See a wolf... what would you do?

[Swamphunter]

And I see you putting in links that only support YOUR position.

You make it sound like these "western" introduced wolves are some superduper magical unkillable creature of mythology. They run like the wind dissapear in a cloud of smoke and eat elk like snowflakes melt in the sun.
Wolves are basically wolves, they may vary some from place to place but they are all still wolves. Canada has wolves, Canada has game animals, Alaska has wolves, Alaska has game animals. "Yes the wolves take some game animals. No doubt about it. AS things progress, the state will get better at figuring things out and that will help, the elk will learn how to better evade the wolves and that will help, the hunters will get better at killing them and that will help, and when the wolves territories start overlapping they will start killing each other battling for territory ( did you know they do that?)
and that will help.
There are to many people I see on here that just want to completely wipe them out lock stock and barrel. We have done enough of that. We used to have Elk all over Minnesota, now we have about a hundred, we used to have Caribou here, now none. If I sound like a wolf lover
(and compared to what I see on this forum I must be) so be it, I simply think that wiping out an entire animal population is not the way to go about things. I am all for killing excess wolves, and I am also for killing any other animals that get beyond their carrying capacity.

 

[Swamphunter]

Swamphunter, I'll extend an invite to come up to the NW and get a real idea of what is happening. We can talk to outfitters, ranchers, FWP themselves, houndsmen, hunters, and see what kind of responces we get. If you only have a "handful" of wolves in your area, I can see why you would make a statement like that. When you have over 3 times the number of a non-native species that FWP said was sustainable, we'll see how many deer you boys are taking. I hope, for your sake, it doesn't come to that, for you to understand.

Cody

what is FWP
and I saw some figures earlier in the topic that listed the weights of the wolves that were being taken out west and they are about the same as the timber wolves we have so this non native species you are talking about is really pretty much the same thing.

 

[jmden]

And I see you putting in links that only support YOUR position.

You make it sound like these "western" introduced wolves are some superduper magical unkillable creature of mythology. They run like the wind dissapear in a cloud of smoke and eat elk like snowflakes melt in the sun.
Wolves are basically wolves, they may vary some from place to place but they are all still wolves. Canada has wolves, Canada has game animals, Alaska has wolves, Alaska has game animals. "Yes the wolves take some game animals. No doubt about it. AS things progress, the state will get better at figuring things out and that will help, the elk will learn how to better evade the wolves and that will help, the hunters will get better at killing them and that will help, and when the wolves territories start overlapping they will start killing each other battling for territory ( did you know they do that?)
and that will help.
There are to many people I see on here that just want to completely wipe them out lock stock and barrel. We have done enough of that. We used to have Elk all over Minnesota, now we have about a hundred, we used to have Caribou here, now none. If I sound like a wolf lover
(and compared to what I see on this forum I must be) so be it, I simply think that wiping out an entire animal population is not the way to go about things. I am all for killing excess wolves, and I am also for killing any other animals that get beyond their carrying capacity.

Count the number of posts in this thread where someone says to get rid of all wolves. Then compare that to the number of people contributing to this thread.

Your generalizations and gross oversimplificatons are dead wrong, something most here seem to realize. Back up your statements with hard data or they mean very little. Where's your research? Show us, if you know these things to be true.

And, one reason you don't have elk may be due to your wolf populations. It's not rocket science.

Nice to see you are 'all for killing excess wolves'. It's just that that word 'excess' is very difficult to agree on nationwide.

You still have not responded at all to my carefully written posts here.

Might it be that you are more intent on writing short, incorrect generalizations, than actually digging for the truth using good evidence?

No matter what your intent in your short time here, I believe you've done a service, whether you intended to or not, as you've given many here a chance to post real information, unlike yourself. So, my hope that those who read this thread over time will see the difference between your posts and many others and seriously contemplate their stand on this issue. Keep typing away...you're not helping your position. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

 

[jmden]

what is FWP
and I saw some figures earlier in the topic that listed the weights of the wolves that were being taken out west and they are about the same as the timber wolves we have so this non native species you are talking about is really pretty much the same thing.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. You're not from around here...

 

[jmden]

what is FWP
and I saw some figures earlier in the topic that listed the weights of the wolves that were being taken out west and they are about the same as the timber wolves we have so this non native species you are talking about is really pretty much the same thing.

The point (and it was clearly stated) was that the wolf you have is more similar in size to canis lupus irremotus than the introduced canus lupus occidentalis. Check out the wolf lovers own website, the International Wolf Center:

Wolf Country, wolf species, taxonamy in North America

"canis lupus occidentalis a large wolf from Western Canada, also called the Mackenzie Vally Wolf."

"canis lupus irremotus a medium-sized, light-colored wolf from the Rockey Mountians"

...looks like they need to work on their spelling. Well...don't we all.

 

[Swamphunter]

If this wolf introduction project had solid science with local biologist and the well being of the wildlife of MT, ID and Wyoming in mind then why did they have to go to a Federal Park to do the job, every other game species that has been bolstered or brought back in this area was done on the local level in location that would support the population long term.
And why the heck did we pay Canada for a wolf we could have moved form Minnesota??

We would have gladly sent you some

 

[Swamphunter]

Count the number of posts in this thread where someone says to get rid of all wolves. Then compare that to the number of people contributing to this thread.

Your generalizations and gross oversimplificatons are dead wrong, something most here seem to realize. Back up your statements with hard data or they mean very little. Where's your research? Show us, if you know these things to be true.

And, one reason you don't have elk may be due to your wolf populations. It's not rocket science.

Nice to see you are 'all for killing excess wolves'. It's just that that word 'excess' is very difficult to agree on nationwide.

You still have not responded at all to my carefully written posts here.

Might it be that you are more intent on writing short, incorrect generalizations, than actually digging for the truth using good evidence?

No matter what your intent in your short time here, I believe you've done a service, whether you intended to or not, as you've given many here a chance to post real information, unlike yourself. So, my hope that those who read this thread over time will see the difference between your posts and many others and seriously contemplate their stand on this issue. Keep typing away...you're not helping your position. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

(Well as to that last line I have received some PMs that say they agree with me but they don't want to jump in and like I said I can't blame them)
I am unable to respond to each and everyone because I am being lambasted.
I have read all your posts because you seem to be more reasonable than alot of the others. Yes I read your links, I respect Dr Mech and what he says.We have been saying for years that the population "estimates" are low. I am also aware that killing a small number of wolves will not curb the population but it has to start somewhere. This year 200, next year 300, if you guys go after the fish and game dept like you are going after me you will be able to get higher license numbers and make a dent.
We right now are just trying to get them delisted so we can get hunting and trapping seasons.
Per the video I also know that the USFWS is full of to many people that have an agenda not in the best interests of the people, (we now have miles of logging roads in Minnesota that are posted "foot traffic only"and so no one goes there ) . The liberals want to put every thing off limits and the conservatives want to dig the whole country up. We are electing liars cheats and thieves and then re-electing them. So that is getting way out in left field but it is later than hell. So for now I am off to bed.

 

[extreme]

and i see you putting in links that only support your position.

You make it sound like these "western" introduced wolves are some superduper magical unkillable creature of mythology. They run like the wind dissapear in a cloud of smoke and eat elk like snowflakes melt in the sun.
Wolves are basically wolves, they may vary some from place to place but they are all still wolves. Canada has wolves, canada has game animals, alaska has wolves, alaska has game animals. "yes the wolves take some game animals. No doubt about it. As things progress, the state will get better at figuring things out and that will help, the elk will learn how to better evade the wolves and that will help, the hunters will get better at killing them and that will help, and when the wolves territories start overlapping they will start killing each other battling for territory ( did you know they do that?)
and that will help.
There are to many people i see on here that just want to completely wipe them out lock stock and barrel. We have done enough of that. We used to have elk all over minnesota, now we have about a hundred, we used to have caribou here, now none. If i sound like a wolf lover
(and compared to what i see on this forum i must be) so be it, i simply think that wiping out an entire animal population is not the way to go about things. I am all for killing excess wolves, and i am also for killing any other animals that get beyond their carrying capacity.

you are clueless

 

[Coyboy]

I am all for killing excess wolves, and I am also for killing any other animals that get beyond their carrying capacity.

Yes finally you showed your true colors and this is why you don't get it.

Who determines the wolves are in excess???, the game depts? when the wolves are starving?

Wolves don't starve as long as there is game, if they are low on feed their reproduction slows. And they continue to control the population of big game animals.

You want to hunt only animals that are above the carring capacity of the land. YOUR WORDS.

There won't be any the wolf will take care of that.


ITS NOT UP TO THE HUNTER TO DECIDE WHEN ENOUGH WOLVES ARE ENOUGH IT IS SOCIETYS AND SOCIETY PREDOMINENTLY IS FULL OF TREE HUUGGERS WHO WANT THE WOLF.

Hunters have been the number one tool for game managment for nearly 75 years that is coming to a end. swamphunter YOU just don't get it.

WOLVES NEVER GET OVER THEIR CARRYING CAPACITY, LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT WILDLIFE SYSTEMS BEFORE POSTING!

 

[jmden]

Yes finally you showed your true colors and this is why you don't get it.

Who determines the wolves are in excess???, the game depts? when the wolves are starving?

Wolves don't starve as long as there is game, if they are low on feed their reproduction slows. And they continue to control the population of big game animals.

You want to hunt only animals that are above the carring capacity of the land. YOUR WORDS.

There won't be any the wolf will take care of that.


ITS NOT UP TO THE HUNTER TO DECIDE WHEN ENOUGH WOLVES ARE ENOUGH IT IS SOCIETYS AND SOCIETY PREDOMINENTLY IS FULL OF TREE HUUGGERS WHO WANT THE WOLF.

Hunters have been the number one tool for game managment for nearly 75 years that is coming to a end. swamphunter YOU just don't get it.

WOLVES NEVER GET OVER THEIR CARRYING CAPACITY, LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT WILDLIFE SYSTEMS BEFORE POSTING!

Some very good points there...

 

[HARPERC]

I am unable to respond to each and everyone because I am being lambasted.
So for now I am off to bed.[/QUOTE]

You're the one that chose to jump in on multiple post, it was your intention coming in to stir the pot, you came in with nothing to add, trying to BS folks that have been boots on the ground from the beginning. You are not a victim. You've lost nothing. Folks have lost businesses, livestock, pets, access to traditional hunting camps, and plans and dreams. I hope all is well as you retreat to bed and your own little dreamworld., cause it's obvious you have no intention of living in the real one.

 

[GoArmy]

After reading all of swamphunters post, there is a good chance this guy is a PETA TROLL. or maybe not, but it sure looks that way.

 

[jmden]

After reading all of swamphunters post, there is a good chance this guy is a PETA TROLL. or maybe not, but it sure looks that way.

Could be, but even if he is, I think he's doing us a service (perhaps not his intention) by helping us all to better coalesce our thoughts and glean more info regarding this issue. The more we know, the more effective we can be in fighting for true control, not to mention that this wolf shouldn't be here in the first place!

 

[Coyboy]

http://www.montanacattlemen.org/Wolf_Reportings

Look at this page and tell me your not pulling the trigger