millagerobert

Here is what I posted on another forum recently that was full of save the wolf and no wolf hunting period types. I tried to be as pc as possible to get them to try and see things from a rational perspective. It seemed to work as many changed their tune after this was posted. I know many are for the complete removal of the wolves, and I understand where they are coming from, but I also know that will never happen, and to get control of the wolf population we will have to meet the enviros in the middle and assure them that the wolves will be better off when managed by our fish and game departments.

"I spend more time than the average individual in the wilds of Idaho, well over 100 days per year. I have seen 28 wolves now in the last 8 years, with a noticeable increase in encounters over the last 3 years due to their population increase. I have enjoyed hearing wolves at night, and have taken delight in getting to view them in the wild.
There are several things I have also noticed during this period that are not as positive. The number of prey species such as elk and moose especially have declined in our area by a large amount. While their population and that of the wolves may naturally even out, there are several factors that may make this not at all possible without some control of the wolf population through hunting. The elk in our area in the winter simply cannot escape a wolf pack in deep snow, and even the most healthy animals fall easy prey to them. It is simple biology, the elk were originally more of an open plains animal, and are unable to escape the canadian wolves with their large snowshoe like feet in deep snow in forested areas. Now this isn't just something I think or have been told, I have seen the results with my own eyes, up to 20 elk all dead in a small area with very little eaten off from any of them.
I am all for having a balanced population of wolves and other species and believe it can be achieved, but now control of this matter has been hijacked from the biologist and experts by enviro groups and politicians who operate based on passion instead of science. Everyone wants to bash the hunters and the fish and game departments over the wolf, but they forget that the reason Idaho was such a prime place for wolf introduction is due to hunters and the money and hard work they have provided over the years to have a healthy wildlife population that is larger than when Lewis and Clark came through Idaho. I believe the best bet for the wolf is to turn over their control to the Fish and game departments who have managed with success the populations of Idaho's other big game animals. I have seen what politics and passion can do to an ecosystem when science and common sense is replaced, and it is bad for even the animal they are trying to protect.
Is it better to let the wolf population go unchecked until they eat themselves out of prey, get diseased, or breed themselves out of habitat causing not only the wiping out of the prey species but the starvation and crash of the wolves themselves? With the current unchecked population growth of the wolves we are already seeing the warning signs in our area, with more attacks on pets and livestock, and wolves spreading into populated areas. It is easy to think this is not a problem when you are not living with the problem, but I believe people in rural areas have a right to not have to worry about the safety of their kids and pets around their own homes because an introduced predators numbers have been allowed to explode 5 times beyond the point that was initially agreed upon and planned by the biologist and scientific studies.
How can local citizens trust any future animal reintroduction plan, such as for grizzly Bears when they see that promises are broken, lies are told, and local people's rights and way of life's are trampled upon.
Agree or disagree, this is my 2 cents. "