Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
12-18-2006, 05:56 PM
#31
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Idaho,Stationed in Ludington,Mi
Posts: 1,324
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
I agree with EKM-
We took a huge sucker punch from our arch enimies. They really hurt us on this one. And it is going to take decades before it MIGHT be like it was when I started hunting. I will do my part. And as for seeing them. ****, just drive Highway 95 North from Council to McCall Idaho early in the morning. You can see them from the road.
We took a huge sucker punch from our arch enimies. They really hurt us on this one. And it is going to take decades before it MIGHT be like it was when I started hunting. I will do my part. And as for seeing them. ****, just drive Highway 95 North from Council to McCall Idaho early in the morning. You can see them from the road.
12-18-2006, 07:37 PM
#32
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,061
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
Poision is something i wont even apply for a permit for.Its evil,even when youre talking about coyotes and wolves.I get a job done with snares and steel.And i dont leave the stinking things out there to rot.Poision is something disgruntled wives use.That gun you wer talking about had a pull pressure trigger and the round fired a cyanide capsuleinto his mouth.The usda stopped using it but there are still a few to be found.I never could figgure out why load a capsule,instead of a live round?As the US govt. keeps needing to find money wherever it can,the usda looses manpower.And people are having to hire it done,or do it themselves.BETTER GET A PERMIT THOUGH. Shooting a wolf in the lower 48 can realy mess up your hunting plans for the next 5 years.
ORIGINAL: EKM
Strychnine (a quite painful death) is systemic and will kill other animals down stream of the first victim if something predates on the first victim.
Cyanide (suffocation)is not systemic and will be rendered harmless within minutes after the first victims death as it quickly combines (chemically) with what ever it comes in touch with and becomes "tied up" and useless.
As I understand it, wolves are a curious sort and one weapon used during the "last go round" was the "rag-pull gun".... a scented rag was attached to a trigger and when "pulled upon" it fired a blast of cyanide into the wolves mouth face, this way it was "semi-selective".... with todays technology they could be made much more selective and safer than that.
These units were used as the wolf population was dwindling and it was getting harder to "get 'em.
Our grandfathers and great-grandfather's knew what they were doing.
Strychnine (a quite painful death) is systemic and will kill other animals down stream of the first victim if something predates on the first victim.
Cyanide (suffocation)is not systemic and will be rendered harmless within minutes after the first victims death as it quickly combines (chemically) with what ever it comes in touch with and becomes "tied up" and useless.
As I understand it, wolves are a curious sort and one weapon used during the "last go round" was the "rag-pull gun".... a scented rag was attached to a trigger and when "pulled upon" it fired a blast of cyanide into the wolves mouth face, this way it was "semi-selective".... with todays technology they could be made much more selective and safer than that.
These units were used as the wolf population was dwindling and it was getting harder to "get 'em.
Our grandfathers and great-grandfather's knew what they were doing.
12-18-2006, 09:16 PM
#34
Typical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 599
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
"....Part of our job as hunters is conservation and wildlife management. Issue tags where the population needs managed...."
As the wolves decimate elk and moose populations (compared to what they used to be in the 'good old days").... the issuance of tags to hunters is going to be the FIRST thing to be reduced! Already happened in Gardiner, Montana (nearYellowstone, ground zero for wolves).
Hunters will become less needed to maintain the balance of nature. With fewer hunters able to hunt what they want when they want, more hunters will likely drop out of hunting altogether.... and that is apretty strong trend already without any extra help from this new factor.
It truly was an ingenious, well thought out, well financed, slick.... sucker punch.... sophisticated playersvrsus the "rowdy boys".... sophisticated won.
12-19-2006, 08:05 AM
#35
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
Like I said, I'm not telling anyone to do it. I was only speaking hypothetically. But, my response would be that its war and war isn't always pretty. The only way we got rid of them the first time was with poison.
Listen, the Gov. is never going to delist them in my lifetime. They listen to the damn bleeding hearts too much. So if you want them gone, take matters into your own hands and shoot, trap, &poison all of them.
Listen, the Gov. is never going to delist them in my lifetime. They listen to the damn bleeding hearts too much. So if you want them gone, take matters into your own hands and shoot, trap, &poison all of them.
12-19-2006, 08:17 AM
#36
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
EKM. You got that right. I was at a hunter/land owner meeting a while back and the Game and Fish is certainly concerned about reduced numbers of hunters. They said a couple thing that are hurting the numbers is the fact that the population is aging and the rigors of hunting hit the older guys first. These are the guys who have been buying the permits and intruducing young folks to the sport. The second reason it the high divorce rate. As more and More kids are being raised by Mom, they are much less likely to get the kids into hunting and shooting. Add this to the rising cost of everything related to hunting and the loss of habitat and we can see what hunting is up against.
12-19-2006, 08:35 AM
#37
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,061
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
Sounds like they talked you right arround the wolf issue.Theres still plenty of hunters that would like more than one tag.Here in Wi. when town shut down for deer seasion and you could only take one deer.Now there are fewer hunters(bow anyway) and tags are 2 bucks a piece(antlerless).
12-19-2006, 10:31 AM
#38
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Moccasin, Montana
Posts: 1,835
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
There was a reason the wolf and predetor population was decimateddue to agriculter.There were way many more family ranches and farms(many more pepole depended on this to).There was way more city folks outdoors enjoying hunting,more family time.It was the right of passage for some young men,it was holy family thing.
As farms a ranches dwindled so did the backbone of agriculter.There was a time in the US when landowner and sportsmen could have fought the wolf reintroduction.
Now that they have a seed,the tables have turned.With less landowners,fewer and fewer sportsmans,and way to many folks who don't know beans about predetors or what the can do(the only knowlege they get is fed to them via Disney,Animal planet and Nat'l Geo Graphic.)
Some choose not to see or know,some have never seen the outside of city.
We as sportsman can fight this,we need you guys from Florida,NewYork,Maine anyone who comes from where wolves don't an tell the DNRC,FWP what you guys see,what you guys know.E-mail them everyday,ask for updates,talk to your own seneators,congressmen and woeman.
Us guys in these states do get much clout,but guys from Calif,VT,Conn,RI and so on do.
So to the guys who are fighting now I'm with ya,and to the ones not Stand up and fight.
BBJ
As farms a ranches dwindled so did the backbone of agriculter.There was a time in the US when landowner and sportsmen could have fought the wolf reintroduction.
Now that they have a seed,the tables have turned.With less landowners,fewer and fewer sportsmans,and way to many folks who don't know beans about predetors or what the can do(the only knowlege they get is fed to them via Disney,Animal planet and Nat'l Geo Graphic.)
Some choose not to see or know,some have never seen the outside of city.
We as sportsman can fight this,we need you guys from Florida,NewYork,Maine anyone who comes from where wolves don't an tell the DNRC,FWP what you guys see,what you guys know.E-mail them everyday,ask for updates,talk to your own seneators,congressmen and woeman.
Us guys in these states do get much clout,but guys from Calif,VT,Conn,RI and so on do.
So to the guys who are fighting now I'm with ya,and to the ones not Stand up and fight.
BBJ
12-19-2006, 01:33 PM
#39
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Beautiful Western Montana
Posts: 2,308
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
The heart and sole of state sponsored hunting is that it is the primary method of population control, and it was an impossible hurdle for the anti-hunting crowd to overcome. They picked around the edges of hunting, trying to band what the could, but have never been able to really make a dent in the over all hunting culture. Anti's knew why hunting had become so necessary to manage populations, because of an absence of predators other then humans. Armed with that knowledge, they out-manuevered the hunting community. You can call it a conspiracyif you want, infiltration of government conservation bureaucracies is more like it. Fifty miles north of here is Missoula, MT. Home to more environmental oraganizations than any other city in the nation outside of Washington D.C. Right here in the Bitterroot valley we have an anti hunting, anti logging enviro group called Freinds of the Bitterroot. They constantly sue the FS over logging, support enviro-whacko legeslation etc. Nobody actually knows who belongs to this group, where they are HQed, or where they even meet. Just WHO are these people? Where does their financial support come from? They are in the paper weekly, yet nobody knows anything about them. I suspect they are just a few people propped up by a national oraganization, given money, and an attorney, and dumped into hot areas such as ours to sue and push their agenda.
I know several people that work for the USFS, and they will tell you that the FS has changed, become more liberal as enivronmentalist began flocking into the organization in the late 80's. Same with several other gov agencies. The enviro crowd is not static, they are well financed, well connected, and very strategic. They will have there agenda become reality at any cost. Look at what they have accomplished with the ESA. They effectively limited building and development over insignificant species and forced environmental impact statements at every turn. They have greatly diminished logging in the west, and slashed mining operations over water quality legeslation. Perhaps their crowning achievment was the re-introduction of the wolf, which will take population control from hunters, and give it to predators, thus greatly reducing the number of hunters in the field, and wrestling population control from state wildlife agencies, and handing it to friendly infiltrated federal agencies. Conspiracy or coincidence?
I know several people that work for the USFS, and they will tell you that the FS has changed, become more liberal as enivronmentalist began flocking into the organization in the late 80's. Same with several other gov agencies. The enviro crowd is not static, they are well financed, well connected, and very strategic. They will have there agenda become reality at any cost. Look at what they have accomplished with the ESA. They effectively limited building and development over insignificant species and forced environmental impact statements at every turn. They have greatly diminished logging in the west, and slashed mining operations over water quality legeslation. Perhaps their crowning achievment was the re-introduction of the wolf, which will take population control from hunters, and give it to predators, thus greatly reducing the number of hunters in the field, and wrestling population control from state wildlife agencies, and handing it to friendly infiltrated federal agencies. Conspiracy or coincidence?
12-19-2006, 03:58 PM
#40
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WV
Posts: 4,485
RE: Wolf, to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question?
Good read there Muley and you're right. It has been an infusion of liberals and liberal thinking into these government agencies from the grass roots level along with highly funded, WHACKO activists. I mean seriously, where is the real and truthful education regarding wolves for the general public.It's on the sportsmans side, but it is our disagreement amongst each other that has hinderedwhat could be a very strong political opponent to the wolf introduction, and that's a shame.
That's one reason that you have to respect the state ofWyoming's stance. More hunting organizations as well as Western States should get on the same side of the fence and show their support and draw up an agenda of defense against the current Federal policy. There is still a lot of moneyand political poweron the table when it comes to the amount of resourses that hunters, and those that profit from hunting, possess, if they could just agree to focus it's use.
...plus we've got guns
That's one reason that you have to respect the state ofWyoming's stance. More hunting organizations as well as Western States should get on the same side of the fence and show their support and draw up an agenda of defense against the current Federal policy. There is still a lot of moneyand political poweron the table when it comes to the amount of resourses that hunters, and those that profit from hunting, possess, if they could just agree to focus it's use.
...plus we've got guns