The fish and game just recently announced they intended to lower the wolf numbers down to the 150 animal federal minimum and will hire more trappers to do it. The down side is they waited so long that it will take the rest of most of our hunting lives for the animals to recover unless they do relocations from the areas less effected. Even then it will be many many years before we see hunting like the glory years of the late 90's and early 2000's.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Professional Hunter to Remove Idaho Wolves
- Thread starter Mike 338
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
rooster740
Well-Known Member
We are all doomed!
This is all common knowledge so excuse my rant!
The fire problem is too much like the wolf problem! There is too much federal money in fire fighting! I feel that if you build a house in timber country you better be able to protect it from fire, not my tax dollars! They will not allow any logging but a lot of times will let a fire get out of control and then spend millions fighting that fire. If logging was allowed in these areas the fires would not get out of control and I would bet that the logging industry, and lobbies on the hill would get the fires out in logging country a whole lot faster!
The Gooberment put wolves here, spent millions studying them and protecting them for too long! The gooberment put wolves here in historic ranch and farm country but tied the protective hand! The Montana Fish and Game can not figure how to sell nonresident licenses. Their latest proposed solution is to raise the cost of resident licenses to generate income.
Cow elk all over the place and no legal bulls in an area that was world renown for lots of big bulls, but roughly 50% bulls 50% cows are born. So we all know that screwy managed big game does exist. Until 4 years ago it was a felony to kill a wolf unless its presence met strict criteria. 4 years ago was 15 years too late to protect all big game that hunters pay good money to be correctly managed!
tumbleweed7mmstw
Active Member
Here is a news article published today about the wolfs taken out by IDFG, this from a news letter I get weekly over here in Washington State. Says they only eliminated 9 of them! I'd rather it been 90 or more. IDFG Ends Wolf Control Actions In Middle Fork Salmon Wilderness Area
Sad state of affairs. Its about like our military in wartime and otherwise really. I support our troops to the fullest and would hate it if any veterans took this the wrong way, but too much bureaucracy can weaken anything. There are some darn-good team leaders, platoon leaders, company commanders out there, etc. But eventually you get up high enough where it becomes a guy that skated through his whole career without ever being shot at yet commands all the men who get shot at on a daily basis. Go above them, and you get to the politicians. Dont think I have to say anything about them, CCR`s "Fortunate Son" addressed that better than I could for a generation before mine but it certainly still applies.
Id wager the majority of the people in the Fish and Game departments are not out humping it through the hills and woods very much at all, if ever. Certainly the ones giving their all to protect wolves are not out there taking down game or knew what the purposes of sheepdogs meant. Wolves are our competition, theres no benefit I can think of to having them around.
With that said, quite a few have brought up how difficult it is to hunt wolves. Ive never hunted them before, or even seen any. Im genuinely curious, what makes it so difficult? Why/how are they so smart? For those that have taken down both, which is more difficult/smarter between mountain lions and wolves? Im guessing wolves arent nearly as curious as coyotes... Strange that wolves ended up so different from yotes.
Also, Ive seen it done out of a helo, but shooting from an airplane?? Ive never seen that done, figured they would be too fast to get an effective shot off.
Id wager the majority of the people in the Fish and Game departments are not out humping it through the hills and woods very much at all, if ever. Certainly the ones giving their all to protect wolves are not out there taking down game or knew what the purposes of sheepdogs meant. Wolves are our competition, theres no benefit I can think of to having them around.
With that said, quite a few have brought up how difficult it is to hunt wolves. Ive never hunted them before, or even seen any. Im genuinely curious, what makes it so difficult? Why/how are they so smart? For those that have taken down both, which is more difficult/smarter between mountain lions and wolves? Im guessing wolves arent nearly as curious as coyotes... Strange that wolves ended up so different from yotes.
Also, Ive seen it done out of a helo, but shooting from an airplane?? Ive never seen that done, figured they would be too fast to get an effective shot off.
rooster740
Well-Known Member
A lot like our military the wolf hunters have too many rules of engagement! Wolves vs lion in my mind a lion does not use it's nose at all comparatively. A lion will tree with one dog in usually a short distance, a wolf might be twenty miles away in the same time, and if not will kill those hound dogs and eat them in a hurry. A lion typically hunts solo, a wolf typically has more observers in the A.O. That help them stay aware of prey or danger ( hunters), and can vocalize what they observe a great distance. There are too many to list, but I feel like it would be easier to kill a human then a wolf that has been hunted.
dook
Well-Known Member
I read this on another forum:
"The Eskimos have always greatly prized the wolf. It's fur and meat are of great quality and the beast itself is both majestic and powerful. Killing a wolf was a nearly impossible endeavor without strong weapons, and yet the Eskimos found a way to do it. They did it not by force... in fact they never even touched the wolves. The wolves simply killed themselves.
An Eskimo would first sharpen a knife. They would then proceed to soak the knife in seal blood and then freeze it. Then they would dip it in again and freeze it once more. This covered the knife in layer upon layer of frozen blood. The knife soon resembled a Popsicle.
They would jam the knife's hilt into the snow where they thought wolves would be and left.
A hungry wolf takes a deep breath of the freezing Alaskan air. It smells something delicious. It's mouth starts watering as it tracks the scent. Fresh blood. The wolf eventually tracks the scent to the blood Popsicle. It begins to slowly lick it. It licks away layer after layer of blood until soon they reach down to just the knife. They cut their tongue, but they hardly notice. The freezing blood easily numbs the wolf's tongue. The wolf continues to lick at the knife, cutting itself more and more. Pretty soon, the wolf begins to feel weak from loss of blood.
Despite the obvious signs that the knife is harming it, the wolf continues to lick the knife. It ignores all of the negative signs. It feels that getting more blood from the knife would be the answer. Soon the wolf's mouth is so badly cut that blood starts pouring from it's wounds. The wolf's tongue starts to thaw as warm blood flows over it. The wolf is nothing short of ecstatic that they can taste more blood. It attacks the knife more vigorously and aggressively. It knows nothing but the taste of blood. The wolf will desperately continue to lick the knife until it collapses from blood loss and dies."
Have also heard about people using old lawnmower blades.
"The Eskimos have always greatly prized the wolf. It's fur and meat are of great quality and the beast itself is both majestic and powerful. Killing a wolf was a nearly impossible endeavor without strong weapons, and yet the Eskimos found a way to do it. They did it not by force... in fact they never even touched the wolves. The wolves simply killed themselves.
An Eskimo would first sharpen a knife. They would then proceed to soak the knife in seal blood and then freeze it. Then they would dip it in again and freeze it once more. This covered the knife in layer upon layer of frozen blood. The knife soon resembled a Popsicle.
They would jam the knife's hilt into the snow where they thought wolves would be and left.
A hungry wolf takes a deep breath of the freezing Alaskan air. It smells something delicious. It's mouth starts watering as it tracks the scent. Fresh blood. The wolf eventually tracks the scent to the blood Popsicle. It begins to slowly lick it. It licks away layer after layer of blood until soon they reach down to just the knife. They cut their tongue, but they hardly notice. The freezing blood easily numbs the wolf's tongue. The wolf continues to lick at the knife, cutting itself more and more. Pretty soon, the wolf begins to feel weak from loss of blood.
Despite the obvious signs that the knife is harming it, the wolf continues to lick the knife. It ignores all of the negative signs. It feels that getting more blood from the knife would be the answer. Soon the wolf's mouth is so badly cut that blood starts pouring from it's wounds. The wolf's tongue starts to thaw as warm blood flows over it. The wolf is nothing short of ecstatic that they can taste more blood. It attacks the knife more vigorously and aggressively. It knows nothing but the taste of blood. The wolf will desperately continue to lick the knife until it collapses from blood loss and dies."
Have also heard about people using old lawnmower blades.
idelkslayer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 15
It is not the Fish and Game that is proposing to reduce the wolf population to 150 wolves, it is the governor who intends to do this by creating a "Wolf control board".
In my opinion it is a bad Idea, reducing the population that much would put us in danger of having the wolves relisted and returned to federal management. If that happens I don't think that the feds will be in any hurry to let Idaho take over management again. It would be better to manage wolves in the 550 range that IDFG proposed and that was approved by USFWS by the delisting agreement.
The Gov. is just grand-standing to his constituents, and claiming that the wolf population is rising. IDFG data has shown a decline in wolf numbers every year since hunting and trapping started. We need to just keep hunting and trapping to get where we want. There is no reason to give the wolf-lovers any more fuel for their lawsuits.
Engineering101
Well-Known Member
I'll give you a plan for wolves. I want them ALL dead. I don't want them competing with me for game ever. In a modern world with 7 billion people wolves serve no useful purpose but they do pose a threat to big game. You get wolves in your hunting area and you are the one that is going to have to move. I'm not going to tip toe around this issue and be politically correctand say we should keep a few. Why should we? Because the tree huggers would miss them? Sorry, not a good enough reason.
I don't think anyone knows how many wolves are in Idaho. They might know a trend but how do you count them? All I know is that there are too many. Now that the Fish and Game can't sell tags and their revenue is hurting they want to do something about it. When wolves were first brought here many in the Fish and Game thought it a good idea.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
Tiptoeing has been tried and failed. This isn't biology it's politics. Elect representatives willing to attack USFWS budget this fall. Elect animal rights candidates, and it won't matter a diddly **** how many wolves are in the state.
I can remember a time when we were told 100-150 would be the cap for the combined Rocky Mountain states.
The anti's are well funded, and can't be reasoned with or trusted, they want to take it all, anyone tells you different is lying to you, in an effort to make you think you should be tickled spit less to keep a little of what you got.
Some of these elk units could been appropriately closed a decade ago. No money in that, and no political advantage for the game departments to admit they were at the very least wrong.
Tanking tag sales, and targeting revenues is the only thing that has changed the situation, and it will continue to be the only effective tool we have.
I can remember a time when we were told 100-150 would be the cap for the combined Rocky Mountain states.
The anti's are well funded, and can't be reasoned with or trusted, they want to take it all, anyone tells you different is lying to you, in an effort to make you think you should be tickled spit less to keep a little of what you got.
Some of these elk units could been appropriately closed a decade ago. No money in that, and no political advantage for the game departments to admit they were at the very least wrong.
Tanking tag sales, and targeting revenues is the only thing that has changed the situation, and it will continue to be the only effective tool we have.
idelkslayer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 15
That's not going to happen. Every time a hunters says "Kill them all" it galvanizes our opposition and gives credibility to their claims that States (specifically Idaho) cannot responsibly manage predatory animals. IDFG stated that once delisted, they would manage wolves at the 2005 population (580) because that was the year that the original delisting agreement was met. ie, Minimum 150 with 10 breeding pairs per state. That is the threshold that IDFG agreed with USFWS to maintain under the delisting agreement, if we drop below that we will see increased attacks from the wolf lovers.
What will happen if we kill them all or even get close to the number allowed in the delisting? I'll tell, the USFWS will re-list the wolves under a new management plan that will require 2000-3000 wolves before delisting can occur again. 2000-3000 is the number outlined in a study which most wolf lovers point to to support their claims. If you think elk hunting is tough now, just wait until 2000 wolves exist in Idaho alone, and the USFWS has all of the control.
I am not saying that we should bow to the wolf lovers, I am saying that we need to recognize that wolves are never going to be allowed to be eliminated. They are here to stay wheter we like it or not. What we need to do is convince the wolf lovers that we can manage wolf numbers at a level that will guarantee that they are never at risk of being relisted. That number will most likely be higher than we want but lower than they want, but there has to be comprimise. They out number hunters and if they wan tthe can do some serious damage to our lifestyle. Look at California, hunting bans on mountain lions, hunting bans on using hounds. If you don't the same thing can happen in other states you don't realize how much many those tree-humpers have to throw around.
Again I'm not saying back down, I'm saying let's show them that hunters are not knuckledragging backwoods *******.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
IDELKSLAYER,
I've heard this reasonable man theory all the way back to the beginning of this fiasco. It did not work then, won't work now. Going after the USFWS funds did change the conversation for a bit. Cripple the penny ante prima donnas financially. Demand prosecutions for hunter harassment, show up to help cover the guys in the field, make a ruckus, let's at least try it before we're done. Reasonable got us to this point.
1) Wolf management looks exactly the same as extermination, just different endpoints.
2) We are opposed by fanatics that wish our extermination.
What are the sportsmen's groups doing? Having parties, and auctioning tags. I apply in several states, tag numbers in some units have dropped to pitiful numbers in places, should be eliminated in many, and some haven't recorded a kill in years.
Until/unless we get back to the roots of American game management that managed predators at low numbers, it's all gone. Unless we get adversarial with the anti's it's over.
What's left is deciding to go out with a whimper, or a growl.
I've heard this reasonable man theory all the way back to the beginning of this fiasco. It did not work then, won't work now. Going after the USFWS funds did change the conversation for a bit. Cripple the penny ante prima donnas financially. Demand prosecutions for hunter harassment, show up to help cover the guys in the field, make a ruckus, let's at least try it before we're done. Reasonable got us to this point.
1) Wolf management looks exactly the same as extermination, just different endpoints.
2) We are opposed by fanatics that wish our extermination.
What are the sportsmen's groups doing? Having parties, and auctioning tags. I apply in several states, tag numbers in some units have dropped to pitiful numbers in places, should be eliminated in many, and some haven't recorded a kill in years.
Until/unless we get back to the roots of American game management that managed predators at low numbers, it's all gone. Unless we get adversarial with the anti's it's over.
What's left is deciding to go out with a whimper, or a growl.
Last edited:
idelkslayer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 15
Reasonable has gotten us to the point where Idaho is now calling the shots. Reasonable has given us hunting seasons and trapping seasons, as along as we continue being reasonable we will retain management control. I agree that the wolf lovers ultimately want to end all hunting and they use the predators as a means to that end, but their primary tactic at this point is to prove that the states will not manage wolves for a sustainable population. If they can show evidence that Idaho is slowly and intentionally exterminating the wolves, control will go back to the Feds and Idaho will be SOL.
You are right, we shouldn't have been reasonable back when this whole thing started but that was then, it's a whole different beast now.
