let them get too far if the coyotes were harassing us.

Over on the Front Range the surburban coyotes will come within a few yards of my dogs and I--I've rocked more than one coyote.


Casey

This is what happens if you get extremely lucky in a situation where a wolf lures your lab from your house at night.







if your dog manages to escape an encounter like that they get pretty smart about giving blind chase into the night.

Ouch!!! That is a lucky dog to have survived a wolf fight!

That's my dog Gus. Dog must have been born with a lucky horse shoe up his azz.

The span of the bite across the back was insane. The vet said wolf, he said the span of the punctures narrowed things down to bear or wolf but he ruled out bear do to the lack of slashing & the release itself.

We talked for quite a while about dogs & other animals he's been able to fix up & others that were DOA from predator attacks.

To say he was detuned to the shock of wolves mackin on dogs would be an understatement.

To him it was just business, and business is pretty good.

This stuff is so common it doesn't make the news unless someone forces it into the news.

Glad Gus made it.

Wonder what the "span" is on a 22 caliber TSX betwixt the blinkers. How many has the vet treated on wolves where the wolf lived?

Holy crap Dave when was that?

Darn woofs

I didn't see it happen. It was late at night, everybody was sleeping. The 2 dogs (a basset & the lab) stay outside & enter/exit my heated shop as they please through a pet door.

I heard the ruckus through closed windows, woke me from a dead sleep & they were out a ways from the house.

It sure as hell wasn't no "fight"

It was the sound of a dog trying to escape from something terrible.

I never saw the woof, tracks the next day was all.

It's about weekly that we hear people in our immediate area say they saw a wolf or wolves out in the open around our place.

Rural neighbors have collectively lost at least a half a dozen dogs that I know of in about a 2 mile radius from my home.

I'm not a fan of the current protection level.

The wolves were delisted for a brief period of time recently. Within this time us rural voiceless folk found great comfort in the idea that suddenly our livestock, pets & children were more important than the wolves.

That's all it took to really make the rural majority happy. The right to protect our livestock, pets & children from these wonderful "keepers of balance & goodness".

We could legally shoot wolves "about to do harm"

And although I don't know of any wolf killings during this brief time it sure made people feel good knowing they could if they had to.

Now they are relisted & they are once again more important than the tax payers livestock, pets etc.

That's quite a message to the residents in these areas don't you think?

It's a kick in the balls that's what it really is.

Darn Brents

Gus was pretty young & rammy yet, this happened several years ago.

He's wiser from it today & although he still protects his home, he's not been fooled by the luring tactics since.

Gheez Dave, thank god Gus is ok.
Im all for live and let live, but you touch one of my boys, and all gloves are off, Id join the SSS group in heart beat.

Im just saying.

That's just the thing.

You can feel that way, you can have those intentions & everything but i'm telling you, it aint that easy.

And I mean that in several ways.

First of the legal risks.

I've got a family to suport, i don't need any legal trouble.

Secondly there is the issue of hunting difficulty.

These are definately "right place/right time" animals. you will have to invest some serious time.

If MN sold wolf tags there would be some immediate success in open country where some have been roaming boldly away from cover. But the overall success rate would be very low state wide.

I know to rid the country in years gone by they used poison. I for one dont see how sport hunting them is going to make a dent. After all with a close to 900,000 hunters in the woods during gun season and we cant make a dent in the coyote population here in PA. And we have all the access in the world. You add the vast acreage and the lack of hunters that you have in your area and its going to be a tough road to hoe. Good luck bud, and keep your pups close and your rifle handy!

kind of like deer hunting at present.

BINGO! Right on!

Getting more interesting over here too:

http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=395570

http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=395125

http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?list=194539&id=385659

Dang Dave, Gus is a lucky feller.
War would be declared if that happened to my pooch.

Hate to disappoint you like that Fluff, but I don't see much of a connection, so you will have to ask someone else. You could even do a little library work on it yourself if you want, but I'll leave that to you and Skane. Let me know what you come up with.

By the by, I forgot to thank you for posting that picture of my antelope. I didn't realize that I had such a fan club that was collecting my photos. That was my first one, and I rather like him. It was a fun hunt. Good thing I got him though before the wolves did. As I recall he was just a bit over 14", hardly a monster but good enough for me.

Brent

[bleep] happens doesn't it? In the 20 yrs I lived up there, I never had wolf make a pass at my swamp collies. But I suppose it could have happened. We had wolves on the property from time to time, and they were always in the area, but never a problem with them. Bears were occasionally a bit dicey and a moose once as well. But not the wolves.

It also reminds me of a time back in Arizona where I was living in the Tucson Mountains. Not a really wild place to be sure, but there were three lions known to be living in that little mountain range at the time. One day, one of them jumped a woman's pot bellied pig in her backyard and ran off with it. She was upset of course and called AZ G&F, demanding that they hunt it down and kill it. Of course that didn't happen and two nights later, she put her other pot bellied pig in the backyard and the lion got that one too. I guess she didn't learn, but living on the edge of town with large predators around has risks that just go with the place. If you don't like it, move to town.

Brent

So, you haven't seen a deer and you conclude that there must be a large wolf population up there? Just what exactly do you suppose they are eating if there are no deer? Labrador retrievers?

People trump wolves.
If wolves are causing hardship for a man he aught to be able to kill the damn thing not have to move from his own home.

Friends of ours lost a young lab over near Baudette...shoot probably 5-6 years ago now. Lured her out near an island, and killed her.

So you think AZ G&F should have hunted down and killed that mountain lion that loved pork? Over a pot bellied pig? Not me.

That's where your problem lies brent. The difference between sportsman and the scientists and biologists. We're not in the lab working on "theroies". We have things that are witnessed in the field, not chit we found from hiar samples and wolf poop.

The DNR here tells the public that there just aren't wolves in places that people are seeing them. Right there the public is starting to not put much stock in the things they say.

No but I think the lady who owned the pig should have been able to if she wanted to.

She should have handled her own business. Inviting the bunny cops into it was absurd.

tzone,
That's where the problem lies tzone. You don't have a clue about what scientists actually do. I've probably seen more wolf [bleep] than you will ever see, I'm in the field hunting and goofing off as much as you and then I'm in the field doing work as well.

Keep in mind that the DNR are not scientists. They are public relations people, inventorists, and law enforcement for the most part. Science is a bit different.

Now, for something more important, what do you think the Vikings chances are against the Giants this week? I'd like to see them win the last one, but the last 4 wks have not been good.

so if it didn't happen to your dogs it didn't happen? that was 20 years ago when you lived there....there is a chit load more wolves in MI, WI, and MN than there was 20 years ago. 20 years ago, I never heard of any of these problems either, they probably happened, just not very often. That was when wolf sightings were rare, noteworthy, and people non-wolf huggers enjoyed seeing them, even then. Now they have to compete for food. Thier rabbits, deer,and elk, populations are all shriking. So they're eating our livestock, pets, and stalking kids. Don't tell me that it doesn't happen either. I've had them do it to me in northern WI.

Reread. That is not what I said.



In that area, there are about as many wolves then as now. Wolves have expanded their range in MN, much more than increased their local densities. We happened to live in an area where they were always in good abundance. 20 yrs ago, you didn't have the internet and it wasn't a plank in the Republican Party Platform. Hence, you didn't hear about it. You don't hear much now about coyotes killing dogs, but it happens every day. Just not so politically correct to wail about.




So? That happens with mountain lions and the like but there is no huge outcry to exterminate them or kill them illegally like there is with wolves. You have lead a sheltered life. Perhaps the city would be a better place for you to live now that the woods has become so dangerous (in your own mind).

Now, about those Vikings?

I realize the DNR are not scientists. But the general public still thinks they are. that is a major part of this problem. The people making the regulations about wolves should be biologists and scientists, not money grabbing politicians caving to the highest bidder.

I'm not saying we should wipe out the wolf pop. but it is admitted that the populations are over the carrying compacity for MN,WI, and MI.

I don't think hunters have the time or money to eradicate them, nor is that what most people want. But the ability to shoot the ones that are where they're not suposed to be. The ability to hunt them back to population goals, is what the hunters are asking for.

When the wolves were at or near population goals, you didn't have nearly the problmes we do now.

that's bullchit and you know it!



ahhh. now your transparency shows its ugly head.



So? That happens with mountain lions and the like but there is no huge outcry to exterminate them or kill them illegally like there is with wolves. You have lead a sheltered life. Perhaps the city would be a better place for you to live now that the woods has become so dangerous (in your own mind).

[/quote]

So...your an idiot. I never said it was dangerous. We're not talking about mt. lions here. According to you azzholes there aren't any of those here either. We're talking about an out of control wolf population.

The DNR has biologist on staff. The issues arise when you have a difference between agendas of how the game programs are ran and then throw in political agendas to stir the mix.

Indeed, so why celebrate a bunch of law-breaking hooligans that are poaching them?




Can you produce a citation on that? Carrying capacity is probably the single hardest parameter to measure in the field. And even as an abstract concept most people do not really know what it is and confuse carrying capacity with equilibrium. I know of no study of wolves that claims to estimate carrying capacity. How are the wolves remaining so abundant and even increasing if they are so far above CC?



Cheering for lawbreakers and advocating SSS will NOT hasten that eventuality. If hunters supported the restoration of wolves, it would be damn hard to politically deny them the right to hunt wolves. But hunters blew it big big big time. I have no sympathy on that count.

Brent

Been rambling around the woods in the U.P. for approx. 30 years. Never used to find any sign of wolves, then started seeing chit, damn stuff looks like rope there's so much hair in it. Last few years been seeing them on a regular basis not just while in the woods. Several trotting along the shoulder of the road. Last spring I met one driving home from camp. Wanted a pic to prove to my bro in Iowa, turned around got a pic of his ass end, got out of my truck for a better photo and it jumped the ditch into the woods. By the time I got back in the truck it was back on the shoulder of the road, passed it a 2nd time turned around and met it the 3rd time to get a head on pic. The thing wasn't bothered in the least.

Late June, I walked into the deer blinds for something to do. While I'm at my bud's stand looking up at his feeder thinking he's a fool for leaving it for someone to steal I glance down and catch a wolf with its nose down walking nearby, didn't see me yet. I was not packing, yelled at it and it ran off a ways. I got creeped out that time, looked over my shoulder several times on the walk back to camp.

My point, there are TOO DAMN MANY. I wouldn't mind seeing one with the kids and I'm sure we will. I have reservations because the wolves don't turn tail and take off when they wind and/or see you.

At what cost???

Sure, Michigan has attempted to maximize the whitetail population to provide an opportunity for outdoorsmen. If we let the wolf population increase to "normal" levels it will be at the cost of the deer. There are fewer wolf hunters than whitetail hunters (who provide the majority of funds for the fish/wildlife programs), so why allow the wolf population to re-establish itself? From a biological standpoint it's wrong to keep the whitetail population high, at the same time wolves will never replace whitetails and what they bring to the table...

That isn't the problem. the wolf huggers such as yourself don't want them shot, legal or otherwise. And will spend mega bux tying the issue up in court as much as possible.



How does the WIDNR determine how many wolves the state should be able to handle? That is cc, is it not? WI DNR has said numerous times that is 350 wolves, and now they "estimate" thers are about 680. How is that not over the populationg goal? and shoots your theroy that they are not icreasing in population.

The population rose 26% from 2008 - 2009. Looks like there are more, not just roaming further.

WDNR doesn't know how to count. I doubt they really have a clue how many wolves roam Wi. I know there is more in Jackson County than they think and that ain't the most remote part of the state either.

The biggest problem right now for me is that to protect your own property/family would be poaching.

Historically speaking, the word poaching paints a particular picture for me, it means intentionally pursuing/hunting/trapping illegally.

But now people that entertain the idea of protecting their livestock, pets or children at their own residence are tossed into the general category "poachers"

Which I believe is very unfortunate.

I truly believe the majority here just wants sensible rights & management. That's all.

Very few are screaming for eradication.

Happy new year everybody.

Can't be any in Jackson county. They're northern forest animals, and brent didn't count any down there.

See, this is what happens, when somebody displays a conservation ethic that includes ALL wildlife. The moment somebody defends wildlife, instead of only defending a species that are politically correct for a few, the falsehoods and false accusations fly.

Brent never suggested--in any manner--that he won't hunt wolves--indeed, he has said MANY times on these wolf threads he would hunt wolves if given the legal opportunity.



Casey

If game management is just about money making, perhaps, but I'm not so sure. Meanwhile, do you know the consequences of a ridiculously high whitetail population? How is your hemlock and oak seedling recruitment? What effect will that have on your forests in another hundred years? You may not care, but the Michigan DNR has to care. It's their job.

My guess is that increased tourism and wolf hunting will do a lot to increase the economics of the region, though perhaps not the coffers of the MI DNR specifically. In any event, study up on your trees and how they are doing. Here in Iowa, we have 30 yr old oaks that are only 6" tall because they get nipped to the ground every year. On my own property, there are no sapling or young oaks at all. Zero. Deer are the reason. My forest will turn to sugar maple which is pretty, but does not support many deer, few turkeys and fewer still squirrels. Game will eventually decline.

Brent

I think many did, at the least support it. Sort of a novelty if you will. And many did under the assumption that there would be some sort of control, and, big surprise, there hasn't been, and the light at the end of the tunnel can't be seen at this juncture.

And, your carrying capacity statement carries little weight as the WI DNR continues to beat their collective chest that they're renowned and admired across the nation for their ability to assess and count deer, wolves and bears. Yeah, they're 0-3 and you're exactly 0-for-this-entire-thread.

Dave, if shooting any wolf you see in the name of protection is what you mean, ain't gonna happen. But if you shoot a wolf that is charging your little girl or that is attacking your dog, no jury on the planet is going to convict you. NONE. And I'm all for that.

BTW, I have a new pup named Gus as well (another one for your collection, Fluff)






We must be reading different forums.

Brent

Hello Brent,

Do not want to change direction of this thread so sent you a personal message...question on pre-Euro settlement and post Euro-settlement populations of wolves and coyotes

Well, we do a similar thing as a nation every year, it's called "The 4th of July."

Civil disobedience is an American tradition. There's a few good books on the subject, you should read one.

When backed into a corner, I believe in civil disobedience for a just cause.

Having wolves force-fed by those with a larger agenda (ie, the elimination of sport hunting) isn't something that should necessarily be accepted passively. The wolf in the hands of various eco-groups borders on a religious, fund-raising mantra that is a cynical tool to further a larger agenda. That's a FACT.

Around here, most of us greeted the idea of the wolf reintroduction with skepticism and took a wait and see attitude, hoping the promises made would be fulfilled. Wolves are breeding faster than the current culling quota's can control... elk and moose numbers are down throughout the wolf's range, and in some areas precipitously so. Personally, most of us in Montana like to hunt and would like to see the tradition here for our kids. The wolf, left to breed at the little-controlled pace right now, could jeopardize that tradition.

MTFWP would like higher bag limits on wolves, but can't afford the litigation groups like Defenders Of Wildlife will bring. MTFWP has stated such publicly.

I for one love the wild, mournful howl of the wolf and the fact he's in our mountains... but NOT at the expense of my hunting rights, and the future of Montana hunting.

That Yellowstone was overgrazed was a fact. That the park service wasn't going to allow hunting in the park to control the ungulate numbers was a fact. That the wolf was a logical solution given the other two facts, is a fact. That the wolf has done its job too successfully is also a fact.

It doesn't/never had to be an "either-or" proposition, but the bulk of inflexibility and intransigence has been on the wolf-huggers side, and many of us fear it may be too late if left to the wrangling in the courts.

Many of us in MT were not originally a supporters of SSS. Many, if not most of us, have changed our minds based on the double-dealing, lying and manipulation we've witnessed here since 1996...

Ya done rung the bell again Brad.

+1 Brad!!!

Get ready...he's going to call your a retard soon.

Hunted WI near Minoqua this year, as I have for thirty years.

On opening day a hunting buddy had to stop and load his rifle on the way to his treestand. 5am in the morning with wolves on both sides of him just out of sight paralleling his walk to the stand. He got nervous. I would too.

Plenty of bear up there, but I have never felt the need to be armed when scouting or setting up a blind or stand. That has changed now.

WI statewide deer harvest down 29%. Oneida county where I hunt was down 50%. The DNR blames the fog on opening morning. I blame the fog in the minds of those in the DNR. The DNR is catching holy-he!!, and rightfully so. Neither the wolves nor their protectors are off-limits.

The forest floor in the hardwoods is an inch deep with acorns. No deer to eat them.

Time for the top predator to re-balance the eco-system. [bleep] the "professionals" and their idealistic theories.

Well said Brad, nailed it.


Also, the biggest Red Hearing of propaganda out there is that woofes only
eat the sick and dying.


And they are NOT a big game animal, they are a predator dog and should be treated as such.

My exact thoughts on the word "poaching".

But I wasn't going to bother typing it because BrentD won't hear it anyway. He never listens to anything or anybody. Proved that long ago. Also proved he's a lefty liberal and a commie. And mentalities like his are a very large portion of what's wrong in America today.

ah-

You'll just need to type slower for him.

Very well stated!

Actually I've just been PM'd by a friend here that has helped by pointing out that my statements about not being able to defend people (I've said children ir kids several times now) is not correct.

I'm very glad to be wrong about that

Brent, what's the cost to the shooter to hear the jury say, "not guilty on all counts"?

TL

There's another problem right there, with people like you, Brent.

Just because you know a jury won't convict you believe everything is AOK. Well, it isn't!

The legal fees alone will ruin most people. And that's NOT even going to jury trial. If it goes that far, they'll have to sell the ranch just to pay for it all. That's wrong. You can't get any more wrong than that. People like that with that mentality cheerfully leave victims in their wake everywhere they go. Shame on you.

Coyotes are not wolves.
If man could have eradicated the coyote, he would have long since disappeared from the landscape. It has been tried by ever method man could devise. Coyote lives on, reintroduction will never be necessary.

Bullchit! However, until the DNR's get it right and fight as hard for the opportunity to control them legally, action must, and WILL, be taken. This frightens and threatens guys like you & you react as most government shills do. Others, not so much... It's ok, it's common with your type. Keep on keepin' on.

Brent says:

"My guess is that increased tourism and wolf hunting will do a lot to increase the economics of the region,"

Dude, that's your GUESS. Wolves are an economic non-starter. There's only one outfitter making a living guiding for wolves in the Lamar, there are a couple in Idaho TRYING to fill viewing slots.
Nobody in their right mind, or too dang few to matter, are ever going to spend the dough to hire an outfitter or travel specifically to view a wolf.
As for hunting, again, that's a nonstarter. I ran a set of numbers once and the cost of each existing wolf in the tri-state region, as in management/introduction, was well over ten grand in terms of money spent to produce that wolf. Montana tag? 19 bucks. And how many deer and elk did that wolf eat in the meantime?

Wolves have another side effect that nobody's talking about. As prey/game populations decline, and hunters enjoy less success over time, where they get less buck for their bhang, then hunting maybe isn't so much fun, and perhaps not worth doing any more. Fewer hunters, less revenue, less political clout, more biologists lobbying for outside money, more biologists not caring what hunters think, fewer happy hunters, fewer hunters.
Around and around, around and down, down, down.

Oh, he's reading other forums, alright.

The ones filled with other government shills like himself. He's a system man, through and through. What's right be damned. What's best for the people be damned. What people need be damned. etc. It's really tiresome meeting that kind of people so often. Makes ya just want to slap them down. It's what they need. It's what everyone else needs too, so they can live peaceable and normal lives.

Time to post this quote... once again...

"Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. ...Every government is a parliament of whores.�
P.J. O�Rourke

That quote is so true. Sad, but true. It is also why they just love the meek folks who are so willing to blindly accept what they dish out. Those who don't are targeted and demonized by those like our Mr. Bunny Hugger.

Just because it didn't happen to you, it's not a problem and it didn't happen?

GFY you ignorant, arrogant a**hole. If you don't like the way we think of the wolves here, you can move somewhere else. Go hug a wolf. Please.

The fact that wolf numbers have decreased for the last 2 years in Yellowstone is also a fact. Mother nature has a way if you let her. Patience is tough when the animals we all cherish are being made into wolf, lion, and bear poop. I believe that wolf numbers in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will never be again as high as they reached last year. They ran their course. The game are starting to figure out how to survive with wolves. Things will stabilize somewhat I think. At the same time let us not forget the management of the greatest predator there is!

I am not a wolf lover, but as it pertains to Upper Michigan we have other problems impacting our deer herd. Multiple buck tags, less clear cut logging and browsed out winter range being three big ones. The wolf and now cougar do have a impact on the herd, but not to the extent the other three do, with winter range health and logging practices having the most impact.
With that said I fully support SSS until the DNR come sup with a effective management plan that halts the wolves population increase.

Been in a few areas up there where a good burn wouldn't hurt...

Kill all the damn things. Better yet ship them to Texas.