MT going to cut loose on wolves!!!

[Gone Ballistic]

Topgun 30-06
I'm sure that there are many that feel the same way you do. The Anti's feel just as strongly the other way. If they didn't then why are they still fighting against delisting after the original amount of 300 wolves with 15 breeding pairs were met years ago. They definately proved their true colors and that was to keep them listed forever. I can't say as I disagree with the way you feel however, being realistic, one has to meet certain boundaries with some give and take anymore to be successful. Particularly when you're coming from the hunting side of an issue. As I stated earlier, it may or may not have had any different outcome but the thing is, and you can't deny it, Montana and Idaho did get to put a few of them down legally. Also, the whole issue Malloy used in his verdict was based on Wyoming not getting a similar plan as Idaho and Montana did. Those plans involved setting up seasons that limited maximum annual kills and treated wolves as a game annimal just as they do bears and mountain lions. Wyoming wanted to allow a shoot on sight with no fish and game intervention or limits. You can't dispute the facts.

 

[Shooter264]

No I meant Wyoming should buck up and let the feds know that they will not enforce nor investigate any killings of wolves. If the Feds want to make it a Fed issue let it be a fed issue and they can investigate. I was told by a possum cop (game Warden) here in Wyoming that since the Wolves were delisted once that any damage they do to livestock now comes out of the States fund, not the Feds. It's time that the States take control inside their borders and not worry about what the Feds do or think. We have abundant resources here with oil and gas, coal, and tourism that we don't really need a dime from the feds.

 

[Shooter264]

Gone Ballistic you are partially right. Wyoming DID want a season on Wolves with limits INSIDE the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Outside that area it was a shoot on sight. They are doing that right now. They have eliminated several Wolves in the Bighorn Mountains by way of Helicopter, so why not save the State some money and allow the people to do that?

 

[Gone Ballistic]

I am aware of that. Let's face it, if Idaho, Montana and Wyoming could have kept all the wolves inside the Yellowstone Eco-System, that would have been fantastic. Visitors to Yellowstone would have been viewing very thin wolves suffering from brucellocious and maybe a chipmunk or two. That would be the extent of wildlife they would be looking at if all the wolves were contained within that perameter. Idaho didn't get a shot at that as they were turned loose in the central portion of our elk supply. What should inflame every license holder in Idaho and Montana is the wolves were managed by revenue that came from our license sales and fees. That's why our governer finally told the feds "enough."

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Although I live in MI, I call Wyoming my second home and I'm usually out there from 4 to 6 weeks every Fall. I have yet to speak to one Wyoming resident, obviously including a number of ranchers, who were for introduction of wolves into the ecosystem. Wyoming did have their plan approved by the FWS in 2007 and Montana immediately raised a stink as to why it was approved when it wasn't in 2004 and 2006. The antis got involved and the FWS reversed their decision and the delisting was reversed. The antis know that every time Malloy rules in their favor that they can then recover the millions of dollars it costs them to pursue that lawsuit from Federal taxpayers because Federal law allows them to apply for and receive monies back from the Federal Government in those lawsuits. In effect, taxpayers are paying them and the courts and the taxpayer ends up the loser every time. This whole fiasco is simply a matter of states rights, just like the state of AZ now facing a Federal lawsuit for trying to control illegal aliens on their border, which the Feds are responsible for and aren't doing nearly enough. The antis, if they have their way, want wolves to roam the entire country and they are basically getting their wish by keeping this in the courts instead of in the hands of the separate state game biologists where it should be. I hunt in the Big Horn Mountains and two years ago a pack came all the way from north of Yellowstone Park and killed over 100 sheep and calves on two ranches adjacent to where I hunt. The area is over 250 miles from the Montana state line near Yellowstone. I met the Father of the Federal Agent sent in on the matter and they had to use a plane because trapping did not do the job. They were still only able to kill 3 out of the estimated 8 in the pack. The alpha male had a collar on that had been put on him by the State of Montana FWP to the north of Yellowstone Park! Last September while helping a rancher survey a new fenceline that borders the ranch where the sheep were killed we found a wolf track in the mud. I'd put the photo on this thread, but I am not computer literate in the way this site works to do it. Suffice it to say that it was larger than our hand, so it was not a coyote and I know what a cougar track looks like. My question is this? If the Feds are trying to keep them in check by killing them outside the zone like they did there, why don't they just approve the Wyoming plan and let us do it the way Wyoming has been asking in their plan from the start? Seems pretty simple to me!!! Oh, and one final thing. The question was raised as to why the antis are still involved in this even though the wolf population is many times more than the agreed upon level for delisting. The simple answer to that is that if wolves are allowed to expand and the game we hunters buy licenses for are the prey and drop to unhuntable levels everywhere like they are around Yellowstone they will have succeeded in eliminating hunting. That means if there is nothing to hunt there is no need for guns and that is their hidden agenda! It all really falls into place rather well if you are one of them and think about it a little!!!

 

[Gone Ballistic]

Topgun, you absolutely hit the nail on the head. The mission the Anti's now have is exactly as you speak. I don't think that they originally went into this wolf release with the thought of it being able to eliminate hunting but once they saw the wolves devastating our elk herds, a new concept for them came about with full fury. It has been proven that once the elk numbers severly diminish, secondary wildlife diminishes along with them. In addition, riparian areas will become lost due to overgrowth and it goes on and on.
Arizona has released several packs of Mexican Grey Wolves on two separate occaisions that have been killed off within a couple of months of their release and they haven't caught the culprit (hero) yet. They are trying their third introduction after laying off trying re-introduction for the past six years.
If Wyoming would just put a program in place to limit overkill I think everything would be in place. You're right about all of the sportsmen's money. They're also using Pittman-Robertson funds which come from sportsman for funding as well.

 

[mustang58]

The wolf issue isn't about animals of any sort. It is strictly money. The Defenders of Wildlife has a statue of a wolf on their headquarters property. It is their cash cow. Every time there is a glitch in the status of wolves they send out a mailing asking for money and people respond. If they were concerned about wildlife they would be concerned about the elk herds. Interesting article in Muley Crazy about predators and wildlife management by the feds for those that are interested. The status of the elk herds in the wolf states is sad but I don't see anything changing unless the bills in the congress are passed. We aren't going to control wolf numbers with rifles. It has been tried in Alaska and Russia.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I would have to disagree with that last part of your post in that Alaska is quite remote compared to the states we are talking about and the human population is also very low. I really do think there are enough hunters that could do a big part in culling them, along with aerial work by the Feds when necessary, and the former was already proven by the hunts that were approved and went forward before the relisting last year. There is enough mountain lion depredation in the BigHorns alone right now and I hate to think about what's going to happen if these wolves expand greatly from what is already there and what no Government Agency wants to admit!

 

[Gone Ballistic]

Mustang, you're right on with this one. The Anti's have used the wolf as their "Cash Cow." Wolves are killing machines. Our forfathers recognized this and shot and trapped them out. We will never know life again as it was before wolves were re-introduced, but we need to at least have a chance to reduce their numbers to a somewhat controllable level. The wolf hunt in Idaho proved that hunters can't put a major dent in their numbers, as there were lots of tags, that were issued on a limited basis, that were never filled. That, in and of itself, proved that hunters won't negatively impact their survival rate. I do believe that it does, however, push them out of certain areas if hunting pressure is kept on them. It also makes them fear man enough to avoid him at all costs, where before they had no fear and entered his domain at random. I have a friend that lost two of his hounds to wolves before the wolf hunt was allowed.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I really don't know how you can say that hunters didn't put any dent in them during that one season. They took a goodly number in a fairly small percentage of the overall ecosytem that they were allowed to hunt in! Any G&F Agency puts out a certain number of tags for any particular animal in a given area knowing that a certain percentage won't be used, a certain percentage will be used by those not knowing how to hunt the target animal, etc. To say what you did really isn't accurate without knowing a lot more facts like how many actually hunted, etc. The other fact that you fail to mention is that it is commonly known that one of the antis tactics now is buying tags and permits to decrease the percentage of legitimate hunters who will actually be in the field. I wouldn't doubt it one bit that they have even killed a few wolves themselves to help further their agenda. That agenda has nothing to do with animal welfare or they would see that the elk population is going down the tubes. True fact is that they don't give a s***!!!

 

[mustang58]

Idaho is basically saturated with wolves in the mountainous areas. You can't push them out into another pack's area because they are very territorial and will fight to the death to defend that territory. The neighboring pack knows this. You are right that wolves will become afraid of man and that is why we won't be very successful in controlling them. Their senses are so keen that you can be among them and never see one. Another point is that you have to kill about 70% of them every year for several years before you will make a difference in the game numbers. Not my numbers but Alaska. The thing that will reduce their number is lack of food. There will be some ugly congrontations with man before that happens. Alaska doesn't have a domestic livestock population. The wolves are dependent on the game only. Our elk numbers are getting to the point that the wolves are nearly out of food now. I think in a short few years we will see what will happen. I don't know if you have been to central Idaho and looked at the wilderness area or not. Alaska has nothing on the country. Our mountainous areas are also much steeper than Alaska and will be harder to control predators with aircraft. We will loose aircraft and crews and the success will be somewhat less. Fixed wing aircraft will be useless in the steep areas. Helicopters will cost alot more to fly. Where will the money come from? Just some thoughts.

 

[Gone Ballistic]

Mustang58,
I have done the majority of my elk hunting over the past 40 years in the Selway, Palouse and Clearwater Valley areas. I currently am in the process of building a new place in the Clearwater Valley area which I hope to retire in the next year or two. The decimation of the Elk in both areas has been disheartening to say the least. I saw 4 wolves on my last whitetail hunt in November between upper Dworshack and Elk River chasing a lone cow elk. There were many others that witnessed it as well as I heard close to 20 shots fired in their direction. It didn't seeem to alter the wolves plan, however. I finally lost sight of them in heavy cover. I'm reasonably sure they succeeded in their mission. They have taken the Dworshack heard from around 18,000 pre-introduction to less than 2500 as I understand.
I do know that if the Fish and Game agencys allow hunters the ability to use electronic calls and decoys, we will be able to have a better impact on them. We're stuck with them the way things are now and it is getting too late in some areas to bring back in our lifetime what once was. If a bill gets out of Washington D.C. that eliminates them from the Endangered Species Act's protection, we could eliminate them once again. I don't see that ever happening but it should. We need to bring the control back to the folks we pay to manage our wildlife based on sound biological data, not politics. We also need to become cohesive and teach the public the truth regarding The Defenders of Wildlife, PETA and the National Humane Society. The problem is that hunters are just too filled with apathy. They, as a whole, want it their way but don't want to take the initiative to put their own time and money out there. The majority seems to gripe about everything while they sit back and wait for someone else to bode their wares.

 

[mustang58]

I don't think you will ever see them gone in our life time. Having said that though we might see them reduced to a number we can live with alot better than the number we have now. I have seen the elk numbers go from not too many to alot in my life time here. I have seen elk at the peak. I don't think they will ever reach that number again. I sat on a high ridge last winter in the head of Colson Cr. I could see for 5 or 6 miles on the other side of the Salmon River. Total elk count that I could see was 14. There used to be 50-100 on every ridge. The Fish and Game still won't admit they have a problem,at least the ones in the Salmon Office. Talking about keeping their(wolves) numbers down with rifles, we couldn't even kill the quota set last winter. How pathetic is that. We like to puff our chest out and think we are Rambo at times, but the truth of the matter is we aren't good enough hunters to control wolves with rifles. Wishing you all the luck in your move to the Clearwater. Just wish there would be some elk there to hunt or look at when you arrived. I'm not concerned about myself. I have killed between 40-50 elk in my life time and if I never kill another I am fine with that. I know though thast there are hunters that are young now that maybe will only get 2 or 3 chances in their life time to hunt them in this state.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I can't really argue with anything that has been said since my previous post. The only reason I mentioned Alaska was because of it's size and remoteness. I have never really been up into Montana or the parts of Idaho where all the wolves are decimating the herds, so I sure wouldn't argue with someone who is on the ground there! I do know it is some tough country from all I've read and pictures I've seen and that to control them you need to do exactly as you have stated. The really sad thing that I have to agree with you on is the hunter apathy statement. That alone is probably why I feel we will never win because we don't know how to get together and fight the antis! I've also killed enough animals in my 57 years of hunting that it won't hurt me, but the future generations sure don't have much to look forward to!!!