Wolves in Idaho.. a must see
01-25-2010, 09:55 AM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 824
The wolves need to hunt for sustenance. While it is true that many hunters, like myself, hunt for food, our very existence does not depend on our success. Just wondering why you think its OK for humans to hunt but not wolves? I realize that there are other points of view on this topic, so I really want to know how others feel.
With respect-
Wildbill51
With respect-
Wildbill51
Dunno
01-25-2010, 10:05 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 1,408
Frankly I've always been a little disturbed by the self-serving attitude of some hunters that game species exist solely for our hunting pleasure. I'm not self-centered enough to believe this is a defendable point-of-view; plenty of people outside hunters enjoy the outdoors so I hardly see why our viewpoint should be the ONLY one that matters.
If you approach the issue with the starting position that hunting is the only use of the outdoors that matters, you practically guarantee that your message will not be well-received by those that do not hunt and for good reason.
That being said, the majority of the money that is pumped into the preservation of wildlife comes from hunting -- either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it makes complete sense that while not everyone hunts, steps must be taken to maintain viable hunting populations of game or the future of those game animals will be placed in jeopardy. What would happen to the budget of Colorado Fish and Game if the elk were decimated and they stopped selling elk licenses? What would happen to the local economies if the money pumped into outfitters and other local services stopped, and local landowners no longer had income for leasing hunting rights due to wolf over-predation?
It is obviously a false argument to state that wolves and huntable populations of game cannot co-exist; Canada and Alaska invalidate that argument. However, it cannot happen without sound management of the wolves, which is what we lack in the lower-48.
I have seen what happens when only hunters crying for higher game numbers are heard. It has resulted in rampant property damage and ridiculous over-population in the area where I grew up. It's bad for the locals, bad for the land (extermination of undergrowth), and bad for hunters in the end (lower quality animals). I hope for a balanced approach based on sound ecology, science and economics, not bleeding-heart tree-hugging or narrow-view self-interest.
If you approach the issue with the starting position that hunting is the only use of the outdoors that matters, you practically guarantee that your message will not be well-received by those that do not hunt and for good reason.
That being said, the majority of the money that is pumped into the preservation of wildlife comes from hunting -- either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it makes complete sense that while not everyone hunts, steps must be taken to maintain viable hunting populations of game or the future of those game animals will be placed in jeopardy. What would happen to the budget of Colorado Fish and Game if the elk were decimated and they stopped selling elk licenses? What would happen to the local economies if the money pumped into outfitters and other local services stopped, and local landowners no longer had income for leasing hunting rights due to wolf over-predation?
It is obviously a false argument to state that wolves and huntable populations of game cannot co-exist; Canada and Alaska invalidate that argument. However, it cannot happen without sound management of the wolves, which is what we lack in the lower-48.
I have seen what happens when only hunters crying for higher game numbers are heard. It has resulted in rampant property damage and ridiculous over-population in the area where I grew up. It's bad for the locals, bad for the land (extermination of undergrowth), and bad for hunters in the end (lower quality animals). I hope for a balanced approach based on sound ecology, science and economics, not bleeding-heart tree-hugging or narrow-view self-interest.
01-25-2010, 10:06 AM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orange county, NY
Posts: 2,949
Because Im one of those funny guys who holds humans in a higher regard than animals. Termites, ****roaches, mice rats etc. need to eat too but you wouldnt tolerate them in feeding on something you want for yourself, like say your house, right? Why is it different for wolves? Being at the top of the food chain I dont believe humans and animals have equal rights to natural resources.
01-25-2010, 10:07 AM
#24
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amongst the Trees....
Posts: 964
BigBuck95
01-25-2010, 10:09 AM
#25
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amongst the Trees....
Posts: 964
Frankly I've always been a little disturbed by the self-serving attitude of some hunters that game species exist solely for our hunting pleasure. I'm not self-centered enough to believe this is a defendable point-of-view; plenty of people outside hunters enjoy the outdoors so I hardly see why our viewpoint should be the ONLY one that matters.
If you approach the issue with the starting position that hunting is the only use of the outdoors that matters, you practically guarantee that your message will not be well-received by those that do not hunt and for good reason.
That being said, the majority of the money that is pumped into the preservation of wildlife comes from hunting -- either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it makes complete sense that while not everyone hunts, steps must be taken to maintain viable hunting populations of game or the future of those game animals will be placed in jeopardy. What would happen to the budget of Colorado Fish and Game if the elk were decimated and they stopped selling elk licenses? What would happen to the local economies if the money pumped into outfitters and other local services stopped, and local landowners no longer had income for leasing hunting rights due to wolf over-predation?
It is obviously a false argument to state that wolves and huntable populations of game cannot co-exist; Canada and Alaska invalidate that argument. However, it cannot happen without sound management of the wolves, which is what we lack in the lower-48.
I have seen what happens when only hunters crying for higher game numbers are heard. It has resulted in rampant property damage and ridiculous over-population in the area where I grew up. It's bad for the locals, bad for the land (extermination of undergrowth), and bad for hunters in the end (lower quality animals). I hope for a balanced approach based on sound ecology, science and economics, not bleeding-heart tree-hugging or narrow-view self-interest.
If you approach the issue with the starting position that hunting is the only use of the outdoors that matters, you practically guarantee that your message will not be well-received by those that do not hunt and for good reason.
That being said, the majority of the money that is pumped into the preservation of wildlife comes from hunting -- either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it makes complete sense that while not everyone hunts, steps must be taken to maintain viable hunting populations of game or the future of those game animals will be placed in jeopardy. What would happen to the budget of Colorado Fish and Game if the elk were decimated and they stopped selling elk licenses? What would happen to the local economies if the money pumped into outfitters and other local services stopped, and local landowners no longer had income for leasing hunting rights due to wolf over-predation?
It is obviously a false argument to state that wolves and huntable populations of game cannot co-exist; Canada and Alaska invalidate that argument. However, it cannot happen without sound management of the wolves, which is what we lack in the lower-48.
I have seen what happens when only hunters crying for higher game numbers are heard. It has resulted in rampant property damage and ridiculous over-population in the area where I grew up. It's bad for the locals, bad for the land (extermination of undergrowth), and bad for hunters in the end (lower quality animals). I hope for a balanced approach based on sound ecology, science and economics, not bleeding-heart tree-hugging or narrow-view self-interest.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!! A healthy wolf population= a healthy game animal herd.
BigBuck95
01-25-2010, 10:30 AM
#26
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amongst the Trees....
Posts: 964
01-25-2010, 11:08 AM
#27
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 49
I hear you about OH whats the harm let them eat......WRONG Wrong. You don't live here !! Lets put some of these wolves in your State !! New York, first on my List. Them tell me its ok if they need to eat. These Wolves will kill just to KILL !! try talking to the Ranchers, Try talking to the 60 dog owners who lost their pets. These wolves are big breeders, a female can have 6 pups. We can't hunt them like other predators. We in Idaho will gladly send some to you and laugh just like Canada laughed when we got OURS.
01-25-2010, 11:29 AM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orange county, NY
Posts: 2,949
I love how guys who hunt deer, turkeys, ducks, rabbits, even coyotes , all of a sudden get all uptight about killing wolves. why, cause they look cool on a t shirt? Do you really feel a kinship to a wolf because you feel its a hunter like you, gimme a break! Isnt every wild animal we hunt just "trying to survive" or "doing what comes natural"? Id love to know why some animals deserve to overpopulate more than others?
01-25-2010, 11:42 AM
#29
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 1,408
I hear you about OH whats the harm let them eat......WRONG Wrong. You don't live here !! Lets put some of these wolves in your State !! New York, first on my List. Them tell me its ok if they need to eat. These Wolves will kill just to KILL !! try talking to the Ranchers, Try talking to the 60 dog owners who lost their pets. These wolves are big breeders, a female can have 6 pups. We can't hunt them like other predators. We in Idaho will gladly send some to you and laugh just like Canada laughed when we got OURS.
You sensationalize the wolf issue, it's propoganda as bad as the greenies and does nothing but hurt legitimate efforts and rational efforts to try and lobby for hunting and control of wolf populations. Yes, they are a problem. Yes, they hurt game populations, ranchers, and pet owners. But devil incarnate they are not.
I have hunted and lived in areas with wolves.
01-25-2010, 12:39 PM
#30
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 49
I don't know about some isle, its not the same conditions we have here, and we do not have a problem with over population of turkeys, ducks, or rabbits. These thing are a bad problem and we as a State said No, we don't need them. Let the State have their own choice if the want them. Our Governer said NO thanks, but we were forced to have them. Lets put them in NY, you guys have plenty of room upstate, or how about a super nasty preditor fish in one of your prize trout lakes, and not be able to fish for them till the courts say its OK. And when they say its OK only take what they allow.