RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

I'd have to agree with everything idahoelkinstructor has said. I just came back from the Salmon Idaho area and there seemed to be evidence of plenty of wolves. I even came across an incident where a a cougar jumped an elk and before the cougar could begin the meal a pack of wolves sent the cat running and made a quick meal of things. Not a pretty sight.

From what I've heard (I've not yet confirmed) a federal judge just ruled that F & G can begin to manage the wolf populations in Idaho and Montana. The question now remains does F & G look at them like coyotes? allow trapping? or sell permits?

Ant

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

Living in and making frequent visits to family living in northeastern Minnesota for all of the last 4+ decades, I've seen and heard recounted my first hand accounts of wolves in large numbers can do to the deer herds and moose population there.

Minnesota has the largest pop. of Timber (Grey) wolves in the lower 48. Normal winters most deer and moose can make it with wolves around. Of course they kill and eat a number. That's to be expected. Not a problem.

But in winters like this in those areas where they go 3 1/3 - 4+ feet standing snow, the deer especially follow trails much more frequently. Wolves and other big predators know that. And they do kill a ton of deer and many moose in winters lik this and when there's even more snow. Talk to fellow who live between the North Shore (Two Harbors to Grand Marais and North to Finland (MN)) with heavy snow they find many deer killed (obvious signing of struggle and wolve tracks) with little eaten, because they can kill much easier they eat choice parts and leave the rest.

If you haven't lived in area with many wolves, please don't try to tell people who have that they don't do significant damage to big game populations. It's just common sense....

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

MinnFinn, thats a good post. We are now living through them now! And there is a significant negative affect thus far on elk.

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

RandyA - That's what I understand. I've hunted a couple years in that part of NW WY '02/'03. Even the local CO who has lived and worked that territory for many decades told us privately that they know wolves, grizzlies and cougars are having a substantial affect on big game. They're especially worried about the big dropoff of the number of Elk calves in that area. As I understand it, since Elk cows calve in large numbers in generally the same areas, these large predators know that and raise kane with the calf population. Low survival rate of offspring can't be good in the long-term for any animal.

I'm with those who want a reasonable management of these large predators. But because animals like grizzly bears and grey wolves are under Federal protection, it's incredibly difficult to get the Federal designation for them changed, so that states can write those management programs to keep a stable population of both predator and the game animals they feed on. And those who say SSS don't have the answer either. The fellow who said that online better check out what the penalties are for shooting a timber wolf or grizzly. Very large fines, equipment confiscated and even jail time. Not good.

It's just really strange though. It seems that people who talk about keeping so many wolves and grizzly bears think these never kill more than they eat and "the more of them the better." It's just not so.

Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to even center again someday and we can get limits established for these predators, so both they and the game we share hunting can do well. We can live with that.

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

Here is the latest news! The last sentence tells it all. More loss of states rights!

Judge rejects Wyoming wolf lawsuit

By MEAD GRUVER
Associated Press Writer Monday, March 21, 2005




CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) -- A federal judge here has dismissed Wyoming's lawsuit against the federal government over its decision to reject the state's plan for managing the descendants of wolves reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park.

U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson said he disagreed with the state's claim that the federal government violated the Endangered Species Act in rejecting the plan. The act didn't come into play because the rejection didn't determine wolves' status under the act, Johnson said in a ruling dated Friday.

"The federal defendants were not compelled by statute or regulation to approve the Wyoming plan, nor did the `best science available' mandate attach to their decision making process," Johnson wrote.

The Interior Department has required Wyoming, Montana and Idaho to submit plans for managing wolves before it will remove them from Endangered Species Act protection. It accepted the plans submitted by Montana and Idaho, but rejected Wyoming's plan.

Wyoming had wanted wolves considered a potential nuisance, allowing them to be shot with little oversight as they spread outside the Yellowstone region.

Johnson said the Endangered Species Act's requirements for scientific review only would come into play with delisting, or when wolves come up for status review under the act in 2008 -- five years after they were downgraded from "endangered" to "threatened."

Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank said on Monday that the state is reviewing its options, which include appeal, legislative action and filing a petition for delisting. He said he expected it would be a week or so before a final decision on the state's next step was made.

Crank said the state was disappointed with Johnson's ruling and dismissed the notion that federal officials had tried to work with the state to come up with a plan acceptable to both.

"Our fate is controlled by a federal agency that's just not responsive, or in this case, not responsive at all, to the concerns of the state," Crank said.

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

We are going to lose credibility!! WHO REALLY CARES what some anti hunting bunny hugger thinks anyway!! You can play games with them if you want but I don't care what they think. When they make statements such as "I would rather save the life of one earthworm than one hundred humans" and " a boy is a dog is pig" and put the life of rats and vermin above that of my fellow humans, I don't have time to pull punches with their kind. As for as ther being wolves before Columbus came to this country and game survived, this is true. It is also true that there is more game in the US today than at any time in recorded history!! Don't forget that our forfathers reduced the wolf to reasonable numbers before the population increased to what it is today. All of our ancestors were not idoits and feeble minded. They saw first hand what wolves were doing and took action. Something to think about---, didn't we pay tremendeous sums of money to buy wolves and bring them in from Canada while paying out a bounty on them in Alaska at the same time?? There were plenty of wolves in Idaho before the re-introduction began. The same with Yellowstone Park and that area. This is just another example of the bunny huggers craming their sick ideas down our throats. If you think that I resent it, you are 100 percent right. It's time for the Washington D.C. crowd of do gooders to clean up their own back yard and let the locals clean up theirs.

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

WOW! Remind me to never piss you off Snooky! Good points, all of them.

"the meek shall inherate the earth" Yeah when we bury them in it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

Randy; I'm really easy going until I have had enough then things change. I had enough of the animal rights crowd when we were defeating them at the ballot box a few years back. They are not just animal rights, or EQUAL animal rights where animals are totally equal with humans, They see animals as gods that are to be worshipped because they are superior to humans. If you don't stand up to them and instead try to handle them with kids gloves, you are seen as weak and already a victim to their perverted cause. They may stop all hunting, fishing, ranching, rodeos, fairs, gain the release of all captive animals, stop all eating of animal products, and make man the servants to the lesser species which is part of their goals, BUT there is one old fat man that they will hear from as long as he has breath. The sad part of all of this is that every hunting site with an open forum seems to have there fair share of sportsman who have fallen into their snare and are spreading there gospel without even being aware of what they are permoting. The wolf issue is one of their major projects and sportsman don't recognize it. Wolves have a place but, they must be strickly controlled and regulated to prevent problems from getting out of control.

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

WAY TO GO, SNOOKY!

RE: Two Wolf Stories
 

Dear Snooky,
You have neatly divided the world into us vs. the "bunny huggers". My comment about losing credibility had nothing to do with "bunny huggers" and staunch antihunters. Obviously we aren't going to sway them whatever we do. My concern about losing credibility is with the vast majority of Americans in the middle, the people who don't hunt themselves but also are not in the "bunny hugger" class. These people watch as hunters and bunny huggers go at it, and wait and see. If hunters sell this nonsense that in 10 years there will not be any elk anymore, then that time comes and, aw shucks, there's still plenty of elk then we hunters are going to lose credibility big time. People are going to start taking anything else we have to say with a grain or two of salt. Why let that happen? Let's stake out a more rational ground, and leave the bunny huggers sounding like jackasses.