Western Wolfs:Howling in the west
01-20-2004, 04:19 PM
#1
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: California
Posts: 6,440
Western Wolfs:Howling in the west
This is an article in the Outdoor life mag. by Jim Zumbo
The Irma Hotel in Cody, Wyoming, is the on the list of national historic places. Built in 1903 by Buffalo Bill for his daughter Irma, it's a hunter's mecca. At any given time in the fall, sportsmen from around the world drink and dine there. But if you're a supporter of wolves in the greater Yellowstone area, keep it to youself when visiting the Irma or places like it.
I know a nonresident hunter who didnt, and he came close to getting into a fistgight with an angry outfitter. And that wasnt an isolated incident. That's just the way it goes in towns like Cody that are close to Yellowstone.
Wolves seems to cause profound personality changes in otherwise laid-back, shy, gentle people. That's because of the big canine's ability to ravage game population, as wel as its hunting methods. There arent many predators in North America that kill their prey with the violence that wolves do. Before I describe it, let me say that you will seldom see a wolf attack on TV, because a wolf kill, unlike that of the lion or leopard, is normally not quick and humane."
When wolves hunt, they do so by sight. They dont scent -trail an animal. When they spot their prey, they give chase. It can be a very long pursuit, or a very short one, depending on the terrain, snow depth, size of the pack, ability of the prey to fight and other factors. The kill is not pretty. Wolf experts describe how typically one or more wolves will lunge at the flanks of the beleaqured animal with their powerful jaws, biting and slashing to shear away the hide and rip out of organs and cause severe blood loss. At the same time, another wolf will commonly jump up and latch onto the victim's nose with its teeth, especially when the pack is hunting a heavy animal like a moose. With a 150 pound animal holding on its nose and several others tearing at its side, the victim is history. The wolves continue to eviscerate the animal and gobble up the emerging entrials until it finally dies. This might take hours or even days--but rarely minutes.
So, knowing this scenario occurs countless times every day in wolf counry, how can we possibly accept wolf reintroduction in the west? I think most of us understand that in nature not many animals die gently. Violence is common when predators are doing the killing, but there is alo long-term pain and suffering due to disease, parasites and starvation, Wolfs are simply part of the natural equation of life and death. If we can agree to that, let's eliminate the emotion and look at wolves from the standpoint of the impact they have on their prey, which happens to include the animals that we like to hunt. Do we really want to share our elk, deer, and moose with wolves? And will we ever have a chance to hunt wolves? Are we selfish, as some claim, wanting the elk, moose and other animals only for ourselfs?
Living in Cody as i do, my prespective on wolves is different from that of someone who doesnt live here. I worry about the local elk and the moose, and i am concerned when i see a serious absence of moose where i've seen plently of them before, and when i see alarmingly few elk calves as compared to before the wolves arrived. I am not happy when wildlife agencies reduce elk tags, because wolves are taking so many of the surplus elk that we've been hunting for years. Call if greed if you will, but that's my opinion. Many biologists tell that the low elk numbers are due to the throught, other habitat problems and increased numbers of grizzlies, but they seem to scoff at the notion that wolves are a singificant mortality factor. I feel sorry for my rancher neighbor whose dog was killed by two woles. He was unable to defend his pet because would have faced a still fine and a possible jail term. I'm frustrated that wolves have successfully exceeded the highest expections of the peopl that reintroduced them, but we still cant manage them.
When It Began
In my area, it all started in 1995, when 14 wolves were trapped in Alberta, Canada, and released in Yellowstone National Park by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The following year, 17 wolves from British Columbia were added. As predicted, some of the wolves left Yellowstone quickly, and their numbers in and outside the park grew rapidly. In 1997, there were 87 wolves. There were 112 wolves in 1998, 117 in 1999, 177 in 2000, 218 in 2002, and 272 in 2002. Not only are their numbers growing, but the wolves are spreading at an incredible rate. Last year for example, a collared wolf from Yellowstone was caught by a coyote trapper in Utah. The animal traveled some 220 miles from where it was initially released. Wildlife agents transferred the wolf back to Wyoming, where it rejoined its orignal pack. Every year, wolves are showing up in new areas, establishing new packs.
That is why i believe we need to manage wolves as soon as possble. But let's not mince words. Management means killong some to keep their numbers at acceptable levels. When, where and how many to kill are the big questions.
Solving The Issue
To some people, managment isn't an option. They want all the wolves killed. And then there are those at the other extreme who want to let wolves multiply unchecked and spread far and wide. Others, like me, say the solution lies somewhere in the middle. We want wolves managed in such a way that their numbers can be controlled, ensuring that big-game populations won't suffer. For the record, I never wanted wolves in the first place, nor did the game departments of three Western states involved in the recovery effect (Wyoming, Idaho and Montana). But now that the wolves are established, we must deal with them in a manner acceptable to the public, because the public, through litigation and the ballot-box, has the final say.
Killing all the wolves will never happen. It's ludicrous to think it will. Though I dont cound myself among them, many Americans-and not just activist anti-hunters--are comfortable having wolves roam our Western forests. Even the most avid anti-wolf advocates concede that eradication isn't an option. "The wolves are here to stay." Says Arlene Hanson of Wapiti, Wyo. Hanson is the leader of the No-wolf Option Committee and put up a gallant fight to stop wolf reintroduction is the early 1990s. "I'm not happy with them, but now we must work to manage them." She adds
Delisting: When?
Wolves were introduced into Idaho at about the same time that they were brought to Yellowstone. In Northernwestern Montana, a third area that had been identifed for wolf recovery, wolves reestablished themselves by traveling across the border from Bristh Columbia. Over the last dozen years these animals have multiplied rapidly. When wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone and Idaho, the USFWS drew up a recovery plan that would allow wolves to be managed if certain condititions were met. The benchmark established by the USFWS was to have 30 breeding packs among the three states. Once the wolves had become that populous, their recovery would be consider succussful and the ycoudl be removed from the Endangered Species List.
But even though the objectives for recovery have been met, delisting is far from certain. First, there are logistical delays, such as the need fo officals to verfify the number of breeding packs. But the bigger problem is whether the USFWS and the three other states involved in the recovery effort can come to terms over how the wolves should be managed in the future. The relationship between the states and the feds over the wolves has not been a happy one. All three states initiallu opposed the reintroduction efforts. It took intervention on the part of Congress to get the program started. Idaho, in fact, was so set against wolf reintroduction that the state refused t osend any offical representation to the table. Instead it fell to members of the Nez Perce tribe to represent Idaho's wolves.
Despite the inital resistance to wolf reintroduction, however, all three states have produced and submitted plans for managing their wolves. Given the speed with which the wolves have been in creasing, the states really had no choice. If they refused to draw up plans, the wolves would have never been delisted and, therefore, would never be managed.
"We feel good about our managment plan." says Glenn Erickson of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "We finished it in September and the director signed it. We're happy with the plan's flexibility, which gives Montana hunters the opportunity to hunt wolves according to our guidelines. Once wolves are delisted, we'll come up with regulations as to how, where and when to hunt wolves."
Steve Nadeau, large carnivore coordinator for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, agrees. "Once wolves are delisted." he says "managment will be the responsibility of the state wildlife agency, and we'll work closely with the Nez Perce tribe. We hope to manage wolves as we currently manage black bears and mountain lions, allowing hunting with special 'controlled' permits." ..
"We hope the delisting process will proceed to schedule." says John Emmerich of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. "We're ready to establish hunting regulations on wolves once we have managment responsiblity."
But Wyoming's plans is drawing fire from many corners including from the USFWS. Animal-rights groups and many conservations organizations are furious with it. Called a dual-designation plan, it states that wolves in Yellowstone National Park (92 percent in which is in Wyoming) and in some nearby whilderness areas will be designated "trophy class" animals. That designation means they may be hunted in keeping with well-defined managment objective (though the wolves would never be hunted in Yellowstone of course). This is the same policy proposed by Montana and Idaho. But Wyoming goes a step further. The second aspect is the ''predator'' designation. According to a new statue passed by the Wyoming legislature, any wolves seen on national forests outside wilderness areas, or on any other public or private lands, can be shot on sight, just as coyotes.
Ed Bangs, USFWS Wolf Recovery Coordinator, responded to this issue in a letter to Wyoming Game and Fish Director Brent Manning on July 2, 2003. In part, he said, "We urge Wyoming to reconsider having wolves listed as predatory animals anywhere in Wyoming. That designation may spoil our mutual delist the wolf population and maintain a recovered population. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has commented that she is also concern about the use of the predator designations is biologically sound, from a public relations aspect it's a ''disaster." Among other reasons critics are concerned that a pack can be protected one day if they're in a wilderness , but be shot on sight when they cross unto non-wilderness national forest land. Under that scenario, wolf numbers could be reduced to below levels required by the federal government. To add to the dilemma, Manning resigned in mid-Setpember, citing "family reasons." after having served less than a year. This leaves the Wyoming Game and Fish Department without strong direction from top.
There is obviously no clear, immediate solution. Wolf delisting and management could take years, but wildlife officals in all three states are optimistic, as is Bangs. As it stands now, an independent panel of 12 wolf experts has been chosen by the USFWS to examine the three managment plans submitted by the states. They are scheduled to report back to the USFWS by November 1 (after press time for this article), and the agency will review their conclusions. By Jan. 1 2004, the USFWS is suppose to make its own recommendations regarding wolf mangemnt. This will be recorded in the Federal Resigter, making it available for public review and, of course, litigation. If all goes well with no serious pitfalls, wolves could be delisted by December 2004.
Many hope that day will never come. FOr many others, like me, it can come quickly enough. One thing is certain. Wolves arent going away. As this is a written, one or two could be headed in your direction right now. As a wolf biologist from Minnesota, where wolves increased from 1,500 to almost 3,000 in 10 years, told me a few years ago, "The only thing that will stop wolves from reaching Mexico is us." Get ready.
(a short story in this article)
A Wolf Attack in May 2002, veteran hunter and trapper Randy Blackburn was looking for shed elk antlers 10 miles from Yellowstone Park. He was riding a horse and leading a second one. Suddenly a spooked herd of 20 elk ran toward him; Blackburn figured a Grizzly was chasing them. Then he saw four wolves pursuing the elk. When the wolves spotted him, they attacked Bullet, his packhorse. Blackburn finally caught up to the horse 300 yards from where the attack began. It wasnt badly injured. Blackburn took pictures of the wounds and doctored the horse himself. Two USFWS agents separately investigated the incident. According to Blackburn, "One of them made me feel like I was lying, suggesting that the horse might have been kicked by another horse or wounded by a nail in my corral." The wolves Blackburn identifed had also been observed the day before the attack by one of the agents in the same area. This incidents points out the skepticism the feds demonstrate over wold complaints and the intimidations of the public of the strict laws pertaining to shooting problem wolves.
What is everyone's opinons on all this?
The Irma Hotel in Cody, Wyoming, is the on the list of national historic places. Built in 1903 by Buffalo Bill for his daughter Irma, it's a hunter's mecca. At any given time in the fall, sportsmen from around the world drink and dine there. But if you're a supporter of wolves in the greater Yellowstone area, keep it to youself when visiting the Irma or places like it.
I know a nonresident hunter who didnt, and he came close to getting into a fistgight with an angry outfitter. And that wasnt an isolated incident. That's just the way it goes in towns like Cody that are close to Yellowstone.
Wolves seems to cause profound personality changes in otherwise laid-back, shy, gentle people. That's because of the big canine's ability to ravage game population, as wel as its hunting methods. There arent many predators in North America that kill their prey with the violence that wolves do. Before I describe it, let me say that you will seldom see a wolf attack on TV, because a wolf kill, unlike that of the lion or leopard, is normally not quick and humane."
When wolves hunt, they do so by sight. They dont scent -trail an animal. When they spot their prey, they give chase. It can be a very long pursuit, or a very short one, depending on the terrain, snow depth, size of the pack, ability of the prey to fight and other factors. The kill is not pretty. Wolf experts describe how typically one or more wolves will lunge at the flanks of the beleaqured animal with their powerful jaws, biting and slashing to shear away the hide and rip out of organs and cause severe blood loss. At the same time, another wolf will commonly jump up and latch onto the victim's nose with its teeth, especially when the pack is hunting a heavy animal like a moose. With a 150 pound animal holding on its nose and several others tearing at its side, the victim is history. The wolves continue to eviscerate the animal and gobble up the emerging entrials until it finally dies. This might take hours or even days--but rarely minutes.
So, knowing this scenario occurs countless times every day in wolf counry, how can we possibly accept wolf reintroduction in the west? I think most of us understand that in nature not many animals die gently. Violence is common when predators are doing the killing, but there is alo long-term pain and suffering due to disease, parasites and starvation, Wolfs are simply part of the natural equation of life and death. If we can agree to that, let's eliminate the emotion and look at wolves from the standpoint of the impact they have on their prey, which happens to include the animals that we like to hunt. Do we really want to share our elk, deer, and moose with wolves? And will we ever have a chance to hunt wolves? Are we selfish, as some claim, wanting the elk, moose and other animals only for ourselfs?
Living in Cody as i do, my prespective on wolves is different from that of someone who doesnt live here. I worry about the local elk and the moose, and i am concerned when i see a serious absence of moose where i've seen plently of them before, and when i see alarmingly few elk calves as compared to before the wolves arrived. I am not happy when wildlife agencies reduce elk tags, because wolves are taking so many of the surplus elk that we've been hunting for years. Call if greed if you will, but that's my opinion. Many biologists tell that the low elk numbers are due to the throught, other habitat problems and increased numbers of grizzlies, but they seem to scoff at the notion that wolves are a singificant mortality factor. I feel sorry for my rancher neighbor whose dog was killed by two woles. He was unable to defend his pet because would have faced a still fine and a possible jail term. I'm frustrated that wolves have successfully exceeded the highest expections of the peopl that reintroduced them, but we still cant manage them.
When It Began
In my area, it all started in 1995, when 14 wolves were trapped in Alberta, Canada, and released in Yellowstone National Park by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The following year, 17 wolves from British Columbia were added. As predicted, some of the wolves left Yellowstone quickly, and their numbers in and outside the park grew rapidly. In 1997, there were 87 wolves. There were 112 wolves in 1998, 117 in 1999, 177 in 2000, 218 in 2002, and 272 in 2002. Not only are their numbers growing, but the wolves are spreading at an incredible rate. Last year for example, a collared wolf from Yellowstone was caught by a coyote trapper in Utah. The animal traveled some 220 miles from where it was initially released. Wildlife agents transferred the wolf back to Wyoming, where it rejoined its orignal pack. Every year, wolves are showing up in new areas, establishing new packs.
That is why i believe we need to manage wolves as soon as possble. But let's not mince words. Management means killong some to keep their numbers at acceptable levels. When, where and how many to kill are the big questions.
Solving The Issue
To some people, managment isn't an option. They want all the wolves killed. And then there are those at the other extreme who want to let wolves multiply unchecked and spread far and wide. Others, like me, say the solution lies somewhere in the middle. We want wolves managed in such a way that their numbers can be controlled, ensuring that big-game populations won't suffer. For the record, I never wanted wolves in the first place, nor did the game departments of three Western states involved in the recovery effect (Wyoming, Idaho and Montana). But now that the wolves are established, we must deal with them in a manner acceptable to the public, because the public, through litigation and the ballot-box, has the final say.
Killing all the wolves will never happen. It's ludicrous to think it will. Though I dont cound myself among them, many Americans-and not just activist anti-hunters--are comfortable having wolves roam our Western forests. Even the most avid anti-wolf advocates concede that eradication isn't an option. "The wolves are here to stay." Says Arlene Hanson of Wapiti, Wyo. Hanson is the leader of the No-wolf Option Committee and put up a gallant fight to stop wolf reintroduction is the early 1990s. "I'm not happy with them, but now we must work to manage them." She adds
Delisting: When?
Wolves were introduced into Idaho at about the same time that they were brought to Yellowstone. In Northernwestern Montana, a third area that had been identifed for wolf recovery, wolves reestablished themselves by traveling across the border from Bristh Columbia. Over the last dozen years these animals have multiplied rapidly. When wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone and Idaho, the USFWS drew up a recovery plan that would allow wolves to be managed if certain condititions were met. The benchmark established by the USFWS was to have 30 breeding packs among the three states. Once the wolves had become that populous, their recovery would be consider succussful and the ycoudl be removed from the Endangered Species List.
But even though the objectives for recovery have been met, delisting is far from certain. First, there are logistical delays, such as the need fo officals to verfify the number of breeding packs. But the bigger problem is whether the USFWS and the three other states involved in the recovery effort can come to terms over how the wolves should be managed in the future. The relationship between the states and the feds over the wolves has not been a happy one. All three states initiallu opposed the reintroduction efforts. It took intervention on the part of Congress to get the program started. Idaho, in fact, was so set against wolf reintroduction that the state refused t osend any offical representation to the table. Instead it fell to members of the Nez Perce tribe to represent Idaho's wolves.
Despite the inital resistance to wolf reintroduction, however, all three states have produced and submitted plans for managing their wolves. Given the speed with which the wolves have been in creasing, the states really had no choice. If they refused to draw up plans, the wolves would have never been delisted and, therefore, would never be managed.
"We feel good about our managment plan." says Glenn Erickson of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "We finished it in September and the director signed it. We're happy with the plan's flexibility, which gives Montana hunters the opportunity to hunt wolves according to our guidelines. Once wolves are delisted, we'll come up with regulations as to how, where and when to hunt wolves."
Steve Nadeau, large carnivore coordinator for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, agrees. "Once wolves are delisted." he says "managment will be the responsibility of the state wildlife agency, and we'll work closely with the Nez Perce tribe. We hope to manage wolves as we currently manage black bears and mountain lions, allowing hunting with special 'controlled' permits." ..
"We hope the delisting process will proceed to schedule." says John Emmerich of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. "We're ready to establish hunting regulations on wolves once we have managment responsiblity."
But Wyoming's plans is drawing fire from many corners including from the USFWS. Animal-rights groups and many conservations organizations are furious with it. Called a dual-designation plan, it states that wolves in Yellowstone National Park (92 percent in which is in Wyoming) and in some nearby whilderness areas will be designated "trophy class" animals. That designation means they may be hunted in keeping with well-defined managment objective (though the wolves would never be hunted in Yellowstone of course). This is the same policy proposed by Montana and Idaho. But Wyoming goes a step further. The second aspect is the ''predator'' designation. According to a new statue passed by the Wyoming legislature, any wolves seen on national forests outside wilderness areas, or on any other public or private lands, can be shot on sight, just as coyotes.
Ed Bangs, USFWS Wolf Recovery Coordinator, responded to this issue in a letter to Wyoming Game and Fish Director Brent Manning on July 2, 2003. In part, he said, "We urge Wyoming to reconsider having wolves listed as predatory animals anywhere in Wyoming. That designation may spoil our mutual delist the wolf population and maintain a recovered population. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has commented that she is also concern about the use of the predator designations is biologically sound, from a public relations aspect it's a ''disaster." Among other reasons critics are concerned that a pack can be protected one day if they're in a wilderness , but be shot on sight when they cross unto non-wilderness national forest land. Under that scenario, wolf numbers could be reduced to below levels required by the federal government. To add to the dilemma, Manning resigned in mid-Setpember, citing "family reasons." after having served less than a year. This leaves the Wyoming Game and Fish Department without strong direction from top.
There is obviously no clear, immediate solution. Wolf delisting and management could take years, but wildlife officals in all three states are optimistic, as is Bangs. As it stands now, an independent panel of 12 wolf experts has been chosen by the USFWS to examine the three managment plans submitted by the states. They are scheduled to report back to the USFWS by November 1 (after press time for this article), and the agency will review their conclusions. By Jan. 1 2004, the USFWS is suppose to make its own recommendations regarding wolf mangemnt. This will be recorded in the Federal Resigter, making it available for public review and, of course, litigation. If all goes well with no serious pitfalls, wolves could be delisted by December 2004.
Many hope that day will never come. FOr many others, like me, it can come quickly enough. One thing is certain. Wolves arent going away. As this is a written, one or two could be headed in your direction right now. As a wolf biologist from Minnesota, where wolves increased from 1,500 to almost 3,000 in 10 years, told me a few years ago, "The only thing that will stop wolves from reaching Mexico is us." Get ready.
(a short story in this article)
A Wolf Attack in May 2002, veteran hunter and trapper Randy Blackburn was looking for shed elk antlers 10 miles from Yellowstone Park. He was riding a horse and leading a second one. Suddenly a spooked herd of 20 elk ran toward him; Blackburn figured a Grizzly was chasing them. Then he saw four wolves pursuing the elk. When the wolves spotted him, they attacked Bullet, his packhorse. Blackburn finally caught up to the horse 300 yards from where the attack began. It wasnt badly injured. Blackburn took pictures of the wounds and doctored the horse himself. Two USFWS agents separately investigated the incident. According to Blackburn, "One of them made me feel like I was lying, suggesting that the horse might have been kicked by another horse or wounded by a nail in my corral." The wolves Blackburn identifed had also been observed the day before the attack by one of the agents in the same area. This incidents points out the skepticism the feds demonstrate over wold complaints and the intimidations of the public of the strict laws pertaining to shooting problem wolves.
What is everyone's opinons on all this?
01-20-2004, 07:29 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NW Montana / SW Alberta Rockies
Posts: 3,258
RE: Western Wolfs:Howling in the west
Very intresting and controversal topic as well as good research on your part, but I as a sportsman am pissed off that the Clinton administration used the B/Pitman fund to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone, this is the 11%(?) tax that we as sportman pay on all hunting equipment and accesories, this is pure Bull$hit that the sportsmans tax fund was used for this cause, the elk herds have dwindled down to the point where our quota numbers to hunt elk have dropped just to have wolves introduced in prime elk habitat.
Shoot the Damn things and shut up is the way I feel about them. Bobby
Shoot the Damn things and shut up is the way I feel about them. Bobby
01-20-2004, 07:41 PM
#3
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: south western, wy USA
Posts: 496
RE: Western Wolfs:Howling in the west
What is everyone's opinons on all this?
as for the wolves right now i am greatly pi$$ed off about the hole situation
#1 the US game and fish regected wyomings plan for management last week
#2 they raised wy hunting license for aid in money to manage these useless dogs
#3 they are not an endangered species there are thousands of them thru out canada, alaska, and the northern US
#4 they are just another predator in an already predator rich environment.
01-20-2004, 07:53 PM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,395
RE: Western Wolfs:Howling in the west
What is everyone's opinon?
My opinon is large predators are the best tools anti hunters can use to ruin hunting as we know it. Large predators (wolves, cougars & bears) will kill so many animals that many hunters will lose intrest in the sport of hunting.
I say we all need to go out looking for wolves & kill everyone we find. Howl them in & shoot them on sight.[
]
But that is just my opinon.
My opinon is large predators are the best tools anti hunters can use to ruin hunting as we know it. Large predators (wolves, cougars & bears) will kill so many animals that many hunters will lose intrest in the sport of hunting.
I say we all need to go out looking for wolves & kill everyone we find. Howl them in & shoot them on sight.[
]But that is just my opinon.
01-21-2004, 02:10 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NW WY USA
Posts: 206
RE: Western Wolfs:Howling in the west
I live in the Cody area and know exactly what Zumbo is saying. No moose in area's where you could see a dozen or so in an hour drive. Moose quota's cut in half in certain areas. Hardly any calves in the elk herds.
Ranchers cows and sheep being killed and not a thing the rancher can do about it. He has to stand there and watch!!!!!!! Even the game wardens can't kill a wolf. This is for the feds to do.
I saw on the Billings news not to long ago that the feds have killed over 200 wolves in ID MT and WY for preying on livestock
The feds are out of control on this as much as the wolves are!!!!!!!!! They keep "BRAINWASHING" people with their propaganda about how good wolves are. They keep saying our ancestors didn't know what they were doing killing wolves. Turns out, our ancestors knew exactly what they were doing!!!! I was in Yellowstone one time and a family who had been there several times asked a ranger "What has happened to all the game" The ranger told them the reason was "ROAD KILL" Can you believe that!!!!
Sportsman and state G&F depts have been building up herds for many years and the feds come in here and destroy it in few years.
Dereg the wolves and let the state take care of the problem as they see fit!
I better stop or my post will be as long as Zumbo's
Ranchers cows and sheep being killed and not a thing the rancher can do about it. He has to stand there and watch!!!!!!! Even the game wardens can't kill a wolf. This is for the feds to do.
I saw on the Billings news not to long ago that the feds have killed over 200 wolves in ID MT and WY for preying on livestock
The feds are out of control on this as much as the wolves are!!!!!!!!! They keep "BRAINWASHING" people with their propaganda about how good wolves are. They keep saying our ancestors didn't know what they were doing killing wolves. Turns out, our ancestors knew exactly what they were doing!!!! I was in Yellowstone one time and a family who had been there several times asked a ranger "What has happened to all the game" The ranger told them the reason was "ROAD KILL" Can you believe that!!!!
Sportsman and state G&F depts have been building up herds for many years and the feds come in here and destroy it in few years.
Dereg the wolves and let the state take care of the problem as they see fit!
I better stop or my post will be as long as Zumbo's
01-21-2004, 06:13 AM
#7
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 170
RE: Western Wolfs:Howling in the west
jjt-
You mentioned that wolves are just another predator in an already predator-rich environment. What other top level predators are established in a balanced population? Cougars? I've not had a chance to visit out there, so I'm just curious.
Also, to play the devil's advocate, does it make sense to oppose wolf reintroduction simply because it cuts into the business of outfitters or the manner in which these animals hunt? As hunters we must be conservationists - so why is establishing a balanced predator-prey a bad thing, beyond making it harder to bag that trophy. If we take all the predators away and manage the herds exclusively for shooting opportunities, what have we done but made a gigantic game farm? Not trying to start a fight, just want to hear some opinions and learn more about this issue.
Thanks!
You mentioned that wolves are just another predator in an already predator-rich environment. What other top level predators are established in a balanced population? Cougars? I've not had a chance to visit out there, so I'm just curious.
Also, to play the devil's advocate, does it make sense to oppose wolf reintroduction simply because it cuts into the business of outfitters or the manner in which these animals hunt? As hunters we must be conservationists - so why is establishing a balanced predator-prey a bad thing, beyond making it harder to bag that trophy. If we take all the predators away and manage the herds exclusively for shooting opportunities, what have we done but made a gigantic game farm? Not trying to start a fight, just want to hear some opinions and learn more about this issue.
Thanks!
01-21-2004, 07:37 PM
#8
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: south western, wy USA
Posts: 496
RE: Western Wolfs:Howling in the west
What other top level predators are established in a balanced population? Cougars?
in wyoming we have cougar, grizzly, black bear, coyotes,wolves, bobcats, hunters, etc...
i think we have enough predators and we should be reducing there population not increasing it
the answer to your devils adv?
the balance you speak of does not allow hunters such as you or I .
the balance of predator prey would be what they are trying to do in yellowstone and hunting by humans is not allowed there.
the only people who stand to gain from the wolves is the jacka$$es in washington and the super left wing enviromentalists groups
when i spoke to my grandfather about this topic he call us stupid ****ing idiots for allowing them to reintroduce what he and his generation had rid wyoming of
he told me about how the deer and elk herds grew and the moose started poping up as the exterminated more and more wolves
i would love tell more of his stories but i dont have time right now
