RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Quoting information from a bunch of obviously biased articles isn't helping your argument.

I can come up with twenty independent, university studies that refute every single thing that you said. Who is right? The scientists? The ranchers? The guy who is "on the ground?" Give me a break. The ranchers don't have a clue about the big picture, they can't see past their pocketbook. I'm not saying I blame them, ranching is hard way to make a living.

They don't have access to the data and they aren't qualified to interpret the data. That is my opinion and it's validity is reinforced everytime one of the overblown so-called "hunters" (aka rednecks) replies to threads like these.


It all boils down to:
1. hate and fear of the government
2. hate and fear of things they don't understand
3. ignorance: refusing to put themselves in someone else's shoes and realize there is 50 sides to every wildilfe issue.


This is the set pattern that is followed both on this board and in public meetings. There seems to be two groups of people: those who are capable of seeing more than one side of an issue and those with blinders on that can't understand a view other than their own. It's a sad way to go through life.

Which group are you in?

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

My sympathies to those of you who live in the rural areas of western states, where the last admin, under Sec. Bruce forced Grey Wolves (Timber Wolves) into your states. From over 30 years of making many of the same impassioned arguments about controlling the wolf population to prevent devastating game populations and livestock, I can tell you, we’re fighting a battle while climbing a mountain. It’s that difficult to get those who see the warm and fuzzy pictures and sometimes “live with” some of these animals that’ve been raised outside of the wild, to see the realities and destruction an over abundance of very intelligent, highly skilled predators can bring about over thousands of square miles. (Obviously, I’m talking about many packs of these animals.)

Don’t be intimidated by the “experts” like David Mech that some quote. My family lives within 40 miles of this “Learning Center” he runs to indoctrinate little minds of mush they bring up in school buses every year. He, like many of his kind, also have an extreme “environmental” agenda, which includes creating millions of acres of “corridors” where there will be many of the “natural” species, but no humans, except of course a few “experts” who’ll need to study the effects of all of their grand plans.

For my experience, people who haven’t lived near heavy populations of Timber Wolves and other large predators in the wild are very unsympathetic and often have unrealistic ideas that an unlimited number of these predators “the more the better” mentality in someone else’s backyard (yours and mine), while they enjoy their cities, horse farms, pets that don’t get grabbed out of their yards while their kids and moms watch in horror.

Cristina, I know you are well read and have some experiences with non-wild wolves. It’s not the same. One correction for you, too. If you had livestock that you saw killed by a wolf, you can’t go out and shoot it! The fines and jail time (federal crime) are many tens of thousands and many years in prison. Sensible people here have tried to get the wolf de-listed from the “endangered species” list in our state, so reasonable measures like being able to protect your animals and family from these predators. So far, that hasn’t happened.

That’s the reality people in northern MN, some of Wisconsin, have for decades and now rural people other states like Wyoming and Montana are beginning to live with. And virtually no one who lives outside these areas cares. It’s a terrible shame. But that’s the cold, hard reality.

Good luck!

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Brutal Attack You need to read the title of this post. This thread is for people who do not like wolves.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

If you weren't completely ignorant to biological science you would understand the importance of these "corridors". Sadly, you dont understand so you react with hate and fear.

You just don't get it. Your not the only one that matters. Rural people aren't the only people that matter. Your opinion is only one of many. This is a democratic society and the majority rules. Your view of wildlife is no more valid than some city slickers view. Regardless of how self centered you are.



Get your facts right. Ranchers have always had the right to shoot a wolf they see attacking their livestock.

Jesus Christ you people make it sound like wolves are running rampant in the streets eating babies. Give us a break. Stop with the fearmongering.

What should they care about? The miniscule amount of livestock lost to wolves every year? Is that really harming the rancher that much? You do know they are reimbursed for loses right? How many people have been killed by wolves lately? We make the choice to live in rural areas. Certain responsibilities come with that life. Your like the people who live 45 miles from the nearest fire district then when their houses get nuked by wildfire they sue the government for not stopping the fire.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Brutal,

By way of your last three posts, you have provided insights about the culture of the scientific community (especially the "softer" sciences) that I have always suspected were endemic.

Now I see them in black and white.
Thanks for the re-affirmation of my beliefs.

EKM

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

BrutalAttack I repeat this thread was not started with the wolf lover in mind.
You need to pull your head out & go to work on a working cattle ranch. Your whole years wages are paid when you take your cattle to market. The cattle are everything to a rancher. Every cow does count! Every cow is not always paid for. When the cows are paid for they are paid at an estimated weight & price.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Brutal
First off if you want to say that I know nothing that’s fine I can take it, but to say that none of the quotes I made are true is wrong. Unless you want to call the person from the Montana State University, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the people that wrote the National Park Service Documents and those who done the EIS Studies liars then I suggest you contact them and say there studies are not factual. How am I to believe you about the Independent University Studies, that’s kind of a two way street. And you’re telling everyone that these institutions don’t have the data or have access to the data when they’re some of the very people doing the studies and wrote the data.
I have clearly tried to see both sides of the issue here but to see that, you have to look at the long-term affect.
That means if you’re an outdoors person, who hunts, you will be left without the right to hunt some day so you have to manage the renewable resource. That means everything from predators to ungulates.
To say that the ranchers don’t have a clue when they live by and pasture their livestock outside of where the wolves were introduced. I hope when I go to ask permission to hunt on a rancher’s property I still can.
Also unless the wolf becomes de-listed a rancher has to have a permit to shoot a wolf unless the wolf is caught in the act of attacking livestock. There is legislation in the works to change when a rancher can kill a wolf.
Yes there is a lot of numbers floating around here and statistics and different information but we all can research and make up are own biased opinions.

Yes at times I both hate and fear the Government as do a lot of people.
Do I fear and hate things I don’t understand you bet that’s real life.
Do I have ignorance yes I do if I believe in something its called being stubborn because I think I’m right and you think your right and that’s are own opinions.
Where do I stand? Well I am defiantly for any species so long as they are managed.

What is your stand?

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

i like wolves but thats pretty funny

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

This has an easy solution, with wolves spreading like wildfire it won`t be long and they`ll eat all the elk in the western states. Then the secret plan will come to light. Us Canadians will sell you wolf resistant elk at an enourmous cost(enough to guarantee our F&G departments are funded for years) We may even throw in some wolf hardy moose too but don`t count on it, we like our moose too much.;) Remember where these wolves came from. Just ask Kenny, we`re a sneaky bunch, hiding behind our 5% beer and that crazy metric system(made just to confuse Americans) Long live our cyborg wolves, let the slaughter begin!;)

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

To Brutal the Biologist.


Ok Iam not a biologist I dont have a degree in anything just K - 12th grade. Let me see if I can figure this out .

Put wolves in elk and deer country wolf population gose up elk and deer population goes down till it hits the spot where the elk and deer can maintain the wolf population so it evens out . This much my simple mind can figure out.

My question biologist after every thing evens out where does the hunter fit in?

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Hey I like wolves, in fact I love wolves, but only if there dead!!!!!!!!

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

I have ranched in southeast WA. I work on a forest with several large grazing allotments, several of which I help manage. For the amount of wolves I know are here, there has never been a problem. The wolves aren't driving anyone out of buisness that wasn't already on the way so stop overreacting.

I don't love or hate wolves. They simply "are". They do what they do and we live with em.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Prey populations don't necessarily have to decrease. What happens is it changes the age structure and productivity/survival of some age classes of the population which can actually result in an increase in production by the elk herd. This is a theory of course assuming 100% great habitat etc. Generally you end up with less elk total or more elk total but in both cases a higher yearly surplus which means we can harvest more in the long run.


Like I've said already. When we correct the human caused issues (habitat loss, habitat degredation from fire suppression specifically), there won't be a problem with predation. When elk herds have quality habitat and can produce a decent yearly surplus of animals we won't have the problems we are having now.

In my opinion as a biologist:

In Idaho the biggest factors in depression of the elk herds are

1) habitat degredation: a long history of fire supression and decrease in timber sales equals less forage for elk. Simple as that. Elk need disturbance to open up the canopy and generate forbs,seral shrubs etc.



2) low calf survival: In the studies I have been involved in and read, black bears are responsible for over 80% of calf mortality (80% is also about the total pecent of the calves we lose every year)....that's our yearly surplus going down the drain right there. This is affecting elk tags also. For the first time since I've been alive, they have limited the number of elk tags issued.

Do wolves kill calves? I'm sure a few at least yes.

Are they to blame for the decrease? No.

Are they compounding the problem? Probably.

Is there anything we, as hunters, can do? Not really. Support elk habitat initiatives and stop fearmongering.

My point is elk herds have been declining in alot of places in the west. Mainly due to habitat loss and fire supression before wolves even started to effect them. Basically, they are just becoming a scape goat for the non-scientific community.

Unless habitat is managed properly we will have to deal with harvesting less elk.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

:D:D

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

I dont have an opinion about wolves or anything but i do like that picture :)

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Wolves rights are craaaaaaaaaaaaaaappppp. As a matter of fact there is NO, I repeat NO evidece of wolves EVER!!, I repeat EVER!! Naturally inhabiting the yellowstone area. NONE. Why do I know? Because I did research for a state representative in wyoming prior to the reintroduction. There were wolves in wyoming, but they were in the plains and transitional zones between the mountains and plains. The thickest populations were in the black hills, in fact at on time it was nearly impossible to raise horses there because wolves like horse meat. Also someone said wolves kill to eat and that is true, but they are also horrible thrill killers. Wolves in yellowstone aren't all bad, but these lyin bastards who said wolves would be culled when they got to numerous and now refuse to cull them are bad for the whole program.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

http://www.sierratimes.com/wolfnews.htm


These guys seem to have a lot of info on wolves and the west.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

And just when you thought the topic was dead and gone:D
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../wolves_killed Looks like not all wolves know how to behave themselves, and it cost them dearly!

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Here's a link to an interesting but old article on ABCNews.com on the topic.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/Sc...Scitechad=true

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

- You're the ignorant one bud. My family has lived in "wolf territory" with the largest concentration of Grey Wolves in the lower 48 for 100 years. Have you known people with their dogs grabbed out of their yards (in the country) or off the pathes on morning walks 20 feet in front of them. Well brutal I know many who have.

I'm not afraid for myself. But I do have concerns for safety of my elderly parent who live in N.E. MN. I would think anyone with a firm graps of reality would. But it's obvious not all have that. You think someone else's land and surrounding areas are a big lab experiment you and others like you can try out your theories.

We can live with a reasonable number of wolves and other predators. But don't try to shove this down our throats. You won't get our cooperation and you're building more resentment than you know and you're showing arrogance on top of it all.

I know of a fellow personally who went out to his woodshed at night to get some firewood. It was a tough winter, a whole lot of deer the wolves had killed just within the 80 acres around this fellows house. Suppose the pickings were getting sort of slim for the lone wolves. Guess what Mr., there was a wolf in his shed eating feed he keep to put out for deer! Wouldn't you be surprised and in a potentially dangerous situation. Don't give me "no know humans killed" progaganda. Talk to Indians who live in northern Canada who've had to shoot wolves that came after them when hunting Elk and loggers who've had to climb up on their trucks when a pack followed them.

Your ignorance is amazing. You CAN NOT just shoot an a wolf or anything else that's on the "endangered species list", because you claim they are threatening your animal. That has NEVER been the case since they were "listed". You have to go through first proving they've killed your animals and then only with special approval and in this state certified trappers MAY be allow to remove some. IF you do, you're looking a 10's of thousands of fines and even jail time!

Sorry you're having such a hard time getting your facts straight and are lashing out in fear at those who propose reasonable measures to limit the over population of wolves in specific areas.

P.S. How about if we propose making your town, city, area roadless, peopleless and a sanctuary for wolves?

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Reintroduced wolves have killed some of my family's livestock. They were seen in the act. Although wanting to take care of the situation at the moment, we deffered to the Game and Fish Dept. Upon contacting the G&F they said "that's an issue for the Feds". Upon contacting them, they sent a Govt. paid trapper. They gave us the third degree, and did'nt do a thing about the problem, even though we could have shot them and DID'NT!!!

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Ron G.

Rancher tries to do the right thing and gets his face knocked in the dirt for his trouble. Don't forget to smile, say thanks, and ask, "May I have another". A damn sorry situation.

Shy of spending $150,000 to hire a PHD and his assistant to come out and do an "official" and "scientific" study of your wolf situation and what you "think you saw happen" ;), I doubt they will listen to you. I empathize with your situation.

I would be very careful of openly stating your intentions regarding future handlings of this matter. The federal government has deep pockets and too many folks with lots of time on their hands and can easily get to the name behind your internet account by supoena if a wolf kill is discovered in your area. They'd like nothing better than to make an example of you just for publicity purposes. By the time they get your report written up, it won't matter whether you did anything wrong or were justified in your actions from a common man's perspective, it just won't read that way.

Good luck with a very crappy situation,
EKM

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

RonG, Welcome to the board.

As much as I hate to say it....keep a camera with you since you have had obvious problems and document everything!! Yep, I know its a pain in the butt but...you almost have to do it. The last time I checked the federal regs it was legal to take care of a situation if you witnessed wolves attacking your livestock. Have it on film too! Then, there is NO way that your allegations could be refuted by anyone, even the feds JMO. As much as I do love wolves....I have friends that ranch out West myself and understand the situation well as they have been through the same situation. They documented and were reimbursed their loss.
It seems as if people see it in black and white with no grey inbetween........and when it comes to the Wolf there are many grey areas of uncertainty in the eyes of legalities. Good Luck!

EKM, You are correct that it has unfortunately turned into a rather "crappy" situation to say the least.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

I admit it. I want to be the "top dog" predator when it comes to game animals. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

For those that want to bring wolves back because they used to be here: If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, you come up with what animal rights ultra liberal people want: do away with all livestock (they are not "natural"), do away with all development in the country, and do away with hunting.

If all historical predators were restored to historical levels, there is NO NEED for us to hunt. These predaotors evolved keeping game populations is check and there would be some fluctuations, but for the most part predators would do all the hunting for us. We don't really need to hunt at all do we?

Fact: wolves mean less game for hunters. Therefore, if you are REALLY in favor of reintroduction, why not give up your hunting tag for a wolf? How about lobbying your state really hard to reduce the number of tags allowed by 50% so wolves can be reintroduced?. Don't want to do that? No? Then are you really serious about reintroduction of wolves? Sure there will still be animals to hunt, but not as many.

Anyone who says that coyotes don't eat lots of fawns and wolves don't eat lots of calves is only kidding themselves. I think we all agree that wolves are very intellegent creatures. Which would you try to catch if you were a wolf, a big very fast adult elk or a young, slower, dumber calf? There aren't always "old" and "sick" ones around for easy picking.

If people who have wolves now want to keep them, so be it, but don't force those that don't have them anymore to reintroduce them.

More and more scientific evidence is coming out that unchecked populations of coyotes are one of the major reasons for the decline of mule deer. Mark my words: if wolves are reintroduced to historic levels, elk populations will follow the same path.

We have to choose: do we want to hunt or do we want to let nature take care of itself?

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

:)HMMMmmmmm... like I said..
Survival of the fittest..and EVOLVE people!
Ya might wanna check out the Elk Foundation and the Wildlife Federation and how much dough they threw in fer ya too..;)

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

MinnFinn, It's like talking an anti-hunter into going hunting with you. It just ain't happening. I grew up in Northern MN (Babbitt) and back in the late 60's there were alot of deer to hunt. Since they've protected the wolves those deer numbers have gone down considerably and of course every fall the DNR says that there are alot of deer to sell their licenses. The problem is that people don't like the government shoving their programs up our @sses and this is just another example. My sister in law sees them all the time when walking in the early mornings and my brother sees alot of them when driving to Tower to work. The DNR claims that there are 2500 wolves but you can probably double that figure. It's a different world than it was and you don't see game depts introducing elk into all of their native habitat as they would catch hell from the farmers. Maybe we are being greedy but we are on top of the food chain. Is there a place for wolves?? Possibly in very limited numbers but the problem is that government won't control them. There has been talk of delisting them in MN for some time and I won't hold my breath on that one. The tree huggers will fight that one forever and it will keep going on with appeal after appeal. I challenge those who haven't lived amongst them to go to northern Mn or Western Wyoming, walk into a local bar, and start talking about how you love wolves. The bar floor will be a lonely place in a hurry...

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Ever notice how MOST of the wolf lovers live in or around the cities????? There's a reason for that!!!! They don't have to live with the wolves!!

Drilling Man

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

you guys could alway move to alaska, hell we shoot them out of planes. The over abundance of bears here is really tearing down the moose populations and there are lots of bear/people encounters too. So the liberals think that it would be a great time to get involved and purpose a bear baiting ban legislation.. Thanks guys, you can guess which way I will be voting. Bear baiting is a very effective way to control bear populations, I would like to see brown bear baiting legalized too.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Yer right Josh! and I think they should re-introduce the griz in Calif since there are so many people there they should do well!:D

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

One of my favorite areas in south central Idaho has been destroyed by wolves. The area didn't and still doesn't recieve a lot of hunting pressure and it had a lot of elk. Even the IDFG knew there was a lot of elk It was nothing to see 150 to 200 elk per day while bowhunting. But now for the last four years the wolves have been strong in the area and elk are becoming fewer and fewer. My wife and a friend drew (early rifle hunt) out in this area this year and I hunted with them for 10 days. We saw at most 50 elk the entire trip, we saw only 3, ONLY 3!!! six point bulls. My wife did miss one of the bulls. And I know some of you say so what you still saw a few elk and you did see three 6 point bulls. But to go from seeing 150 elk a day with 4-7 or so mature 6 point bulls or bigger per day, to this well it makes me very sad and very worried. It makes me wonder are there going to be any elk at all in four more years in that area. I know one thing I will be at the top of the food chain and join the SSS club if a wolf and I cross paths.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

IdahoElkInstructor,

I appreciate and understand EXACTLY what you are saying. Ranchers and hunters that either live off the land or visit the same lands continually thru hunting have a pretty dog gone good idea what the heck is going on and IMHO it doesn't take a rocket scientist and a super computer to put 2 and 2 together and figure it out.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the kind of observation you have noted is just way too straight forward for some of the "new age" folks out there. You may have met/talked/"discussed things" with them before. If not, then be aware that there is a academic/scientific/envioronmental sector out there that will gladly interpret your observations (for you) along the following lines:

"You don't really know what you saw or what the real story is." "The cause of it all could almost be anything." "Everything is (needlessly) complex and straight forward answers just are not found in mother nature." "I see you do not have a college degree in zoology or biology therefore you are essentially an ignorant lay person." "Never mind the mandate, directives and the underpinning we operate our little community under, we've got this thing pretty well thought out and have already determined the direction it is going to go." "Unless you want to hire a PhD and a graduate assistant to do an official, sanctioned study with some statisitical modelling to supposedly prove your point (to the tune of $150,000 or so).... you don't really know anything at all." "You see, the West is going to be re-settled (and re-violated) for the second time and this time it is going to be by the scientific book and by "the greatest good for the greatest number", so step aside and let us "official folks" provide you with an explanation of what is really happening." "In case you do not agree, then too bad, that is just the way it is going to be." "What you yahoos think is happening and/or the way you would like it to be is not really of importance here, though we will give you a public hearing to spout off at." "Trust us, it will be a better world our way." "Besides, we are going to turn a big chunk of the West into the world's greatest visiting/petting/watching/listening "zoo", and we won't have you local yokels interferring with the plans." "Ranching families out there on the margin and hunters like yourself are part of a dying breed that no longer fit into the "new age" vision of things."

If you would have told me 5 years ago that this was going on I would have laughed to your face; however, after being involved with the research that went into several lawsuits that involved the USFS and the Fish and Wildlife folks, namely RS2477 cases, I blush at the things I've seen our own government (operating hand in hand with this "little scientific community") inflict upon rural folks and hunting interests while in the pursuit of their agenda.

We've caught them red handed and in one case an administrators head rolled, but seems like for each one we "nail" ten more pop up in their place. These folks are well financed, connected, on the inside track, zealots in their own right, and practically above the law. I hate to say it, but I think they are going to win --- that don't make it right --- but that is my read on it. The way the West was won the last time wasn't right either, but that didn't stop it from happening. There, I've already said more than I shoulda and I won't go any further.

It will be a damn fine "petting zoo" by the next century though.
=================

IdahoElkInstructor, I'm afraid there will (before its done) be many, many more areas like the one you described, once rich in elk, now rich in wolves.

EKM

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Well said ELKampMaster!!! I agree 100%

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Has anyone looked into our situation here in the Bitterroot valley in Montana? Our wolf population is exploding, and you know what? So is our elk population! Our herd here has been expanding slowly for 10-20 years, then they introduced wolves but the elk expansion just keeps picking up steam. We have more elk here than I've ever seen before, and our calf ratios are hitting up around 40 per 100 cows. Biologists believe we have more elk now than at any time in history.

With due respect to everyone here who is going to want to attack me after this post, but I think the wolf is just a handy whipping boy for every day somebody comes out of the woods not having had the success they had hoped. "By gummy, it must be them durned wolves again." If you think about it, some hunters blame wolves in exactly the same fashion that the antis blame hunters. I know because I lived in Seattle for many years, whenever any apparent problem arose with wildlife, the antis immediately jump on their "it's them durned hunters again" bandwagon. We hunters don't appreciate this for obvious reasons, then we turn around and do the same thing to wolves.

Archaeologists have projected that back in the day when Indians had the run of the entire country, they took an annual harvest of deer and elk very comparable to what we hunters do today. The Indians could do this even though they let the wolf alone.

I know that people in central Idaho are currently crying the wolf blues, yet when I went through the wildlife management program at University of Idaho in the late '80s, I remember reading some real interesting science. This science was written in the '70s, and predicted that as the burn areas from the fires of the early part of the 20th century grew back, that we would see dramatic declines in elk numbers throughout much of Idaho.

This prediction has come true, so is the wolf really to blame? We let those burn areas grow back and shut down logging all across the West at the same time. What result would you expect from a situation where dark timber is allowed to grow back at the expense of successional stages of vegetation (brush and grass) that elk like to eat? Why, you're going to see declining elk numbers.

The answer my friend, is habitat. Habitat, habitat, habitat. Lots of fires and lots of logging created great elk forage conditions in the early part of the 20th century. Thus, we saw a nearly nationwide surge in elk numbers from roughly 1930 to 2000. Nowadays, the cumulative effect of shutting down logging and Smokey Bear sniffing out every fire before it started to flame has returned much of the West to a successional stage that is generally less favorable for elk.

The Indians did manage the land, by setting fires to knock back the constant advance of vegetation. And, harking back to the Bitterrroot example I started with, we had those huge "catastrophic" fires in 2000. (I personally was rooting for the fires that year, although I could have done without the smoke and the lost homes.) I predicted then in my little circles that we were going to have an elk boom, damn the wolves. In 2003 and 2004 we have had biologist counts showing up to 40 calves to 100 cows, numbers we could only dream of ten years ago (before wolves), when the number lagged around 25 calves per 100 cows.

In summary, while I grant that in local cases wolves may have some impact, they take a distant back seat to considerations of habitat. Clear out some of that old dark timber, log it or burn as you wish, and watch the elk come back! Our true battle as hunters should be to see sane management practices instituted in our forests, and give the wolves a little bit of a break. Oh yeah, and let's get Wyoming off their silly duffs so they put together a reasonable plan so we can get wolf management where it belongs, with the states.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Why is it that the re-introduction of wolves, so that they may hunt and harvest wild game for the use and benefit of wolves is a good thing worthy of great sums of our tax dollars?

And why is it that the hunting and harvest of that same game by people, for the use and benefit of people, is something that needs to be fought against tooth and nail?

No doubt that there are a great many people in the fish and game departments that support hunting. But I suspect that a lot of the people on the top of these organizations that push these two agendas have a lot in common.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

i got a better idea lets get the federal fish and game to pull there heads out of there a$$es and do as they promised when we agreed to allow the wolf reintroduction

the park, wilderness, and national forest if thats not good enough TUFF

you can whine all you want but wyoming is standing up for what they were promised and they are also standing up for the right of the land owners\ citizens which is why they have there jobs instead of rolling over and kissing there federal butts

maybe montana and idaho aught to climb on board so we can get something accomplished


and on another note the more predators the less prey it is a natural check and balance i am pretty sure if you follow the moose \ wolf trends in alaska it proves my point very well