RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Well I'd be D***** there are several words that come to mind here..
1)evolution
2) survival (of the fittest)
3)Why? (Does any one of you even have the faintest clue as to WHY the wolf was reintroduced?) and
4)Who? (Does any one of you have any idea WHO was the greatest proponent of this great "save the wolf" campaign?)
Y'all are arguing (just like THEY want you to be) Y'all are "hiit'n the ol' nail on the head... (just miss'n the point!)
I think the first two words are self explanitory however, ask around and see how many of you "avid hunters" contributed to this event and didn't even know it. There were two very large "contributions" made to this endeavor by organizations that claim to be "making better ELK habitat" and that claim to put most of their funds (given by well meaning people like yourselves) into developement of wild big game species. You ask yourself WHO? YOU DID!!
WHY? well, if you didn't realize it before now, there are many people out there that would really like to see our guns destroyed.... one of the reasons that this has not happened yet is that we have been living in a "free" country where people have loved to hunt and fish for generations, now we have a new generation that doesn't care wether they do or don't. So if we no longer have anything to hunt... or they are mostly on the endangered list... then what the heck do ya need guns for.... ??? Getting back to 1 and 2... SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!
EVOLVE!!!

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

elktalk83810 Welcome to the board. I can tell I am going to like you already. I have been by your elk farm many times. I used to duck hunt moffit slew before I moved to Montana.
I will refrain from any comments on this post. Everyone should know how I feel about wolves, just read my handle.:D

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

Anyone who says wolves should be gone based on the "survivial of the fittest" and they were gone for a reason and then loves elk only makes himself look a fool. Remember the elk were nearly wiped out brought back and reintroduced in many areas. You can't cry foul with one hand and say good job with the other without looking dumb.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

I think we have pretty well hashed over items 1) evolution and 2) survival (of the fittest) to the point of saturation BUT....

The OTHER two items brought up by ElkTalk83810 could use investigating:
3)Why? (Does any one of you even have the faintest clue as to WHY the wolf was reintroduced?) and
4)Who? (Does any one of you have any idea WHO was the greatest proponent of this great "save the wolf" campaign?)

Would make for some interesting reading if the facts are available. If they are, then things may become a little more black and white. It could end up as a "Paul Harvey" scenario.... "Now you know the REST of the story!"

I'm not sure it will lend itself to the much loved scientific method, but could still be very interesting and informative. Is this information available?

EKM

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

EKM, Did not need to investigate it...to be honest just do not have much time to go thru my library. ;) Being a single mom finding the time to do all can be tough, this board is my relaxation of sorts in the evenings. LMBO!!! Yeah right!

Some of what I know and a few links may help. Many links are out there some for and some against Wolves. If I have the time this week I will go upstairs and get some book titles for you....not from the web, but the ones I learned and understand from.

Dr. David Mech an expert on Wolves was one of the premier wildlife biologist's involved with the Wolf reintroduction project.....of course many others were involved. The project was one to reintroduce the Grey Wolf(Canis Lupis), one of North America's primary predator's to the Wilderness as a way of controlling and making the Elk population stronger. As has been said survival of the fittest! Here are a couple of sites with information I may/may not agree with but it is a source of information. Along with the Wolf laws as they stand now in many Western states. I do not trust the gov. to deregulate...although I do feel in some states it is needed. Black and White EKM?? Perhaps....and for some it will always be a Grey area. No pun intended my friend. Most respect but do not understand the need for regulation..I most certainly do, even though I love wolves for a reason. Will our government do it?? Sooner than you think perhaps...I for one hope they do but with discretion.
If they were legal to hunt and a problem in my state I would certainly hunt them, as I do coyotes here in WV....they are not yotes though. Like I said comparing Wolves to yotes depends on who you talk to, or perhaps what state you live in....either way, it is comparing apples to oranges. I used to love these debates but unfortunately do not have the time to wrangle with them on a daily basis. Still gotta love em though.

http://species.fws.gov/species_accounts/bio_gwol.html
http://www.environmentalreview.org/vol03/fritts.html

Now...Get these regs!!! Do they make any sense...ie: the government contradicting itself again???

You may legally:

* harass a wolf without injuring it, but you must report it within seven days;
* kill or injure a wolf that is killing, wounding, or biting your cattle, sheep, horses, mules, or burros on your private or tribal land, but you must report it within 24 hours;
* kill, injure, or harass a wolf in defense of human life, but you must report it within 24 hours.

You may not legally:

* kill or injure a wolf just because it is near you or your property;
* kill or injure a wolf that attacks your pet;
* kill or injure a wolf feeding on dead livestock;
* enter official closures around occupied release pens, active dens, and rendezvous sites;
* shoot a wolf because you thought it was a coyote or something else (you are responsible for identifying your target before shooting)
* attempt to do any of the above actions or solicit someone else to do them.

Violations of the above rules may subject you to prosecution. Criminal penalties may be up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $100,000.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

It took sometime but this was one of the things I was looking for... I am a woman that hunts, rather well I might add. I pride myself on being a stewerd to the land I love and respectful of all she gives me. I am fit and worthy....but repectful to her and her creatures above all else! Oh yeah, almost forgot...I have evolved.[8D]
You may not like it....but read it.....dang it really read it and try to find the meaning. This has nothing to do with Anti's it has to do with us and an understanding as hunters!


A little more than 50 years ago, the manuscript of a book by a relatively unknown University of Wisconsin professor named Aldo Leopold was accepted for publication. A Sand County Almanac has long since been enshrined as one of the world's environmental masterpieces. In the opening paragraph, Leopold reveals the vast, momentous creature that means so much to the deer, the coyote, the cowman, the hunter, the pine, and the mountain: The wolf.

Leopold's conviction towards the wolf was changed forever on the day in his youth when he saw a wolf die. Aldo Leopold and a friend of his opened up on the wolves, never wanting to pass up a chance to kill a wolf in those days. When their rifles were empty, the old wolf was down. They reached the old wolf in time to watch "that fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then," wrote Leopold, "and have known ever since -- that there was something new to me in those eyes -- something known only to her and the mountain." He saw the green fire in the wolf's eyes die, and since then he recognized his brutal error.

Leopold wrote that since that day, he has seen the wolves driven to the brink of extinction and the wolfless mountains defoliated by the exploding deer herds. And he suspected, just as the deer herd lived in mortal fear of its wolves, so does the mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while the buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a deer's range pulled down by too many deer, may never be replaced. In essence: The wilderness we hunt is the salvation of the world, to paraphrase Thoreau. It must not be destroyed.

Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known by the mountain, but seldom understood by men. Just as Leopold came to realize, so must we: that wildlife populations are a part of a bigger picture, and that no matter what new game laws are passed, wildlife populations will not improve until the carrying capacity of the land that supports them improves.

In his last paragraph, Leopold reels the reader in. To paraphrase: In our lives, we all think about that which will better ourselves and secure ourselves, but those who look for a little temporary safety instead of wildlife understanding deserve neither. We should look to help secure the blessings of wildlife before we secure the blessings of ourselves because "in wildness is the salvation of the world."

And in that very wildness continues our right to hunt! IMHO....Nuff said for now.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

I was thinking more in terms as to who the players were that started the ball rolling here in the lower 48 as to how we got from "got no wolves" to "wow, need to go get some wolves". Operationss such as this are not born full grown complete with their own government budget and staff overnight. There is an starting point (often based in testimony and hearings), a gestation period (proposals and structure building), before things just "take off" (the first government allocation of funds).

In terms of the players who were present at the beginning, I wonder: whose money, whose time, whose push was it that got it going in the beginning?

Was it sportsmen?
Was it wildlife folks?
Was it the Sierra Club?
Was it PETA?

I don't know, it could tell an interesting tale.

EKM

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

EKM I know that the Sierra Club and The Defenders of Wildlife were two of the big ones and a Forest Service Official from Washington was another.
I have looked through so many articles in the last two days that I'm dizzy.
I will see if I find the artical.
The one fact that boggles my mind is when they did the study to reintroduce the wolf they predicted that the wolves would kill an estimated 1800 animals a year and you wonder why some sportman are outraged at not maging the wolf.
I cannot remember the exact number but they said in the one study that when they reached a certain number of breeding pairs that they were to be delisted.

Nough said.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

I don't feel like joining the debate at this point but I will make a few comments about some false information. I'm a wildlife biologist in central Idaho.....as if that matters.

Everything in this paragraph false. I don't know where you got this information but it wasn't from the scientific community involved in the reintroduction.

Elk are the primary prey yes. However, I think some people ignore the fact that the elk herds were in decline long before the reintroduction program. Wolves aren't helping the situation, but the blame can't rest solely on them. Habitat issues have been impacting elk since the 80's.


Again this is total bull. Please guy, educate yourself a little before making statements regarding things you know nothing about.

Ok, since the wolf isn't managed as a game animal, can you think of any other instances were you should be able to shoot a wolf? You want to be able to shoot it if you see one chasing an elk? Come on.

Where do you get this 30%? Are you out flying with Fish and Game counting elk? Don't spout off false information in an effort to further your argument.

Everyone has a different value of wolves and wildlife in general. Just because it doesn't fall in line with your negativistic view of nature doesn't mean it isn't valid. Your not the only person who has a right to value nature, either positivly or negativly.

RE: not for the wolf lovers
 

I was going to quit replying to this thread but when I read article after article about Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The wolf numbers are geting out of check and it is compromising not only hunting opportunities and devistating game populations and in some cases eliminating a season for moose in Wyoming.
Then these articles that list Fish Wildlife and Parks and the USFS must be lies so should I believe whats writen or what I see happening at ground level.
Here are a few of quotes from a very exstensive article.