Sure, wolf season is now open in some areas. Many hunters are blood-hungry to 'nail one to the wall' but that needs to be thought through properly before indiscriminantly shooting wolves just for the sake of bragging and shooting one before quotals expire.

Wolves should not be indescriminantly destroyed. They play a vital role in nature and are intimately attached and part of our American Wilderness Heritage; the sounds of wolves in the mountains symbolizes the American Pioneering Spirit combined with the raw wild of nature...something very prescious that we do not want to lose but share with our children and grandchildren.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "wolf predation of live-stock; sheep, poultry, and cattle does occur, but it is uncommon enough behavior in the species as a whole to be called aberrant"

To help protect the wolf, we will need to help protect the wilderness that is left and not overshoot them. Look at the way Canada is living with Wolves- they're doing a great job of coexisting together.

We understand the science of the wolf, but the soul seems to be lost among many so-called hunters who would prefer to bag one for bragging rights and to protect his?? elk. The once crafty wolf revered and respected is now seen as vermin by some of the people on this site and that I disagree with.

Is the cry of the wolf a mournful farewell? or does it announce his return. Will we grant him a place to live? and in turn give ourselves something more valuable? We all must work together to ensure that the songs of the wolves will always be heard in all the wild places of our earth.

The wolf has been part of the natural balance for thousands of years, in less than 100 years man through ignorance and misinformation has almost made wolves disappear forever.

Part of the solution to increasing elk populations is:
1. less habitat destruction
2. less logging
3. less mining
4. less pollution
5. less ATV access
6. less housing development
7. less road construction into wilderness areas
8. less cattle and sheep ranching/grazing

...humans are the largest issue for elk.

Best of success this elk season and share your success!!

Happy hunting
Brooks.

P.S. Going moose hunting in a few days!

Mr. brooksrange;
As a Canadian member of the Campfire, I cringe a wee bit whenever comparisons are made between our two neighboring countries, whether it be health care or wildlife management.

I tend to think that in both instances our population densities of humans and animals are dissimilar enough that comparisons might not reflect the reality of the situation.

Thus, I really don�t believe I have either the right to comment on how wolves are managed in the US, nor enough information to intelligently do so.

With that said, you mentioned how well we in Canada are getting along managing our wolves. The following link may be of interest to fellow Campfire members:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/

It shows how wolves are managed here in my home province of BC, where we apparently have a healthy enough population of wolves to allow hunting:

While it is a little tedious to go through the entire province by each game management region, an overview would look something like this:

� BC resident hunters can hunt wolves in all regions except my home region which is Region 8. From what I hear, there may soon be wolf hunting available here as well.

� BC resident hunters can hunt wolves with no tags required. Possession of the BC Hunting License is all we need.

� With the exception of Region 8, all regions allow at least 2 wolves per year to be shot per hunter, many allow 3 per year and where wolf populations have been seen as too high there is No Bag Limit (NBL) annually.

� In addition to annual hunting seasons, we are allowed to shoot predators that threaten livestock year round, providing it can be reasonably proven that was what was taking place.

As I say, I�m not sure what conclusions if any can be drawn from that information. I�ll remove myself from this now and let my fellow Campfire members derive what they can from the information provided.

Good luck to you and all other members on your upcoming hunts.

Regards,
Dwayne

Yes, you proved my point. Thank you. There are 'enough' wolves in B.C. to be managed effectively with generally liberal seasons, and because the seasons are long and liberal many people do not feel the 'blood-rush to go out and kill every one of them'.

Your elk populations and trophy potential is not what it used to be in many areas. B.C. faces the same 'human issues' that I outlined above when it comes to impacting elk populations. Once the elk populations are seems as decreasing in trophy quality (even with mostly 6 point antler restrictions), the B.C. hunters may also begin to blame wolves when what is really to blame are the logging industry, Alcan, new housing development, ATV hunters, road access, Native indians, and poaching, and habitat loss and destruction, pollution, etc. that are mainly responsible. JMHO.

BTW, I love Canada and I hunt up there every year as a non-resident and love hunting in areas with a guide that competes with the locals! Oops...another problem of mis-management and human over-population...must be the fault of wolves...:)

Why don't you wolf/bunny/tree huggin troll SOB's take a long walk on a short Pier?
You hunt? I call BS
Go post on your wolf lovers site to those that care.

I think every game animal should be managed by the voters within the state. The wolf reintroduction was shoved down the throats of people out West and has been a problem for the people who live there for many years. Now it is time to regulate that population with hunting to set the balance. I am for the hunting of the wolf to help keep things in balance. How would some of the bunny huggers like it if they were told that a wolf was going to be put in the back yard with their little fee fee the dog.

You missed a few things. These imported, non-native wolves are breeding our native subspecies out of existence. The ESA is being completely ignored.
The wolves are completely uncontrolled. The antis have stated in their own publications that their intent is to use the introduction of large predators to reduce game animals to unhuntable levels. They've been seen in almost every country in Idaho and game numbers have plummeted in some areas due to predation.

You don't live here. We do. You can manage wolves any way you like in AK, but we demand the same privilege. We don't need outsiders telling us how to run things here.

I agree that they should be managed, not necessarily exterminated (although perhaps some places can't actually support them in today's world...Issaquah, WA comes to mind, even though deer sometimes think they still belong where their ancestors lived in recent times.)



And I can think of no more fitting way to accomplish this in a very practical way than to tan the hide of one and have several very useful fur ruffs made. Properly cared for, a fur ruff can last for many years protecting the cherubs in posterity. There truly is nothing like a warm, furry piece of wolf hide to protect one's otherwise unprotected hide (face) from the nasty elements.

Uhhhhhhh......

From the Anchorage daily news...


http://www.adn.com/front/story/934085.html

State: Wolf, bear hunts increasing moose, caribou
Since program began, more than 1,000 wolves and hundreds of black bears have been killed


By Mary Pemberton | The Associated Press
ANCHORAGE - An Alaska wildlife management program in which wolves are shot from low-flying airplanes and black bears are baited and snared is helping to increase the numbers of moose and caribou, state wildlife officials say.

The program has long been the target of wildlife conservation groups who view it as state-sponsored slaughter. Last fall, one of those groups launched an ad criticizing then-Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, for expanding the program.

State officials contend the program is aimed at helping rural Alaskans, who rely on hunting to survive and had complained there wasn't enough game to hunt and eat.

The program began under Palin's predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski. Private citizens are permitted to shoot wolves from the air or conduct land-and-shoot hunting of wolves in six rural areas of the state.

Since the program began in 2003, over 1,000 wolves and hundreds of black bears have been killed in an effort to drive down the number of predators.

"I think there are some real success stories here," Bruce Bartley, a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said.

The agency recently released its 2008-09 predation management summary that indicates that moose and caribou numbers in six predator control areas have increased. The agency points to two areas in particular as examples of where the program is showing strong results: the Nelchina Basin area and the southern Alaska Peninsula.

The program is getting substantive results in the McGrath area, where it began in December 2003. Last winter and spring, 28 wolves were killed in the McGrath area. Nineteen were taken under the program and nine were hunted and trapped.

The agency said the moose population there has grown from 2,774 in 2004 to an estimated 5,500 moose now. The goal is to reach 6,000 to 8,000 moose.

"Moose numbers have come up substantially," Bartley said.
In the Nelchina Basin area - one of the more contentious predator control areas because it is accessible to urban hunters from the Anchorage area - 119 wolves were killed. Fifty-five of those were taken under the control program and the other 64 were hunted or trapped.

That, the state said, helped the moose population increase 27 percent. The harvest, meanwhile, went up 18 percent.

The situation is so improved in the Nelchina Basin that for the first time in more than a decade nonresident hunters will be allowed to hunt bull moose.

Bartley said the 50-permit, nonresident hunt should not interfere with the supply of moose for Alaskans because it is being allowed in more remote areas only. Nonresident hunters have been "frozen out" of hunting in that area of the state for years, Bartley said, and there is a benefit to the state to have them in it.

"Everybody loves to beat up on the ugly, old nonresident but the fact is they pay a lot of the game management bills in Alaska," he said.

Critics say the nonresident hunt being allowed in the Nelchina Basin reveals the true intent of predator control in Alaska. They have said the predator control program is nothing more than a front for big game guides who pay big fees to the state and need trophies for their out-of-state clients.

"Predator control programs are simply perpetual killing events designed to give nonresident trophy hunters access to Alaska as a game farm," said John Toppenberg, director of the 1,200-member Alaska Wildlife Alliance, a conservation group.

The program is meant to meet the needs of commercial guides and nonresident trophy hunters - not the subsistence needs of rural Alaskans, he said.

Wade Willis, a former Fish and Game biologist and outspoken critic of the program, agrees. It looks like predator control is never going to end, he said.

"It is a perpetual predator control program, artificial manipulation of the game to create nothing short of a game farm," said Willis, who was formerly associated with Defenders of Wildlife in Alaska.

It is up to the Alaska Board of Game to end predator control, but Bartley said the board likely won't stop intensive management in the control areas anytime soon.

"I think the board wants to see that they do function normally for a number of years in a row," he said.
_________________________

So, when you can't deal with the real issues, you resort to name-calling, mild threats and accusations? That is an immature way to respond to a fellow hunter who also happens to share the wilderness with you.

Thanks to the others for sharing their perspectives. Good stuff!

Huh? Tell that to my friends and neighbors here in Montana who've lost everything from the family pet to livestock due to wolf predation. They've decimated some game populations to they point that to survive they're dining on fresh T-bones and lamb chops. Wolf predation of livestock in this state has become common enough as a whole to be called, well, common.

Where do you hail from brooksrange?

Not the Brooks Range for certain. (He's only a name caller.)

2. less logging
3. less mining

THE ABOVE ARE WRONG AND WRONG

IN IDAHO:
1.LESS OUT OF STATE HUNTERS KILLING IMMATURE BULLS BECAUSE THEY DONT KNOW WTF THEY ARE DOING WOULD GO A LONG LONG WAY.
2. PREDATION

WE DONT HAVE A HABITAT PROBLEM , WE HAVE A PREDATION AND OVER HUNTED PROBLEM.

Wrong on that one.
For what I pay for NR tags I ain't shootin a fuggin dink.
Lots of NR's feel the same way.
I think locals are more likley to shoot meat sized peepers.
I burned a $1,000 Wyoming elk tag last year looking for a good bull.
Saw 5 points & a small six by & let 'em walk.
Didn't need a guide to lead me round either.

I know that this falls on deaf ears and eyes. Here goes anyway. They main reason our big game herds are on the decrease is our LEGISLATURE. They legislated the slaughter us, we, hunters have joined in on. Through A-9, B-12 (second elk tag), to either sex mashem up season that run over 9 Weeks (rifle). We have shot our way to the low levels we enjoy today. The fact that Bio's are taught that predation has no impacts on big game and the liberal seasons have left us with real low numbers in many districts. Many parts of Montana will experience this stupidity again this year.

Discussing this is like the definition of insanity.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Timothy Treadwell + Bears = Bear Crap
Brooksrange + Wolves = ?

You do the math.

Apparently there are lots of stupids in your life
...
Stupid Geese...................
No Stupid Squirrels...........*grin*
...

......And now you.

No information in the profile.....hmmm...troll?

Tom264,

Do you agree or disagree with the statement that I made before?


Please do share...

If we can be better steward hunters and conservationists then we'd have more huntable and larger animals all around.

1-7 yes
8 not sure

I think your coming from a different angle at this.

You want elk around to enjoy viewing.. me as a hunter I want elk around too but, Wolves are our competition......we as hunters do not need competition we have enough as it is with ourselves.

As far as I'm concerned kill em all.

Logging is good for elk habitat, fewer homes being built/less land being developed would be a good thing, not sure where mining has ever caused significant damage to elk herds, POLLUTION!!!! - you're an idiot, less ATV access would be a good thing, and yes some ranching operations abuse their leases and hurt wildlife habitat -- most don't. ---- brooksrange has a history of posting environmentalist BS and trying to pass himself off as an experienced hunter. My guess is that brooksrange lives in an eastern state, never killed anything he didn't pay to kill and is an Obama voter. How about some kill pics brooksrange? I'd like to see you qualify your point of view with a little proof that you've been up the hill.

I hear polesmokers footsteps...

May not be the answer, but it d@mn sure doesn't hurt.

Its very interesting to read up on elk numbers up and down, adn teh fact that once wolves show up the elk become much lower in numbers when nothing else is causing their numbers to drop in the same ratio....

i don't care if killing a wolf will save elk. it would make me feel good and in the end, that's all i care about!

i like having bear, mt. lion, and coyotes around, but the wolves are like piranahs in a fish tank around here.

Do the math.

A mountain lion or a wolf is going to kill a deer or elk calf a week if it is able to do so, and maybe more, if it can.

The reduced numbers of mule deer in the West are not due to increased elk so much as they are to protection of predators.

Anti-hunters want the wolves, coyotes, and mountain lions to replace all the two-legged hunters. They would rather wolves kill 5,000 elk in Yellowstone and have the bears eat the leftovers, than to have people kill any elk and feed other people.

+1 for everything pretty much everyone said except brooksrange

I guess living and hunting here automatically dq's me from knowing anything. witnessing it year after year must be my imagination.Two seconds on the net turned this up.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=803603#Post803603

+1 to ranger1's comments. Whenever I hear the "song of the wolf" drivel it just reminds me of listening to the emotional, baseless arguments of Earth First, ELF, ALF, and all the other "enviormentalist" who have a Disneyesk view of the world. Logging can actually improve habitat for a lot of game animals, especially when done on a sound sivicultural basis. All those other things he whines about can be effectively managed or mitigated to maintain a healthy wildlife population. I agree that the desire of most of the "enviros" to re-introduce large predators is mostly based on a desire to eliminate sport hunting. That's already been mentioned, so I won't belabor it. I never supported wolf re-introduction, or lynx re-introduction. I believe our Grandfather's may have known what they were doing and weren't not always wrong. If not for some of them we would not have any wildlife today and you wouldn't be able to hear the bugle of an elk. It just may boil down someday to what do you want to hear a bugle or a "song". Wolves can't read and don't know where they're supposed to be. When they get to a border they may not know they're only supposed to be inside a park or reserve. But they do know that lambs, calves, and other domesticated critters are a lot easier to get than some wildlife and as they increase their populations they will expand and they will/have affect agricultural production. Then our license money will be used to pay damage claims, instead of other useful habitat projects. So brooksrange can enjoy his music, but we'll all pay in smaller herds, and less available funding for other wildlife management goals. Sorry for the rant, but sometimes I just have to sing my song. CH

i say kill the wolf population down to a level where it IS NOT affecting deer/elk/moose numbers as judged by carrying capacity of the land. if the land can handle higher numbers of deer, etc. than the wolf population allows, the wolves need to go.

The old timers had it right the first time. Wak n Stak. I personally defend my right to hunt elk. You have a personal right to want to hear wolves in the wild thus out of friendly gesture I offer you this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-6SIE-eo1U

Feel free to download it and play at will whilst you stroke your Wolfy blanket.

Kiss My ASS! Hows that for an imature response?

I saw this post when it was initally put up and suspected it was just a post to stir the pot and get alot of us cranked up. I didn't respond, I guess the response I made was motivated by the other posters. I also think brookrange is most likely a troll and that's OK with me. If putting up provocative threads is what he enjoys, well that's really not harmful. I for one will not respond in the future. I believe that's the best way to deal with trolls, if they put up something calculated to be provocative and no one responds, there'll be no fun in it for them. I will no longer take the bait. So sing your song.

On to more interesting topics. I've never shot a wolf nor had a desire to hunt them. But I'm starting to consider it, what would be a good caliber?

Isn't just killing wolves reason enough to shoot some. No other answers are necessary.

No it does not DQ you.

I guess it does however show that we are both guilty of gross generalizations.

I do think that most NR's can afford to buy meat at a grocery store if thay can afford the high cost of NR tags and that they are in a majority of cases travelling out of state in pursuit of trophies for the wall.
Where as residents can buy underpriced tags and put a few bucks in the tank and fill the freezer with a spike or raghorn.
What does irk me however is the hatred toward non residents that many local yocals portray, to the point of vandalizing vehicles and harassment in the field.
That's bullshit no matter how you slice it.
If you ain't a nonresident at some point you ain't doin too much huntin...
The plate on your pickup in no way determines your outdoor prowness or hunting skills.

I agree that killing wolves is not the answer to the wolf problem but it a pretty damn good start. If you want to replace wolves with elk, then it will work.

I still have not heard anyone address my opine that they have not done the math on this subject..Wolves litter 2.5 times per year, have 4 to 8 pups each time, and elk and deer have one or perhaps two offspring, the numbers don't adde up in my book

What the hell is wrong with you waffle footed idiots that can't understand anything that damn simple...and to top that when all these wolves destroy their food source and its happening right now, they what are they gonna eat? The end result will be upland game hunting only cuz a wolf can't climb trees.

BTW whatcha gonna feed the wolves when the game is gone? Maybe Obama will feed them old people, that should help the national debt..btw it's the same bunch that love the wolves. It makes them all warm and fuzzy to see the doggies running free...Liberalism is a desease!

Over shooting wolves ? Who gets to do that in this country ? Particularly with wolves.
Predation is just one factor. Lots of other things can influence how well game populations do in the wild. It can and has been both a benefit to the herds and a determent. Well documented in both cases. Simply depends on many other things as well.
Logging and fires have a long term benefical effect certain classes of wildlife in certain areas. Burn or log a forrest and the deer and elk tend to do better. But burn a high desert winter range and the deer and elk don't do as well.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel our poster has tried to accuse us of over shooting something we are strickly regulated in shooting. Heck, we have hardly been allowed to kill any wolves yet.
A little hysteria here I suspect. E

Ed Bangs admitted the following at a wolf meeting in Riverton, Wy. EVERY wolf pack that is around livestock, kills livestock. The only wolves that do not ain't around livestock, such as packs that live in the Park. So much for aberrant.

You want elk habitat? You better think seriously about private ranches that contribute a huge portion of habitat. How's that habitat gonna look subdivided?

Somehow wolfs and other predators, people included, couldn't eat all the game animals they lived off of. Or the game animals and their predators would not be here. They'd be extinct.

I think there are two arguments. How much Elk, Deer, Antelope, etc... there is available that we humans can hunt. And that predators will kill livestock.

If I was a Rancher or a Hunting Guide I would not want any wolfs. Period.

But we all know this isn't going to happen. Predators are protected species.

brooksrange,

As I have stated before and will state again: The wolves in the lower 48, in an evolutionary way, lost to the top preditor. I would like to see that happen again.

"If you ain't a nonresident at some point you ain't doin too much huntin...
The plate on your pickup in no way determines your outdoor prowness or hunting skills."

yep went to wyo to hunt mule deer last year my buddy came home with this deer, I came home with nothing. We saw more people from from MI,WI,and MN than good bucks.Almost got in a fight with two really rude bastards from WI who decided that they needed to hunt where we were hunting. Saw more dead forked horns than any other time in my life because the NR's just couldn't go home empty handed.As far as my prowess goes ill take honest luck before prowess. Like I said originally logging is good for elk habitat , and many a mine in places like kentucky now support elk populations , I think that is what this post is about.

nice buck, rather your friend get em than a wolf!

LoL now that's funnier than hell because their killing wolvies in Canada.

Part of the solution to increasing elk populations is:

1. less habitat destruction
agree
2. less logging

Pure BS more logging and control burning will fix the fire suppression idiocy of the last century. Thinning underbrush removing excess trees are all good for elk hunting.

3. less mining

Don't worry about that .Clinton covered up the richest deposit of clean burning coal in the world with a national park.

4. less pollution
How do you propose to do that ? one clue that your an anti

5. less ATV access
Agree

6. less housing development
Isn't that part of habitat destruction?

7. less road construction into wilderness areas

See habitat destruction

8. less cattle and sheep ranching/grazing

Do you have a problem with what ranchers do on their own property or should that be outlawed as well? If ranchers are paying their leases on public land what is the big deal?

BR please change your handle to fudgepacker or something along those lines. YOu are no more a hunter then Obama is legally born citizen of the US. Have a good day [bleep] Troll

Yes they sell game tags and hunters kill them. This keeps their numbers closer to a tolerant balance. Canada would not let the wolves eat up most of the game and keep them on an endangered species listl.

This is a lot different than the U.S. starting a wolf program with a target of 100 for Yellowstone and ending up with thousands in the surrounding states. And then having federal judges trying to keep them on the endangered species list.