Wolves kill more local hunters hounds
08-18-2008, 10:32 AM
#13
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WV
Posts: 4,485
RE: Wolves kill more local hunters hounds
Many people say "SSS" and we all know what that means and that is a policy that I personally would use and agree withif I encountered a wolf off the beaten trail (and I'd probably forget about the middle "s").
But guess what?? That policy doesn't seem to have much of an effect. Might make some hunter feel good to know he did his part to help this situation, but in the overall scheme of things, something better than that will have to be doneor this will seem like "just the beginning" in a few years.
But guess what?? That policy doesn't seem to have much of an effect. Might make some hunter feel good to know he did his part to help this situation, but in the overall scheme of things, something better than that will have to be doneor this will seem like "just the beginning" in a few years.
08-18-2008, 08:35 PM
#15
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 1,184
RE: Wolves kill more local hunters hounds
ORIGINAL: millagerobert
so i wonder what all the wolf-lovin tree huggers are going to say to justify this.
They say its the hunters and the dogs fault, the wolves are just being Canadian Grey wolves (even though this isn't the wilds of Canada). They suggest staying with your dogs, which I don't know of any person that can keep up with hounds chasing a bear or lion.
It basically is just a round about way to do away with the tradition of hound hunting. We have already noticed an increase in bears and lions, especially close to town, with less hound hunters out there. The predators are following the prey animals which have been chased out of the woods by the wolves and are seeking sanctuary closer to human populations. So now it is not just the wolves directly killing our game, it is also the side effect of more bear and cougars to kill game due to less population control through hound hunting.
so i wonder what all the wolf-lovin tree huggers are going to say to justify this.
They say its the hunters and the dogs fault, the wolves are just being Canadian Grey wolves (even though this isn't the wilds of Canada). They suggest staying with your dogs, which I don't know of any person that can keep up with hounds chasing a bear or lion.
It basically is just a round about way to do away with the tradition of hound hunting. We have already noticed an increase in bears and lions, especially close to town, with less hound hunters out there. The predators are following the prey animals which have been chased out of the woods by the wolves and are seeking sanctuary closer to human populations. So now it is not just the wolves directly killing our game, it is also the side effect of more bear and cougars to kill game due to less population control through hound hunting.
Ifa wolf ever attacks a childthey will change their tune. I'm not against wolves, but the populationneeds to be put in check.
08-19-2008, 10:20 AM
#16
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Central Idaho
Posts: 539
RE: Wolves kill more local hunters hounds
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. "
"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. "
08-19-2008, 03:11 PM
#17
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Idaho,Stationed in Ludington,Mi
Posts: 1,324
RE: Wolves kill more local hunters hounds
I am with you millager.. you know what just angers me is we have a real problem in Idaho as well as some of the other states. And being stationed in Michigan I have heard several people say things like the wolves deserve to be there and so on and so on. And it kills me, because these people don't care, it does not efect them, there whitetail are safe for now. If this was a nationwide problem it would not be happening. We really need something horrible to happen to get the "rest" of the country's attention. I know that is bad for me to say but it is the truth. As sportsman, we love the animals we pursue. I can say I truly love elk, everything about them. And I would like my grand children to be able to pursue and "see" them Like I have. You know what I mean. When wolves kill an entire heard of elk and don't even eat them.. We have to do something. And I will do my part if I get the chance.
08-23-2008, 05:58 PM
#19
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
RE: Wolves kill more local hunters hounds
The trouble with that approach is the minute those who managed to get the Grey Wolf listed in the first place get wind that any number of wolves are being killed illegally with any real or perceived affect on their population, they'll sue in federal court to have them relisted on the endangered species list.
You gotta get your states to put realistic plans in place to "manage" their numbers; otherwise, you'll be doing yourselves a big disservice in the longrun and the wolf won't stay delisted. It's what MN and now WI have been trying to get control of for decades. We still don't have a clear path to any meaningful reduction in Timber (Gray) Wolf population and dogs, livestock, etc. still keep getting killed within 100 yds or lessof many our homes.
The Federal Gov't does give a crap about people like us in outlying areas. There are so many people who have this Disney view of wolves and other wildlife and think hunting them is out of the question. Well I have a challenge to people like that. Bring your pets and little kids out in the rural area of northern MN and other place of high concentrations of wolves to play. See how they feel and how their attitude about wolves changes the first time a 150 lb alpha male shows up in their clear and snatches their dogs or sizes up their kid.
You gotta get your states to put realistic plans in place to "manage" their numbers; otherwise, you'll be doing yourselves a big disservice in the longrun and the wolf won't stay delisted. It's what MN and now WI have been trying to get control of for decades. We still don't have a clear path to any meaningful reduction in Timber (Gray) Wolf population and dogs, livestock, etc. still keep getting killed within 100 yds or lessof many our homes.
The Federal Gov't does give a crap about people like us in outlying areas. There are so many people who have this Disney view of wolves and other wildlife and think hunting them is out of the question. Well I have a challenge to people like that. Bring your pets and little kids out in the rural area of northern MN and other place of high concentrations of wolves to play. See how they feel and how their attitude about wolves changes the first time a 150 lb alpha male shows up in their clear and snatches their dogs or sizes up their kid.
