Sad happening in Idaho!!

multibeard · #1 06-05-2006, 04:27 PM

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.

fabsroman · #2 06-05-2006, 08:28 PM

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.

Dom · #3 06-06-2006, 12:36 AM

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.

fishnfrank · #4 06-06-2006, 11:49 AM

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.

DaMadman · #5 06-06-2006, 04:22 PM

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.

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.

Skinny Shooter · #6 06-06-2006, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fabsroman
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).

Mountain Lions too.

fabsroman · #7 06-06-2006, 08:45 PM

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.

DaMadman · #8 06-07-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fabsroman
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.

fabsroman · #9 06-07-2006, 01:17 PM

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

multibeard · #10 06-07-2006, 01:38 PM

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.

DaMadman · #11 06-07-2006, 02:43 PM

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

fabsroman · #12 06-07-2006, 03:49 PM

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.

M.T. Pockets · #13 06-07-2006, 03:51 PM

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.

Beeker · #14 06-07-2006, 04:10 PM

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.

multibeard · #15 06-07-2006, 04:18 PM

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.