Sad happening in Idaho!!
 

I feel for this hound man in Idaho. You can't legally protect your hounds from being torn to pieces.

http://idahopress.com/articles/2006/...news/news3.txt

Long and disturbing article!!!!The bear hunters of Michigan Wisconsin and Minnesota have had the same thing happen.

I would be pissed, and you can bet that I would be out there looking for those wolves no matter what the fine amount is.

Now, how can a person training dogs to tree cats and bear carry a firearm if it isn't hunting season? I think Idaho needs to change some of its laws as far as carrying firearms while training dogs. Not a single human life is worth the life of a wolf (to quote Skinny on alligators).

Looks like big game hunting in Idaho is going to consist of wolf hunting. Wait until the first human dies from the wolves, then there will start to be a lot of pressure on the Idaho legislature. That is what happened here. The whitetails were so cute until they started to cause car accidents, a few of which resulted in the death of children. Now they cannot get rid of them fast enough. Humans and animals both adapt rather quickly. Look at how we can live in places where people could not possibly live centuries ago. Same thing goes for wildlife. As we take habitat away, some of them will adapt to live.

Good luck with the wolf issue in Idaho. I don't want to see their extermination, but I do believe that you guys need a serious hunting season for them and you guys need to seriously participate in that hunting season.

Sad story but good to know info on what is happening, thanks for finding and sharing multibeard. I am also a firm believer that there should be a hunting season. You just can't let a population run as it will -- by the time mother nature intervenes, balance is out of kilter, Waidmannsheil, Dom.

I'm with you fabs, i'd be pretty pissed too. I love my dogs just like children. I'd have a little score to settle with some wolves. Not saying that it's right to kill em, but that's exactly what I would be doing. What if the wolves had killed his buddy? I'd kill every one I could. Just my 2 cents.

I will agree on a few things here and have to add my .02 cents


#1 I would probably be upset if my dogs were killed by wolves and eaten.

#2 it would more than likely put a fear in me that I wouldn't be out roaming in the woods without a gun.

#3 The wolf population need to be kept in balance

#4 Agressive Wolves in populated area should be killed

However, For Christ sake your going to tell me that this guy trains dogs to chase Grizzly bears and Cougars but is somehow shocked and bent all out of shape that 2 of them were killed and one injured.

Doesn't make sense that the guy is out in the woods treeing bears with hunting dogs and has no way to protect himself or the dogs if the bear decided to turn on them. What would this dude have done if that mature sow decide it didn't want retreat up a tree and turn on hi and or his dogs, it could easily happen especially this time of year when the sows are dropping babies.

:rolleyes:

Give me a break.

I don't know guys the wolves are natural predators and have a right to be in the woods, just the same as any other animal, predator or prey.

If a Grizzly happened to come down the tree and rip one of the dogs a new hole or two would this guy say that all bears shouldn't be allowed to live in the woods. Probably not because he is making money training and selling dogs to hunt them.

I agree 100% that if there is a known agressive wolf or wolves in an area near a human population they should be killed.

I agree that when it gets to the point, if it hasn't already there should be a hunting season to cull the wolf population.

But I am sorry I just do not see this guys story as any reason that the wolves shouldn't have been reintroduced or why they shouldn't be allowed to continue being part of nature.

Wolves can be agressive if you enter thier territory especially with hunting dogs. That's just part of nature the same as it is part of nature that you wouldn't go trapsing through Grizzly territory while the Salmon stream is full of salmon. I mean wolves are for all intents and purposes Wild Dogs themselves, who is to say that this guys hunting dogs didn't go after the wolves first and the wolves being what they are defended their territory??

The only thing about the story that concerns me is that it makes the wolves look like they are mindless killing machines when in fact the only reasons wolves kill are #1 to eat or #2 to protect the territory that they roam against other predators so they will have food to eat.

The wolves probably seen the dogs as another predator moving into thier hunting territory.

Mountain Lions too. :)

DaMadman,

I agree that wolves should stay, but I also agree somewhat with the other side in that their numbers should be limited through hunting. I know foxes and coyotes can have an impact on waterfowl birth rates, and I am willing to bet the same goes with the wolf and big game animals. Difference is that we can shoot and trap the coyote and fox to keep their numbers down, but these guys out west cannot do anything to keep the numbers of the wolf at bay. I sure wouldn't want to end up as wolf scat.

The fact that the wolves were willing to attack a pack of dogs because they were hungry means that there is not enough game out there for them to eat. Most predators will look for the easiest prey possible because there is no veterinarian in the wild.

So, if the wolves are attacking dogs and they aren't frightened by humans, I think they need to learn to be frightened.

We now have coyotes in Rock Creek Park here in Maryland/DC. Never thought I would see that, but I am willing to bet that their resurgence is directly linked to the amount of whitetails road kill, just as I bet the black bears resurgence is linked the same way. They reopened the black bear season a couple of years ago, and the tree huggers were so against it that they took it to Court. Lucky for us, the Judge decided in favor of the hunt. I think the same thing needs to be done in the west. If the people out there are complaining about wolves, there is usually a reason for the complaints. We waited too long with deer and geese here, and now they are a nuisance in some places. Might have the same problem with coyotes too, but you can bet I will kill every one I see, along with every fox I see, unless it would interfere with my actual hunt.

I totally agreed that the wolves should be managed with a hunting season. I just don't see that this guys story is some great tragedy.

He was out in the woods hunting (training dogs to hunt) a predator much larger than a Wolf. He said in the story that the dogs treed a Bear and he approached and retrieved the dogs with the bear in the tree above his head. With this in mind I am going to assume he was pretty much out in the middle of the woods somewhere which is exactly where the wolves SHOULD be. He invaded the Packs teritory with a pack of dogs, which to the wolves I am sure that is the same as another pack of wolves or group of coytes coming into their territory. The wolves were doing what they do naturally in defending thier territory.


As I said above I agree agressive wolves anywhere near a populated area should be shot on site. That is a definite menace and should be handle appropriately.

However as I also said this guy was out in the woods in the Wolves Territory with a pack of dogs which to a wolf is no more than a natural enemy.
Knowing what I know about wolf behavior I would venture to say that if the same guy had been in the same area without the dogs he would probably never have seen a wolf or if he had come across them without the dogs in the picture I would bet the wolf would have went the other way. I would also venture to say that the wolf lunged at the man because he got in the middle of a fight between a wolf and another animal that the wolf sees as an enemy.

Bottom line these wolves were not in the wrong, they were out in the middle of the woods and this guy introduced a threat to the pack and they acted as any predator in that situation should, they defended thier territory against the Dog Pack. If this had happened in a populated area or on someone's ranch near where people live I would have to agree that it was a big problem and the pack of wolves should be eliminated by any means possiblt.

I just can't go along with people going into the wolves territory running dogs then getting upset that the wolves did what comes natural to them.

Agreed. Kind of like crying about your boat sinking after taking it into a hurricane.

I am sure that the people that have to LIVE with these wolves every day would send you guys in MD with the deer problems all you want shipping prepaid.

When you do try to get the ability to manage the dang wolves some out of touch bunny hugging judge puts a restaining order on it.

Why do the wolves have more rights to be there than a hunter or any one else????

It won't be long and these wolves will be like the cougars in Californina. Totally unafraid of a human and attacking humans.

I don't think they should have MORE rights than a hunter but they certainly should have asmuch rights when they are in thier own natural environment.

Like I said If the wolf came into an area populated with people and made a nuisance It should be killed on sight.

But his guy was out in the woods on the wolves home turf and his dogs were percieved by the Wolves as a threat and the Wolves reacted as the naturally should.

Let's pose this question, again. If the bear the dogs treed had decided to turn on this guys dogs and ripped the dogs apart, do you think we would have heard a word about any of this? Like I said probably not because the guy trains the dogs and sells then to hunt bears and he would be out money if the bears are killed off.

How about if this guys dogs were loose running around and got into a neighbors yard and the neighbor had a Tiger as a pet and the tiger kille the guys dog.... Hmmm his dog was in the tigers turf and got killed is it the tiger's fault for defending it's yard? I don't think so.

Just like I don't think the Wolves are at fault for defending their territory against this guys pack of dogs.

Let's be real for a minute there will be a hunting season on the Wolves before too long in Idaho, There already is in Montana last I checked, (last year they were supposed to opening a limited season) Just like Maryland reinstated a Bear Season. The Wolf season will be limited strictly at first and will gradually open up and get the population to a controlled level. BTW the Federal law already States that if you are being attacked by a Wolf you can kill it. It also has proper protocol if the wolves are killing or harrassing live stock and I personally seen the pelt of a wolf that was killed by a park ranger because the Wolf had killed a sheep. So I know that if it is reported that the wolf is killing live stock or being a nuisance the authorities will kill it.

Anyway I think this subject could seriously be debated until the Dinosaurs are reintroduced into the wild (LOL) and there will still always be multiple sides to the coin, people that think the wolves should never been reintroduced, and people that think it was a great Idea and people that think it was a good thing and think they should be managed by hunting to control the population.

I personally think it was a great thing to reintroduce an animal that man all but anialated. I think I am going to love it when I am living in Montana and can go out into the woods and show my son a live wild wolf. I also think that any wolf/wolves that become agressive toward people, become a nuisance in a populated area by living on garbage cans or attack live stock. Anything similar to that, the wolves should be shot and killed no questions asked.
I don't disagree with a hunting season to control the population but would not personally shoot a wolf or any other predator unless it was going to cause me harm or being a nuisance on my property. If I took my Dog out into the wilderness (for lack of another term) and it got into a confrontation with a wolf I really don't think I could blame the wolf. As sad as I might be I think I would be more mad at myself for putting my pet in that situation.

Anyway I think the population should be controlled either with a hunting season or by killing the wolves that become a nuisance or aggressive or both. But I really think it was a great thing that it was reintroduced and I am happy to know that the wolf population in the reintroduction areas is high enough to cause this kind of controversy.

Long Live the Wolf :D

I liked the dinosaur comment.

As far as the temprary restraining order on a wolf hunting season, I have no idea how a judge would have that power and if I were running the DNR in Idaho, I would be appealing that decision. Probably differing studies between the DNR and the bunny huggers that the judge wants clarification on. Probably stupidity.

If I were you guys, I would be writing letter after letter to that Judge to make sure that he knew your view point. Too bad the Judge cannot be sued if a child is killed by a wolf.

Everybody listen.

Don't hold your breath waiting for your wolf tag in the mail. Believe me on this, I live in a state that has about 4,000 of them and they're not selling licenses yet. They've met the requirements to be removed from the endangered species list when they hit 1,500 animals, but between the Feds and a State Court judge, there is not even talk of a season on them anymore.

The wolves have a very, very strong lobby on their side and they will go to great lengths to preserve them (not harvest a resource at all) rather than conserve (use a resource wisely). There is a big difference.

My hat's off to the first state that sells wolf tags.

It's too bad the reintroduced wolves killed off any native wolves that were in the area. Now, the area really is void of it's original wolf. These big immigrants from Canada were bigger & more aggressive and took care of them.

I don't think he was training his dogs to run Grizzlies. Most people who use dogs in the west only use them on Blackies, and cats.

Fabs The judges order that I am talking about concerned the states of MI Wi and Minn. If I remember correctly the Feds were going to delist the wolves and turn the control of them over to the states and the judge stopped it. There may have been more states involved but I am not sure on that.

M.T. Pockets
Do you have any idea where we can get a link to the judges order that stopped the states of Michigan Wisconsin and Minnesota from having the authority to control the wolves. It seems that it was some female judge from out west that did it.

and out of all the back and forth debating on the whole wolf topic that is the most important issue that you could honestly come up with? :D Just kidding, but I really don't think that point changes anything at all. a black bear or a mountain lion (cougar) either one both have the ability and have been know to turn on a man or dog and rip then from stem to stern, and if it had happened with a bear or a cougar it wouldn't have been thought about twice it would have all been part of the risk associated with hunting a predator animal. But because it was a wolf and the wolf is still a protected animal and everyone seems to think they need to kill the wolves it is some big news :rolleyes:

I have for the most part stayed out of this debate on a number of boards. But perhaps you should look into what is happening to some elk populations out here. In the winter some herds actually need to be fed hay because there isn't enough food for them. I will let you figure what is happening to them. Some people are trying to hide what is going on but I will tell you that some of the heards that sportsmen have worked hard to rebuild are taking a real hit.

You cannot reintroduce a keystone preditor and not change the ecosystem. I would think people would realize that. Out here wolf packs don't bother with rabbits, or other small game. For these packs the menu is ELK........

Multibeard, I'm going by memory here. I think the judge was from Washington or Oregon.

I'm going by memory because I was disappointed in the whole process of the States not gaining control over this issue when the Feds promised so long ago.

I also remember organizations like the Humane Society and something like "For Wolves" were bragging on how their efforts prevented States from regaining control.

This is a personal observation from people I've seen and visited with at the International Wolf Center in Ely, MN and some big proponants of introducing the wolves from Canada into Yellowstone: There are a lot of anti hunters in the bunch.

It was a decision by some western judge. I just found it in the archives of another site. I emailed the whole thread including the transcript of the decison to Fabs.

I hope he will comment on what I sent to him. I have trouble understanding the Sunday comics let alone that legal crap. Also not very puter literate.

I think alot of the wolf huggers are antis. NO maybe I should say most of them are.

I let my small dog out on the deck a couple years ago. Then I noticed a hawk eyeing him up for lunch. I chased the hawk off and call the pgc to ask them about it. After getting the runaround I finally got a warden out to talk to. My position was and still is, if I see it again, I'll kill it. If it hurts one of our pets, I'll kill every one I see. Can't have critters killing pets, just can't have it.

Multibeard, I never got the e-mail, but did a little research on my own. I must say, good Lord, no wonder the Courts are packed and we pay a lot in taxes.

It seems as though there were two decisions recently. One in 2004 by the Oregon US District Court Judge Robert Jones. In that case, the issue was whether or not the grey wolf could be downlisted from "endangered" to "threatened" by USFWS. The Endangered Species Act ("ESA") requires that specific scientific testing be done before a species is downlisted from endangered to threatened. According to Judge Jones, this was not done by USFWS. Hence, they could not downlist the grey wolf. Downlisting the grey wolf means that certain protections would be taken away and that wolves could be killed in certain circumstances.

Now, in 2005, it appears that USFWS gave 20 permits to Michigan and 34 permits to Wisconsin, but the wolf was not removed from the endagered species list. According to the ESA, before a species can be hunted, the USFWS must do specific scientific research and it must provide an opportunity to the public, including scientific experts, to be heard on the subject. Seems as thought the USFWS did not do this either. This case was in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Somehow, I think this might be an issue with USFWS not adhering to the law. Might be that they would not be able to grant the permits if they adhered to the law and performed the scientific research and let the public speak on the issue. Who knows.

I haven't actually researched the ESA, or even read it, but have relied on what I have read in a couple of articles, which appear to be slanted toward the tree huggers.

Okay, I found the entire Oregon case. The legal citation is 354 F.Supp2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005). If you punch in that info, less the parantheses in Google or another search engine, you will probably find the case. I don't have time to read it tonight, but will try to read it tomorrow while I wait in Court for my case to be called.

Seems as though there was another 2003 case in the Federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. There was also another 2005 case in the US District Court for Wyoming with Judge Alan B. Johnson.

I ran into a case or two that deals with the reintroduction of the grey wolf in Vermont. That should make things really fun.

All this money spent on legal fees and Court time for grey wolves. We should spend this much time and money trying to resolve more significant issues in America. Alas, we are going the way of the Romans. Politics and law is getting so thick that it takes 1,000 attorneys to do anything.

The more I read about this, the stupider it gets. It seems as though Montana, Wyoming, and Wisconsin (not sure about this state, but there was a third state) were told in 2003 that they could manage the wolves if they came up with a management plan and it was approved by USFWS. Montana and Wisconsin came up with acceptable plans. However, Wyoming did not because they wanted ranchers to be able to shoot wolves on sight as nuisance animals and USFWS wanted wolves only to be shot if they actually posed a threat. Wyoming actually sued USFWS because it thought its plan was legitimate. It appears that Wyoming actually lacked standing (i.e., the right to sue) because USFWS had not actually rejected the plan. Wyoming lost the trial and lost again on appeal.

What kills me is why Wyoming wouldn't have agreed to whatever USFWS wanted initially. The killing of some wolves would have been better than none at all. Now, this casued a big disaster for Montana and Wisconsin because all three plans needed to be approved before any could be put into effect. Hence, Wyoming ham strung Montana and Wisconsin on a stupid issue. Take what you can get and then ask for more later if the wolves continue to pose a problem. Sheer stupidity.

Okay, it is getting late and I have to prepare a little more for my case tomorrow. I'll read these other cases tomorrow and see if I can shed any more light on this. So far though, it doesn't seem to be the Court's doing that this never gets going. Seems as though a state organization or federal organization keeps on dropping the ball.

Well, Hmmmmmm

Me thinks you guys in maryland had best hunker down in the area and pretty much stay put as I doubt that you'll be very comfortable in a western culture, especially a western hunting culture.

When I was young and living in western PA I hunted coon with anyone that would take me. I soon got my own dog. A much better program than what is called "DARE" to keep kids in line. One becomes attached to the dog, very much.

Black bear and mountain lion hunting is nothing more dangerous than coon hunting. Very few dogs are hurt. You cut the trail, turn the dogs loose and sometimes, only some times the bear/cat is treed or bays up in the rocks. Most people walk up, take a pic and catch the dogs. One of the greatest lion hunters I know took one years ago. Since then he has taken none and has hunted cats every winter for years including last year. He's 86 years old.

Fabs I think you are softening a bit though;)

These large canadian grey wolves (or any wolf) will not tolerate another canine, coyote, dog or the native (smaller) wolfe that they have made extinct (noticed no one is bitching about that!) Our smaller wolf was here in numbers that were pretty much selfsustaining but are now gone never to return to the earth.

It is entirely possible for me to be hunting water fowl within walking distance of my back door and encounter a wolf. How much chance do you think my newly acquired choc lab will stand against a wolf. One wants to play and one want to kill. Hmmmmm.....

BTW!! Its the feds that set the rules not the state. If it were soley up to the state things would change.

Also, what makes anyone think that there were no wolves around here before reintroduction of a strain of wolf that was non native.... Ever try to get ALL of the coyotes out of an area, No Way!

nite nite, sleep tite, don't let the bed bugs bite:D

Fabs I sent email to the address in your signature??

Here is the address that i have for the ruling.

http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/rulings/03-1348opinion.pdf


here is some other information on wolves. Remember they don't attack humans!!!

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

Pic worth lotsa words
 

Pic

Fabs this is the case that I was referring to earlier. The way the Laws (Federal) are written that protect the wolves have built in procedures that do allow stated to submit management plans to the USFWS so the wolves can be managed. I don't think it will allow an all out hunting season but if the states that have reintroed wolves for a while and the population is gettin large enough that the wolves are spreading off federal land out onto ranches and becoming a problem the states have to get together and get thier plans approved, then they can manage the wolves that "become a problem" in otherwords as long as a person can come up with a justification the wolves can be shot leagally.

Some states as in the case you sited above get screwed because of other states not getting their act together. I think If you look into a little further Idaho was one of the states that originally held up the approval. Now they may or may not have their act together now and just have to wait out the approval process, but I know when I was out in Montana last two years I hear many mentions of Idaho holding up the process.

BTW I am almost certain that as of sometime late 2005 the Grey Wolf had been moved from the endangered list to threatened

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaMadman
I will agree on a few things here and have to add my .02 cents


#1 I would probably be upset if my dogs were killed by wolves and eaten.

*ME too.

#2 it would more than likely put a fear in me that I wouldn't be out roaming in the woods without a gun.

*I never go out into the boonies unarmed.

#3 The wolf population need to be kept in balance

*I agree

#4 Agressive Wolves in populated area should be killed

*All wolves are aggressive. it is their nature, that dumb movie NEVER CRY WOLF nothwithstanding. Turn out to be a lie anyway.

However, For Christ sake your going to tell me that this guy trains dogs to chase Grizzly bears and Cougars but is somehow shocked and bent all out of shape that 2 of them were killed and one injured.

*YUP!

Doesn't make sense that the guy is out in the woods treeing bears with hunting dogs and has no way to protect himself or the dogs if the bear decided to turn on them. What would this dude have done if that mature sow decide it didn't want retreat up a tree and turn on hi and or his dogs, it could easily happen especially this time of year when the sows are dropping babies.

:rolleyes:

Give me a break.

*That shows just how little you know about bears. The sows drop their cubs while in hibernation.

I don't know guys the wolves are natural predators and have a right to be in the woods, just the same as any other animal, predator or prey.

*No argument there, but their population should be strictly controlled. it never will be because of the bunny huggers. I'll say more on that in a minute.

If a Grizzly happened to come down the tree and rip one of the dogs a new hole or two would this guy say that all bears shouldn't be allowed to live in the woods. Probably not because he is making money training and selling dogs to hunt them.

*I'll betcha a dollar that grizzly won't be up a tree. it is my understanding that climbing trees, while not impossible is a great deal more difficult for a grizzly than the more common black bearto climb a tree. I'll agree that there have bew a few instances recorder where a grizzly bear either tried to climb a tree or did climb a little way up trying to catch the human that mad him mad. Not sure whether the bear was successful or not.

I agree 100% that if there is a known agressive wolf or wolves in an area near a human population they should be killed.

*We're in agreement here. How about harassing livestock as well. The ranchers that lose cows are nowhere near being properly compensated. I'll get into this one in a minute as well

I agree that when it gets to the point, if it hasn't already there should be a hunting season to cull the wolf population.

*We're past that point now. JMHO.

But I am sorry I just do not see this guys story as any reason that the wolves shouldn't have been reintroduced or why they shouldn't be allowed to continue being part of nature.

*Because we eradicated them for a reason.

Wolves can be agressive if you enter thier territory especially with hunting dogs. That's just part of nature the same as it is part of nature that you wouldn't go trapsing through Grizzly territory while the Salmon stream is full of salmon. I mean wolves are for all intents and purposes Wild Dogs themselves, who is to say that this guys hunting dogs didn't go after the wolves first and the wolves being what they are defended their territory??

*Why not? You have as much right as the grizzly or the wolf.

The only thing about the story that concerns me is that it makes the wolves look like they are mindless killing machines when in fact the only reasons wolves kill are #1 to eat or #2 to protect the territory that they roam against other predators so they will have food to eat.


*And what about the documented reports where a pack of wolves would run through a herd of caribou, maiming and killing indiscriminately and eating little or none of the downed prey?

The wolves probably seen the dogs as another predator moving into thier hunting territory. [/QUOTE

*Probably. So what?

madman. I'm not trying to get a p!$$!ng match going here although it may seem that way. Obviously, you have absolutely no experince with wolves. My experience is slight, but experience nonetheless.

Incident #1. On the Olymic Penninsula about five miles out of Humptulips Washington state, I'm sitting on a stump in a swampy area elk hunting. it's about 4 in the afternoon and I heard, for the first time in my life, a wolf howl. The hairs on the back of my neck went straight up. Way too cool. A true wilderness experience.

Inciedent #2. While deer hunting up on the Kaibab plateau in Arizona, I'm sitting on a hillside over a water hole hoping to ambush a big buck I'd benn trying to nail for several days. two wolves, obviously a mating pair came out and were playiny and cavorting in the warmth of the open area around the water hole. A beautiflul sight. I spent almost an hour watching them before they went back into the brush. Might as well watch as witht hem around, I sure wouldn't see any deer.

Those were the pleasant incidents.

Incident #3. This occurred during an elk hunt in the White Mountains of AZ where several groups of the Mexican Grey Wolf have been introduced. We were stopped in a fairly open area so my hunting partner could try and call home on his cell phone. It was getting along towards sundown, and I decided to walk up the road and see if I could pick up any sign or mayber even spot and elk. A bit later as it was starting to be too dark to shoot, I saw movement in the brush off to my right. There were maybe eight of them, wolves for sure and when I walked they moved. When I stopped, they stopped. I decided to head back to where the rest of my group was and the wolves continued to follow me. I'd stop, they'd stop. I'd move, they moved.
The question is, were they stalking me as prey or just curious? I'll never know. When I got back to the gfroup though, they just melted back into the brush.

Incident #4. Same area as #3, but a year later. Just my wife and I on this hunt. We were taking a break during the lunch hour at camp when a rancher drove up and asked us if we'd seen a cow, which he described. We had seen it very early that morning and gave him the location.
Later that evening after the hunt, we were just getting ready to turn in when we heard the most horrible sounds. Some animal was screaming and bawling in total agony. This lasted for maybe 15 to 20 minutes before it became quite again. As all this sounds quite close to camp, when we got up the next morning and hunted up towards where the sounds had come from. We found what was left of that rancher's missing cow. It was not a pretty sight.

I'll be quite blunt here. Reintroducing those wolves back into areas where they were eradicated is, in my not very humble opinion, a serious mistake of the highest level.
They've already made inroads into our elk herds, and with the drought gthat we have been enduring for the last seven years, the deer, elk and antelope herds have suffered greatly.
Think about this. The bunnyhuggers want to stop all sport hunting and any subsistance huinting for native-Americans only. What betetr way to accomplish this by introducing a mega predator. Reduce the herds to the point that hunting is no longer vialable, and hunting will come to a stop. Nore more hunting? Well, if there is no hunting, you don't need that deer rifle anymore. Turn it in. Unintendend consequences my acheing arse.
I seriously hope I have not offended you, as this is not my intention. However, we who live out here where all the crap is happening see it in a very different light.
Paul B.

Okay, as far as the cow making all that God awful noise, so what. Most animals aren't going to die quietly. Heck, most humans that die in a violent means are not going to die quietly. That is the real world. Just like most people have no idea how the chicken got on their chicken sandwich, most people have no clue how things happen in the wild. That is just how it goes.

At the end of the day, I think everybody on here will support the hunting/management of wolves, so long as it is not meant to put the wolf population in endangerment again.

Back to whitetails. It used to be a pleasant surprise to see a whitetail and shooting one used to get my heart/adrenaline flowing. Now, it is like shooting prairie dogs or ground hogs. Last night, I was driving home at 1:00 in the morning and I had 3 separate incidents of seeing whitetails on the side of the highway as I was traveling 75 mph. I also got to see one freshly mangled white tail carcass. No, I do not want any wolves sent over here, but you can get my point that animals need to be managed in this ecosystem that we have created.

Da Madman

The feds did TRY to change the status of the wolf.

The problem is that a judge put a stop to it. Try reading the ruling that I have a link to in my last post. I got thru about 10 pages of the 35 pages of legal mumbo jumbo BS in the ruling. My head was spinning so bad I gave up on reading it.

Fabs The residents of MD need to find out how the subdivisions in Va are being allowed to hire there own hunters to thin out the problem deer using bows. If you want I can get you my nephews phone number so you can talk to him about the VA system that he is involved. Just send me a pm.

Multibeard,

MD is using sharpshooters and hunters to try and thin out its deer population. They are closing parks for several days a season to allow organized hunts on them. In some places (e.g., Seneca Park, Wheaton Regional Park) it seems to be making a slight difference. Problem is the rest of the area where there is way too much housing development.

Fabs said "At the end of the day, I think everybody on here will support the hunting/management of wolves, so long as it is not meant to put the wolf population in endangerment again. "

Roy says, There will be at least one who won't support..... but would if reextinction were the goal. Not to mention all of the Idaho cattle associations.

I would be inclined to think something to keep them in check would come about once they started attacking or killing people.
Then again, i wouldn't hold my breath on thet either. You can't hunt Mountain Lions in California and a few of them have already killed people.
Still can't hunt lions in california.
Paul B.

we got along for years without them, why do we need? them now.

the fish and game departments are going to suffer when the hunting revenues drop. also the tourism dollars the hunter bring to the state will drop.

When an animal has no monetary value it usually becomes extinct. When wolves have decimated the herds of elk, deer, and antelope, then people will understand that the money for conservation resources came from hunters not tree huggers. There will not be enough herd animals to hunt and no licenses to sell, then no money for conservation. Ranchers and farmers will not be able to SSS fast enough to keep the wolf population in control and will eventually use poison or some other remedy to survive whether it is legal or not. Hunting leases have become part of the income on many farms and ranches. The wolf populations have already far exceeded what the Gov. biologists have dedided that the habitat can sustain in many states. In many areas the number of wolves is under estimated and unknown. The wolf is just too good a predator to unleash in such great quantities without some controls in place. There is no natural predator of wolves that I know of except man and he is not being allowed to control the situation in an intelligent manner.

Roy,

To say that you would not support a hunting season on wolves UNLESS it was made with the extent to put them into extinction seems rather bull headed if you ask me. Any type of hunting season is better than nothing to start with.

As far as an animal being driven into extinction because they have no monetary value, I think that is a bunch of crap too. We have plenty of animals around that are not worth anything. However, in the ecological system, almost every animal has its purpose. The problem is that man has screwed this up.

I am willing to bet that some of the same people complaining about the wolf are the ones complaining that there isn't enough places to hunt. Both problems are man made.

I am no bunny lover or tree hugger, but I find it to be pretty pathetic when we are willing to lose a species over money or greed. Leave it to man and there will eventually be nothing but men on this world. If there weren't any limits on killing big game and waterfowl, I am willing to bet that there wouldn't be much big game or waterfowl left. I have read a story of a group of hunters finding an elk herd and killing 100+ animals. Read another story about 100+ geese and ducks being thrown in a ditch on the side of the road. Heard another story from a friend of mine about an oyster bed that he found in the Chesapeake Bay, which are nearly non-existant. He told a friend, who told another friend, etc. The entire bed was cleaned out by the end of the weekend.

Men are greedy. Probably more so than wolves. We want everything and we don't want to share anything. We want our nice big houses and our nice big yards. However, we also want plenty of land to hunt on and we want to be able to show our children the great wide open places. Well, we cannot have everything if we keep going the way we are. We need to learn to compromise. The bunny huggers and wolf huggers need to learn that wolves need to be controlled. Likewise, the bull headed hunters and cattle ranchers need to learn that we do not need to exterminate/eradicate the wolf species entirely. Maybe leave them in Yellowstome, or set up some areas where they are allowed to live, but other areas where they can be shot on sight.

Come on guys, lets come up with realistic solutions instead of statements like "All wolves need to be protected" or "All wolves must be killed."

Fabs,

My point is that if the monetary value of the herd animals is lost to wolf predation, then hunting won't survive and neither will the wolf. There has to be an intelligent balance.

You are correct. Man is just an animal that is greedy and can be self destructive. I just believe the balance is ,as far as the ecology of the wolf, is being decided in federal courts by groups that don't truly understand the long term consequences of their actions. The greenies are probably being manupulated by the anti-gun people to a certain extent. Even the state biologists are being ignored by the courts. The manipulation of the courts is what will be the end of any common- sense balanced biological approach to the situation.

The wolves will kill themselves after they've eaten everything there is to eat. They'll just die of starvation! From what I'm reading in my BUGLE, the last 3 issues have been nothing but this big wolf controversy, Yellowstone is lost.

For those of you that didn't get to see it prior to 4 years ago, I pity you. You'll get to see all the natural wonders, but the big game herds are decimated in that area (mainly elk). The Feds want you to believe it's hard winters? Come-on, even and Easterner can put 2 and 2 together. Take a herd that's cut almost to a 4th of what it was in 5 years and the only thing that changed was the wolf??? DUH!!

Those of you arguing the pros of the Canadian Grey wolf back here in the East are only going off of what you read, more than likely what some Fed wrote as fallacy. You aren't living there and actually seeing what's happening. It's destroyed the actual living of many (outfitters in the Yellowstone area) who have closed doors due to no animals and lack of business and will destroy the small towns of the west during hunting season. Not only outfitters but ranchers also. For those of you that don't live there, or haven't lived there, or have never been there..how can you argue your point? These towns and areas thrive and survive off of the income that comes in during hunting season. You can only see that by being there during these times of the year. Those of you that say, well they don't have to be Outfitters and charge all of that money to hunt....you forget (or you never knew) hunting IS their way of life. Us non-residents are their paycheck and it's seasonal. If you've never been there..you just don't know...you just don't know. Take a look at the post Rocky made in the Varmint section with a picture of the local post office. Maybe that'll bring a little light into the subject. The only thing to live off of is the land and what is there. It's not like here in the east where you drive 10 mins to the local Walmart and buy any/everything you need.

Me, yeah I've lived there and I've been hunting there for over 15 years so I've seen the changes that have occured. Man is greedy and it shows in the increase of cost of license over the years. It's becoming a rich man's sport to hunt elk and other big game in the West. I've have 2 encounters with wolves in Yellowstone, both pleasant. The supporters of the RMEF including myself are real worried about what these wolves are doing. Just like this article states, I believe big game hunting may be lost in my lifetime. Hard to imagine only 4-5 yrs can do that..but when you INTRODUCE (notice I didn't say reintroduce since you can't reintroduce something that wasn't there in the first place) an ultimate predator like the Canadian grey with no holds bar on it she'll act like an Amish family fishing a farm pond...Stay until it's fished clean, then move onto the next pond. You're already seeing where the wolf is moving on to the next "pond". I sure wish you locals well and hope it all turns out but I'm afraid the battle is already lost on this one.

It will be impossible to get rid of them now, or even "manage" them....choose your PC term, but your area is screwed and unfortunately one of the, if not THE largest herd of that infamous big game animal that beckons me to drive West each and every year. I hang my head in shame for not voicing my opinion before this all happened.

Petey,

This last weekend I was re-reading some of my Bugle magazines too. A lot of information on wolves over the past years.

I do have a problem with the RMEF though, they took a wishy washy position at first and now that the wolves have taken hold and are maybe leaning a little towards wolf management. I know more than a few RMEF members here in Minnesota that dropped their membership when RMEF didn't voice any opposition to the introduction of the Canadien wolves into Yellowstone ecosystem.

I'm packing into the Thorofare 3 months from tomorrow and will be hunting the SE border of Yellowstone for a week. I expect to see Grizz and I won't be surprised to see wolves, I know that there are areas in the Yellowstone ecosystem that have been hit extremely hard to the point that Outfitters are out of business. I know the Thorofare area where I'm going doesn't have a moose season this year.

Fabs,

Not quite bull headed. Just don't or didn't fully understand your comment regarding a hunting season.

When I joined the Navy to see the world and was stationed in southeast Idaho for just about 4 years I died and tho't I went to heaven. BTW before that I spent my life in western PA, Butler county.

The "western" culture really impressed me. The people were/are severly independent and will stand on their own two feet when their back is against the wall.

A western cattleman is way more bone headed than I could ever be. But I respect their culture. They have a tough life.

The natives to the area, those whose forefathers settled the area generations ago can tell you who shot the last wolf shot in Bingham county. They really didn't get 'em all, however. But the ones left were never a bother and the coexisted quite well with hunters/sportsman/tourists and cattlemen.

The statue quo just wasn't good enough for the feds/whoever.....

Now 'we' have a major imbalance in the system and it will take some sorting.

Actually in my area there are more cattle lost to low llife humans than to wolves. But the elk numbers are definitely down, way down.

M.T. Pockets - It would be fun to see some wolves. I wonder what goes through your mind as you observe them under the conditions of your hunt.

BUT, keep in mind that the griz has/have learned to "follow the shot". Really. Those things are pretty darn smart and have learned over the years.

I recommend that you down the elk at the top of a sage hill with good visibility all the way around.:rolleyes:

I think that all of us sitting around the same table could pretty much come to an agreement/understanding ergarding the woofs.:cool:

Roy, I've seen wolves while hunting in Minnesota, Alaska and Wyoming. It was neat in Minnesota because they're native and part of the landscape (there are too many, but that's another topic). In Alaska it was downright exciting because I dropped $30 on a wolf tag before I flew out to camp and for about 10 minutes I was a bona fide wolf hunter. He gave me the slip.

In Wyoming it wasn't a good feeling at all, it looked out of it's element. That was in Sept. 2000 so it could have been one of the original transplants from Canada. If it had been one of the original native wolves, or a grizz, or a mt. lion it would have been exciting. He was on the trail of a mule deer doe and crossed an open area about 50-60 yards right in front of me. There was a little airplane flying around all the time, I'm guessing the wolf was collared. I can't say it added anything to my wilderness experience, it felt artificial since I knew it was trapped in Canada and dropped off here for some reason or other. This was in the Spread Creek area and I hear the elk herd has really been impacted there in the recent years.

Funny you should mention grizz, when I saw the wolf in Wyoming, I was guarding an elk I just killed & quartered. My guide rode back to camp to get a couple pack horses, he told me to get about 50 yards uphill, chamber a round and if a grizz comes fire in the air and holler. If he keeps coming, the elk is his. The rest of the week I went wtih the packers to stand guard while they quartered & packed, the bears had the gut piles cleaned up within days. I heard enough bear stories to keep me awake the first two or three nights in camp.