Gray Wolf Hunting

Lng Rng · 02-27-2008, 11:11 PM

We can debate the dangers of wolves attacking people, and weather or not they kill for pleasure, and probably not get too far. But, there are many vaild reasons for wanting to contol wolves numbers.

Wingpiper is right, wolves are great hunters. Wolves take a tremendous toll on the animals that they prey on, so keeping them at a sustainable number is nessasary. I don't see why there is any objection to that theory. It's called sound managment, and we do it with every single big game species, and every predator, so I don't see why wolves are any different.

And I am not sure if the "they were here first" argument holds a whole lot of water when dealing with ranchers and hunters. For a lot of people, the wolves were long gone when they set-up their racnch, opened their guide service, or bought their hunting land. Wolves were never a part of the equation for them for their whole lives.

Again, eradicating them again isn't a great idea, and letting their poplulation explode is just as bad, maybe worse.

Idaho Dave · 02-27-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lng Rng

We can debate the dangers of wolves attacking people, and weather or not they kill for pleasure, and probably not get too far. But, there are many vaild reasons for wanting to contol wolves numbers.

Wingpiper is right, wolves are great hunters. Wolves take a tremendous toll on the animals that they prey on, so keeping them at a sustainable number is nessasary. I don't see why there is any objection to that theory. It's called sound managment, and we do it with every single big game species, and every predator, so I don't see why wolves are any different.

And I am not sure if the "they were here first" argument holds a whole lot of water when dealing with ranchers and hunters. For a lot of people, the wolves were long gone when they set-up their racnch, opened their guide service, or bought their hunting land. Wolves were never a part of the equation for them for their whole lives.

Again, eradicating them again isn't a great idea, and letting their poplulation explode is just as bad, maybe worse.

that is exactly what I have been saying. they are here, dont like how they got back as a place was picked to turn them loose (why not yosimite?) and the American people were lied to to garner suport (they arent endangerd). the feds told the people of idaho here you go dont try and stop us. So now that there are so many we want to hunt them as a means to manage them just like any other big game animal. and for that we are judged as ruthless killers, ninnies and ignorant of the ways of the earth and nature. I say again, they are a great renewable resource that, if kept in check could live in harmony with all other animals with in thier range. let loose to propogate, thier populations will exceed carrying capicity and they will spread, all other animals will suffer (as is already evidenced) and soon there will be man/wolf encounters that dont end so nicely as when me and my sons and friends put our spurs to our horses and ride the other way. people who go around spreading a fuzzy warmth picture of the wolf and not telling what they are, Dangerous, carnivorus, preditors, those people will be responsible for any injuries and deaths that may occur in the future when some fool thinks they are in no danger, or that the freindly, dog like animal is aprochable. as well as the reputation the wolf will earn when something dose happen. by the way, those who are excited to see wolves in thier area, in my reading I came across information that the federal plan is to release and build populations in utah, colorado and new mexico.

ArkansasHunter · 02-27-2008, 11:28 PM

If wolves exceed managable levels then they should be reduced to managable levels.

Is this what we really need to agree on here ? A.H

Idaho Dave · 02-27-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArkansasHunter

If wolves exceed managable levels then they should be reduced to managable levels.

Is this what we really need to agree on here ? A.H

it would have been nice, but when it was suggested, people started saying how we didnt know what we were talking about, judging us as blood thirsty psyco killers that kill things they dont eat, and spreading dangerous false information, generalizations and lies about both the speices of wolf and man. I just want us to be left to manage our own states fish and game affairs, with out threat from the federal goverment and the mighty war chest of lawyers hired by groups whos true intentions are unclear. With out having the judgment of others cast on us for doing what we chose. studies show there are enough to sustain populations and that hunting would be okay, license sales would finance real research and habitat procurment, as well as protect them with quotas and provide information on range, number and health of animal. all carnivors hunted here must be taken to the fish and game where teeth are taken and mesurments are recorded. this information has been invaluable to the growht of other populations.

PS I just noticed there is a new thread called hog hunting in texas. what do you think the reaction would be if I went in there and said how awful and sick people must be to want to kill those pretty pigs. they would think I was nuts. course there hasnt been a purposful campain desinged to improve the image of the lowly pig. So they are free to kill. sad. isnt it?

Mooseman684 · 02-28-2008, 12:33 AM

Wingwiper...
Wolves can hunt 24/7 365 days a year, I can only hunt 20 to 30 days depending on species, some I get more chance to, but not like wolves...
You don't want to believe documentation , Fine with Me...
A wolf needs about 5lbs of meat a day to survive, so multiply that by 7000 Wolves in Alaska..That is 35,000 Pounds of Meat they need to eat just to survive,DAILY... and they dont eat fruits and Berries! now multiply that by 365 days=at 5 lbs a day that works out to 12,775,000 lbs.
Over 12 MILLION POUNDS of MEAT...A year!
Where do ya reckon they are getting it ??? They eat everything that Breathes, including fish...
The Reason more people Havent been killed is Most of us are Armed and have been able to fight them off...
Fact are facts....
Rich

ezearln · 02-28-2008, 12:36 AM

Wolves tend to evoke visceral responses between those that have to live and deal with them on a daily basis and those who swallow whatever they've been told as the truth when they have little to no first hand factual information but cling instead to romantic notions of the nobility of wolves et al as well as myriad other predators. Facts are facts. Fact: Wolves are opportunistic predators that can and do surplus predate beyond their needs. Fact: Uncontrolled wolf and coyote, Mountain Lion and bear populations do pose significant loss potential to ranchers and farmers, as well as significant impact to all prey species within their hunting territory. Fact: Wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and bears black and grizzly do have well documented attacks against human beings as well as livestock throughout history, that the fatalities haven't been higher in regards to wolves in particular is little comfort to someone recovering from a wolf attack! Fact: Wolves as other predators will and do breed exceeding the carrying capacity of their enviroment, they can and do prey on every other creature in their path from mice to moose and NO they do not consume everything they kill. Fact: Wolves were reintroduced into areas in the west against both private parties, local and states governments objections to their reintroduction after having been absent in some cases for over 100 years (mainly supported by easterners who hadn't seen a wolf in the wild for even longer!) Fact: Wolves like any other big game species whether predator or prey needs sound management, that means hunting or trapping of the animals to control populations. This is a proven fact with ALL game animals. A partial testement to that is the recovery of the American Alligator, now so numerous after a mere 30 years of protection that they are hunted as a control practice throughout their range. It is beyond illogical to attribute anything other than that to the wolf, that they are a part of the food chain is a given, but in the wilds of today there simply is no place for having an uncontrolled population of an apex predator who if given the chance can and will extend it's range into suburbia.

samuel · 02-28-2008, 09:15 AM

Ezearln:Great post!All so factual. sam.

Wingwiper · 02-28-2008, 09:39 AM

EZEALN
There have been far less attacks by wolves than you care to believe. Putting FACT in front of a statement does NOT make it a fact. Wolve attacks are more rare than Poodle Attacks.

No! Wolves within the rules of Nature will not kill beyond their needs. Introduction of MAN and the Balance of Nature is no longer in play, man tries to control Nature and hasn't done too well.

All animals will breed based on Food Supply and that is apart of the Enviroment and Habitant. When the Food supply demishes, the population, by Nature also demishes. When Man is added to the equation all Rules change. Man hunts and can destroy the balance as was done with the Buffalo and so many others. Man built dams on the rivers and destroyed Native Fish to the point, where I live they have to stock the Rivers every year to keep the Trout. Man has destroyed Deer Yards, and has enroached further and further into Wildlife habitant that sooner and not later, wildlife will no longer exsist. You will have animals only on PRESERVES.

Moose I think you have missed my point.

The balance of Nature has included Wolves for millions of years with no negative side effects and in all truth, very Positive results.

Wolves have not killed man because man is armed. Good God, it is because they walk upright and wolves prey on four legged animals. That is why Man is omitted from many predators food list and or it could be we taste bad.

Have you calculated how much MEAT man eats per day? God how many Hamburgers is McDonalds up to?? Now throw in Burger King, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Ardies and so on. Wolves hunt and kill their own meal and don't rely on SLAUGHTER HOUSES to do it for them. They don't have fast food quick stops. How many Salmon do the Bears eat per year? I like Salmon and the price is getting high, I think we should kill of the bears so the price will go down. How many Seals become food? So what??? Wolves eat meat and your point???

Wolves are animals of opportunity and will pick a sick, weak or inferior animal as prey. They will not kill for sport they kill for food.

Now where the story changes a bit and where the arguments get started.

IdahoDave, I would think that because the Wolf is a roamer and will cover large tracts of land and their territories are rather large. That if you want to study them, you have to somehow limit their roaming, so if the Dutchers bottle fed to gain some trust, fine, they are still wolves and they studied habit, social structure etc. There have been countless other studies that involved Radio Collars etc. So bottle-feeding to gain trust does NOT discredit their studies at all.

Now my point that brings the argument.

Man comes along, has vast FEDERAL Land to graze his livestock on. Kinda like a no overhead opportunity. I am sure you all have studied the wars between the Sheep Ranchers and the Cattlemen, fighting over FREE Grazing rights to the point they were killing each other. Anyhow, Man brings his livestock to freely range on these vast grasslands and Mountain areas. Colorado Summer grazing, round em up and get them to Idaho or wherever for Winter grazing. These Ranchers speak of their Ranches as if they own them, they do NOT. Some may, but most are using Federal Land to raise their livestock. Hence the Cattle and Sheep are weak and inferior, they are NOT natural to the environment and wreck havoc with the habitant. The Wolf sees an easy prey and because the Wolf doesn't own a refrigerator and can raid it at will but must forge and hunt for food. It takes the opportunity to feed off the livestock. If you were a Wolf or a Mountain Lion, Catamount, Cougar, Bear, Fisher Cat, Wolverine, Badger or whatever, wouldn't you? Like Foxes in the Chicken coop. So the Rancher bitch and belly ach that their Free ride on Federal Land has some obstacles and these obstacles are what people have read their little fairy tales about. It becomes easy for these ranchers to convince people that these Wolves are bad and have to go. SO they sell them a Bill of Goods and the wolves are hunted into near extinction. All to protect the Ranchers Bottom Line.
You know what, you have an Apple Orchard you will have Black Bear and Deer feeding, have a Corn Crop and you will have Turkey and Deer. Why wouldn't you expect to have predators when you have livestock? seems to me, that comes with the turf. DO I feel sorry for the Ranchers, not in the least bit. They could go smaller, move, or build an area where there is more people presence. No doubt you will have what the Rancher refers to as a PROBLEM WOLF or a wolf that looks at opportunity and takes it. That is actually a more HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC now isn't it???
Should we allow Man to manage Nature?? Give me a break, I have watched the Fish and Game pretty much destroy the Deer herds with their greed to sell licenses. Do I say that Ranchers should have a right to destroy the wolf? Yes and No. No if they have made no effort to solve the problem in any other way. Yes! If they have tried everything feasible to solve the problem but they are losing more than an allowable ratio. Every business has risks, and Ranchers should not be allowed to kill Wolves if they have 5000 head of livestock and lose than 2%. Shop lifting in any store is usually about 2%. Then there are other risks businesses have to deal with and overhead as well. If there can be a formula created that takes all these into consideration and then says to the Rancher that the cost of having a ranch has its losses as well and those losses should not have to exceed X % then if the Wolf contributes to having the losses and overhead exceed the Ratio, then they would be allowed to try and solve the problems tactfully first and if that doesn't work, then harvest a given amount of Wolves until their ratios are within the given area.

You see I say Ranchers have to be controlled as well. We watched the railroad kill off millions of Buffalo and yes to starve the Indian and for fun. If we allow the Ranchers to just keep moving in and taking over Environment and Habitant then what do we do, allow all of nature to be destroyed in the best interest of Profit?

That is my argument. The wolf needs NOT to have to pay with its life for some Rancher protection of profit.

Wolves do not multiply like Deer or Rabbits and the pack takes time to increase in numbers and for other packs to spring off of it. Nature had its rules for keeping balance, it is Man who screwed the balanced and not the wolf.

By the way, I have been reading about wolves for over 30 years and did not just get an Internet education. I think every man has a favorite animal that he relates to and the Wolf is mine and has been since childhood. Can we live together, I think we HAVE TO and I do not think the wolf needs to be destroyed to protect profits, I have nothing against INTELLIGENT CONTROL and allowing Nature to be Nature and not allowing knee slapping control.

Domestic Dogs caused more damage to humans than the Wolf every dreamed of doing.

Idaho Dave · 02-28-2008, 10:46 AM

HUMAN=ANIMAL thus HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS= NATURE AND NATURAL BEHAVIOR
You are right woves do roam so then the Dutchers, if they studied tamed wolves, though interesting and neat, didnt study wild animals. just humanized, hand feed, wolves in the wild. Certainly some useful and intersting info was gathered that way. and should we ever wonder how bottle fed humanized wolves will act with people interacting with them then by all means there is a study to fall back to. But to claim that thier experince was indicative of wolves, and the know all discovery of wolf activity is a lie. Further, now that these had feed, humanized wolves are in the wild and so used to humans, and theh Dutchers are now selling books and speaking tours, what will happen when start to roam, when winter comes and they follow the heards to the valleys, when the get hungry and then they see people? Knowing that people=food and companionship, I can only see shameful results. You as a person who loves this animal should be outraged.

You are wrong the ranchers arent the only ones complaining mostly it is the big game hunters. wolf kills in the winter are not on federal lands. the snow there is 6 feet deep+ they bring the cows into thier own land during the winter and calfing. let the others know that this is how it is done so they can alter that part of the talking points. Ranch size too big? get smaller? or maybe you would like to see the family ranch done away with (course cause you dont have one) and all the land be federal. Aha then it would only be factory farms and big corperations, the animals wouldnt be cared for like they are now, a part of a family's buisness, but a faceless nameless comodity and peta would have some thing to really camplain about.

I dont know where you got your info on the deer herds but there are more deer in america now then there was when europeans came here so I guess the fish and game greed worked out.
"For example, by about 1930, the U.S. population was thought to number about 300,000. After an outcry by hunters and other conservation ecologists, commercial exploitation of deer became illegal and conservation programs along with regulated hunting were introduced. Recent estimates put the deer population in the United States at around 30 million."
Now this quote comes form wiki so it will be harder for the antis to disrupt
White-tailed deer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have a favorite animal too it is the elk and to see the young dead with 2 or 3 bites missing just left to rot makes me feel bad to. but I hunt them, eat them, respect them and help manage them by allowing land use (the elk and deer heards that come out of the hills in the winter eat more money worth of feed then damage caused by wolves though you keep barking up that money tree like there is a squirrl in it, but they dont waste it or just take a bite, spit it out and move on to the next bale cause it cant get away, leaving each one un useable. And most people dont have a problem leting them come, you put up fences, they knock them down, you put them up again, they knock them down. but you know that in the fall you will be compensated by going with your family and harvesting one or two as meat for the coming year), license sales and carefully cull the appropriate males out of the herd when hunting season comes (we actually do hunt the mature animals that have already had a chance to be biologically successful and make way for new bulls to add thier genetic diversity to the gene pool). What is it you have done to help other then spread half facts about your favorite animal that might get some one killed oneday? I just want to say 30 years of research, please dont take offense, must have all been on the positeve side because you say things that all the pro wolf people say that can easily be called into question by a few minutes of internet searches. wolves are cool but the are killers and eaters that is all they know how to do and that is their nature. and sad to say as it is, as hard as it is for you to realize this, man is part of nature. We are fortunate that we can reason things out to the point that we do. Thus we can make all these judgement calls on ourselves and others as to our activites and then we can actually "manage" our resources . But that doesnt change what we are. Animals. Should we leave nature to take its course sir. We are nature and we would have eliminated the wolf from all existance long ago if it werent for our ability to try and manage wildlife, we managed to do it to less seemingly forms of nature and are still working on it with not complaint one from any group or activitst (ie. hosts of bacterial and viral life forms. mesquitos, different types of parasitic life forms, countless house hold annoyances such as rats and mice, even eachother to some degree. the list is long and ungly if your favorite animal is the e.coli bacteria). We are nature nothing more. the fact that your unique ability to hold yourself above it is interesting, doesnt change the fact that humans are nature so your constant anger that man will not just let nature run its course is egocentric at the least. If only the wolves practiced the same degree of thoughtful managemant that man does. Then there would be no problem. Inteligent control is a uniquely human activity. other animals eat and breed till something kills them or they number so many they starve to death, breed sickness and die anyway. The natural way is to let other preditors cull the wolf population. I sir am one of those preditors, not a god, not a marvle of industrial technology. I am an animal Homo Sapian Sapian. I am part of nature and at this time in the vast history of the planet I have clawed my way to the top of the food chain. Now I am willing to act like it. Not pretend that the earth is just a pretty park and I am only a visitor.

Wingwiper · 02-28-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idaho Dave

I dont know where you got your info on the deer herds but there are more deer in america now then there was when europeans came here so I guess the fish and game greed worked out.

"For example, by about 1930, the U.S. population was thought to number about 300,000. After an outcry by hunters and other conservation ecologists, commercial exploitation of deer became illegal and conservation programs along with regulated hunting were introduced. Recent estimates put the deer population in the United States at around 30 million."
Now this quote comes form wiki so it will be harder for the antis to disrupt
White-tailed deer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deer population increased NOT because of Management but because of Land Clearing for biuilding and farming. Deer multiply well because any Doe can breed, in Wolves ONLY the Alpha Female and none of the other females in pack breed.

In my state, land was cleared for Sheep (wool and food) and cattle and pigs as well as for farms. Deer loved this and because everyone enjoys hunting Deer, no one really found a problem with this. As more and more development takes over the farms are closing. We have 1/10 the farms that we had 50 years ago. Our Deer herds were poorly managed and they had Doe seasons for way too many years, then they raised the bag limit from one to three and decreased acceptable antler length. They did this because we lost so many Deer hunters to Maine and New York and they were trying to get the revenue back. Our state the F&G is NOT Taxpayer funded and only funded through Fines and Licneses. Yes! I said it right, GREED to keep their paychecks. I can't blame them, but Wardens are LAW Enforcement and not the Law Makers.

Quote:

I have a favorite animal too it is the elk and to see the young dead with 2 or 3 bites missing just left to rot makes me feel bad to. but I hunt them, eat them, respect them and help manage them by allowing land use, license sales and carefully cull the appropriate males out of the herd when hunting season comes. I just want to say 30 years of research, please dont take offense, must have all been on the positeve side because you say things that all the pro wolf people say that can easily be called into question by a few minutes of internet searches.

Wolves have a right to hunt Elk, do they not? Are you saying you want to destroy the balance of Nature because you favor the elk??? I assure you there has been many a hunter who has paid a high price for his Elk Permit and then shot a elk and then saw a bigger one and left the one he shot for the bigger one. Should we kill the hunters too?

Excuse me Sir; I do not see where anyone has proven anythinG I have said to be wrong yet and I have not seen any Internet Site either that counter says what I am saying. I think RANCHERS and DEVELOPERS need to be CONTROLLED and you wouldn't have many of the problems that bother you and your Elk.

I have a video taken in Colorado from an Elk Hunt where I filmed at least 10,000 Elk, in peoples yards, on the highway, in gardens, drinking out of pools and in roaming around the homes in the neighborhood. I have driven trhough Arizonia countless times and there are dead Elk along the highways, people are being killed from having these Elk roaming about. Same as the Deer in Pa. So let's kill them off.

Quote:

wolves are cool but the are killers and eaters that is all they know how to do and that is their nature. and sad to say as it is, as hard as it is for you to realize this, man is part of nature. We are fortunate that we can reason things out to the point that we do. Thus we can make all these judgement calls on ourselves and others as to our activites and then we can actually "manage" our resources . But that doesnt change what we are. Animals. Should we leave nature to take its course sir..

It is PUBLIC OUTCRY that enures that management succeeds. It is from people like me and others that want restrictions and Control over management. Unchecked Management is chaos and not management. We build our dams and flood millions of acres that Wildlife has to leave. We build along the Lakes and other Natural Water routes and push animals away. Man is greedy and killed Buffalo and left the dead rotting carcasses to cook in the Sun, all he wanted was the HIDES. Ranchers came and forced more wildlife from the grazinglands. We want our 10 acres and our Modular home and we want our rustic beams and big windowsm bit Heaven forbid if there is a Wolf in the yard. I have had wolves in my yard and I welcome them. I have had Moose and Bear and a Catamount on my Deck. I love it, that is why I live in the country.

When I was younger I hunted Bobcat for the $10 Bounty and then it went to $35. It was good money and the Bobcat suffered dearly so I could have my Party money. They damn near became extinct and then there was PUBLIC OUTCRY and now they are protected. Hardly ever seem them any more.

I do not argue Wolves can over populate a area, because man has interferred with Nature. I know there has to be control of sort and I am protesting for INTELLIGENT CONTROL and not Knee Slapping Little Red Riding Hood control.

We are not to decide who can stay and who must leave, we are the ones who have screwed things up so badly for the animals. City Sprawl, Malls, Developmemnt on Wet lands, cutting of Forest, damning of rivers, livestock errosion of grass lands and we blame the animals for just trying to hold on.

Quote:

We are nature and we would have eliminated the wolf from all existance long ago if it werent for our ability to try and manage wildlife, we managed to do it to less seemingly forms of nature and are still working on it with not complaint one from any group or activitst (ie. hosts of bacterial and viral life forms. mesquitos, different types of parasitic life forms, countless house hold annoyances such as rats and mice, even eachother to some degree. the list is long and ungly if your favorite animal is the e.coli bacteria). We are nature nothing more. the fact that your unique ability to hold yourself above it is interesting, doesnt change the fact that humans are nature so your constant anger that man will not just let nature run its course is egocentric at the least. If only the wolves practiced the same degree of thoughtful managemant that man does. Then there would be no problem. Inteligent control is a uniquely human activity. other animals eat and breed till something kills them or they number so many they starve to death, breed sickness and die anyway. The natural way is to let other preditors cull the wolf population. I sir am one of those preditors, not a god, not a marvle of industrial technology. I am an animal Homo Sapian Sapian. I am part of nature and at this time in the vast history of the planet I have clawed my way to the top of the food chain. Now I am willing to act like it. Not pretend that the earth is just a pretty park and I am only a visitor.

Too bad ALL of man doesn't use his REASONING and LOGIC to make decisions. Too bad we feel we own the Planet and everything is here or not here at our pleasure.

Don't get me wrong, I am a hunter but I go for FAIR CHASE and I go for HEAD SHOTS. I do not use scopes and I know I have the advantage still. I try to make it as fair and as much of a challenge as I can. I respect animals and if that makes me a Animal Rights Activist, then so be it.

I own a chain saw and could easily cut every tree in sight.. will I. No! I have many firearms and most are semis, do I kill everything in sight, NO! again....

Idaho Dave · 02-28-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

Deer population increased NOT because of Management but because of Land Clearing for biuilding and farming. Deer multiply well because any Doe can breed, in Wolves ONLY the Alpha Female and none of the other females in pack breed. Oh then once again the writers of my data are liars as yours is the truth. I knew I saw a trend here
Wolves have a right to hunt Elk, do they not? And as an animal do I have a right to hunt elk? How about deer? How about wolves? You again are placing man in a god like state above the rest of life I dont buy it Are you saying you want to destroy the balance of Nature because you favor the elk??? Are you saying that you want to destory the balance of nature by letting a preditor who's only check in nature is starvation or man above the elk? do you not see this? really? I assure you there has been many a hunter who has paid a high price for his Elk Permit and then shot a elk and then saw a bigger one and left the one he shot for the bigger one. Should we kill the hunters too? Another logical fallacy called the slippery slope. If I saw some one shoot an animal, not tag it and go on I would want to shoot them but I cant so I would call the fish and game and turn them in. and refuse the reward. I ahve done this before even went to cort as a whitness for the state
Excuse me Sir; I do not see where anyone has proven anythinG I have said to be wrong yet and I have not seen any Internet Site either that counter says what I am saying. You said wolves had been here 35 million years man 2 Wrong a lie.
You said woves only kill sick and old. Wrong a lie.
You said wolves dont surpuls kill. Wrong a lie.
You said wolves have never killed humans in North america in 500 years. Wrong a lie
sir get over it I will call you on it every time.
sites and references have been posted you are fooling no one
I have a video taken in Colorado from an Elk Hunt where I filmed at least 10,000 Elk, in peoples yards, on the highway, in gardens, drinking out of pools and in roaming around the homes in the neighborhood. I have driven trhough Arizonia countless times and there are dead Elk along the highways, people are being killed from having these Elk roaming about. Same as the Deer in Pa. So let's kill them off. No lets make the people move to camps where you can chose what the do how much land they have if they can hunt. the might american bison used to roam in herds so thick that they were miles wide. I for one love to see animals like that again, and to beable to do what I was put here to do. be part of the circle of life.
It is PUBLIC OUTCRY that enures that management succeeds. It is from people like me and others that want restrictions and Control over management. No no i doubt it. out cry was a lie. Wolves are not endangered and never were. there is no money in out cry it comes from someplace else. You should follow the money trail that tries to keep us form hunting and see where it is coming from, but you probably alradey know considering your comments on smaller farms and man having no right to be on public land. Game management is big business in states like mine it is money that brings it about and the more of the huntable type of animal there is the better its future looks. Like I said wolves are a renwable resource that if managed correctly would fund thier own reocery and change the image to all big game hunters. Unchecked Management is chaos and and ended in the 1930's we spend millinos on wildlife management here and it is a science that all the wester universities offer degrees in up to a PhD sure they arent enlightend but they are studing it not management. We build our dams and flood millions of acres that Wildlife has to leave beavers buold dams and destroy reparian habitat that is natuer man amakes a damn that is nature. We build along the Lakes and other Natural Water routes and push animals away. Man is Man is an animal altering his envoronment that computer uo are using came at a cost but still you type away your tales you are part of the problem you precive greedy As I said we arent all greedy. I have been offred well over a million dollars to sell my land to land developers on a few occasions and I tell them they will put a condo here on my grave, or until folks like you talke it away and then the real money behind the cause steps from the closet. and killed Buffalo and left the dead rotting carcasses to cook in the Sun, Hey just like the wolf only they want the tounge and genitals all he wanted was the HIDES. Ranchers came and forced more wildlife from the grazinglands. those talking points are old there are more deer here and lek here then there were before euroeans came. and man is an animal that has the same rights as the wolf. so move over or leave. We want our 10 acres Oh sir I have hundreds of acres that support more wildlife then you would believe and I hunt them in season and my home is 115 years old not a modular. stop trying to shoe box use all the wolf wants his 20 mile roaming area too you gonna tell him to limit it so that we can all share and get along? and our Modular home and we want our rustic beams and big windowsm bit Heaven forbid if there is a Wolf in the yard One no pretty neat a couple okay still pretty cool a few eating the dog not so good, a bunch leaving dead animals they dindt finsish eating, humm. Oh that is right the fact that I showed you several references that wolves do surplus kill didnt matter in your world they are far wiser then the humans and, taking only pictures and leaving only footprints. I have had wolves in my yard and I welcome them. I have had Moose and Bear and a Catamount on my Deck. I love it, that is why I live in the country. youl ive in the country? in the animals habitat? how dare you put your house there?
When I was younger I hunted Bobcat for the $10 Bounty and then it went to $35. It was good money and the Bobcat suffered dearly so I could have my Party money. They damn near became extinct and then there was PUBLIC OUTCRY and now they are protected. Hardly ever seem them any more. Hu they arent extinct here we see them a lot and are hunted and trapped by many of us just as the law dictates during their season. You cant assume that your experince of life and your states management is like the rest of us. We dont want advice from you and your state look where it has left you, nearly no bobcats. as I told you hunting is a billion dollar a year business and here that money is used to buy land, where hunting is allowed of course, remove animals to safer places, buy and intorduce animals, and if the wolves were on that list they would have a lot of money pouring in to help sustain their population and habitat. success is about the money and the perception of the people.
I do not argue Wolves can over populate a area, because man has interferred with Nature. Sir one more time you are nature not god get over it we populat till something takes us out dont worry it will happen. a bomb a meteroite some virus. Who knows but it will happen WE ARE THE NATRUE YOU ARE SO EAGER TO PROTECT. I know there has to be control of sort and I am protesting for INTELLIGENT CONTROL and that control is that when there are sustainable numbers, we sell licenses at 500 bucks a pop. the money goes into wolf habitat, research, education and the wolves learn to stay away from man because, like him, man is a dnagerous ANIMAL that sometimes will kill. and not Knee Slapping Little Red Riding Hood control.
We are not to decide who can stay and who must leave, we are the ones who have screwed things up so badly for the animals. Look get over being a human dont you people ever get tired of hating yourselves? have you ever seen what prarrie dogs do with there cities? talk about desmiating the land, congestion and spreading desiese. We are just acting like animals. those who are judging themselves as more then that or in control are looking past reality into that world of the man god. Hey here you go the people you hate so much will probably have a population crash when they destroy their envornment enought that it can no longer sustain them then you will be happy so be quiet and let it happen that sir is natures way. Sure I want it my way and all the animals will be here happy and runniing around all jsut getting along. but that isnt the way nature works. City Sprawl, Malls, Developmemnt on Wet lands, cutting of Forest, damning of rivers, livestock errosion of grass lands and we blame the animals for just trying to hold on and when they dont next to follow the almighty human master of nothing. 65 million years of evolution gone in a blink of earth time here comes the cockroaches.
Too bad ALL of man doesn't use his REASONING and LOGIC to make decisions. Too bad we feel we own we own it just like the bat the bear teh beaver the prarrie dog and the wolf we are here we will use it to our advantage and one day, pooff we will be history the Planet and everything is here or not here at our pleasure. hey those wolves didnt own our dog and to take him while chained to the shed, But I guess cause he was a dog and they were wolves he was here for thier plesure. he couldnt even get away and there were chickens around if they had just been hungry. NO they were getting rid of other preditors in the area they thought might be a threat to them or thier huniting....Sound familure???
Don't get me wrong, I am a hunter but I go for FAIR CHASE and I go for HEAD SHOTS. I do not use scopes and I know I have the advantage still. That sir is nothing about advantage. and if in your hunting experince you havent noticed teh advantages wild animals have you need to get further away from town. Real wild elk will see, smell or hear you so far away you will never get close enough to get a shot off if you arent skilled and knowlageable in the ways of the animal, forest, nature and hunting. unless you can shoot a mile or two and I doublt that. Our advantage is how we evloved we are tool users and thinkers. we make tools to live, to work, tohun and forutatly to do our killing. you hunt and kill and well you should as it is your role in life and that makes you respect the animals all that much more. the advantages only allow you to comute the sentance of death by starvation or being dismemberd and eaten (cause those are your chioces in the wild) into that of blink of an eye and you are gone I try to make it as fair and as much of a challenge as I can. I respect animals and if that makes me a Animal Rights Activist, then so be it.
I own a chain saw and could easily cut every tree in sight.. will I. No! I have many firearms and most are semis, do I kill everything in sight, NO! again.... well sadly, to make you hate me more, I own a chainsaw too and each summer get permits to cut wood, as prescribed by law, dead standing only in areas the forest service sees the need to remove dead standing trees to allow light to get to the seedlings on the forest floor course wildfires used to do that part but man in his great wisdom puts those out. and I heat with them all winter. I pay no big company for thier fossil fule to heat my home. I guess that is bad too but that is another story and that is how we live out here. if it werent for satatlite dishes we woudlnt even have TV (I wish we didnt) and I couldnt use the internet at home. But I dont hate those who chose to live with the niceties modern life has to offer and when I am dead another form of life will be one step closer to extinciton. My kids will (god I hope not) probably sell out like so many others and they will take all my savings and the profits of my land and move to the city and you can buy a condo here and wonder who would have sold this great land.

people read this page and get this movie befor it gets removed
DVD Undo Burden The Real Price Of Living With Wolves
Alaskans are fortunate to have an estimated 7,700-11,200 wolves in our state. In Alaska's Interior, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans kill less than 10 percent. The average pack size is 5-7 wolves. A pack may kill a deer or moose every few days during the winter.
Predator Management - The Truth about Predators
Jackson Hole elk population is down from an average of 12,000 to an average 2750? That is over a 75% decline. Why? One word: wolves. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population increases of 34% each and every year, and Alaska even allows hunting of wolves. Data from the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify this same 34% annual increase.
this is why I think sound management is a good idea
34% increase could be sold off at 500 bucks a try (note though most people brag about their hunting prowess there is never 100% of tags filled on any big game animal.) Imagine the windfall of monies that by law would have to be used to support the animal

Predator Management - The Truth about Predators

lefty o · 02-28-2008, 12:54 PM

dave you really shouldnt waste your breath on this anymore, you will not sway his opinion- even though his opinion has been based on a study of TAME wolves. quite frankly, ive never seen an animal that hunts and kills for food, also not do it just for sport or practice. arguing that wolves dont, based on a study of tame hand fed wolves is just foolishness. anyone that chastises someone who wants to hunt wolves, but they thereself hunts other animals is a biggot (for lack of better word) on the subject. wingwiper, you yourself have no need to hunt any animal, you can buy it at the store. so you, by your choice hunt and kill animals- why criticize others for wanting to do the same. if someone else shouldnt be allowed to hunt and control the wolf population, what makes you think its allright for you to do likewise with any big game animals? i think your thought pattern is a little twisted and self serving, ie its okay for you to do what you choose, but not others. no one here is advocating the wholesale slaughter of any animal, just limited hunting.

samuel · 02-28-2008, 01:03 PM

You can lead a wolf right activist to water but you cant make him think.Just for you darkwing duck wingwiper. sam.

Idaho Dave · 02-28-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lefty o

dave you really shouldnt waste your breath on this anymore, you will not sway his opinion- even though his opinion has been based on a study of TAME wolves. quite frankly, ive never seen an animal that hunts and kills for food, also not do it just for sport or practice. arguing that wolves dont, based on a study of tame hand fed wolves is just foolishness. anyone that chastises someone who wants to hunt wolves, but they thereself hunts other animals is a biggot (for lack of better word) on the subject. wingwiper, you yourself have no need to hunt any animal, you can buy it at the store. so you, by your choice hunt and kill animals- why criticize others for wanting to do the same. if someone else shouldnt be allowed to hunt and control the wolf population, what makes you think its allright for you to do likewise with any big game animals? i think your thought pattern is a little twisted and self serving, ie its okay for you to do what you choose, but not others. no one here is advocating the wholesale slaughter of any animal, just limited hunting.

I know lefty and I appreciate your input. I just hate when these sort of people say things that are untrue and they are just left unchecked, that makes them think they must be right. It makes me feel like I am part of the lie and though I know it is a waste I can say that I didnt just role over like the most of the silent majority does. My wife has a freind from utah who is big save the the wolves, the whales anti hunter type. when she comes to my house to visit I leave (she did have me take her son hunting grouse a couple times, go figure, probably to use me as a bad example of a blood thirsty killer later but the kid ahd a ball, had never shot a gun and found it to be much different then tv makes it out) one time she told me that she had been to a wolf confrence and how wrong we were to not like them. then she said, and this is the god honest truth, that the guy talking told the audiance that should they ever run into wolves in the wild, as they are avid campers and hikers, and the wolves acted agressively to them, they should get down on all 4's and lay there face on the ground showing submission. then approch the most aggressive and try to nuzzle his nose with thier face. she was as serious as a heart attack. I just sat there with a look of disbelief. when I got her kids alone I told them if this ever happend while their mom was on the gournd to climb a tree, dont look down and start screaming for help. It is ideas like that coupled with the land use issues that I just find hard to hide from.

by the by real modern gray wolves are really aonly about 1 to .3 million years old
Chronology of Wolf Evolution
Guardians Of The Wolf ~ Wolf Evolution

Wingwiper · 02-28-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Deer population increased NOT because of Management but because of Land Clearing for biuilding and farming. Deer multiply well because any Doe can breed, in Wolves ONLY the Alpha Female and none of the other females in pack breed. Oh then once again the writers of my data are liars as yours is the truth. I knew I saw a trend here

You must be able to think for yourself. Deer have increased in numbers from an increase in food supply. Show me the source of your data that the Deer herd went from a so-called U.S. total of 300,000 to a U.S. totals of 30 million from MANAGEMENT. I want to see this. I used common sense and logic and did not quote any sources.

Quote:

Are you saying you want to destroy the balance of Nature because you favor the elk??? Are you saying that you want to destory the balance of nature by letting a preditor who's only check in nature is starvation or man above the elk? do you not see this? really?

YES! Nature has a btter way of thining out predators. man kills by convience and may wipe out entire packs when Nature may have decreaed the pack size thru Natures Laws. It happens in my state about every 10 years or so with the Rabbits and the Fox. Man will hunt and wipe out areas where nature will keep a balnce, no doubt starvation is cruel, but I doubt that will be the case, as the food supplies decrease, I would think Nature would make litter sizes smaller. Litter size would be result of nutrietion and breast milk availability.

Quote:

I assure you there has been many a hunter who has paid a high price for his Elk Permit and then shot a elk and then saw a bigger one and left the one he shot for the bigger one. Should we kill the hunters too? Another logical fallacy called the slippery slope. If I saw some one shoot an animal, not tag it and go on I would want to shoot them but I cant so I would call the fish and game and turn them in. and refuse the reward. I ahve done this before even went to cort as a whitness for the state

Not a fallacy at all. It happens and more so than you realize. Not all of it happens in your yard where Yo can report it or do something aout it. Don't just use that example but also include the gut shot and the lack of desire to track or the inability to do so. I would ove to have a Crystal Ball that would show how much wildlife is wasted each year by poor sportsmanship and vehicle strikes, poaching, hide seekers, pleasure seekers, etc

Quote:

Excuse me Sir; I do not see where anyone has proven anythinG I have said to be wrong yet and I have not seen any Internet Site either that counter says what I am saying. You said wolves had been here 35 million years man 2 Wrong a lie. I am sorry you are right, it is actually 37 million years. and I said man was 2 million in the same comparision. keep it in context. Please.

You said woves only kill sick and old. Wrong a lie.

Quote:

You are lying here, I NEVER said that, I said Wolves will kill the sick, lame or weak and I also said several times that they will go for what is easiest. Please quote me accurately.

You said wolves dont surpuls kill. Wrong a lie. You don't understand what I said, I said Woves do not kill for the sake of killing under the Laws of Nature and where man has interferred with the laws of Nature, I also said that livestock because an Opportunity for the Wolf and like man, wolves will take opportunities.

You said wolves have never killed humans in North america in 500 years. Wrong a lie If you are one who likes the internet, then you can google this for yourself and then you can present me with ONE DOCUMENTED case and I will surrender my statement, you have said this was a lie before and you have not produced any documented proof other than 3 negroes, fresh from Africa who were claiming to have been attacked by Wolves. There was no proof to show that the Dead Negroe could have been devoured by bears, there just isn't documented proof there at all except for a measley diary entry. The ONE case in Canada that might give you a score of ONE, is still in question, because the INITIAL reports said Bear and only after pressure from people who were trying to demand that it was wolves did some change their story. It is the ONLY case that shows there might be a Human Wolf kill, MAYBE... SO NO it is not a lie. Produce facts and not your opinion and I will listen. I can produce diary entries of people being swepted away by UFOs too or how about the Nut cases in California who poisened themselves because there was a UFO waiting for them at the tail of Haley' s Comet?

sir get over it I will call you on it every time.
sites and references have been posted you are fooling no one
Like I said, you have proven nothing yet and your calling me on it has been one level from crazy. You are the one who seems to be trying to accomplish the FOOLING bit.

Quote:

It is PUBLIC OUTCRY that enures that management succeeds. It is from people like me and others that want restrictions and Control over management. No no i doubt it. out cry was a lie. Wolves are not endangered and never were. there is no money in out cry it comes from someplace else. You should follow the money trail that tries to keep us form hunting and see where it is coming from, but you probably alradey know considering your comments on smaller farms and man having no right to be on public land. Game management is big business in states like mine it is money that brings it about and the more of the huntable type of animal there is the better its future looks. Like I said wolves are a renwable resource that if managed correctly would fund thier own reocery and change the image to all big game hunters

Money Trail? What the Hell are you talking about?? What money trail? money from where for what? Please explain this wild assertion.
Public Outcry is what is makin the govt look at Illegal Aliens and there wil be MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS because of this outcry. PUBLIC OUTCRY is what causes concern to do it RIGHT. Whether you out cry for WOlf Kill ro I cry for Ranch Control, Our Cries will be looked at and people who make decisios will know they are being observed and one of us will win. That is how the Corrupt System works. Squeaky wheel will get the grease.

Quote:

Unchecked Management is chaos and and ended in the 1930's we spend millinos on wildlife management here and it is a science that all the wester universities offer degrees in up to a PhD sure they arent enlightend but they are studing it not management.

That is the JOKE, my firend. We have BOOK LEARNED BIOLIGISTS who have degrees in Land Management and Wildlife Management and couldn't tell a Maple from an Oak. They would get lost in the woods and couldn't read sign, if they wer enose down in it. It is the BOOK LEARNED PHILOSIPHERS that scare me the most "It has to be right it said so in my text book"

Sorry, I will listen to a outdoorsman over a book learned biologists anyday. We had so many Doe seasons here and all of the farmers kept telling the idiot book learners, that "YOU AIN'T GOING TO GET MORE CALVES BY KILLING ALL OF YOUR COWS" The money trial you talk about is in MANAGEMENT Jobs and Book Learned Degree paychecks. Book sense and no common sense.

Quote:

We build our dams and flood millions of acres that Wildlife has to leave beavers buold dams and destroy reparian habitat that is natuer man amakes a damn that is nature. /

Beavers make a NATURAL dam that should they leave the dam will be absorbed by Nature in a few years. Beaves also produce a dam without the noise and the cement and all the other man made come alomg with its. Beave dams, supply Bird Sanctuary and usually are damn good Trout fishing.

As far as the rest of your responses, I can see we will not agree. I think it is good you have so much land and a house. Guess you have a lot more than you need and that is good for you. I live off 10 acres surrounded by National Forest and I raise my food, hunt my food and cut my own firewood. I am able to do that and have been for over 25 years. You seem to need so much more and you feel that you do not have to share your land with Nature. It sounds like you aren't even a victim, other than seeing some footprints and you feel that is reason enough to kill Wolves.
So will I agree with you.. NOPE! not in this lifetime.
Do I care if you or anyone agrees with me? NOPE! I only care that my concerns are heard and that the WOlf is given a fair shot and doesn't become victim to man's discontent because of some footprints. I guess Dave, with all due respect, if you have seen so much, done so much and know so much and fel you can disprove everything I bring up, you should contact National Geographic and do a SPECIAL. "WHY WOLVES SHOULD BE KILLED"

I am done here. We differ and that is how it will be even after 1000 more posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lefty o

dave you really shouldnt waste your breath on this anymore, you will not sway his opinion- even though his opinion has been based on a study of TAME wolves. quite frankly, ive never seen an animal that hunts and kills for food, also not do it just for sport or practice. arguing that wolves dont, based on a study of tame hand fed wolves is just foolishness. anyone that chastises someone who wants to hunt wolves, but they thereself hunts other animals is a biggot (for lack of better word) on the subject. wingwiper, you yourself have no need to hunt any animal, you can buy it at the store. so you, by your choice hunt and kill animals- why criticize others for wanting to do the same. if someone else shouldnt be allowed to hunt and control the wolf population, what makes you think its allright for you to do likewise with any big game animals? i think your thought pattern is a little twisted and self serving, ie its okay for you to do what you choose, but not others. no one here is advocating the wholesale slaughter of any animal, just limited hunting.

NO such thing as TAME WOLVES lefty... They are still wolves and that is NOT the limit of my studies.

I am a Hunter Lefty and I think you have missed my whole point, I am done here, you all seem to hear what you want to hear and not what is being said.

You can go back and read the posts and get a better idea of what I said. I am tired of going in circles. I have said it so many times my fingers hurt. You have really missed the point as have Dave.

I am wasting my breath with Dave.

SAM
It is like you, always a wise ass and not once have you contributed anything of substance to this discussion, other than your childish wise ass remarks. Sam will be Sam

Good Day..

I will be off to another thread and look forward to more of Sam's wiseass remarks there. Nothing of value , just remarks.

Dustdevil · 02-28-2008, 02:05 PM

I hunt. I generally eat what I hunt. I have no problem with trophy or sport hunters. I just don't choose to join them. I believe man is the ultimate apex species, and has the right and the nature to eat other animals for food. I believe man has screwed up a few species at one time, but has learned to manage such things better, and is doing a fine job of it for the most part. I believe hunting is now a necessary part of species management. I believe man has the right to hunt, and the responsibility to do it with minimal loss. However, food is not the only valid reason for harvest of wild game. Not by a long shot.

I believe the ESA is used as a tool for political purposes, and that many of the species listed are there for political reasons. I believe wolves were hunted to near extinction for a valid reason, and that is human economic activities. I believe it could have been managed better, but ESA is a tool that leaves the door wide open for abuse of the liberties of the American citizen. I have no problem with re-introduction of wolves as a general rule, but re-introducing them into an area where they will most certainly cause the same destruction of human economic activities all over again is beyond stupid.

Wolves HAVE been re-introduced into Yellowstone NP, I've seen them myself, live and in living color. They have also been introduced into areas with a high population of livestock ranches, where they will most certainly (and have, certainly) created havoc all over again. Did we expect anything less?

Their populations have exploded in Yellowstone, as they have elsewhere when re-introduction programs have been implemented. To claim they should be left alone and not hunted as a management tool is quite short-sighted and naiive, especially in light of the fact that hunting IS such a great management tool (and one of the few we have). Often, a species benefits from fewer members. Such is the case with wolves.

I believe ranchers have the right to shoot wolves which threaten their livestock herds, flocks, whatever. I believe they don't have to sit on the back porch and shoot only wolves venturing onto their property. I believe they have a right to hunt down local wolves within range of their property and shoot them, too. I believe they should be allowed as many wolves as exist within range of the livestock herd. In other words, there should be a "fair game" zone within reach of stocked ranches.

I believe we should be extremely careful in deciding which species we will be involved in "managing". Some will go extinct with or without our intervention. We should expend more resources to learn which ones are declining without our influence, and avoid sacrificing important human economic activities in a vain attempt to save a species that will decline of its own inability to adapt. I believe sound science and proof should be the only factors determining which species are to become protected in some way. Guesses, human error, and the so-called "precautionary principle" are so unreliable as to invite disaster for a species and for human economic activities, as well as providing more than ample opportunity for political manipulation. I believe we must resist the temptation to monkey with every species in existence, and should shun the people who search for sub-species specifically to use them as "evidence" of other humans' bad influence and practices. I believe we should recognize a political motivation for denouncing human economic activities without proof or solid evidence, when it exists.

I believe humans are a part of nature, and our economic activities are mostly just another factor in the way we survive as a species. I do not believe man is a blight on the earth, as some obviously do. I believe all species must learn to adapt to a changing world, or perish. That changing world includes human economic activities such as ranching and hunting. I believe that nature must occasionally go through an imbalance as changes occur in climate, weather, habitat, and natural disaster, in order to get back IN balance. I believe that balance is not the least bit fragile. On the contrary, I believe it's quite robust. I believe that humans who believe that man is usually at fault for any species degradation and environmental imbalance are a bit imbalanced themselves.

Idaho Dave · 02-28-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

[/color]
You must be able to think for yourself.Oh so we are to take the data and reanalize it using our vast knowledge of statistics. surely more then the researchers and that was right from wikipidea I said so, left a site here are the refe3rences and her is the site stop trying to lie I wont fall for it

<LI id=_note-erhardova71>^ Erhardová-Kotrlá, B., 1971. The occurrence of Fascioloides magna (Bassi, 1875) in Czechoslovakia. Academia, Prague, 155 pp.
^Biolib-Czech Republic, Odocoileus virginianus

Deer Specialist Group (1996). Odocoileus virginianus. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN 2006. Retrieved on 12 May 2006.
Odocoileus virginianus (TSN 180699). Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Retrieved on 18 March 2006.
Geist, Dr. Valerius, "Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior, and Ecology", Stackpole Books, 1998
Halls, Lowell K., White-tailed Deer Ecology and Management: A Wildlife Management Institute Book, Stackpole Books, 1984.
Rue III, Leonard Lee, "Way of the Whitetail", Voyageur Press 2000 ISBN 0-89658-696-0
http://www.taxidermy.net/forums/TrainingArticles/05/05D5E32E7E.html
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Hunting-1633/Whitetail-Deer.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer
.
Show me the source of your data that the Deer herd went from a so-called U.S. total of 300,000 to a U.S. totals of 30 million from MANAGEMENT. I want to see this. I used common sense and logic and did not quote any sources (well if that aint a red flag) your common sense and logic is once again a lie you read or just wrong. funny how you want my sources but wont post yours. perhaps you can get your friends to flood those servers so no one can see them.
[/color]
YES! Nature ONe more time MAN IS NATURE a pony tail, Berkinstocks and a latte does not make one a god seperating him from all the other animals. has a btter way of thining out predators. man kills by Any means he can, just like the other preditors convience and may wipe out entire packs when Nature may have decreaed the pack size thru Natures Laws. and like I tried to tell you something will check mans population size but it might not happen today that is nature we are part of it It happens in my state about every 10 years or so with the Rabbits and the Fox. Man will hunt and wipe out then man will move or starve till he is gone, just like the fox. his god like powers will not save him this fate areas where nature will keep a balnce, No that is the balance you are part of it it isnt pretty but this is how it is get ready coause when man comes to a hault no amount of preaching is going to stop the world and evoloution from going on no doubt starvation is cruel, but I doubt that will be the case, as the food supplies decrease, I would think Nature would make litter sizes smaller. Litter size would be result of nutrietion and breast milk availability.
[/color]
Not a fallacy at all. It happens and more so than you realize. Not all of it happens in your yard where Yo can report it or do something aout it. and the wolves kill and leave dead things all around it happens more then you wna to believe or at least admit Don't just use that example but also include the gut shot and the lack of desire to track or the inability to do so. I dont know where you hunt but you have to really want to do it to hunt here it is hard and anticdotally of course, most of the people who hunt here work to hard to waste it perhaps you should consider moving I could sell you a few acres where no one would ever bother you I would ove to have a Crystal Ball that would show how much wildlife is wasted each year by poor sportsmanship and vehicle strikes I will agree with you there i hate to see animals hit by cars and left to suffer, but it is pretty neat when the hawks and egaels come and eat them right by the road, poaching, hide seekers, pleasure seekers, etc
Money Trail? What the Hell are you talking about?? What money trail? money from where for what? Please explain this wild assertion. like you explaining all of your wild assertions you sir are tne master of assertion, oh, no it is your logic that requires no evidence cause it must be right. Look the wolves cost money. that came from the gverment. the years of legal battles cost money too. a lot. the oversight into the goverments methoods cost money. a lot where did that come from???? Oh groups that want to limit personal property rights starting to get the picture????? Some one is footing the bill for the law suites, oversight, add campains in magazines. Why? who is it? why did we tell america that the wolf was endangered? you are being seen for the plant you are sir.
Public Outcry is what is makin the govt look at Illegal Aliens and there wil be MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS because of this outcry. PUBLIC OUTCRY is what causes concern to do it RIGHT oh is that why gas prices are so low? there is a lot of outcry about that. is that why we didnt sign the kato treaty there was out cray about that? Is that why we are in iraq, afganastan, the un? there is out cry for all these things you are a fool or your logic just cant get it. money is what dirves man. Whether you out cry for WOlf Kill ro I cry for Ranch Control, Our Cries will be looked at and people who make decisios will know they are being observed and one of us will win. That is how the Corrupt System works. Squeaky wheel will get the grease only if there is money in it at my house the squeaky wheel get replaces.
That is the JOKE, my firend. We have BOOK LEARNED BIOLIGISTS who have degrees in Land Management and Wildlife Management and couldn't tell a Maple from an Oak. They would get lost in the woods and couldn't read sign, if they wer enose down in it. It is the BOOK LEARNED PHILOSIPHERS that scare me the most "It has to be right it said so in my text book"

Sorry, I will listen to a outdoorsman over a book learned biologists anyday. We had so many Doe seasons here and all of the farmers kept telling the idiot book learners, that "YOU AIN'T GOING TO GET MORE CALVES BY KILLING ALL OF YOUR COWS" The money trial you talk about is in MANAGEMENT Jobs and Book Learned Degree paychecks. Book sense and no common sense.
Oh that is right if a PhD agrees with you he is a man of wisdom and enlilghtenment. if not he is a booklearned fool I get how you work.
Beavers make a NATURAL dam that should they leave the dam will be absorbed by Nature in a few years. No not at all they stay for a long time have some on the creek bever left on dry year about 15 years ago damn still there and strong enough to walk across you need to get out there to nature. man is nature instead of using sticks and mud he uses cement and rebar. in the approriat time scale his damsn will go to jsut like the beaver's and they can be huge and displace lots of animals Beavers have been known to build very large dams.[6] The largest known was discovered near Three Forks, Montana, and was 2,140 feet long, 14 feet high, and 23 feet thick at the baseBeaves also produce a dam without the noise and the cement and all the other man made come alomg with its. Beave dams, supply Bird Sanctuary and usually are damn good Trout fishing no sir in fact it often stagnates the water and allows silt to consentrate, oh my and not just my awsome logic heres your Beaver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
proof http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...context=ewdcc4

"Beaver (Castor canadensis) dam
building activities create many
longtern affects on stream ecosystems.
Beaver dams may negatively
influence trout fisheries
by creating physical
barriers to spawning areas,
increasing sediment retention,
and increasing water temperatures."
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln | BEAVER AND BEAVER DAM REMOVAL IN WISCONSIN TROUT STREAMS
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congre...%2022%2006.pdf
is that beaver damn trout thing another one of your logical conclusions that need no evidence. even as I look it up it states that some times its good sometimes bad. depends on where and how big. darn beaver need environmental impact staments done first

.

As far as the rest of your responses, I can see we will not agree. I think it is good you have so much land and a house. Guess you have a lot more than you need and that is good for you. I live off 10 acres surrounded by National Forest and I raise my food, hunt my food and cut my own firewood. I am able to do that and have been for over 25 years. You seem to need so much more and you feel that you do not have to share your land with Nature. I guess you dindt read I share with nature and I have lots of animals living on my land and love them, it cost me a lot to pay the taxes on my land and keep it from being developed. I ask nothing in return case I can afford it sorry i have money I can tell it is a real sticking point for you that others have more then you. butI let people hunt with permission no matter who they are so I can keep it to a reasonable number and I chase away the developers. You say that I dont want to share my land as a means of attacking me and making it look to others like I am anti animal and I am not. currently thers are hundreds of elk wintering on my land and more deer move in and out as they want. again an assurtion that you have made an error with about a type of people, place and lifestyle you have no real knowledge of. as we arent really ranching just rasing a few animals for food most of my land is just how it was supposed to be and will stay that way until i die or they come and get it from me. telling me I need only 10 acres and your prefab, cause that is what you have. then the money trail will show up with bulldozers and make dozens of 10 acre lots for folks to come from the coffee shops and spend the summer. I have posted dozens of pictures of my property and the animals on it look at them. I am a real conservationist and as such I have the ability to understand that there is a big difference in conservation and preservation. You can not preserve what is wild. it wont let you. it wont stay in yellowstone, or jackson hole. and they greed of those with money wont let you. backed by people they have lied to and fooled being that "voice of reason" that "squeaky wheel" I am sure the likes of you and others will try and legislate my rights into no existance. and with out conservation tools like sound management and trusting those doing it until the make a mistake you will eventually lose it all and then you will wee. Look at park city utah, sun valley idaho bear lake Idaho. . It sounds like you aren't even a victim (no sir I am not a victim that is a word used to manipulate others. we are just here, living and participating in the process, not pretending we arent part of it), other than seeing some footprints and you feel that is reason enough to kill Wolves. You cant read through your desire to be right can you? oh wait that is right you needent agree or show proof you have logic, think for yourself, can be proven to be in error a lot and yet you sir, you are the one human that is a god on this planet I hope we can all be just like you someday.
So will I agree with you.. NOPE! not in this lifetime.
Do I care if you or anyone agrees with me? NOPE! I only care that my concerns are heard and that the WOlf is given a fair shot and doesn't become victim to man's discontent because of some footprints. I guess Dave, with all due respect, if you have seen so much, done so much and know so much and fel you can disprove everything I bring up, you should contact National Geographic and do a SPECIAL. "WHY WOLVES SHOULD BE KILLED"
And all I want is reasonable management, you to take your place as one of god's creatures and realize that, use your logic now, man is one of those animals that you hate and in time your wildest dreams will come to fruition and man will be gone from here. but so will the wolf,,,, here comes the cockroach king
I am done here. We differ and that is how it will be even after 1000 more posts.
[/color][/color]

amen dust devil I am not alone

lefty o · 02-28-2008, 02:49 PM

its funny wingwiper, you are the one who's truly seems to only hear what he wants to hear. i understand you are a hunter, that is why i can not figure out how you adminish others who choose to hunt a different animal than you do- twisted logic. yes, they were tame wolves- they were kept in an enclosure, hand fed, and interacted with humans- that is not a wild animal. like i said, no one here has said they want to kill every single wolf on the face of the earth. everyone just want to hunt them in a sporting manner, much like you hunt deer or turkey. nevermind, i guess ignorance is bliss.

Wingwiper · 02-28-2008, 03:43 PM

You know, I took your advice and I am searching the internet looking for Proof that the Dutchers bottle fed and lived with the Wolves in an ENCLOSURE as you said or that they were TAMED WOLVES. I find nothing to agree with that. I see site after site say they lived for six years in a tented camp in the wildnerness amongst the wolves. I saw where they gained acceptance with some of the packs pups but I see no where where it confirms it was an ENCLOSURE or the WOLVEs were tamed, so you seem to use the word freely with me, let me bounce it back to you, YOU are speaking LIES.
Actually Dave, I will give you a half of credit and call it half lies.

I found some reference to the Nez Perce Wolves being kept in 20 acre enclosures and from what I read the 5 Remaining Sawtooth Mountian Wolves are there now and they are almost 9 years old. I see no reference and I am still looking to as that is where the Dutchers were for the 6 years. I have read several sites and nothing has stated they were in enclosed areas during the 6 years. They maybe now, won't argue that. That Doc was a great Doc but wasn't the only reference. So far, I have not found any confirmation to what you claim.

Lefty

You are right, I do hear what I want to hear and so do the rest of you ad that is why we call it OUR OPINIONS. I think I said it in about the thrid post, I don't care whether anyone beleives me or not, I have a point of view and it differs from a few of you. Does it make mine wrong? Absolutely not. There are two sides to the coin and I have one side and some of you have the other.
If you read my posts I have nothing against INTELLIGENT MANAGEMENTm, my experiences with most management is it is more from Knee slapping decisions or from Book Learned idiots. PHDs don't make a person knowledgeable in the woods, I have hunted with a couple and worked with others. I have many friends who are top notch game wardens and have the common sense to go with it, problem is they have to enforce the laws and are not allowed to enforce their feelings.

No doubt every state is different and I don't argue that either, I personnally think you or dave have no clue what I am debating, and I think you a couple of others have misse dmy point entirely and therfore you felt compiled to lable me as some Pony tail, latte drinking socialite.... WOW! You are way off course and if you all can't judge me for who I really am or see what I am saying, I have no idea how you all seem to be so fully understandbale of the Wolf programs. I think we are all guilty of hearing only what we want to hear, and I honestly tried, but every time I was called a liar, yup! the ole volume control got turned down. The arguement about wolves is like the arguement about God. There are some who understand and will take the time to study and read and hear both sides and make intelligent decisions based on BOTH sides and then there are those who feel MAN has a devine purpose and doesn't need to be challenged in his decisions to destroy or to control.
Idaho Dave I will show you 5 failures for every successfull management story. Here in Vermont we have a LARGE Salmon Hatchery on the third branch of the Conn River and it has been there for about 30+ years and at the cost of how many millions of taxpayer's dollars. I think so far they have had less than a dozen Salmon make it back to the hatchery. Ladders were built all along the rivers and everything. One BIG FAILURE.

Idaho Dave · 02-28-2008, 03:53 PM

you sir ar indeed funny did that reading for you here save you you some timeposted it before pretending you didnt see wont help oh incase you didnt know the underlied things are links......................... it is right in the add for thier speach

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idaho Dave

good try six, you sir are absolutly right and here is a quote from a documanted article about the publicity stunt and a link to look for yourselves

A publicity tour for their new documentary
brought naturalists and filmmakers Jim and
Jamie Dutcher to Lake Forest this past November.
In a series of talks with Open
Lands supporters, they shared the
story of their six-year undertaking
documenting the behavior — in
sound and images — of the pack of

wolves they raised from pups.
http://www.lfola.org/client_uploads/GR_Spring_2006.pdf
there was also a few sites including one by a fellow with national geo that sort of refuted the claims that the dutches worked with wild wolves. further one of the animal officers states in the comments (cant be proven it was really him though he freely gives his name) that others spent most of the time with wolves and teh dutches involvment was some what limited. due to the fact that it isnt imperical evidence I didnt include it as it is unproven easy to find though just browse for Dutchers Sawtooth Mountain Wolves hand raised and scan down.
here too is an ad for thier traveling show (making money now. see you later wolves. hey but we still live with ours) at where else but the california accadamy of science.
TUESDAY, MARCH 21
Living with Wolves
Lecture by Jim and Jamie Dutcher
Jim and Jamie Dutcher spent six years living with and filming a pack of wolves in Idaho ’s Sawtooth Mountains , a remote area recently repopulated by wolves. To film these shy and elusive creatures in their most relaxed state, the Dutchers bottle-fed and raised the offspring of captive wolves in the wild, creating a pack that trusted them. In this lecture, the Dutchers blend rare and exciting film footage and photographs with inspiring anecdotes about how their experiences have led them to develop a keen understanding of the role of wolves in the ecosystem. 2 pm & 7:30 pm ; free for members, $8 non-members; California Academy of Sciences , 875 Howard Street , San Francisco . Purchase tickets by calling (415) 321-8000 or at the door, when available.
a link to the site
California Academy of Sciences - Newsroom

02-27-2008, 11:28 PM	#43
ArkansasHunter Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: South Arkansas. Posts: 17,212	If wolves exceed managable levels then they should be reduced to managable levels. Is this what we really need to agree on here ? A.H __________________ IN GOD WE TRUST NRA MEMBER

02-28-2008, 12:33 AM	#45
Mooseman684 Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Alaska Wilderness. Unit 13 Posts: 11,307 Images: 2	Wingwiper... Wolves can hunt 24/7 365 days a year, I can only hunt 20 to 30 days depending on species, some I get more chance to, but not like wolves... You don't want to believe documentation , Fine with Me... A wolf needs about 5lbs of meat a day to survive, so multiply that by 7000 Wolves in Alaska..That is 35,000 Pounds of Meat they need to eat just to survive,DAILY... and they dont eat fruits and Berries! now multiply that by 365 days=at 5 lbs a day that works out to 12,775,000 lbs. Over 12 MILLION POUNDS of MEAT...A year! Where do ya reckon they are getting it ??? They eat everything that Breathes, including fish... The Reason more people Havent been killed is Most of us are Armed and have been able to fight them off... Fact are facts.... Rich __________________ You know you might be facing your doom,when all you get is a click when you're expecting a BOOM!

02-28-2008, 12:36 AM	#46
ezearln Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Hill Country Posts: 3,605	Wolves tend to evoke visceral responses between those that have to live and deal with them on a daily basis and those who swallow whatever they've been told as the truth when they have little to no first hand factual information but cling instead to romantic notions of the nobility of wolves et al as well as myriad other predators. Facts are facts. Fact: Wolves are opportunistic predators that can and do surplus predate beyond their needs. Fact: Uncontrolled wolf and coyote, Mountain Lion and bear populations do pose significant loss potential to ranchers and farmers, as well as significant impact to all prey species within their hunting territory. Fact: Wolves, coyotes, mountain lions and bears black and grizzly do have well documented attacks against human beings as well as livestock throughout history, that the fatalities haven't been higher in regards to wolves in particular is little comfort to someone recovering from a wolf attack! Fact: Wolves as other predators will and do breed exceeding the carrying capacity of their enviroment, they can and do prey on every other creature in their path from mice to moose and NO they do not consume everything they kill. Fact: Wolves were reintroduced into areas in the west against both private parties, local and states governments objections to their reintroduction after having been absent in some cases for over 100 years (mainly supported by easterners who hadn't seen a wolf in the wild for even longer!) Fact: Wolves like any other big game species whether predator or prey needs sound management, that means hunting or trapping of the animals to control populations. This is a proven fact with ALL game animals. A partial testement to that is the recovery of the American Alligator, now so numerous after a mere 30 years of protection that they are hunted as a control practice throughout their range. It is beyond illogical to attribute anything other than that to the wolf, that they are a part of the food chain is a given, but in the wilds of today there simply is no place for having an uncontrolled population of an apex predator who if given the chance can and will extend it's range into suburbia. __________________ "You can have my Freedom when I'm done with it!"

02-28-2008, 10:46 AM	#49
Idaho Dave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Idaho Posts: 560	HUMAN=ANIMAL thus HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS= NATURE AND NATURAL BEHAVIOR You are right woves do roam so then the Dutchers, if they studied tamed wolves, though interesting and neat, didnt study wild animals. just humanized, hand feed, wolves in the wild. Certainly some useful and intersting info was gathered that way. and should we ever wonder how bottle fed humanized wolves will act with people interacting with them then by all means there is a study to fall back to. But to claim that thier experince was indicative of wolves, and the know all discovery of wolf activity is a lie. Further, now that these had feed, humanized wolves are in the wild and so used to humans, and theh Dutchers are now selling books and speaking tours, what will happen when start to roam, when winter comes and they follow the heards to the valleys, when the get hungry and then they see people? Knowing that people=food and companionship, I can only see shameful results. You as a person who loves this animal should be outraged. You are wrong the ranchers arent the only ones complaining mostly it is the big game hunters. wolf kills in the winter are not on federal lands. the snow there is 6 feet deep+ they bring the cows into thier own land during the winter and calfing. let the others know that this is how it is done so they can alter that part of the talking points. Ranch size too big? get smaller? or maybe you would like to see the family ranch done away with (course cause you dont have one) and all the land be federal. Aha then it would only be factory farms and big corperations, the animals wouldnt be cared for like they are now, a part of a family's buisness, but a faceless nameless comodity and peta would have some thing to really camplain about. I dont know where you got your info on the deer herds but there are more deer in america now then there was when europeans came here so I guess the fish and game greed worked out. "For example, by about 1930, the U.S. population was thought to number about 300,000. After an outcry by hunters and other conservation ecologists, commercial exploitation of deer became illegal and conservation programs along with regulated hunting were introduced. Recent estimates put the deer population in the United States at around 30 million." Now this quote comes form wiki so it will be harder for the antis to disrupt White-tailed deer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I have a favorite animal too it is the elk and to see the young dead with 2 or 3 bites missing just left to rot makes me feel bad to. but I hunt them, eat them, respect them and help manage them by allowing land use (the elk and deer heards that come out of the hills in the winter eat more money worth of feed then damage caused by wolves though you keep barking up that money tree like there is a squirrl in it, but they dont waste it or just take a bite, spit it out and move on to the next bale cause it cant get away, leaving each one un useable. And most people dont have a problem leting them come, you put up fences, they knock them down, you put them up again, they knock them down. but you know that in the fall you will be compensated by going with your family and harvesting one or two as meat for the coming year), license sales and carefully cull the appropriate males out of the herd when hunting season comes (we actually do hunt the mature animals that have already had a chance to be biologically successful and make way for new bulls to add thier genetic diversity to the gene pool). What is it you have done to help other then spread half facts about your favorite animal that might get some one killed oneday? I just want to say 30 years of research, please dont take offense, must have all been on the positeve side because you say things that all the pro wolf people say that can easily be called into question by a few minutes of internet searches. wolves are cool but the are killers and eaters that is all they know how to do and that is their nature. and sad to say as it is, as hard as it is for you to realize this, man is part of nature. We are fortunate that we can reason things out to the point that we do. Thus we can make all these judgement calls on ourselves and others as to our activites and then we can actually "manage" our resources . But that doesnt change what we are. Animals. Should we leave nature to take its course sir. We are nature and we would have eliminated the wolf from all existance long ago if it werent for our ability to try and manage wildlife, we managed to do it to less seemingly forms of nature and are still working on it with not complaint one from any group or activitst (ie. hosts of bacterial and viral life forms. mesquitos, different types of parasitic life forms, countless house hold annoyances such as rats and mice, even eachother to some degree. the list is long and ungly if your favorite animal is the e.coli bacteria). We are nature nothing more. the fact that your unique ability to hold yourself above it is interesting, doesnt change the fact that humans are nature so your constant anger that man will not just let nature run its course is egocentric at the least. If only the wolves practiced the same degree of thoughtful managemant that man does. Then there would be no problem. Inteligent control is a uniquely human activity. other animals eat and breed till something kills them or they number so many they starve to death, breed sickness and die anyway. The natural way is to let other preditors cull the wolf population. I sir am one of those preditors, not a god, not a marvle of industrial technology. I am an animal Homo Sapian Sapian. I am part of nature and at this time in the vast history of the planet I have clawed my way to the top of the food chain. Now I am willing to act like it. Not pretend that the earth is just a pretty park and I am only a visitor. __________________ Living the life Last edited by Idaho Dave; 02-28-2008 at 11:22 AM.

02-28-2008, 03:43 PM	#59
Wingwiper Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 789	You know, I took your advice and I am searching the internet looking for Proof that the Dutchers bottle fed and lived with the Wolves in an ENCLOSURE as you said or that they were TAMED WOLVES. I find nothing to agree with that. I see site after site say they lived for six years in a tented camp in the wildnerness amongst the wolves. I saw where they gained acceptance with some of the packs pups but I see no where where it confirms it was an ENCLOSURE or the WOLVEs were tamed, so you seem to use the word freely with me, let me bounce it back to you, YOU are speaking LIES. Actually Dave, I will give you a half of credit and call it half lies. I found some reference to the Nez Perce Wolves being kept in 20 acre enclosures and from what I read the 5 Remaining Sawtooth Mountian Wolves are there now and they are almost 9 years old. I see no reference and I am still looking to as that is where the Dutchers were for the 6 years. I have read several sites and nothing has stated they were in enclosed areas during the 6 years. They maybe now, won't argue that. That Doc was a great Doc but wasn't the only reference. So far, I have not found any confirmation to what you claim. Lefty You are right, I do hear what I want to hear and so do the rest of you ad that is why we call it OUR OPINIONS. I think I said it in about the thrid post, I don't care whether anyone beleives me or not, I have a point of view and it differs from a few of you. Does it make mine wrong? Absolutely not. There are two sides to the coin and I have one side and some of you have the other. If you read my posts I have nothing against INTELLIGENT MANAGEMENTm, my experiences with most management is it is more from Knee slapping decisions or from Book Learned idiots. PHDs don't make a person knowledgeable in the woods, I have hunted with a couple and worked with others. I have many friends who are top notch game wardens and have the common sense to go with it, problem is they have to enforce the laws and are not allowed to enforce their feelings. No doubt every state is different and I don't argue that either, I personnally think you or dave have no clue what I am debating, and I think you a couple of others have misse dmy point entirely and therfore you felt compiled to lable me as some Pony tail, latte drinking socialite.... WOW! You are way off course and if you all can't judge me for who I really am or see what I am saying, I have no idea how you all seem to be so fully understandbale of the Wolf programs. I think we are all guilty of hearing only what we want to hear, and I honestly tried, but every time I was called a liar, yup! the ole volume control got turned down. The arguement about wolves is like the arguement about God. There are some who understand and will take the time to study and read and hear both sides and make intelligent decisions based on BOTH sides and then there are those who feel MAN has a devine purpose and doesn't need to be challenged in his decisions to destroy or to control. Idaho Dave I will show you 5 failures for every successfull management story. Here in Vermont we have a LARGE Salmon Hatchery on the third branch of the Conn River and it has been there for about 30+ years and at the cost of how many millions of taxpayer's dollars. I think so far they have had less than a dozen Salmon make it back to the hatchery. Ladders were built all along the rivers and everything. One BIG FAILURE. Last edited by Wingwiper; 02-28-2008 at 04:09 PM.

02-27-2008, 11:11 PM	#41
Lng Rng Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,096	We can debate the dangers of wolves attacking people, and weather or not they kill for pleasure, and probably not get too far. But, there are many vaild reasons for wanting to contol wolves numbers. Wingpiper is right, wolves are great hunters. Wolves take a tremendous toll on the animals that they prey on, so keeping them at a sustainable number is nessasary. I don't see why there is any objection to that theory. It's called sound managment, and we do it with every single big game species, and every predator, so I don't see why wolves are any different. And I am not sure if the "they were here first" argument holds a whole lot of water when dealing with ranchers and hunters. For a lot of people, the wolves were long gone when they set-up their racnch, opened their guide service, or bought their hunting land. Wolves were never a part of the equation for them for their whole lives. Again, eradicating them again isn't a great idea, and letting their poplulation explode is just as bad, maybe worse.

02-28-2008, 09:15 AM	#47
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 10,912	Ezearln:Great post!All so factual. sam.

02-28-2008, 09:39 AM	#48
Wingwiper Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 789	EZEALN There have been far less attacks by wolves than you care to believe. Putting FACT in front of a statement does NOT make it a fact. Wolve attacks are more rare than Poodle Attacks. No! Wolves within the rules of Nature will not kill beyond their needs. Introduction of MAN and the Balance of Nature is no longer in play, man tries to control Nature and hasn't done too well. All animals will breed based on Food Supply and that is apart of the Enviroment and Habitant. When the Food supply demishes, the population, by Nature also demishes. When Man is added to the equation all Rules change. Man hunts and can destroy the balance as was done with the Buffalo and so many others. Man built dams on the rivers and destroyed Native Fish to the point, where I live they have to stock the Rivers every year to keep the Trout. Man has destroyed Deer Yards, and has enroached further and further into Wildlife habitant that sooner and not later, wildlife will no longer exsist. You will have animals only on PRESERVES. Moose I think you have missed my point. The balance of Nature has included Wolves for millions of years with no negative side effects and in all truth, very Positive results. Wolves have not killed man because man is armed. Good God, it is because they walk upright and wolves prey on four legged animals. That is why Man is omitted from many predators food list and or it could be we taste bad. Have you calculated how much MEAT man eats per day? God how many Hamburgers is McDonalds up to?? Now throw in Burger King, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Ardies and so on. Wolves hunt and kill their own meal and don't rely on SLAUGHTER HOUSES to do it for them. They don't have fast food quick stops. How many Salmon do the Bears eat per year? I like Salmon and the price is getting high, I think we should kill of the bears so the price will go down. How many Seals become food? So what??? Wolves eat meat and your point??? Wolves are animals of opportunity and will pick a sick, weak or inferior animal as prey. They will not kill for sport they kill for food. Now where the story changes a bit and where the arguments get started. IdahoDave, I would think that because the Wolf is a roamer and will cover large tracts of land and their territories are rather large. That if you want to study them, you have to somehow limit their roaming, so if the Dutchers bottle fed to gain some trust, fine, they are still wolves and they studied habit, social structure etc. There have been countless other studies that involved Radio Collars etc. So bottle-feeding to gain trust does NOT discredit their studies at all. Now my point that brings the argument. Man comes along, has vast FEDERAL Land to graze his livestock on. Kinda like a no overhead opportunity. I am sure you all have studied the wars between the Sheep Ranchers and the Cattlemen, fighting over FREE Grazing rights to the point they were killing each other. Anyhow, Man brings his livestock to freely range on these vast grasslands and Mountain areas. Colorado Summer grazing, round em up and get them to Idaho or wherever for Winter grazing. These Ranchers speak of their Ranches as if they own them, they do NOT. Some may, but most are using Federal Land to raise their livestock. Hence the Cattle and Sheep are weak and inferior, they are NOT natural to the environment and wreck havoc with the habitant. The Wolf sees an easy prey and because the Wolf doesn't own a refrigerator and can raid it at will but must forge and hunt for food. It takes the opportunity to feed off the livestock. If you were a Wolf or a Mountain Lion, Catamount, Cougar, Bear, Fisher Cat, Wolverine, Badger or whatever, wouldn't you? Like Foxes in the Chicken coop. So the Rancher bitch and belly ach that their Free ride on Federal Land has some obstacles and these obstacles are what people have read their little fairy tales about. It becomes easy for these ranchers to convince people that these Wolves are bad and have to go. SO they sell them a Bill of Goods and the wolves are hunted into near extinction. All to protect the Ranchers Bottom Line. You know what, you have an Apple Orchard you will have Black Bear and Deer feeding, have a Corn Crop and you will have Turkey and Deer. Why wouldn't you expect to have predators when you have livestock? seems to me, that comes with the turf. DO I feel sorry for the Ranchers, not in the least bit. They could go smaller, move, or build an area where there is more people presence. No doubt you will have what the Rancher refers to as a PROBLEM WOLF or a wolf that looks at opportunity and takes it. That is actually a more HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC now isn't it??? Should we allow Man to manage Nature?? Give me a break, I have watched the Fish and Game pretty much destroy the Deer herds with their greed to sell licenses. Do I say that Ranchers should have a right to destroy the wolf? Yes and No. No if they have made no effort to solve the problem in any other way. Yes! If they have tried everything feasible to solve the problem but they are losing more than an allowable ratio. Every business has risks, and Ranchers should not be allowed to kill Wolves if they have 5000 head of livestock and lose than 2%. Shop lifting in any store is usually about 2%. Then there are other risks businesses have to deal with and overhead as well. If there can be a formula created that takes all these into consideration and then says to the Rancher that the cost of having a ranch has its losses as well and those losses should not have to exceed X % then if the Wolf contributes to having the losses and overhead exceed the Ratio, then they would be allowed to try and solve the problems tactfully first and if that doesn't work, then harvest a given amount of Wolves until their ratios are within the given area. You see I say Ranchers have to be controlled as well. We watched the railroad kill off millions of Buffalo and yes to starve the Indian and for fun. If we allow the Ranchers to just keep moving in and taking over Environment and Habitant then what do we do, allow all of nature to be destroyed in the best interest of Profit? That is my argument. The wolf needs NOT to have to pay with its life for some Rancher protection of profit. Wolves do not multiply like Deer or Rabbits and the pack takes time to increase in numbers and for other packs to spring off of it. Nature had its rules for keeping balance, it is Man who screwed the balanced and not the wolf. By the way, I have been reading about wolves for over 30 years and did not just get an Internet education. I think every man has a favorite animal that he relates to and the Wolf is mine and has been since childhood. Can we live together, I think we HAVE TO and I do not think the wolf needs to be destroyed to protect profits, I have nothing against INTELLIGENT CONTROL and allowing Nature to be Nature and not allowing knee slapping control. Domestic Dogs caused more damage to humans than the Wolf every dreamed of doing.

02-28-2008, 12:54 PM	#52
lefty o Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: mn Posts: 6,239	dave you really shouldnt waste your breath on this anymore, you will not sway his opinion- even though his opinion has been based on a study of TAME wolves. quite frankly, ive never seen an animal that hunts and kills for food, also not do it just for sport or practice. arguing that wolves dont, based on a study of tame hand fed wolves is just foolishness. anyone that chastises someone who wants to hunt wolves, but they thereself hunts other animals is a biggot (for lack of better word) on the subject. wingwiper, you yourself have no need to hunt any animal, you can buy it at the store. so you, by your choice hunt and kill animals- why criticize others for wanting to do the same. if someone else shouldnt be allowed to hunt and control the wolf population, what makes you think its allright for you to do likewise with any big game animals? i think your thought pattern is a little twisted and self serving, ie its okay for you to do what you choose, but not others. no one here is advocating the wholesale slaughter of any animal, just limited hunting.

02-28-2008, 01:03 PM	#53
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 10,912	You can lead a wolf right activist to water but you cant make him think.Just for you darkwing duck wingwiper. sam.

02-28-2008, 02:05 PM	#56
Dustdevil Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 33	I hunt. I generally eat what I hunt. I have no problem with trophy or sport hunters. I just don't choose to join them. I believe man is the ultimate apex species, and has the right and the nature to eat other animals for food. I believe man has screwed up a few species at one time, but has learned to manage such things better, and is doing a fine job of it for the most part. I believe hunting is now a necessary part of species management. I believe man has the right to hunt, and the responsibility to do it with minimal loss. However, food is not the only valid reason for harvest of wild game. Not by a long shot. I believe the ESA is used as a tool for political purposes, and that many of the species listed are there for political reasons. I believe wolves were hunted to near extinction for a valid reason, and that is human economic activities. I believe it could have been managed better, but ESA is a tool that leaves the door wide open for abuse of the liberties of the American citizen. I have no problem with re-introduction of wolves as a general rule, but re-introducing them into an area where they will most certainly cause the same destruction of human economic activities all over again is beyond stupid. Wolves HAVE been re-introduced into Yellowstone NP, I've seen them myself, live and in living color. They have also been introduced into areas with a high population of livestock ranches, where they will most certainly (and have, certainly) created havoc all over again. Did we expect anything less? Their populations have exploded in Yellowstone, as they have elsewhere when re-introduction programs have been implemented. To claim they should be left alone and not hunted as a management tool is quite short-sighted and naiive, especially in light of the fact that hunting IS such a great management tool (and one of the few we have). Often, a species benefits from fewer members. Such is the case with wolves. I believe ranchers have the right to shoot wolves which threaten their livestock herds, flocks, whatever. I believe they don't have to sit on the back porch and shoot only wolves venturing onto their property. I believe they have a right to hunt down local wolves within range of their property and shoot them, too. I believe they should be allowed as many wolves as exist within range of the livestock herd. In other words, there should be a "fair game" zone within reach of stocked ranches. I believe we should be extremely careful in deciding which species we will be involved in "managing". Some will go extinct with or without our intervention. We should expend more resources to learn which ones are declining without our influence, and avoid sacrificing important human economic activities in a vain attempt to save a species that will decline of its own inability to adapt. I believe sound science and proof should be the only factors determining which species are to become protected in some way. Guesses, human error, and the so-called "precautionary principle" are so unreliable as to invite disaster for a species and for human economic activities, as well as providing more than ample opportunity for political manipulation. I believe we must resist the temptation to monkey with every species in existence, and should shun the people who search for sub-species specifically to use them as "evidence" of other humans' bad influence and practices. I believe we should recognize a political motivation for denouncing human economic activities without proof or solid evidence, when it exists. I believe humans are a part of nature, and our economic activities are mostly just another factor in the way we survive as a species. I do not believe man is a blight on the earth, as some obviously do. I believe all species must learn to adapt to a changing world, or perish. That changing world includes human economic activities such as ranching and hunting. I believe that nature must occasionally go through an imbalance as changes occur in climate, weather, habitat, and natural disaster, in order to get back IN balance. I believe that balance is not the least bit fragile. On the contrary, I believe it's quite robust. I believe that humans who believe that man is usually at fault for any species degradation and environmental imbalance are a bit imbalanced themselves.

02-28-2008, 02:49 PM	#58
lefty o Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: mn Posts: 6,239	its funny wingwiper, you are the one who's truly seems to only hear what he wants to hear. i understand you are a hunter, that is why i can not figure out how you adminish others who choose to hunt a different animal than you do- twisted logic. yes, they were tame wolves- they were kept in an enclosure, hand fed, and interacted with humans- that is not a wild animal. like i said, no one here has said they want to kill every single wolf on the face of the earth. everyone just want to hunt them in a sporting manner, much like you hunt deer or turkey. nevermind, i guess ignorance is bliss.