Wolves and elk
04-01-2010, 05:30 PM
#31
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
Obviously an emotional issue, but let's get a grip here...
Most non-professional hunters tend not to want an environment completely without wolves. But at the same time, they don't see a need for wolves to reproduce and repopulate completely unchecked.
Unfortunately, the "SSS" crowd only fuels the marketing exaggerations pushed on media by the "no wolf hunting" crowd. It absolutely serves their agenda to portray ALL hunters as wanting the extinction of the wolf. And so the "ESA" drama continues.
I might suggest we all become a bit more level-headed in our rhetoric and emotions regarding the wolf.
1. Man does not hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem, and likely never will.
2. Without a credible predator, uncontrolled elk and bison populations in Yellowstone HAVE done damage to the ecosystem there.
3. Man DOES hunt the area outside the park's boundaries and fulfills the role of a credible predator there. Further, man can be bound by laws and regulations applied to adjust elk populations. Wolves cannot be held to concepts like "emergency closure", "additional cow tags", etc.
4. Outside the park, there is little need for additional predation to control damage to ecosystems. Hence, there is little ecological need for the wolf. Its existence outside is merely aesthetic, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely undesirable.
5. Large predators are innately incompatible with human civilization and activities. While wolves are not prone to attacking humans (at least in terms of documentation), the general attitude of "antis" that predators can coexist with man is almost completely in error (problems with mountain lions, black bears, etc.)
I'm completely okay with wolves inside the park to balance things out. I'm not in favor of their uncontrolled (i.e. protected) status beyond a reasonable range or buffer outside park boundaries. I believe that Wyoming's management plan is very reasonable, but because the message has been hijacked by the two extremes, Wyoming's hands are tied by the court.
Most non-professional hunters tend not to want an environment completely without wolves. But at the same time, they don't see a need for wolves to reproduce and repopulate completely unchecked.
Unfortunately, the "SSS" crowd only fuels the marketing exaggerations pushed on media by the "no wolf hunting" crowd. It absolutely serves their agenda to portray ALL hunters as wanting the extinction of the wolf. And so the "ESA" drama continues.
I might suggest we all become a bit more level-headed in our rhetoric and emotions regarding the wolf.
1. Man does not hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem, and likely never will.
2. Without a credible predator, uncontrolled elk and bison populations in Yellowstone HAVE done damage to the ecosystem there.
3. Man DOES hunt the area outside the park's boundaries and fulfills the role of a credible predator there. Further, man can be bound by laws and regulations applied to adjust elk populations. Wolves cannot be held to concepts like "emergency closure", "additional cow tags", etc.
4. Outside the park, there is little need for additional predation to control damage to ecosystems. Hence, there is little ecological need for the wolf. Its existence outside is merely aesthetic, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely undesirable.
5. Large predators are innately incompatible with human civilization and activities. While wolves are not prone to attacking humans (at least in terms of documentation), the general attitude of "antis" that predators can coexist with man is almost completely in error (problems with mountain lions, black bears, etc.)
I'm completely okay with wolves inside the park to balance things out. I'm not in favor of their uncontrolled (i.e. protected) status beyond a reasonable range or buffer outside park boundaries. I believe that Wyoming's management plan is very reasonable, but because the message has been hijacked by the two extremes, Wyoming's hands are tied by the court.
04-04-2010, 01:06 PM
#33
Fork Horn
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peoa, UT
Posts: 422
You need to look again. Both Idaho and Montana has seasons last year. My local contact in Montana knew a guy lucky enough to shoot one that was scavenging the 6X6 he'd shot the night before.
The only beef I had was that they priced the wolf tags ridiculously high for non-residents. I would have happily helped the locals out, had they priced the tags in a way that allowed me to do so. I understand the high non-resident tags for elk and willfully fork over my cash for that chance, but I'm not paying $200 for a wolf tag which is essentially a lottery ticket.
I don't get bent over wolves. As long as they are hunted to a proper level they are no issue. Hunters who want the land/game managed SOLELY for their interests DO get me bent. That type of behavior has cost my family dearly in the form of crop damage due to massive midwest deer over-population.
The only beef I had was that they priced the wolf tags ridiculously high for non-residents. I would have happily helped the locals out, had they priced the tags in a way that allowed me to do so. I understand the high non-resident tags for elk and willfully fork over my cash for that chance, but I'm not paying $200 for a wolf tag which is essentially a lottery ticket.
I don't get bent over wolves. As long as they are hunted to a proper level they are no issue. Hunters who want the land/game managed SOLELY for their interests DO get me bent. That type of behavior has cost my family dearly in the form of crop damage due to massive midwest deer over-population.
Obviously an emotional issue, but let's get a grip here...
Most non-professional hunters tend not to want an environment completely without wolves. But at the same time, they don't see a need for wolves to reproduce and repopulate completely unchecked.
Unfortunately, the "SSS" crowd only fuels the marketing exaggerations pushed on media by the "no wolf hunting" crowd. It absolutely serves their agenda to portray ALL hunters as wanting the extinction of the wolf. And so the "ESA" drama continues.
I might suggest we all become a bit more level-headed in our rhetoric and emotions regarding the wolf.
1. Man does not hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem, and likely never will.
2. Without a credible predator, uncontrolled elk and bison populations in Yellowstone HAVE done damage to the ecosystem there.
3. Man DOES hunt the area outside the park's boundaries and fulfills the role of a credible predator there. Further, man can be bound by laws and regulations applied to adjust elk populations. Wolves cannot be held to concepts like "emergency closure", "additional cow tags", etc.
4. Outside the park, there is little need for additional predation to control damage to ecosystems. Hence, there is little ecological need for the wolf. Its existence outside is merely aesthetic, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely undesirable.
5. Large predators are innately incompatible with human civilization and activities. While wolves are not prone to attacking humans (at least in terms of documentation), the general attitude of "antis" that predators can coexist with man is almost completely in error (problems with mountain lions, black bears, etc.)
I'm completely okay with wolves inside the park to balance things out. I'm not in favor of their uncontrolled (i.e. protected) status beyond a reasonable range or buffer outside park boundaries. I believe that Wyoming's management plan is very reasonable, but because the message has been hijacked by the two extremes, Wyoming's hands are tied by the court.
Most non-professional hunters tend not to want an environment completely without wolves. But at the same time, they don't see a need for wolves to reproduce and repopulate completely unchecked.
Unfortunately, the "SSS" crowd only fuels the marketing exaggerations pushed on media by the "no wolf hunting" crowd. It absolutely serves their agenda to portray ALL hunters as wanting the extinction of the wolf. And so the "ESA" drama continues.
I might suggest we all become a bit more level-headed in our rhetoric and emotions regarding the wolf.
1. Man does not hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem, and likely never will.
2. Without a credible predator, uncontrolled elk and bison populations in Yellowstone HAVE done damage to the ecosystem there.
3. Man DOES hunt the area outside the park's boundaries and fulfills the role of a credible predator there. Further, man can be bound by laws and regulations applied to adjust elk populations. Wolves cannot be held to concepts like "emergency closure", "additional cow tags", etc.
4. Outside the park, there is little need for additional predation to control damage to ecosystems. Hence, there is little ecological need for the wolf. Its existence outside is merely aesthetic, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely undesirable.
5. Large predators are innately incompatible with human civilization and activities. While wolves are not prone to attacking humans (at least in terms of documentation), the general attitude of "antis" that predators can coexist with man is almost completely in error (problems with mountain lions, black bears, etc.)
I'm completely okay with wolves inside the park to balance things out. I'm not in favor of their uncontrolled (i.e. protected) status beyond a reasonable range or buffer outside park boundaries. I believe that Wyoming's management plan is very reasonable, but because the message has been hijacked by the two extremes, Wyoming's hands are tied by the court.
And homers that is sooo right i really have to agree with you.
Those are all the key points relating to this issue thanks
04-06-2010, 06:46 AM
#34
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
Obviously an emotional issue, but let's get a grip here...
Most non-professional hunters tend not to want an environment completely without wolves. But at the same time, they don't see a need for wolves to reproduce and repopulate completely unchecked.
Unfortunately, the "SSS" crowd only fuels the marketing exaggerations pushed on media by the "no wolf hunting" crowd. It absolutely serves their agenda to portray ALL hunters as wanting the extinction of the wolf. And so the "ESA" drama continues.
I might suggest we all become a bit more level-headed in our rhetoric and emotions regarding the wolf.
1. Man does not hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem, and likely never will.
2. Without a credible predator, uncontrolled elk and bison populations in Yellowstone HAVE done damage to the ecosystem there.
3. Man DOES hunt the area outside the park's boundaries and fulfills the role of a credible predator there. Further, man can be bound by laws and regulations applied to adjust elk populations. Wolves cannot be held to concepts like "emergency closure", "additional cow tags", etc.
4. Outside the park, there is little need for additional predation to control damage to ecosystems. Hence, there is little ecological need for the wolf. Its existence outside is merely aesthetic, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely undesirable.
5. Large predators are innately incompatible with human civilization and activities. While wolves are not prone to attacking humans (at least in terms of documentation), the general attitude of "antis" that predators can coexist with man is almost completely in error (problems with mountain lions, black bears, etc.)
I'm completely okay with wolves inside the park to balance things out. I'm not in favor of their uncontrolled (i.e. protected) status beyond a reasonable range or buffer outside park boundaries. I believe that Wyoming's management plan is very reasonable, but because the message has been hijacked by the two extremes, Wyoming's hands are tied by the court.
Most non-professional hunters tend not to want an environment completely without wolves. But at the same time, they don't see a need for wolves to reproduce and repopulate completely unchecked.
Unfortunately, the "SSS" crowd only fuels the marketing exaggerations pushed on media by the "no wolf hunting" crowd. It absolutely serves their agenda to portray ALL hunters as wanting the extinction of the wolf. And so the "ESA" drama continues.
I might suggest we all become a bit more level-headed in our rhetoric and emotions regarding the wolf.
1. Man does not hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem, and likely never will.
2. Without a credible predator, uncontrolled elk and bison populations in Yellowstone HAVE done damage to the ecosystem there.
3. Man DOES hunt the area outside the park's boundaries and fulfills the role of a credible predator there. Further, man can be bound by laws and regulations applied to adjust elk populations. Wolves cannot be held to concepts like "emergency closure", "additional cow tags", etc.
4. Outside the park, there is little need for additional predation to control damage to ecosystems. Hence, there is little ecological need for the wolf. Its existence outside is merely aesthetic, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely undesirable.
5. Large predators are innately incompatible with human civilization and activities. While wolves are not prone to attacking humans (at least in terms of documentation), the general attitude of "antis" that predators can coexist with man is almost completely in error (problems with mountain lions, black bears, etc.)
I'm completely okay with wolves inside the park to balance things out. I'm not in favor of their uncontrolled (i.e. protected) status beyond a reasonable range or buffer outside park boundaries. I believe that Wyoming's management plan is very reasonable, but because the message has been hijacked by the two extremes, Wyoming's hands are tied by the court.
So you would get rid of the blackies, cats and grizzlies outside the parks. Od course this would kill off the grizzlies in short order within the parks too.
Why are some hunter so intollerant of the wild continueing to exist as it was created? Thirty years ago we would have been.
04-06-2010, 09:07 AM
#35
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
The problem with wolves in the US is not the wolves, mother nature, or "balance". It's a human emotional issue fueled by bad politics.
Wolves weren't here during our lifetimes. We managed and hunted all other species without them and we like to think we were doing a relatively good job at it too. We adapted, adjusted, spent time and money on the way our world was. Our father's taught us how to hunt elk and deer without the wolf's presence. To us the way our elk and deer behave was as normal as snow in the winter.
Suddenly we had the wolf crammed down our throats and the wolf changed our world. Now the elk behave differently. The hunts don't feel the same...because they aren't. We feel as if we have lost something. It's not easily understood unless you too had the same thing and then lost it. If you never had it, then you can't understand.
Some may call us wimps or say that we are over analyzing the situation but those people grew up with the wolf and the wolf was a part of their world. The wolf was not a part of ours and we had no choice in the matter. We were not consulted, we were not involved in the planning, we were not even asked our opinion. They were just suddenly here one day.
To make matters worse the wolf was protected and we had to fight with all we had to get it de-listed just to manage them. The wolf is more than another predator....it represents unwanted change. Sure we can adapt....we always have. But it's hard for many of us to understand how we the keepers of our wildlife had no choice in the matter. We don't understand how people sitting behind computers all day and their only knowledge of the outdoors is what they see on the wallpaper of some of the images that came with their Windows package did get to make this decision. We understand that the wolf was put here in a political move to eliminate the need for hunters.
So yeah maybe many of you are right and 20 years down the road the wolf will be just another predator. An maybe one day we'll laugh at how we thought the wolf was going to eat every elk south of the border that we had fought so hard to bring back. But right now the wolf represents the enemy in our fight to keep our hunting privilege alive! It reminds us that if enough money and people get involved we can be forced to do what we do not want to do! That's a scary feeling folks.....and we feel we are in the midst of the biggest battle of our hunting lives.....and not because the wolf will eat all of our elk but because the wolf represents a major political loss for us and we fear future losses.
Wolves weren't here during our lifetimes. We managed and hunted all other species without them and we like to think we were doing a relatively good job at it too. We adapted, adjusted, spent time and money on the way our world was. Our father's taught us how to hunt elk and deer without the wolf's presence. To us the way our elk and deer behave was as normal as snow in the winter.
Suddenly we had the wolf crammed down our throats and the wolf changed our world. Now the elk behave differently. The hunts don't feel the same...because they aren't. We feel as if we have lost something. It's not easily understood unless you too had the same thing and then lost it. If you never had it, then you can't understand.
Some may call us wimps or say that we are over analyzing the situation but those people grew up with the wolf and the wolf was a part of their world. The wolf was not a part of ours and we had no choice in the matter. We were not consulted, we were not involved in the planning, we were not even asked our opinion. They were just suddenly here one day.
To make matters worse the wolf was protected and we had to fight with all we had to get it de-listed just to manage them. The wolf is more than another predator....it represents unwanted change. Sure we can adapt....we always have. But it's hard for many of us to understand how we the keepers of our wildlife had no choice in the matter. We don't understand how people sitting behind computers all day and their only knowledge of the outdoors is what they see on the wallpaper of some of the images that came with their Windows package did get to make this decision. We understand that the wolf was put here in a political move to eliminate the need for hunters.
So yeah maybe many of you are right and 20 years down the road the wolf will be just another predator. An maybe one day we'll laugh at how we thought the wolf was going to eat every elk south of the border that we had fought so hard to bring back. But right now the wolf represents the enemy in our fight to keep our hunting privilege alive! It reminds us that if enough money and people get involved we can be forced to do what we do not want to do! That's a scary feeling folks.....and we feel we are in the midst of the biggest battle of our hunting lives.....and not because the wolf will eat all of our elk but because the wolf represents a major political loss for us and we fear future losses.
04-07-2010, 09:10 AM
#36
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
The problem with wolves in the US is not the wolves, mother nature, or "balance". It's a human emotional issue fueled by bad politics.
Wolves weren't here during our lifetimes. We managed and hunted all other species without them and we like to think we were doing a relatively good job at it too. We adapted, adjusted, spent time and money on the way our world was. Our father's taught us how to hunt elk and deer without the wolf's presence. To us the way our elk and deer behave was as normal as snow in the winter.
Suddenly we had the wolf crammed down our throats and the wolf changed our world. Now the elk behave differently. The hunts don't feel the same...because they aren't. We feel as if we have lost something. It's not easily understood unless you too had the same thing and then lost it. If you never had it, then you can't understand.
Some may call us wimps or say that we are over analyzing the situation but those people grew up with the wolf and the wolf was a part of their world. The wolf was not a part of ours and we had no choice in the matter. We were not consulted, we were not involved in the planning, we were not even asked our opinion. They were just suddenly here one day.
To make matters worse the wolf was protected and we had to fight with all we had to get it de-listed just to manage them. The wolf is more than another predator....it represents unwanted change. Sure we can adapt....we always have. But it's hard for many of us to understand how we the keepers of our wildlife had no choice in the matter. We don't understand how people sitting behind computers all day and their only knowledge of the outdoors is what they see on the wallpaper of some of the images that came with their Windows package did get to make this decision. We understand that the wolf was put here in a political move to eliminate the need for hunters.
So yeah maybe many of you are right and 20 years down the road the wolf will be just another predator. An maybe one day we'll laugh at how we thought the wolf was going to eat every elk south of the border that we had fought so hard to bring back. But right now the wolf represents the enemy in our fight to keep our hunting privilege alive! It reminds us that if enough money and people get involved we can be forced to do what we do not want to do! That's a scary feeling folks.....and we feel we are in the midst of the biggest battle of our hunting lives.....and not because the wolf will eat all of our elk but because the wolf represents a major political loss for us and we fear future losses.
Wolves weren't here during our lifetimes. We managed and hunted all other species without them and we like to think we were doing a relatively good job at it too. We adapted, adjusted, spent time and money on the way our world was. Our father's taught us how to hunt elk and deer without the wolf's presence. To us the way our elk and deer behave was as normal as snow in the winter.
Suddenly we had the wolf crammed down our throats and the wolf changed our world. Now the elk behave differently. The hunts don't feel the same...because they aren't. We feel as if we have lost something. It's not easily understood unless you too had the same thing and then lost it. If you never had it, then you can't understand.
Some may call us wimps or say that we are over analyzing the situation but those people grew up with the wolf and the wolf was a part of their world. The wolf was not a part of ours and we had no choice in the matter. We were not consulted, we were not involved in the planning, we were not even asked our opinion. They were just suddenly here one day.
To make matters worse the wolf was protected and we had to fight with all we had to get it de-listed just to manage them. The wolf is more than another predator....it represents unwanted change. Sure we can adapt....we always have. But it's hard for many of us to understand how we the keepers of our wildlife had no choice in the matter. We don't understand how people sitting behind computers all day and their only knowledge of the outdoors is what they see on the wallpaper of some of the images that came with their Windows package did get to make this decision. We understand that the wolf was put here in a political move to eliminate the need for hunters.
So yeah maybe many of you are right and 20 years down the road the wolf will be just another predator. An maybe one day we'll laugh at how we thought the wolf was going to eat every elk south of the border that we had fought so hard to bring back. But right now the wolf represents the enemy in our fight to keep our hunting privilege alive! It reminds us that if enough money and people get involved we can be forced to do what we do not want to do! That's a scary feeling folks.....and we feel we are in the midst of the biggest battle of our hunting lives.....and not because the wolf will eat all of our elk but because the wolf represents a major political loss for us and we fear future losses.
An interesting perspective for sure but here is another. Maybe stop viewing the return of the wolf as a wildlife 9-11 and instead look at the situation as an opportunity to return hunting and wildlife management back to a simpler time.
Yes the elk will need to reach back into their collective memories in order to co-exist with wolves, but like riding a bike I believe they are capable of it. As intelligent and extremely well equiped humams we should be at least willing to try the same.
Is winter feeding of thousands of elk in Wyoming really doing hunters or elk any good? Do you really belive Spider Bull is a real elk? Is it just a coinsidence that in a the last century mother nature managed to create only 2 or 3 elk that could score better than 400 B and C points and now 400-450 bulls are behind every other tree? Because Spider never faced a 4 legged predater and only very controlled 2 legged ones we think he is somehow the "best" elk ever? Spider is and was just a coddled cow and if he lived in the real elk world would have never lived to become the frankenelk he was. Do we really want to continue with high fenceing and feed supplements in our wildlife "management" tool box. I don't.
Just maybe we can look at what our sport has become and turn a page back. Maybe we can look at elk as more than just another commodoty sold to the highest bidder and just maybe we can get another generation interested in the tradition of hunting. It has become little more than another game that needs to be made more "extreme" to be popular. Biggest horns or longest range killing being examples.
My last elk hunt I managed to let my 4 year old daughter hear her first wolves howling outside the tent. Of course all the elk we were watching left for the next mountain but I'm sure she didn't care and I didn't mind either. They would be back.
For all the reasons it is getting harder and harder to hunt, wolves are not one of them. Doesn't even come close to what the outfitting lobby is doing both in tieing up access to land and tags. But that is another issue.
Last edited by tangozulu; 04-07-2010 at 09:50 AM.
04-07-2010, 11:36 AM
#38
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,357
At least one valid approach to discussing and thinking about this subject is identify what has changed and inquiring whether this change is desirable. While I have heard people say that reintroducing wolves may be more natural or may be more original, I haven't heard these people deny that the reintroduction of the wolves has changed elk hunting. In some areas -- for example in Idaho -- reintroduction of the wolf has decreased elk numbers and made elk hunting more difficult. I don't know about what other people think, but if elk hunting becomes more difficult -- to whit, success rates drop further -- it is not long before it reaches a point where I give up elk hunting.
Is the fact of elk hunters giving up on elk hunting a bad thing? Some people would say no, but others would disagree. I reckon the people who make money from elk hunters would disagree -- motels, restaurants, sporting good stores, gas stations. If the number of hunters drops below a critical mass, isn't it possible that the political balance can shift and the anti-hunters will ban hunting entirely? These are non-trivial issues to place in the balance.
And what is in the other part of the balance? The "rightousness" of restoring the wolf to part of its historical range? This is kind of a vague concept, in my book. I wonder how much weight "rightousness" carries in the balance? Certainly extinction is not in question -- the wolf is not in danger of extinction.
I don't hunt elk in Idaho or Wyoming. I hunt elk in SW Colorado, and the wolf isn't down there chewing up the elk. If that day comes and the success ratio is cut in half, do count me out on the continued elk hunting. And do cut my 20 year old son out too. And cut out my niece's husband out who might join me some time. And do cut out any on-going tradition of going elk hunting that my going out and bringing along others -- son, niece's husband -- might start. I would guess I would not be alone in this. Good? I dunno.
Is the fact of elk hunters giving up on elk hunting a bad thing? Some people would say no, but others would disagree. I reckon the people who make money from elk hunters would disagree -- motels, restaurants, sporting good stores, gas stations. If the number of hunters drops below a critical mass, isn't it possible that the political balance can shift and the anti-hunters will ban hunting entirely? These are non-trivial issues to place in the balance.
And what is in the other part of the balance? The "rightousness" of restoring the wolf to part of its historical range? This is kind of a vague concept, in my book. I wonder how much weight "rightousness" carries in the balance? Certainly extinction is not in question -- the wolf is not in danger of extinction.
I don't hunt elk in Idaho or Wyoming. I hunt elk in SW Colorado, and the wolf isn't down there chewing up the elk. If that day comes and the success ratio is cut in half, do count me out on the continued elk hunting. And do cut my 20 year old son out too. And cut out my niece's husband out who might join me some time. And do cut out any on-going tradition of going elk hunting that my going out and bringing along others -- son, niece's husband -- might start. I would guess I would not be alone in this. Good? I dunno.
Last edited by Alsatian; 04-07-2010 at 11:39 AM.
04-07-2010, 08:23 PM
#39
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
An interesting perspective for sure but here is another. Maybe stop viewing the return of the wolf as a wildlife 9-11 and instead look at the situation as an opportunity to return hunting and wildlife management back to a simpler time.
Yes the elk will need to reach back into their collective memories in order to co-exist with wolves, but like riding a bike I believe they are capable of it. As intelligent and extremely well equiped humams we should be at least willing to try the same.
Is winter feeding of thousands of elk in Wyoming really doing hunters or elk any good? Do you really belive Spider Bull is a real elk? Is it just a coinsidence that in a the last century mother nature managed to create only 2 or 3 elk that could score better than 400 B and C points and now 400-450 bulls are behind every other tree? Because Spider never faced a 4 legged predater and only very controlled 2 legged ones we think he is somehow the "best" elk ever? Spider is and was just a coddled cow and if he lived in the real elk world would have never lived to become the frankenelk he was. Do we really want to continue with high fenceing and feed supplements in our wildlife "management" tool box. I don't.
Just maybe we can look at what our sport has become and turn a page back. Maybe we can look at elk as more than just another commodoty sold to the highest bidder and just maybe we can get another generation interested in the tradition of hunting. It has become little more than another game that needs to be made more "extreme" to be popular. Biggest horns or longest range killing being examples.
My last elk hunt I managed to let my 4 year old daughter hear her first wolves howling outside the tent. Of course all the elk we were watching left for the next mountain but I'm sure she didn't care and I didn't mind either. They would be back.
For all the reasons it is getting harder and harder to hunt, wolves are not one of them. Doesn't even come close to what the outfitting lobby is doing both in tieing up access to land and tags. But that is another issue.
Yes the elk will need to reach back into their collective memories in order to co-exist with wolves, but like riding a bike I believe they are capable of it. As intelligent and extremely well equiped humams we should be at least willing to try the same.
Is winter feeding of thousands of elk in Wyoming really doing hunters or elk any good? Do you really belive Spider Bull is a real elk? Is it just a coinsidence that in a the last century mother nature managed to create only 2 or 3 elk that could score better than 400 B and C points and now 400-450 bulls are behind every other tree? Because Spider never faced a 4 legged predater and only very controlled 2 legged ones we think he is somehow the "best" elk ever? Spider is and was just a coddled cow and if he lived in the real elk world would have never lived to become the frankenelk he was. Do we really want to continue with high fenceing and feed supplements in our wildlife "management" tool box. I don't.
Just maybe we can look at what our sport has become and turn a page back. Maybe we can look at elk as more than just another commodoty sold to the highest bidder and just maybe we can get another generation interested in the tradition of hunting. It has become little more than another game that needs to be made more "extreme" to be popular. Biggest horns or longest range killing being examples.
My last elk hunt I managed to let my 4 year old daughter hear her first wolves howling outside the tent. Of course all the elk we were watching left for the next mountain but I'm sure she didn't care and I didn't mind either. They would be back.
For all the reasons it is getting harder and harder to hunt, wolves are not one of them. Doesn't even come close to what the outfitting lobby is doing both in tieing up access to land and tags. But that is another issue.
You live in a "free democtratic" country so try and wrap your arms around this for second. Imagine one day you come home from work one day and your neighborhood has been leveled. There is nothing left but a few trucks pulling out with bulldozers. There is a sign at the entrance to your street where the state has left a sign saying something like "In an effort to bring this area back to a more natural state your house has been leveled and we are re-introducing the natural vegetation. Please build your house somewhere else." To make is worse you found out some well funded hippee environmental group got this push through legislation because they saw a picture of what it used to look like before your neighborhood was there and they live hundreds of miles away and most have never even visited your state.
I know that's a bit extreme because it has personal implications but the point is it was just done. There was no governmet agent there to discuss this with you or at least offer some sort of compensation to you. (Say like negotiating wolf and no wolf areas so we could feel better about them) I assume you have to understand the politcal battle in it's entirety to understand how we feel about having the wolf here. The wolf was literly crammed down our throats and some anti-hunting organizations have been very open about the fact that they believe it is a vital step in eliminating hunting.
They aren't trying to flat out ban hunting (At least on the surface). They are taking baby steps. First ban bear hunting in New Jersey. Then ban dove hunting in Michigan. Then re-introduce wolves. Then they want to make the minimum age to hunt much older. (I'm assuming so that less people will take up the sport) Then ban firearms and so on. They don't come out and always say they want to ban hunting because it's immoral to them. They bring up stats about how many gun accidents happen a year and how much vandilism is done by hunters in the field and wayard bullets. They bring up how many kids are injured killed by hunters guns that aren't properly locked up. They blame hunters and guns makers for all the gun crimes. They talk about how many hunters poach and how we have such a "negative" environmental impact because we make new roads and rut up existing ones. That's why it's so important for us to be responsible now days.
Believe me when I say in this country we are completely embattled right now and as a sportsman I spend hundreds if not thousands when I can afford it to support organizations that fight for us.
Last edited by rather_be_huntin; 04-07-2010 at 08:40 PM.
04-08-2010, 05:26 PM
#40
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
ratherbehuntin...good points
BUT there is no such thing as a hunter that poaches ...they are POACHERS plain and simple...along with folks that vandilize stuff, they are not hunter but VANDALS
Don't be puttin those scumm suckers in the same catagory as hunters!!!! just as real hunters don't go off roading and tear up the country side!!! call them whatever ya want but don't call them hunters!!!!
BUT there is no such thing as a hunter that poaches ...they are POACHERS plain and simple...along with folks that vandilize stuff, they are not hunter but VANDALS
Don't be puttin those scumm suckers in the same catagory as hunters!!!! just as real hunters don't go off roading and tear up the country side!!! call them whatever ya want but don't call them hunters!!!!
