younggun308

Guys, I came up with an idea of how to combat the wolf problem in Idaho, for when the bill to allow hunting of wolves is passed, please check out this link.

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=2167406

SwampCollie

I don't mean to bust your bubble....but thats just retarded.

The USFWS and the National Park system put'em there. And I'll be damned if I'm going to pay any extra money for them to unscrew their wolf program.

Let the ranchers shoot'em for free...just like coyote's and prarie dogs.

younggun308

They can't shoot them for free, that's illegal.

There can't be many ranchers in the Rocky Mountains, in elk country, can there be?

What are we going to do about it, nothing? The USFWS isn't going to kill them, only people who can are the residents of Idaho.

Ifnobody does anything, the elk populations are going to go extinct, I guess that's good? I don't think so.

Wingbone

Check your biology. Elk have been living with wolves for acouple ofthousand years longer than they've been living with people. It's the poeple that just about made them extinct, not the wolves.
It appears asthat Little Red Riding Hood is alive and well.

younggun308

I have no idea what you're talking about.


I take it you don't read Field & Stream magazine, they had an estimate in the March issue, that the elk population is going negative, not maintaining itself.

In the example of Yellowstone National Park, F&S said that:

"The predicted decimation of the northern Yellowstone elk herd following the re-intoduction of gray wolves has proven wrong: instead of a 1-in-10 loss, the rate has been over half!
At last count, 1,246 wolves- at or near the region's carrying capacity-inhabit the NorthernRockies of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Buet the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service won't certify the wolf as recovered because only Idaho and Montana have presented management plans that classify Canis lupus as trophy big game. Wyoming insists on regarding wolves as predators (that can be shot without a permit) outside trophy-game area outside Yellowstone-a plan the USFWS has rejected.

There had been little movement toward an agreement until late last year,when the USFWS considered a compromise- if Wyoming were to expand the trophy area outside Yellowstone, the state could classify wolves as predators beyond that zone. Wyoming's Game & Fish director Terry Cleveland says that elk and wolves in the state are coexisting, listing factors from grizzlies to droughtascontributors to the drop in elk numbers.
However, he says, "Ifwe don't get the wolves de-listed, the elk hunting opportunity is going to drop."
Area hunters are ambivalent. Some see wolves as a threat to game; others want to hunt them as atrophyspecies. It's up to theWyoming Legislature, meeting early this year,to decideon the issue.
Even if an agreement is reached, that leavesanimalrightslawyers to act-and they're a species that's never endangered.

-Thomas McIntyre


Well, I think that if Idaho can be saved, it's all the better.

We exterminated the wolves 200 years ago, we have been the natural predator since then, and we've been doing one heck of a job at it, now these wolves are only going to help spread CWD, and, ofcourse, help manage the elk herds, but exactly how more humane is it, for an elk to get his guts ripped out alive, his throat torn, and his anus bitten, before he dies? I think the elk would prefer getting shot with a .300 Win Mag, and run 200 yards, set down, and die, most likely still in shock from the bullet impact, and not feeling too much while bleeding, since the shock lasts about 5 minutes or more, and then after that, the pain starts to sink in.

At least the elk gets to die in privacy, with much less pain, and for each hunting liscence sold, that's more money to the government, to help ward off taxes.

SwampCollie

I'm well aware of the wolf issue out west. There are several folks I hunt with who make a yearly pilgramage to pay hommage to the almighty wapeti, and pay subsequent duties to the states they hunt in.

What I am in favor of, is exactly what Wyoming is putting on the table. Classify them as a predator that may be shot as part of a bag on any hunting liscense. No different than yote's. The fact that the USFWS shot it down is proof that they are not fully aware of the problem yet. I'm sure they have an environmental impact study fully underway, and are waiting its results to determine a course of action. As for the sake of $20.... I think anybody that hunts can swing $20. I love hearing folks gripe about the cost of resident tags, and heck even non-resident tags. I'll tell you right now that I'd buy a non-resident tag, with all the trimmings, every single year in my home state of VA if I didn't have to pay my personal property tax on my land anymore. And if I lived to be 125 years old, I'd still come out ahead. With all the gear and crap that we purchase as hunter's, why is someone gonna gripe about another $15 for a duck stamp, or $10 for bonus tags. Maybe you shouldn't have bought that new 2500 HD, or that new SBE II.... that you shoot $3 a pop Hevi-shot through. Heck, I spend $20 just in fuel everytime I go hunting. Its not that big of a deal.

And you can bet right strong money that there are PLENTY of ranches where there are wolves.

caselesss5

sorry bud but i think you need to check your biology. we killed the wolves off and the elk populations explode, then the wolves are shoved down our throats and now the wolf population is exploding and elk are declining rapidly. not from over-hunting or human expansion, this un-needed predator pressure is the cause.

younggun308

So, you would, send $20 to an Idaho resident to shoot wolves, for only $20 a tag?

It's sad about the USFWS's incompetence,but this idea, IMO, is all we can do to help get rid of the wolf problem......for now, even if this didn't get to be a big thing, at least we might have saved a few elk, maybe some calves that grow into trophy bulls.

Wingbone

Gentlemen, When in doubt, check the research:

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/wolf/idaho/peer_review.pdf
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/severity/results.htm
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Sep00/wolves.htm

A couple ofstudiesindicated that the native aspen stands and other elk habitat have declined dramatically in the past few years. Here is a quote:

"The loss of native aspen groves in Yellowstone and other areas of the Rocky Mountains is reaching crisis proportions, experts say, having declined as much as 50-90 percent in certain areas".

Less habitat equals less elk. One Idaho study showed that bears and mountain lions were the primary cause of elk calf mortality (42% and 36%, respectively) and that wolves accounted for 2% of elk calf mortality. A study in WI showed similar conclusions.
http://www.wolftimbers.org/Studies%20show%20elk%20calves%20less%20vulnerable% 20to%20bear%20predation.html

However one study,

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/background/DraftProposal.pdf

indicated that managers felt that wolf populations in a couple of Idaho GMU's were too high, and recommended reducing the wolf numbers by 75%. So I guess you guys were right.

The little red riding hood comment refers to the "little red riding hood syndrome" Everything is blamed on the big bad wolf.

younggun308

Declining populations exhibited characteristics leading managers to hypothesize.....



So, you just based an opinion on ahypothesis?