Gromky

Why don't you just tell me? Either there are now lots of "late season cow hunts" because the wolves have eaten them all, therefore you need to go cull the herd even more, or there are no longer any "late season cow hunts" because populations have stabilized to reasonable levels, and as you've said the guides can no longer take the people from out of state to go shoot that giant trophy cow elk they've always wanted.

hillbillyhunter1

I'm sorry but I can not make any sense out of that post.

Anyway, I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that the introduction of wolves has a detrimental effect on the animals they (the wolves) typically hunt when it comes to population numbers. That's not saying that the wolves don't have a place in a given ecosystem, although these specific wolves introduced in the American West are not the same as the ones that were once here. They are their bigger canadian cousins.

I don't think that there would be as big an outcry from hunters against these wolves if the states were allowed to manage them according to the population goals originally set by the introduction plan, which have now been exceded. That control would of course come through hunting.

The wolf itself is not the problem here. It, like many other issues now-days, is just a symptom of the problem. The problem is the federal government imposing its will againt the people who have to live with the consequences . This particular problem is also laced with the emotion of anti-hunting, fuzzy-hugging, lawsuit- bringing, disney-watching crowd, who have little objectivity when it comes to the natural world.

You may say that many hunters are guided by emotion on this issue to...and you'd be correct, but I believe that the lion's share of that emotion is caused when the clowns don't stick to the original introduction plan put forth...meanwhile the prolific wolves keep doing what they do uninhibited.

Fact is the wolves have reached their goals (and then some). Let the states manage them according to those set goals and ongoing objective poplulation surveys. What in the heck is so hard about that???

Gromky

I'm sorry but I can not make any sense out of that post.

I'll put it more simply.

If they're having to add extra cow hunts at the end of the season it means one thing...the population is screwed up, and more need to be taken. Losing extra chances to kill cows means nothing to a guide, it's not going to hurt their business. Because nobody from out of state is going to pay thousands of dollars to shoot a cow elk.

I'm all for management of wolf numbers. The problem is, our hunting of deer and elk is also based on population numbers as well, and people are freaking out while there is still massive overpopulation in many areas. Look at how long the Idaho wolf hunts took, they really aren't everywhere killing every animal in sight. I wouldn't have personally put them back onto the ESA at this time, but the real impact won't be huge, let them fight it out in the courts and it will be settled. And if you really wanted to shoot a dog just go shoot a coyote. Encouraging people to kill wolves illegally puts a black eye on the hunting community, and sets back arguments that we're reasonable people dealing with population dynamics.

tangozulu

Of course your being far too reasonable and unemotional.
The facts are simply not appreciated in this debate. I have competed succesfully with wolves my entire hunting life. Besides they are themselves a tremendous trophy, something you in the lowere 48 will soon find out for yourselves.
good luck

rather_be_huntin

Yeah that's what the anti's are saying too. Let the wolves in, there are too many deer an elk anyway and they will manage your game herds just fine. You make perfect sense.....just wondering whose side your on?

The late cow hunts are a great way for hunters to hunt a different time of year and get some meat. Don't forget about the young hunters and hunters that have other obligations during the traditional fall hunts that can hunt a different time of year.

Tang we've gone round and round on this issue. Again it's not the competition we are concerned about as much as it's the political implications, you know the whole "wolves are allowed to expand with no management" thing. Remember you don't have that problem in Canada. Do you remember the discussion around what the RMEF stated on the moving goal line? First the goal was 200 in Yellowstone, then they are branching out all over the west and populations are over 2000 and now the courts say we can't manage them ANYWHERE until they are re-established EVERYWHERE. I'm telling you that in this country the wolf is intended to be used as a means to abolish hunting.

Some of you are missing the boat on what's happening.

Gromky

just wondering whose side your on?

I'm on the side that understands homonyms. I'm a pure meat hunter, with a few hippie friends, many of whom I have pissed off by creating transgenic food products that you have consumed. I'm someone who hopes to fill both his elk and deer tag this year.

We had our first reintroduced wolf spotted in the region in 98 or so. They seem to have no impact in popuation. We get two (possibly three, in certain areas) weeks to kill our elk here in Idaho. No cows, two weeks for your bull...yet we have plenty. Scat everywhere, and they're easy to find if you know the right time and area. Moose are a once in a lifetime hunt...you have to win a lottery, and then find them. Yet Fish and Game has to give my friend rubber bullets to try to drive the moose out of her garden.

I'm not going to feel sorry for you, if it's no longer necessary to take a bunch of cows at the end of the season because there are too many. Hunting is entirely based upon conservation and population numbers. Wolves should be controlled as well, but at the moment deer kill more people than any other animal.

rather_be_huntin

That's where we disagree slightly. I feel hunting is about conservation and population control as you said but it's also about tradition, friends, family bonding, and experiencing the outdoors the way our ancestors did. You make is sound like hunting is a necessary evil or something along those lines.

If the elk and deer numbers in your area are healthy that's great, good for you guys. But look at this from the 30,000 foot view rather than just your own corner of the world. Other areas are being severly impacted and it's much more than the loss of a late cow hunt. To make it worse the fed's are allowing them to grow in population without control which is contrary to your above statement anyways.

You may not feel sorry if we lose a late cow hunt and you shouldn't for me. I would however feel sorry for my 12 year daughter who is going on her first elk hunt every later this winter for a cow. She wasn't old enough to hunt in the fall, her birthday is in November. I will also feel sorry for all the hunters we may lose because overall less tags are available.

If you are a real hunter you know that only roughly 14 million people hunt in the US and that the overall population is around 300 million. This means we are already a minority group and to keep hunting around we need everyone we can to buy a tag and learn of the joys hunting can bring. Less tags is not the answer.

Besides I'll say it one more time in plain English......wolves were reintroduced and being protected ferociously to end all need for hunters at all. I can provide numbers if you like to prove just about everything I've said here if you'd like......don't be the guy that can't see past your own backyard.

rather_be_huntin

BTW just for the grammar police...it's "just wondering whose side you're on?" Is berating others your usual way of proving a point?

rather_be_huntin

Since you're such an expert a homonyms let's see how you are with numbers and citations:

- The moose population in Yellowstone National Park trend count shows a decrease to almost zero. (Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)

- The Northern Yellostone herd, trend count has dropped from nearly 19,000 elk in 1995 before the introdcution of the Canadian gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. 60% reduction. (Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)

- The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count...has dropped from around 1,048 to 338 (elk) in 2008. (Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)

- The Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has dropped from 700 to 108 (elk) in 2008. (Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)

Now are you paying attention? This one is important.

- The calf survival rate for those same elk herds mentioned above, where wolves are present, is extremely low amounting to as little as 10% or less recruitment or survival rate. Nearly any wildlife profession will tell you this is unnacceptable recruitment or survival rate. Acceptable wildlife science tells us that a 25-40% survival rate is necessary for herd sustainability.

Further, a recent MSU study shows those elk that remain in Northern Yellostone herd are in below standard health as they are not feeding where and how they normally do and the females are not getting pregnant as they should due to hormonal imablances. (See Montana State unversity Study by Professor Scott Creel in July 2009: funded by the National Science Foundation)

This information was taken from the RMEF letter to the Deaf's of Wildlife which can be seen in it's entirety right here:

http://www.rmef.org/NR/rdonlyres/B57...fenders410.pdf

dook

Here in Western Montana Elk numbers are way down. They won't bugle anymore. There is hardly any fresh sign. Everyone is blaming wolves.
150 years ago there were no Elk in the timbered mountains because they could not defend themselves against wolves in those conditions. Elk were a plains animal.
After our ancestors finished eradicating the wolves, Elk were introduced in the timbered mountains and did well until wolf populations grew.
It has to be one or the other...Elk or wolves....they won't live in these mountains together.