RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

I guess in my line of work,i use predatory birds the same way.When i clean out a roof rat or gopher job,and i know more will be back,i install owl houses.I line the client up with a pair of juvi owls and teach them how to finnish the raising.Then the owls keep the area pretty clear.
I never thaught it possible that anyone in there right mind would bring something like a wolf in,and protect it, knowing what its capable of.I gotta say it was a coinsidence,just because it would take so much forsight to have the end result being no game,no hunters,no guns.But then again,people in that mindset are not going to listen to anyone who doesnt agree with them.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

I really don't believe hunters are well oraganized at all. Unfortunately, the hunting community is imploding from within, with high fenced hunting, land leasing etc. The leasing of land for hunting purposes is done soley for the purpose of limited access of others, and with that mentality, we are all in trouble. Why this is relative, is that the hunting community is split on several issues themslves, do you really think the guy from Maryland gives a crap about the wolf issue here in Montana? Too many hunters like the idea of wolves running around because they don't have to live with and deal with the wolves. Even on this board you will find guys from back east arguing for wolf recovery and re-introduction without even realizing that the people who most support it are their anti-hunting enemies. It all eventually comes right back to the old states rights issue, and that avenue is the most effective for us here in Montana. There is a ground swell occurring here, people are starting to get frustrated with the wolf issue, and the constant litigation over other natural resources. Letters are appearring in the paper, people are attending FWP meetings and beginning to yell, the federal government is hated and spoken of poorly. Recently, the USFS has been under attack for limiting access and rightfully so, but the pressure must continue.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Glad to hear that

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Mabe i better hurry up and open an office in Montana.It sounds like you guys have more toothey critters than we do.I thaught we had it bad here in WI.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

When asked if he's ever shot any wolves a local boy said, "No, but I've shot some REALLY BIG coyotes." Good answer.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

This is highly amusing....and more than a little creepy.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

this sounds like some i would say

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Yea, alot of juvi. wolves get shot here,cause they are thaught to be coyotes.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Well I live with them......And I have no problem with shooting them...
In fact we do have a season in B.C....In fact I've shot 2..
No question they do do damage to deer elk moose etc...
Yep they seem to "kill for the fun of it"....Kill an animal and leave the carcus behind...
However...This is where I have a problem..
Hunters who fatally wound animals do the same thing...
In fact I wouldn't be under the relm of possibilties if quite a number of thesedead animalsfound by hunters were shot/lost by hunters...
And if you tally the numbers up, around the country,you'lldefinitly find the ratio of animals/birds shot and lost by huntersfar excedes what are taken and left by wolves....
Than add up what gets chuckedout of the freezer by hunters every year..
Until we get this issue solved...Like Mandatory tag cancelations for lost game...
Its a wash.......
People can cry about the way wolves attack and kill there pery...All that pain and suffering etc...
Well..what about a gut a gut shot elk....Or a deer with its jaw blown off....Don't even get me started on waterfowl .....
You can call me what you want...However I am a hunter that doesn't like to see things overlooked.........
Heres an idea Idahoelkinstructor a bit of give and take...If youand your fellow hunterswant a wolf kill so bad,maybe suggest to whom ever it may concern that your all for manditory tagging of lostcrippledanimals and inclusion of crippled waterfowl and upland birds in the dail bag limit...
You may just get somewhere...

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Thats true Jeff,we are supposed to be the smart ones.The ones that ACT,and dont REACT.An action is a movement which has been thaught out,planned,and executed.In my opinion there would be fewer wounded animals if hunters would learn to act.instead of reacting to a flash,a noise, a running animal out of range.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

According to tonights news, the jail time will soon be reduced if a guy gets caught. Puppies are gonna be running hard!!!!!

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

In Wisconsin i think hunters need to get more involved in the reporting of lots of certain wildlife.Pine martins,wolves,lynx ,cougars. That sort of thing.The feds do want an accurate count.There resorces are not endless.they need help for the winter count.If you see tracks in an area,or see the actual animal,dont just talk about it to your bar buddies.Report it.Theres a spot on the WI dnr websight to order post cards,when filled out and mailed to mad city they will get someone in the area to look it over.Get involved more than just with a backtag on.Its alot of fun,and ya learn alot.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

yep we don't need them, but they are here to stay. Makes me sad to see the deer,elk,moose being decimated. they should be treated as coyoteand shoot on sight.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Are they wolves or wolf,dog hybreds?

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Thanks but its not just the wounded I'm refeering to...
Its the fact that these same hunters who cripple these animals decide its there best interest to shoot another.......
There goes the quality of hunting....and Outfittter Closures.....
Say a hunter shoots at a 240 class buck wounds it and it gets away and dies to its injury later...Its early in the season so it doesn't pass on its genectics during the rut...
2 days later the same hunter goes into the same area and this time dumps a 220 buck.......
Now we have problems.....2 big brutes down neverto pass on the genes..
This happens lots every year...
This can take years to recover....Even though their genes have been passed down from years past,what are the chances ( with all the pressure) that there oiffspring will ever get as big as there daddies..
The same senerio holds true for elk.....
The quality of hunting does start with us, because it is already a country wide issue....
Worrying about wolves taking over the country is certainly a concern but hunters doing this is a greater cause for concern because its country wide.....
Guiding outfits depend on big quality trophies for employment and Tourism Ind depends on it too....This is getting way too big to ignore.....

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

They are full blown timber wolves

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Well we finally had a biologist fess up that the wolves a creating problems. In the Missoulian Newspapera Montanabiologist with MFWPhas stated that the elk have migrated too early into the Grant Creek winter range to escape predatory pressure from the wolves. Biologist are concerned at how low many elk in the region are, and they are concerned that the elk may abandon traditional migratory patterns and stay low in their winter range creating new human/elk encounter problems. They believe that the wolves are changing elk behavior and forcing them into human populated lower ranges. I can track down the article if anyone is interested. It's happening, the wolf climate around here is starting to change, problems are beginning to develope.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Post it if you can dude,This is interresting stuff and a guy has to stay on top of it year arround to see what kind of effect it will have on another animal species,US!

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

This may interest you did you Know
"There's never been a documented case of a healthy, wild wolf killing a human in North America." If we received two bits for every time we've heard this overstated statement, we could buy all those North American wolves filet mignon. Nevertheless, we feel compelled to say it too, at least twice during the course of a Wild Sentry program.

Unfortunately, the "no healthy, wild wolf" sound byte is often misstated with the word "killing" replaced by "attacking". This is not true. Wild wolves have attacked humans in North America. That's why we always add, "This doesn't mean that wolves have absolutely never killed a human or that they never will. After all, humans never cut a deal with wolves to leave us alone." So how much danger do wolves pose to people? Should we steer clear of dark forests inhabited by wolves? Are the reasons given for aggressive wolves more an apologia than an explanation? Is it reasonable to think that wolves will eventually kill a human?

Before reviewing recent wolf attacks in North America, it should be noted that, outside of North America, wolves have killed humans. Tales about massive wolf packs devastating caravans of Russian troikas (as in Willa Cather's My Antonia) are undoubtedly fiction. During their brief reign of terror in France from 1764 to 1767, the infamous Beasts of Gervaudan killed at least sixty-four people-but it's been well established that these animals were hybrids not wolves. Most of the deaths blamed on wolves in southern and central Europe and in central Asia are attributable to hybrids or rabid wolves.

However, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, from March to October 1996 and March to April 1997, a wolf or wolves killed or injured as many as seventy-four Indian children, almost all of them under the age of ten. The deaths occurred among children playing or relieving themselves on the outskirts of small villages. There were also reports of a wolf entering huts, though it sounds as if no children were harmed.


[font=""]Recent Attacks in North America[/font]
In Ontario, Canada where thousands of people visit Algonquin Provincial Park-and many of them come to see or hear wolves-five people have been bit in the past twelve years. During August 1996, a wolf dragged 12-year-old Zachariah Delventhal from his sleeping bag. This particular wolf, prior to attacking Zachariah, had entered campsites and taken things such as a backpack, tennis shoe and other human items. As we've been in contact with the Delventhal family, we can let Zachariah describe what happened. He wrote the following in November 1996:

"The scariest night of my life� was the last night of a terrific 10-day camping trip at Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. We were exhausted and wanted to get out the next morning quickly so we decided to sleep under the stars. I remember dreaming that me, my mom, and my dad were walking through the woods. Then I felt pressure on my head and the woods started flying past. I awoke and still felt the pressure, but there was a new feeling of pain. I screamed, immediately the pressure released and the pain lessened. I opened my eyes-nothing but dark forest. I had been dragged six feet and I knew it was an animal mouth that did it. I yelled, 'Something bit me!' My mother came and held my sleeping bag to my face. Then my dad got up and started yelling. I got scared as he disappeared into the underbrush but he came back. I asked, 'What was it?' Then came two terrifying words, 'A wolf.' I immediately started to pull away from where I was dragged, I freaked. It was so scary and confusing at the same time. I didn't want to get eaten by such a strong animal. As for confusing, think about this-I had been told wolves don't attack people and here I was practically killed by one. My list of wounds is extensive. I had over 80 stitches to close the many cuts, my nose was broken in five places, I am missing a piece of my ear, my gums, and my tear duct and cheekbone were punctured. After all this, don't be scared to go in the woods, don't think of wolves as killers. The chances of getting attacked are so slim; I can't get a hold of the fact that I was attacked. My parents were wrong when they said wolves don't attack people, but wolves almost never do."

Two years later, on September 25, 1998, another Algonquin wolf circled a little girl and despite blasts of pepper spray, didn't leave until the child entered a trailer. Two days after that, a nineteen-month-old boy sat playing in the middle of camp, with his parents twenty feet away. The father thought he saw a dog emerge from the brush. He turned away for a moment and when he looked back, he saw his son in the jaws of a wolf. The wolf held the boy for a moment and then tossed him three feet. A local newspaper quoted the parents, "It wasn't hit and run. He hit him [the infant] and then it was wait and see. He [the wolf] circled the picnic table a number of times before he was scared off enough to leave." The infant received two stitches for minor injuries.

On April 26, 2000, a six and nine year old boy cut down small trees as they played at being loggers on the outskirts of a logging camp near Yakutat in southeastern Alaska. Upon seeing a wolf, the children fled. The wolf took down six-year-old John Stenglein and bit him on the back, legs and buttocks. A neighbor's golden retriever rushed to the rescue but the wolf drove the dog back and then set upon John again. The boy's cries brought adults who drove the wolf away. John received seven stitches and five surgical closure staples.

During the evening of July 1, 2000, on the shores of Vargas Island, British Columbia, a wolf entered the campsite of a kayaking group. They chased the wolf away. Members of the group also spotted another wolf that apparently hung back from the bolder wolf. At 2 a.m., 23-year-old Scott Langevin awoke with a small dark wolf tugging on his sleeping bag. "I yelled to try to spook it off, and I kicked at it," Scott said. "It backed up a bit, but then it just lunged on top of me, and it started biting away through my sleeping bag." He rolled in an effort to situate the fire between him and the wolf, but the animal jumped on his back and bit him about the head. The noise woke his friends and they drove the wolf away. The wounds to Scott's head required 50 stitches.

In all of the previous incidents, the offending wolves were killed. Autopsies indicated healthy animals.

"I pulled these story's up to clear things up for some people. After the wolf has killed off most game. it will come for us."

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Let me say this,

If you are a member of SCI great, If not join immediately. Now that You are a SCI Member get in contact withyour Delegate that is going to the National convention in Reno, its coming up in just a couple of weeks. Ask that delegate to support any movement that is brought up about SCI getting involved in the fight to delist the wolves. I know for a fact that it will be brought up because my delegate has assured me that he will.

Now, I know some of you don't "like" SCI and oppose some of the things that they support but you need to put that aside. SCI is the only organization that we as hunters have that has the resources to take the battle to them. They fight the Anti's constantly and win. SCI has Lawyers on staff that are some of the best in washington. If anyone can get this battle turned in the hunters favor its them. Not to mention that they fight everyday to keep are hunting heritage alive.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

This was in the tuesday paper of the Idaho Statesman,

"Idahoans could be hunting wolves within 12 months, when Gov. Jim Risch and state wildlife officials take over managing the state's wolves as federal officials proposed Tuesday.
Federal wildlife officials told the Idaho Statesman Tuesday they plan to remove wolves from the endangered species list in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, turning over management of the predators to the states.
The removal of the wolf from the endangered species list would be the culmination of one of the most heralded conservation success stories of the 20th century. But for many Idahoans, especially ranchers and hunters, it has forced a difficult transition.
Wolves were re-introduced in a controversial program that began with 35 wolves in 1995-96.
Idaho Fish and Game commissioners said they plan to establish regulations for hunting wolves that will be in place when delisting is final.
Before that happens, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must publish in the Federal Register its proposal to delist, which Dale Hall, the agency's director said would come by the end of January. The public will have at least 60 days to comment; a final decision is expected a year from the publication.
Opponents of delisting, however, worry that Idaho and Wyoming will reduce wolf numbers to minimum levels allowed and are expected to try to halt the delisting in court. That could delay the day when the state takes over wolf management.
Hall and Todd Willens, assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, told Risch Tuesday they will seek to delist in all three states if Wyoming agrees to expand the area where wolves are protected in that state.
Hall and Willens had met earlier Tuesday with Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal and other lawmakers, who indicated they would go along with the new federal plan.
"We have every reason to believe they will," Willens said.
But even if Wyoming doesn't agree, federal officials would go ahead with delisting in Idaho and Montana, Hall said.
That's what Idaho officials have been demanding for several years as the wolf population has grown beyond all expectations since wolves were released in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in 1995.
Idaho has more than 650 wolves, twice the minimum number the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said was necessary for preserving the viability of the species in the Rocky Mountain region.
"This is way overdue," Risch said Tuesday. "They have admitted that wolves are no longer endangered in Idaho."
Fish and Wildlife officials have been negotiating with Wyoming for several months, seeking to bridge their differences over a Wyoming law that would allow wolves to be shot on sight outside a trophy-hunting zone.
The federal agency decided Tuesday that if the state could expand the trophy area — where wolves would be managed as a game animal — it could allow unlimited wolf killing outside that zone.
"It's not any different than what we are doing now," said Mitch King, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional director from Denver. "What's the difference if someone else is shooting them?"
Idaho would be able to approve similar shoot-on-sight rules once wolves are removed from endangered status, King said.
But Idaho Fish and Game Commission Chairman Cameron Wheeler said Idaho plans to manage wolves as a game animal, just as it does mountain lions and black bears. Hunters have to buy a special tag before they can kill these big predators.
"That's the template we would probably use," Wheeler said. "I envision it would be like big game seasons with maybe a little more time on each end."
The state increases the limits on lions and bears when it seeks to reduce their numbers, such as to allow elk populations to grow or where the predators cause livestock depredation problems.
Suzanne Stone, Rocky Mountain representative of the Defenders of Wildlife, worries that Idaho will seek to kill off as many wolves as possible — aiming for the minimum number of about 100 allowed in the state management plan.
The Idaho Legislature advocated eradication of wolves and accepted responsibility to protect a minimum population only to delist wolves.
"Under the current political climate, delisting will definitely lead to a great reduction of wolves in Idaho," Stone said.
Nate Helm, executive director of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said he would like to see wolf numbers greatly reduced
"After delisting occurs, we have the autonomy to adjust to the reality of what we have today," Helm said.
This year, wolves have killed more than 300 sheep and 100 cattle in the Council area alone, said Lloyd Knight, executive director of the Idaho Cattle Association. He asks opponents like Stone to consider his members' situation.
"For those that don't think delisting is a good idea, if they would like me to break into their home and steal a couple thousand dollars worth of property, then maybe they might understand my folks' perspective on wolves," Knight said.
Defenders of Wildlife pays compensation to ranchers for confirmed cases of livestock killed by wolves, Stone said.
And Wheeler said state officials won't authorize a wolf slaughter. F&G won't necessarily open the season immediately after wolves are delisted, and would not, for example, open the first season while wolves are raising pups in the spring.
Sen. David Langhorst, D-Boise, was among the people advocating wolf reintroduction in 1995. Delisting would prove Westerners are humble enough to allow the wild animals to return and smart enough to manage them so they don't destroy people's livelihoods and sports, he said.
"I would see getting a tag and being able to hunt and stalk wolves with a bow and arrow as closing the circle," Langhorst said.
Even if there's a legal challenge, Risch said he's hopeful a federal court will not issue an injunction stopping the decision to turn management of wolves back to the state.
"If that's the case, we will have management in less than 12 months," Risch said.
Contact reporter Rocky Barker at [email protected] or 377-6484."


I got this off another hunting site "bowsite.com". I am thankful its moving foward, but I have also read that the anti's will do everything they can to block it and hold it up in court for many years to come.Like elkcrazy8said above,I have also heard from several fish and game officers that they are pushing to do away with jail time and steep fines. Why because they want them shoot too, if the penality is not harsh or expensive you can bet many of hunters will practice SSS.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

IdahoElkInstructor,

The meat of that was practically a one liner, but don't make the mistake of overlooking it:

This is exactly why everybody needs to join SCI and get there Lawyers on our side of the battle. Everybody please join.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

It's amazing that although an entire state (as well as their neighboring states), and their respective government authorities, feel this way, and yet, are not yet allowed to act, because of some idiots.

To me,the act of de-listing, along with aggressive managementby the states, even if there were some "trohy areas" anda "minimum" onnumbers of animals statewide to maintain, would probably solve the 99% of the problem.

I think no matter what, it would be best to get some kind of hunting season started then continue the fight from that point, but meanwhile, get to go "wolf hunting":);)

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Yes and yes for me.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

hear is a bumper sticker I made up for my store. We need to spread the word.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

SSS.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

whats sss ? do you mean Shoot shoot shoot! LOL

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

We have lots of wolves up here and they are now trying to protect them and in some areas now have them on a license and tag system. I would shoot every one I can get mi sights on and have already. They can wreak havoc on moose and deer populations.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Shoot, shovel, shut up.....I don't support this, was just trying to help out elkslayer

Personally, I think wolves are cool, and I don't think I'll be shooting one anytime soon. Had one at 15 yards last year, it never even saw me. Me and my dad could hear the whole pack all morning. It was cool. Wrecked our morning for hunting, but it was a cool experience.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

I have never violated the law or taken game wrongfully so I could not shoot one unless it was legal.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Are you people so stupid not to realize that you are only defeating yourselves with this shoot shovel shut up crap? Why do you think they are a protected species in the first place? Because your ancestors shot, shoveled, and shut up many years ago and wiped them out. As long as every one is shooting shoveling and shutting up they will never get delisted and you will never have a hunting season on them and the problem will continue to grow larger and larger with theelk, moose and deer populations continuing to grow smaller and smaller.

You people are the only reason we have this problem today and are even talking about it.



The endangered species act of 1973 was created to protectALL of theanimals that are in danger of becoming extinct. You don't get to pick and choose which animals to protect.

Animals that have been saved because of this act include................
Grizzly bear, Black bear, Bison, bobcat, woodland caribou, bald eagle, key deer, American alligator, sea turtles, and hundreds upon hundreds of more animals and plants around the world.

So quit your damn bitching and work with your politicians to get hunting seasons and regulations established for the wolf and abide by those regulations just like you would any other animal that you would hunt. Cause thetrack you all areon you will never get there.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

I too agree they are somewhat cool to listen too, but at the same time I know youcan hunt them in Canada andthey have a lot more land to roam around on. Not here in the good ol western USA. Sure we still have big tracks of land but nothing compared to whats north of us. The wolves have learned that winter grounds are easy pickings.I know some feel we hunters are trying to be game hogs wanting the elk all to ourself and that is not the case.Ifthe wolves are left unchecked I would be willing to bet everything Iown, that there willbe no elk hunting inIdaho come 15 or maybe even 10 years down the road. Right now the experts say we have between 650 to 800 wolves(around 70 to 80 packs)in Idaho alone. Some say more, nobody says any less.But come this spring you can add another30% to that figure. Surethere is food for them to eat, but each year the wolf number increaseand the elk numbers drop, until thepoint that the elk numbers are so low that we as hunters are not needed at all. For those who say''ya right that will never happen" I say to them areyou willing to bet your hunting on it? Bottom line is we need every hunter's support on this with the antis because they are well funded and organized and will stop at nothing to end hunting.And yes I do believe that the wolves are their best weapon here in the westernU.S. We as hunterson the other hand are divided into many groups that bicker with one anotherover less serious issues. One example of the many iswe are more worried about who hunts with what weapon, andif that weapon was the best choice for the game being hunted and so on.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

That is the number one reason why I don't like theendangered species act, the tree hugger have learned to use it to thier best advantage.Last time I checked the wolf and bear population up in Canada and alaska was doing quite well, and has been for quite some time. Heck if we followed that logic we should add all theanimalsin world to the list. After all I don't see many african animals running around in the Idaho mountains.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Good Point Jason.

BTW. The wolves that were "introduced" lately were, I believe, actually the Canadian sub-species, whichare significantly larger than the western sub-species was.
.......................and I don't think they are in danger of becoming extinct at all, are they??

Not logical Captain[8D]

BTW, Was the black bear ever on that list??? I have a hard time imagining that

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Well that's becasue the African animals are native to Africa. The grey and red wolfs are native to the lower 48.

Yes the Louisiana black bear was endangered.

And so was the Columbianwhite tail deer, several species of fox, Jaguar, spotted owls.

Here is the current list of endangered species of the world.
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?dsource=animals

100% logical. If it were not for the greed of the humans that killed them off to begin with we wouldn't need to be having this conversation.

There are extremes to all sides of any debate. People like those of you who want to SSS are the reason they became endangered to begin with and the reason the endangered species was even created. The tree huggers that figure out how to use things like the ESA are the extreme on the other side of the debate and are the ones causing the problems today by wanting to keep them listed. If the two extreme sides would just shut up andget out of it all together a whole bunch of problems could be solved and much quicker than it is currently taking today.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

BB, you tout the ESA as if it were a good thing. Many of us believe it is an outrage. The Fed shoved this wolf down the states throats, so it's also a states rights issue. The ESA is one of the biggest piece of crap legeslative bills ever passed. It violates private property rights, states rights, and hands power to the fed. Why the hell isn't the wolf being re-introduced in major metro areas? Because it doesn't freakin belong there! It doesn't belong here either. Why the hell don't we tear up the hiways, rip out the bridges, flatten the buildings, pull up the dams? Lets reverse progress so BB and his pathetic ilk can feel all warm and fuzzy inside. What a joke. The only reason the wolf is here is to appeaze environmental whackos, it serves absolutely no other purpose. No matter how you try to pervert it and twist it Bigbull the undeniable truth is that it is political bull ****.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Whats moral and legal are often not the same thing. I have no issue with a man violating the law to do what is universally moral. I wouldn't hesitate to use my constitutional right of jury nullfication if brought forth in court and I were on the jury.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Thats just the way I was brought up! To be A law abiding citizen and hunter who does not trespass or hunt out of season. Don't brake the Law Change it!

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Muley, I never said I like or disliked any thing about the ESA.

But the fact is if it werenot forhumans killing off different species of animals there would have never been any need for the ESA to begin with. The ESA is theonly reason there are now huntable populations of animals, like the Grizzly, numerous seal species, numerous whale species, numerous salmon speciesthat were once on the brink of extinction. Other wise the humans would have continued killing these animals until they actually did become extinct and we wouldn't have anything to complain about cause there would be no animals left.

The elk once roamed 90% of this country but now only lives in about 10% of its original range thanks to the greed of humans. It damn sure wasn't the wolf that killed off the elk. It was us. So quit bitching about the wolf, go look in the mirror and realize where the true and original problem lies.

Animal conservation goes full circle, predators and prey. They both belong and IMO would be a shame to loose any of them for ever. I have no desire to kill off the predators so that I may have all the prey to myself.

You and others with your same attitude continue to be on the extreme side of kill-em-all and there will continue to be the tree huggers that are there to protect every animal from everything. Your thought process about issues like this are exactly why we are in this situation in the first place.


I find it fascinating how many people arethe moral and ethicspolice when it comes to deer, elk, moose, others trespassing on their property, shooting yearlings, taking long shots, etc.. etc... but mention the wolf and their true colors shine through.

RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
 

Ok and your point was... I am Moral and fair when it comes to the Wolf, I would like to see its numbers controlled threw hunting not SSS.
it really hurts me to see whats happened to the moose,elk andmule deer
populations. We need to get it together! Contact your congressman find out Ware they stand on De-listing the wolf,enlist their support. If they are not pro hunting vote them out next election.