Hikchick

LA LA LA LA LA!!! Maybe if I sing loud enough to myself the problem won't exist! Seems like so many people are doing this so that they don't have to deal with the problem. That's why they haven't been delisted yet. Time to get some legislators off their butts and make them work for the raises they keep giving themselves. For the people who don't think the wolves are a problem then you aren't living in reality and need to take your fingers out of your ears and quit singing. When you have problems managing them, you also have a problem with the wolves themselves. Unfortunately, just delisting them isn't the solution. Proper managment needs to take place before any true success can happen. Personally, (and I know that I'm opening myself up here) I wouldn't mind seeing them all gone. However, I know that's not realistic. I don't see a problem introducing them to the same people that introduced them back to us. It would only be fair. Maybe I can just wish that what goes around comes around.

CalNewbie

Like you, I'm reading the citation and have no special insight into the methodology used. What it states however is that of the elk chased, X% were caught. If they caught 26 out of 100 one year and 15 out of 100 another, what that represents is that on average they've been less successful. That ratio wouldn't have anything to do how many they killed the previous year, unless the numbers had dropped so far that the study couldn't be statistically sound. One thing you notice these days studies, environmental or otherwise - its always attack. First deny the problem, then deny the conclusion, then call the science into question. It could be flawed or it coult be dead on. As I mentioned in an earlier post, 20% of surveyed USFWS scientists reported being pressured to change their data in order to support a political aim. And that is today, in the GW era, not Clinton.

I understand the frustration with that comment. However, it does demonstrate the same type of logic that has been put forth in posts for the anti-wolf agenda. That is, there are plenty of wolves in Canada and Alaska. Not truly endangered, therefore no problem. Obviously the folks making that statement are using the same approach. There are plenty of elk. Maybe not where you are, but there's no shortage. Tools used to twist the numbers are available to both sides of the debate.

I think that there are plenty of people on both sides of the arguement that are more than happy to casually dismiss facts that detract from their point of view. Myself, I've never tried to make the arguement that wolves are natural clean killing machines leaving no waste. I've cited articles that make just the opposite point. We have situations today where wolves go on a killing frenzy. My view is let the state control them. Relocate and/or cull those that do this, just as we do with mountain lions that won't stay away from livestock or hiking trails. We also have people who kill and leave the carcass. Wisconsin had a couple of teenagers who were responsible for a killing spree. Obviously we're not going to cull the teenagers, but we take action. If we get to judging a species by the most extreme behaviour of its members mankind would be the first on the chopping block.

There we go. So much for a friendly discussion of opposing viewpoints. Time for an insult. Yes, I hunt, but from the moniker you'll realize I'm new. If you re-read the salient points of my posts you should clearly understand that my viewpoint is that the wildlife resources don't just belong to the hunter. I also have stated that the wolf population should be controlled so that there are opportunities for wolf and man. That's not going to happen while they're protected. And the pro-wolf side is going to fight delisting as long as the anti-wolf side's plan of action is to shoot every wolf it sees as soon as its delisted.

What's hard in a forum like this is achieving a middle ground. Even a hypothetical one (cuz its not like we're making law here). The back-and-forth of postings doesn't lend itself to someone saying "I see your point, but have you considered this....". There are a few folks who have chimed in and advocated a middle ground, and I tend agree with them. I have no desire to shout down an oppossing viewpoint. I try to respond thoughtfully to comments on my posts and expound on my ideas. Many of the facts and figures are culled from the web and I've previously acknowledged that they aren't the end-all be-all.

As I've said, I simply don't think that its justified to wipe out a species out of its habitat just so that I would have more hunting opportunities. I think that its been shown that there have been benefits from the re-introduction. And while the decreased hunting opportunities available to some are a very real drawback, I think that the net impact on nature has been a positive one.

Wolf killer

I would like to see them all gone also.
But I bet you could tell that from my handle.

Hikchick

Calnewbie..... Maybe you should realize that being new, you don't have all the answers. As far as trying to keep it friendly, well, when you tell people what's best for them when you don't live with the problem it causes a problem. Try living with these beasts, and I mean it in the literal sense, before you tell us how we should deal with the problem. That's how we got into this mess in the first place. Someone else thought that they knew what was best. The problem is they don't have to live here. When it's your game, your livestock and your living that is affected, then I will take your opinion as one that counts. Until then, I'd prefer it if you'd get educated before you speak again. Before I listen to a wise man, I want to know that his wisdom didn't just come from a book that some jacka$$ wrote..... anyone can put a bunch of words on paper. It's the person with the experience that I put my stock in.

CalNewbie

Hikchick - never said that I had the answers. What I have done is read up on the subject, consider various arguements and viewpoints, and made up my own mind. I've attempted to thoughtfully voice that opinion here, stating what I thought and why I thought it. I have no problem with someone who feels different, but it sounds as if you can't say the same. Just because someone takes a look at the facts and arrrives at a different conclusion than you doesn't mean that they're not educated on the situation. Your posts on the subject don't seem to contain any rationalization beyond the "no it isn't, yes it is" phase.

As you said, anyone can put words on paper, but it takes a bit o' time and effort to put a considered line of reasoning down. I'm interested in seeing yours should you choose to do so.

As far as livestock losses, I've already cited some information on that. Again, no comfort there when its your livestock that gets attacked. If you have seen figures that contradict mine, by all means post them. So what it gets back to is that you want to shoot that elk, and would prefer to shoot anything that takes that opportunity away from you. The ecology of your area should revolve around your interest in that week in September or October where you have the chance to hunt elk?

Also, where'd you get the idea that someone decided that reintroducing the wolf would be "best for them"? Everything has consequences and any good should seek to do the least harm. No matter what you do something or someone is going to be impacted. Tax money goes to manage federal lands that ranchers pay below market rates to graze on. Farmers get money for not growing something and in another area of the country farmers get federally subsidized water to grow the same thing. A building code drives up the cost of construction that prices people out of the market. An environmental reg increases the cost of gas that gives us less income to spend on other things. Tax dollars go to welfare recipients so that they don't have to live in the streets. The possible notion that we're going to reintroduce the wolf and everyone's going to be so happy that we'll be whistling zippity-do-da out of our a$$holes is silly.

Hikchick

Cal..... LIVE HERE and then tell me you know better. Like I said, experience speaks much louder to me than your "education from a book". Read all you want but until you LIVE it you won't know. Just like I can't talk to you about what it's like to live in California, you can't tell me what it's like to live with the wolf. Don't assume that I want the wolves gone just so that I can shoot another elk every year. BTW, I grew up on a farm and we never took federal money for anything, yet the federal government is governing animals that the law itself says belong to the state. Tell me where that logic comes from? Again, don't open your mouth about stuff that you really don't have a clue about and then claim that you are being "attacked" when others call you on your ignorance. Come to Idaho and find out for yourself how it is to live with them here. Then, and only then, will your opinion mean anything to me. So go ahead and keep an ignorant opinion, if it makes you feel any better, you are exactly where you belong with it.... in California.

ELKINMTCWB

I live in helena MONTANA. You hear from the fish and game there is NO wolves east ov the devide. mmmm DO wolves even know where the devide is? I am asuming not for I hunt the east side and see wolves quite often. Every time I tell the wordens the tell me they are BIG yotes. I kill 20 to 30 yotes a year.

I can tell you the wolves move the elk out of spots just like people do.If the wolves hunt there every day elk MOVE or die.The bad part is they move to spots that are privet .The same spots the ranchers SHOOT the wolves.I do not want all the wolves gone but the state should figger out a way to control there numbers.

To me it is no difrants than the bisin. The people vote to hunt them and the state says no. Just who dose the stae people work for? Must not be the people that live here in montana.

The wolves seem to do fine in places that have wolf hunting.The main reasion the wolf numbers went down was duw to the lack of food not hunting.Wen all the big game dissaperd so did the wolves.In betwen people hunting bad winters and prediters the food sors depleated for wolves. I beleave left aloan there numbers will fall agin.

Christine B

EKM, Thanks my friend.....I can appreciate your viewpoints more than you might think.


Alsatian,

As a rule I articulate rather well.....no, this is not an issue of whether or not I am a Wolf lover or not. However, from my pic......I can tell you that I love my 7 year old Wolf. And he has been DNA tested so ....yes, my son and I live with one and he is an awesome animal. Not the point though.

I suppose my point by my original post was that most people take wild animals lightly....ie: do not study enough, or pay enough attention to truly be aware of cause and affect. People tend to put their desires to have the "cute, cuddly, and "poster kids" of the wild all saved prior to thinking about their actions. I have an entire library on Wolves...and could quote what ranchers have been reimbursed over the years to 1980, Wolf kills...etc. I do not believe all that I read though. I may have Wolf hybrids and a full
Wolf and love them dearly...to really study them one has to know them first hand. They are truly an awesome animal.....and Shaman(the one in the pic is 99.9% pure as per DNA testing.) I know how he is with me and my son.....and yes he is trusted to a degree.(I have other large domestic dogs and do not trust any animal 100%!) I had him nuetered at 4 mnths old, and have had him since he was 3 wks old. I am his Alpha and have a healthy awareness of the animal.

Bottom line is that yes, Wolves are a most intelligent predator, opportunist, and they have an intense will to survive. I think what made me become interested in them is the fact they are very much like humans with their pack order.....which although is most strict, has order and is loving and well deciplined. But...that is just idle banter.

Have they gotten out of hand, most certainly in some states..in
AK they have been delisted I believe and can be once again hunted and trapped. Do not quote me on that. I do know that the Black and Silver pelts bring the most money for trappers.
I feel that they need to be delisted in some states. Hell, we trapped, poisoned, shot and dang near caused them to become extinct. That is a deservice IMO..... scuse me some of you but.... I love hearing a Wolf howl...it is the voice of the Wilderness to me. But that is just one of many things I think about ....I hear it on a daily basis though.

Delist them, make hunting and trapping legal on a per state basis, and Ranchers need reimbursed more for their livestock than what they have been receiving IMO. Did a spreadsheet from some of my books and the reimbursment level is minimal compared to the price of livestock, feed etc. Pretty bad IMO.
And as stated I would hunt them if I needed too. Go figure....I am no rancher so the intense hatred of some boggles my mind....it is not the Wolves fault, it is MANS FAULT!!!. I can and will understand an intense dislike however, and can agree something needs done...much more than the gooberment wants done or will do. It is late and I am rambling, just did not want to post and run. Hopefully this somewhat clarified what I meant....if not let me know.

Alsatian

ChristineB: Your wolf pet gives me no heartburn. Your admiration and appreciation for wolves, ditto, gives me no heartburn. To me it seems questionable to have introduced the wolves in the first place back into Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, but I am no wildlife management expert and don't know all the angles. However, the more I hear from people in this thread, the more I'm leaning to the side that something is substantially amiss, and corrective measures need to be put into place. It is questionable, in my mind, to introduce an animal only to have to take substantial measures to control it. Some disparaged my analogy to smallpox, but I fail to see the shortcoming of this analogy. To what good purpose were wolves reintroduced? I haven't heard a good explanation. Relative to reduction of overbrowsing by elk, I have a splendid sugggestion to address that problem -- allocate more elk licenses. Of course, this presumes the number of elk are above a target population -- as for example in Colorado where the game management people there have made it known present elk numbers are below a target number and they are attempting to whittle this number down through permit allocation policies. The reintroduction of wolves is history, however, and the question is what should be the future course. It seems to me that the right thing is to attempt to confine these animals to the park structure into which they were originally introduced. How is that to be accomplished? There's the rub. Not easy, I suspect.

I guess all of those who have been belly-aching about the wolves on this thread, myself included, should consider how our positions can be supported by the legislators accountable to us and get a letter in the mail to them. While this may have limited results -- wolf policy is NOT a high priority for most legislators, I suspect, and they probably don't associate their political future closely with their position on wolves. But what else is available? I guess those of you living in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho can pull the strings of your local Department of Fish and Game. Other suggestions? What US agency advocates this wolf policy and opposes Wyoming dealing with the problem?

rather_be_huntin

Today I sat down and read everyone's post on this subject again. (Whoosh, long read!) To be honest I couldn't even really figure out what everyone is arguing about. Sure there are some who say they would like to see the wolves gone. But I haven't seen one post here that says wolves SHOULD NOT be de-listed and hunted.

Essentially we are all saying the same thing. Yes I feel that wolves have their place in nature and some disagree and that's ok. But we all agree the wolves are not being properly managed and legislation needs immediate change. I personally am very concerned about the situation and am dissapointed in the government. I am worried that wolves are having a negative impact in some areas that needs to be addressed immediately.

So why don't you guys and gals say we stop arguing about this subject? They are here to stay and we all agree there needs to be legislative change. Anyone disagree?