See a wolf... what would you do?

[HARPERC]

This wolf is no more native to the Rocky Mountains than a Burmese Python is to the Everglades. The USFWS illegally introduced them, and the result is the extinction of the Timber wolf that existed here prior to this "experimental" transplant". The lawsuit filed to STOP this transplant actually had support from environmental groups. That's correct The Audobon society and Wyoming ranchers on the same side. Unable to procure money from congress for this "experiment" money was illegally pilfered from the Pitmann-Robinson Fund. The stated numerical goal was exceeded achieved long ago. Damages incurred were to be compensated for.
So after a couple of decades of being lied to, insulted, and robbed, folks are justifiably angry!
I want this animal gone, but would accept the numbers originally agreed on. The truth is to get to the stated management goals (their numbers) will take the same effort as eradication.
As far as our image--the groups on the other side consider hunters a step below child molesters, and having regard for their "feelings" only leaves us at an extreme disadvantage. Look into the death threats they spout at people disagreeing with them.
The original question would I shoot? Probably not, but circumstances on the ground will shape the final decision.

 

[Pdvdh]

Love - Hate.

 

[Coyboy]

One problem I see is the demise of a sustainable food source if the **** hits the fan.

Back in the 1920's we suffered a period of depression that had people in rural and metropolitan areas suffering and starving. Wild game numbers during that time were low thru much of the Midwest and Western states, years of over harvest by commercial hunters had devastated the game populations.

Think of how many people could have been feed during that time period had the wild game numbers been similar to what we had in 1800 or 1990.

When Lois and Clark mapped the west the wolf was there, the NATIVE wolf, and in there journals they talk about the magnitude of game animals that inhabited the plains. So there is/was a balance to be had.

Put 5 million hunters in the mix and 300 million people, yes we will compete for food. Unfortunately this isn't 1800 and we don't have the wild spaces for the 20 fold numbers of game that once existed. The ideology of the environmentalist is save the animals screw the humans.

Those same environmentalist want to live in a big house made of wood bought with there 5-6 figure income. Yet save the trees the spotted owl lives in, that there house was built with. If you live the life of a true environmentalist you sure as hell better live in a mud and straw house, with no electricity before you effect the lives of real land stewards with your extremist vision of animal equality.

Attrition of certain species is an inevitable fact of life in the world we live in, some day it will be the humans who will suffer at the hands of some microscopic bug or germ. But we humans think we can control every aspect of the world we live in. The liberal tree huggers want to dictate there views on everyone and they squeal the loudest and are heavily funded. The good old boys in a pick-up truck want to continue on unmolested with the life they know.

Unregulated wolves get in the way of that life, the pot has been boiling and with out action, the steam has to be released.

LETS CHANGE THE QUESTION!

When the hybreed/wolf/dog/whatever is 30 yards from your back door and your kids are out waiting for the bus. WOULD YOU PULL THE TRIGGER??

If you wouldn't how often are you letting your kids play in the woods or field behind your house?

How much of my life or yours need to change so the hipee's in the city can feel good about a wolf running around 200 miles away, in my fricking back yard?

Is there room for wolves in Wisconsin, Yes the 150 the 1984 plan called for. Not the 1500 plus we have now.

 

[rooster740]

I like what the big green guy says, and the reply about the dance! my lips are sealed but my barrel stays hot!

 

[jamesmc2]

Thanks for all the reply's to my thread. I always learn a lot on this site. I usually hear a little hot air too! Ha Ha Ha!

Obviously a lot of people have very strong opinions on this subject. I dug up some info based on actual research that should help shed a little light.

Wolves and Elk Populations in Yellowstone:

"During 2000–2004, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks reduced antlerless permits for big game by 51% from 2,882 to 1,400. Initially, the effects of wolf predation on elk during the first five years of the recovery were not detected, as elk numbers were identical to those of 1980–1994. From the winter of 1995 to the winter of 2004 however, the elk greatly decreased in number, dropping from 16,791 to 8,335 as the number of wolves on the northern range increased from 21 to 106, though predation from bears, increased human harvests, winter and droughts were also factors. Since 2000, 45% of known deaths and 75% of predation-caused deaths of radio collared cow-elk have been confirmed to be attributable to wolves. Human caused deaths in the same period accounted for 8–30% of known deaths. Yellowstone elk comprise up to 92% of the winter diet of wolves, the overall kill rates of Yellowstone wolves on elk in winter being estimated at 22 ungulates per wolf annually. This is higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted."

Debate on Subspecies:

"Historically, the wolf populations originally native to Yellowstone were classed under the subspecies C. l. irremotus. When the issue of what subspecies to use for the introduction was raised, park service representatives stated that the taxonomy of grey wolves had been revised numerous times, and that C. l. irremotus was not a distinct subspecies, but a geographical variant. Three publications were made on the appropriateness of using a founding population of Canadian wolves: Brewster and Fritz supported the motion, while Nowak determined that the original Yellowstone wolves were more similar to C. l. nubilus, a subspecies already present in Minnesota, and that the Canadian animals proposed by Brewster and Fritz were of the subspecies C. l. occidentalis, a significantly larger animal. The rationale behind Brewster and Fritz's favour was that wolves show little genetic diversity, and that the original population was extinct anyway. This was contradicted by Nowak, who contested that Minnesotan wolves were much more similar in size and shape to the original population than the proposed Canadian wolves, though he conceded that C. l. occidentalis was probably already migrating southward even before human intervention. The final use of Canadian wolves for the reintroduction was not without criticism: the American Society of Mammalogists criticized the project's lack of deference to the principle of Bergmann's rule, pointing out that the wolves used for the introduction were larger than the original park wolves, and were adapted to colder climates."

These wolves are all the same species, there is a lot of controversy and debate about which how many wolf sub-species there are and where they lived. In reality they had large ranges which often overlapped. All sub-species are able to interbreed but each has/had slight morphologic differences and were better adapted to their individual habitats. Estimates on the number of different wolf sub-species ranges from only four to more than twenty. It would be fascinating if somehow DNA from the original Yellowstone wolves could be obtained and compared to wolves that were reintroduced.

Idaho Wolf Harvest Data:

Total Harvest from 2009-2010 = 188 Wolves
Average female weight = 75-80 lbs
Average male weight = 95-100 lbs
Largest wolf taken = 130 lbs

My opinion. And that is all it is… my opinion. Wolves have a role the Rocky Mountain ecosystem. If managed well and numbers are kept at low sustainable levels they can help control populations of animals inside Yellowstone and prevent overpopulation and disease in that eco-system. I like the Wyoming Wolf Management plan which would allow a hunting season on wolves in the "Greater Yellowstone Eco-system". Beyond this area the wolf would be designated as a predator and taken at will. I believe the current population is to high and well beyond original goals. This is leading to devastation of ungulate herds in some areas (see Idaho elk harvest graph)

 

[jmden]

These wolves are all the same species, there is a lot of controversy and debate about which how many wolf sub-species there are and where they lived. In reality they had large ranges which often overlapped. All sub-species are able to interbreed but each has/had slight morphologic differences and were better adapted to their individual habitats. Estimates on the number of different wolf sub-species ranges from only four to more than twenty. It would be fascinating if somehow DNA from the original Yellowstone wolves could be obtained and compared to wolves that were reintroduced.

Same species or not the wolves that were already here were very differnent, and the most salient point, they ACTED very different than that ones you and I as hunters paid (robbed) for to be introduced here.

Carefully read through the points that detail the difference in habits/actions between these two very different types of wolves in this email link below again from one of the people most involved in documenting the existence of the wolves that were here before the non-native, invasive Canadian Grey wolf was introduced:

Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves - Black Bear Blog

The information is this email is and should be a major sticking point in this issue in my (albeit fallible) mind.

The Feds helicopter net gunned a very different wolf from not too far over the Canadian border, brought it back south across the 49 parallel and suddenly it's 'endangered'.

Think about that. The whole thing is a complete farce.

Dr. Val Geist is quoted as saying that 50% of a given wolf population would have to be killed every year for years to have an appreciable effect on increasing elk populations in the same areas. See below link:

Removal of West Fork Wolves Unlikely to Help declining Elk Populations

From above article: "Renowned wolf biologist, Dr. L. David Mech told me in a recent interview that removing wolves from the West Fork region would probably have little to no effect on restoring elk numbers. Wolves have a high birth rate and new wolves are likely to quickly claim territory opened by killing the current wolves. Dr. Mech believes we would have to remove far more wolves than the Federal Government will consider allowing to have any chance at helping the elk population."

This is a serious issue, made much more serious because of the kind of animal introduced. You have to really wonder about the mindset of the folks in the USFWS that were willing to rob 60 million+ dollars from the Pittman-Robertson fund in 1994ish--my money and your money from excise taxes on firearms ammunition etc. set up in 1936, I believe, largely to be given back the the states to manage their wildlife. Watching this interview with Jim Beers, who came out of that organization and saw for years what was going on, sheds some light on this:

[ame=http://vimeo.com/28939194]Crying Wolf - Jim Beers: The Demise of Conservation on Vimeo[/ame]

I'd encourage all to watch this and contemplate a bit.

 

[HARPERC]

Canis lupus occidentalis was different from Canis lupus irremotus, and arguments to the contrary should be likened to Bill Clinton trying to redefine what is means.
We are not dealing with folks of good will with differing opinions, the reclassification is just one more example of ongoing dishonest manipulation. We can't do much about the wolf, but we can make the decision to stop swallowing the BS.
The same folks that would have you believe "geographical variant" on one hand, want to spend millions of our dollars protecting something else when it suits them. These 2 wolf species are as different as the Barren Ground Caribou, and the Woodland Caribou, but millions of our dollars have been spent because of the "geographic variants".
We are not dealing with people of integrity, I'll give you another non-wolf example, Here in Washington 7 government employees submitted fraudulent hair samples to prove there were Lynx present here. 3 US Forestry Service, 2 US Fish and Wildlife Service, and 2 employees of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department committed fraud so a "geographical variant" could be used to block access to Public Lands.
If being angry at being lied to, makes me a "hater" or whatever buzz word their using this morning so be it.

 

[royinidaho]

To whom it may concern,

Be it known that I have changed my previous position.

If there are game or bovine in the same section as said seen woof, and I feel reasonably alone, it being a nice quiet day, I'll take the shot.

Attested to, here and now, by me.

My mark: X

 

[bigngreen]

My opinion. And that is all it is… my opinion. Wolves have a role the Rocky Mountain ecosystem. If managed well and numbers are kept at low sustainable levels they can help control populations of animals inside Yellowstone and prevent overpopulation and disease in that eco-system. I like the Wyoming Wolf Management plan which would allow a hunting season on wolves in the "Greater Yellowstone Eco-system". Beyond this area the wolf would be designated as a predator and taken at will. I believe the current population is to high and well beyond original goals. This is leading to devastation of ungulate herds in some areas (see Idaho elk harvest graph)

I would fully agree that the native wolf has a place in the area here, they never were completely gone and had a fine population until they were irradiated by the gray wolf, the gray wolf did in a couple short years what millions of dollars and poison did not! The problem with the native wolf was it was not publicly visible, people think that what they see in Yellowstone is normal so they think they should be able to see wolves and hear them, the native wolf was much like the mountain lion and you had to spend serious time in the mountains if you wanted to see them or hear them and that doesn't put money and power into peoples pockets so the native wolf was removed for a more popular version.

I think we're in for a management nightmare, when I was helping trap a lot of coyotes we would kill them down till we started catching older females, males and young go first in the populations so we were killing a good percentage but what happens is the litters and health of the coyotes increased greatly thus the great renewable resource. It's very hard to kill predators of this nature in a way that actually decreases the numbers, even coyotes we'd have to use getters and denning to seriously impact the numbers. At the levels we're killing wolves now we're just making them healthier!!!

 

[Swamphunter]

well said Phorwath, we need to be responsible hunters. There is enough bad press for hunters the way it is. The wolves can be managed effectively just as any other game animal. Don' let your emotions get in the way. Think with your head.

 

[bigngreen]

well said Phorwath, we need to be responsible hunters. There is enough bad press for hunters the way it is. The wolves can be managed effectively just as any other game animal. Don' let your emotions get in the way. Think with your head.

How do you manage an apex predator from an other ecosystem that is introduced into an other. I feel far less emotion on this subject than you do, it's plain and simple common sense, we had wolves, elk, moose and deer in abundance with little issues then they introduce this wolf through the Federal Park system and it spreads and wipes out everything, and becomes a serious issue, don't need emotion to link that together. It does become emotional when they come into your yard and rip your family pet apart in front of you kids like has happened here!!! It the attitude of bend over and take it to make nice that has hurt hunters not standing up and fighting for native wildlife and hunting rights.

 

[Broz]

How do you manage an apex predator from an other ecosystem that is introduced into an other. I feel far less emotion on this subject than you do, it's plain and simple common sense, we had wolves, elk, moose and deer in abundance with little issues then they introduce this wolf through the Federal Park system and it spreads and wipes out everything, and becomes a serious issue, don't need emotion to link that together. It does become emotional when they come into your yard and rip your family pet apart in front of you kids like has happened here!!! It the attitude of bend over and take it to make nice that has hurt hunters not standing up and fighting for native wildlife and hunting rights.

+1 and very well said

Jeff

 

[Swamphunter]

I live in Minnesota, we have far more wolves than you have and while there are pockets of depredation problems there are also places where there are no problems. I find it hard to believe that your wildlife is being wiped out by a handful of wolves.

 

[rooster740]

I live in Minnesota, we have far more wolves than you have and while there are pockets of depredation problems there are also places where there are no problems. I find it hard to believe that your wildlife is being wiped out by a handful of wolves.

I will tell you a secret; it is my experience that wolves do not like deer. They like elk sheep moose then stinky deer.
I will make you an offer. You put in for an overpriced Montana elk, deer and wolf, license, and I will take you hunting on the north border and within 40 miles of Yellowstone Park, free! I also bet you that your *** gets really sore before you kill a 300 bull elk or bigger. I will also bet that you see lots of really hungry bears out of their den way longer than normal and a few tracks from a "hand full" of tuned up wolves. This was a world renowned area for great big bulls and a lot of them.
Next we will drive into several human populated areas that have lots of elk and deer and moose, they are the smart game animals that live in town now to stay alive. Yellowstone used to be full of elk and on a summer or fall drive you could see and study hundreds of elk. Now the only large bunches of elk you see are in Mammoth and other populated areas.
My next opinion is people do not be offering game management suggestions about an area that they have zero knowledge about. If you do not know the history of, or spend a bunch of time in an area, how can you have any valid input? So I am here to help you. This is the deal. You pay a truck load of money for a license, and I will take you on the hunt of a life time. You can only shoot a 300 inch or bigger bull elk, good luck seeing a deer but if the rare chance presents itself for a 24 inch or bigger mule deer buck have at it. Wolves are fair game and bring bear spray of your choice; I prefer 12 gauge 00buck.
The only other obligation you have is to write an extensive article to be published in at least 3 pro-hunting publications.