Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Hunting > Wolf Hunting


Reply

See a wolf... what would you do?

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old 12-24-2011, 03:30 AM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Ohio
Posts: 573
Re: See a wolf... what would you do?

If there was any interaction with the wolves and I, it would be in the form of dance.
__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-- Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-24-2011, 08:44 AM
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southwest Wyoming
Posts: 66
Re: See a wolf... what would you do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justgoto View Post
If there was any interaction with the wolves and I, it would be in the form of dance.
Now that I would like to see!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:07 AM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 276
Re: See a wolf... what would you do?

Four years ago I was on a elk hunt in wy.While I was glassing for elk I looked
down below me and there at 270 yards were two wolfs. They had no idea I
was there and the short of the long story is I didn,t shoot. Back at base camp
later that evening I told the outfitter about it and received a first class ass
chewing for not killing both of them.
Two days later we came up on a fresh kill or what was left of it and received a second ass chewing. Wolfs are beautiful majestic animals but they need to be
controlled.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-24-2011, 10:38 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,454
Re: See a wolf... what would you do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by phorwath View Post
I did read the majority of the article in this link. It confirmed that USF&W policy is to introduce native species. In fact, it states that introduction of a non-native species is against existing law. Which leads me to believe this specific point can be argued back and forth until the air turns blue. If USF&W Service is legally prohibited from introducing non-native species into any area, then clearly they felt the wolves they introduced out west were a native species. No?

I'm aware that coyotes in different parts of the country look different. Different sizes, different colors. Same with brown bears versus grizzly bears in Alaska and coastal Canada. Animals do evolve over time to a genetic strain that best enables their survival in the geographical region they live in. I'm tending to believe we're talking the same thing here with wolves. Even within the geographical area of Alaska wolves occur with differing coloration in different areas of the State. They also hang in differing pack sizes in different areas of Alaska, dependent upon whether their primary prey species is the relatively small blacktail deer in Southeast Alaska, huge Alaskan moose in SouthCentral Alaska, or caribou in other areas of the State.

Wolves have throughout American history, generated a love-hate relationship. Mostly the hate relationship. Thus the emotionally charged responses coming forward in this Thread. I suspect the subspecies argument must have been assessed and made prior to transplant of these wolves into the western States. And it's apparently an ongoing source of discussion and disagreement. This is analogous to opposing attorneys. They each hire their expert witnesses, who to no one's surprise, interpret the facts in the manner their clients prefer.

The anti-wolf comments evoked here come as no surprise. The political fight over the wolf in the western States will continue for a while. And then eventually the politics will settle into a wildlife management policy that pleases neither extreme fully, but is tolerated by the majority.

Did you read all the links I listed...? ...such as this one?:

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

You mention in an earlier post about getting information from a PBS show. This is exactly the kind of place where you will NOT get the right information. The true story is not being mentioned at all through typical media channels, which should not be a surprise to anyone. This is an issue, like many others, where it is necessary to dig deep to find out what has transpired historically and what is happening now.

Edit: And, perhaps others can help me out here, but I don't know what the best way out of this issue is. The reality is that we are not going to be allowed to kill off all the wolves in the lower 48, so they need to be managed and that is where the big fight will be because all sides will not agree on what 'managed' means.

They are here now and aren't going away, even though though the way they were introduced likely killed off what was left of the natvive wolf population (unbelievable that the Feds allowed this to happen). I believe this may clearly show a philosophical and political anti-hunting and anti-second ammendment, anti-ranching, anti-grazing on federal land bent by the Feds. Clearly, if you introduce an apex predator of this type, even killing off native subspecies in the process, your goal is not about some lofty ideal of bringing a native animal back to its native habitat. So what is the goal?

It is just incredibly unfortunate that the information mentioned in my link above wasn't followed through on by was apparently ignored by the Feds.

Listen to this link and you might start to understand why the 'Feds' have the bent they often have now:

Like someone else said, if the ESA was taken this far and so obviously abused for political/philosophical gain, what's to keep us from bringing back sabre tooth tigers, once the understanding and technology exists? Hmmm...? When that occurs, you can bet there will be arguments made for just that based on the ESA.
__________________
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson - Notes on the State of Virginia

www.wildsidesystems.com - Shelter for Your WildSide - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYwgo...&feature=g-upl
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-24-2011, 12:30 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SW Idaho
Posts: 1,148
Re: See a wolf... what would you do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by phorwath View Post
If I'm wrong on this species of wolf then my apologies. The PBS show I watched on the introduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park led me to believe wolves had historically been present in Yellowstone. I heard no mention of these introduced wolves being non-native, analogous to an invasive species. That practice is universally resisted by USFW Service in Alaska and everywhere else I've read about.

So what became of the western wolves? I have always read and believed they were exterminated. Is there a reason those original western plains wolves were not re-introduced? Are they extinct? Is the timber wolf the closest viable genetic relative to the wolves that used to inhabit the west? I expect the answer to my questions are that the timber wolf or grey wolf is the closest available match to the specific sub-species of wolf that originally lived out west, and that's why the USF&W Service chose to re-establish the area with this species of wolf. If a viable population of the exact sub-species of wolf that used to inhabit the western states was available, USF&W Service would surely have transplanted that same sub-species of wolf back into the same geographical areas they used to inhabit. Bacause that has always been their policy, to my understanding. Which leads me back to, the wolves that originally inhabited the area were virtually exterminated such that transplanting them back into their homeland wasn't a viable option. So if there's an expert on the sub-species of wolves posting here, I'm all ears to be educated on the finer points of the sub-species of wolves, those exterminated and extinct, and those surviving.

If other members think this Post constitutes fighting, then that's by their own definition and choice.

My opinion is that if the organized hunting community unites behind the stated policy that wolves should be exterminated from the country that they historically inhabited because the big game species in those areas should be prioritized for the exclusive use of hunters, that hunters will damage their cause more than they'll help it. Alaska is about as pro-hunting as it gets, yet such a policy would never prevail - not even up here. You've got the ranchers that might join the cause to rid the land of wolves, but you've also got a lot of non-hunters that use public lands. And on any Federal Lands, you've got the input of citizens from every other State in the country that sound in with fully equal affect as those residents within the States that the Federal Lands are located within.

Anybody ever heard of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge located north of Alaska's Brooks Range? Alaska has no control over whether or not oil is ever developed in ANWR. All Federally owned land.
PBS ought to stand for the Progressive Bull Shi**ers instead of the Public Broadcasting Service. A much more accurate description IMO. They are highly political. Just look at the hot water they are in over the Sesame Street food stamp episode they ran. Their liberal leaning political standing is a long running issue with many.

Only speculation on my part but I believe they were wiped out by the timber wolves. I know for a fact that entire coyote populations have been wiped out by them. They just don't put up with competition by other wolves or other animals. Not the wolves fault as they are just doing what they do but it is all the more reason why we need sound and aggressive management. Not 15 years of politics and green weenie lawsuits.

It sounds to me like we just have a different trust level of the government. I would love to trust them to do what is right but just don't see anything come to fruition very often. What is it the feds do well again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by phorwath View Post
Which leads me back to, the wolves that originally inhabited the area were virtually exterminated such that transplanting them back into their homeland wasn't a viable option. So if there's an expert on the sub-species of wolves posting here, I'm all ears to be educated on the finer points of the sub-species of wolves, those exterminated and extinct, and those surviving.
There have been experts talking about this. Some of the links in previous posts mentions this. I just don't find the practice of introducing an animal that is close to 50% larger in size good science. Heck, all the biologists theorized that the wolves main diet would be deer and they wouldn't really bother elk. Coyotes bother elk and they only hunt in pairs usually. Cats and bears take a toll on elk numbers and they are sole predators, but wolves won't bother elk herds? I am just a good ol boy from Idaho but it kinda makes me worried when I seem to have a better understanding of what is going to happen than the biologists. Plus elk just tastes better than deer so that by itself should have been an indicator! Just another reason I don't trust the feds for much of anything. They are either extremely ignorant or extremely biased. I vote for the latter.

I don't think anyone is taking offense to this conversation. I think it is good to talk about this kind of issue. But more importantly I agree with Jmden from an earlier post when he stated that we all need to be careful where we get our info and who we choose to believe. There is a lot of bad info out there, much of it being intentionally disseminated, and we need to be careful what we believe and what we spread because they truth is what should prevail here. Not propaganda based on politics and greed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phorwath View Post
My opinion is that if the organized hunting community unites behind the stated policy that wolves should be exterminated from the country that they historically inhabited because the big game species in those areas should be prioritized for the exclusive use of hunters, that hunters will damage their cause more than they'll help it. Alaska is about as pro-hunting as it gets, yet such a policy would never prevail - not even up here. You've got the ranchers that might join the cause to rid the land of wolves, but you've also got a lot of non-hunters that use public lands. And on any Federal Lands, you've got the input of citizens from every other State in the country that sound in with fully equal affect as those residents within the States that the Federal Lands are located within.

Anybody ever heard of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge located north of Alaska's Brooks Range? Alaska has no control over whether or not oil is ever developed in ANWR. All Federally owned land.
Big game prioritization isn't for the sole benefit of hunters. Hunting and its associated activities is a large sector of our economy. It seems counterproductive to me to buildup a sector of the economy for 50+ years just to have it destroyed by unsound management practices and outside influences. I understand your point about ANWAR and federal lands but these are just classic examples of how the Feds have taken over too much power from the States. You won't be able to convince me to just sit back on my laurels and do nothing just because there are lousy laws and policies in place. This kind of thing is exactly what has got this country in the mess it is in today. The good folks of this country have been asleep and the crazies have taken over. We better get back in the fight or we are in real trouble on many fronts.

One point that I do disagree with you on is regarding the prioritization of big game herds for hunting. I would argue hunters should have top priority. At least in the lower 48 the funds to manage wildlife comes mostly from hunting and fishing dollars gathered by licenses and tag fees. I don't see any wildlife viewing or environmental activist organizations donating a dime of money toward management. In addition much of the money to keep the mountain roads usable comes from our off road vehicle licenses and RV licenses. The trail systems are kept open by motorcycle trail associations mostly. I just find it awfully frustrating that hunters by in large care more about wildlife than anyone else, and show it by the support they give in dollars and time invested yet we are told by some to just sit back and not fight for our beliefs,traditions, way of life and for wildlife. You take hunters and fisherman and their money out of the system and we have no wildlife to manage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phorwath View Post
you've got the input of citizens from every other State in the country that sound in with fully equal affect as those residents within the States that the Federal Lands are located within.
This is another big problem. Hunters and fisherman are much more silent in voicing their opinions than are environmentalists and other organizations. Most of us are too busy working hard and raising families. These green organizations are extremely organized. A simple e-mail is sent out to their masses and in a few hours there are tens of thousands of e-mails sitting at a senators inbox. It is one of the reasons we are loosing this fight. It seems that there are way more of them than there really are. This is one of the reasons I really push Big Game Forever. They have a very easy to use site where you can send an e-mail to any Senator or Representative and it only takes about a minute. I even use their site to send my opinion on other issues, it is just so easy to use. They are working very hard to get as many people on their list as possible. If we can get organized we stand a much better chance of having our voices heard and getting things done that are in the best interest of ourselves and TRUE wildlife management.

Scot E.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-24-2011, 01:02 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SW Idaho
Posts: 1,148
Re: See a wolf... what would you do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmden View Post
Did you read all the links I listed...? ...such as this one?:

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

You mention in an earlier post about getting information from a PBS show. This is exactly the kind of place where you will NOT get the right information. The true story is not being mentioned at all through typical media channels, which should not be a surprise to anyone. This is an issue, like many others, where it is necessary to dig deep to find out what has transpired historically and what is happening now.

Edit: And, perhaps others can help me out here, but I don't know what the best way out of this issue is. The reality is that we are not going to be allowed to kill off all the wolves in the lower 48, so they need to be managed and that is where the big fight will be because all sides will not agree on what 'managed' means.

They are here now and aren't going away, even though though the way they were introduced likely killed off what was left of the natvive wolf population (unbelievable that the Feds allowed this to happen). I believe this may clearly show a philosophical and political anti-hunting and anti-second ammendment, anti-ranching, anti-grazing on federal land bent by the Feds. Clearly, if you introduce an apex predator of this type, even killing off native subspecies in the process, your goal is not about some lofty ideal of bringing a native animal back to its native habitat. So what is the goal?

It is just incredibly unfortunate that the information mentioned in my link above wasn't followed through on by was apparently ignored by the Feds.

Listen to this link and you might start to understand why the 'Feds' have the bent they often have now: Crying Wolf - Jim Beers: The Demise of Conservation on Vimeo

Like someone else said, if the ESA was taken this far and so obviously abused for political/philosophical gain, what's to keep us from bringing back sabre tooth tigers, once the understanding and technology exists? Hmmm...? When that occurs, you can bet there will be arguments made for just that based on the ESA.
Some really good points here. I agree, they are here now, we won't get rid of them so what is the next step. In my mind it has got to be permanent management by the states. I think this is one of the reasons BGF is working on a congressional level. Also I think States and its citizens need to insist that we stick to the original numbers agreed on by all parties involved. 15 packs and 150 wolves per state. State officials and Fish&Game have all kowtowed to this and made more and more concessions but managing to those numbers would be ideal. Unfortunately this can't be done with hunting pressure alone. Not even close. Trapping and even more aggressive management by F&G will have to be used to keep the numbers in check. Especially in Idaho the terrain is just too rugged. And in our wilderness area hunters have pretty much stopped going in there because there is so little game so there is even less pressure there and fewer ways to get in to manage them.

You are also correct, this isn't just the USFWS or the State F&G agencies. This progressive disease is running through the Forest Service as well. I got into quite the argument this fall with some forest service agents. Interestingly it was a couple young agents that were spouting all this global warming nonsense and how man in the forest has caused all these problems. I felt like I was watching a glorified Bambi episode! They are closing down roads and campgrounds like crazy right now in the name of habitat or riparian areas etc. Some of these roads and campsites have been in place since my grandpa was young. They are still pristine and beautiful but for some unknown reason they need to be shutdown. There was an older officer with them who later came back and pretty much apologized for their behavior. In a very concerned tone he pretty much said that this is the kind of people that are being hired by the Forest Service nowadays and he is worried that the Forest Service he grew up loving is gone forever. He said the FS has pretty much turned into a Federal Green organization and has almost nothing in common with the FS of old.

We need to get informed. We need to get organized. We need to give of our time and money to get this thing back on track. In my mind it starts with electing officials that share our common goals and values. Most of the good folks are too busy making an honest living and raising families to get involved but this is really part of the problem. It leaves all the knuckleheads to run for office. This means taking the time to learn about their records and help get the good guys elected and the bad guys ran out of town. I look at the list above and I don't have time nor does it sound very fun but if we don't start getting involved we are going to lose this country.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-24-2011, 03:25 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Alaska
Posts: 3,339
Re: See a wolf... what would you do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scot E View Post
One point that I do disagree with you on is regarding the prioritization of big game herds for hunting. I would argue hunters should have top priority. At least in the lower 48 the funds to manage wildlife comes mostly from hunting and fishing dollars gathered by licenses and tag fees. I don't see any wildlife viewing or environmental activist organizations donating a dime of money toward management. In addition much of the money to keep the mountain roads usable comes from our off road vehicle licenses and RV licenses. The trail systems are kept open by motorcycle trail associations mostly. I just find it awfully frustrating that hunters by in large care more about wildlife than anyone else, and show it by the support they give in dollars and time invested yet we are told by some to just sit back and not fight for our beliefs,traditions, way of life and for wildlife. You take hunters and fisherman and their money out of the system and we have no wildlife to manage.

Scot E.
If I stated prioritization of big game herds for hunting shouldn't be a top priority I didn't mean to. That has been the prioritization where I've lived, and harvest by hunting has typically been the primary tool used to keep game herd numbers from fluctuating to extreme highs, exceeding the carrying capacity of the habitat, and then falling to extreme lows. And reduced hunting opportunities has been the primary tool to protect low game herd populations.

But management of big game herds for hunting hasn't been the sole, exclusive policy of wildlife managers for quite a number of years now. This is much more evident on Federal Lands in Alaska than it is on State Lands. There are national parks, refuges, wildlife viewing areas, areas closed to hunting and trapping, setbacks and closed areas from roads, established trails and campgrounds, etc., etc...

I think wildlife biologists are fairly capable at 'their jobs'. The problem is often that these employees don't get to define 'their jobs' and wildlife management policy independent of politically appointed administrators. Which is precisely why it's important for hunters to participate in the politics of these wildlife management issues.

If it weren't for the NRA, we would have lost many of the 2nd Amendment rights we've retained today, IMO. Every now and then the NRA might pull a boner or politically miss-step, but by and large they have served hunters and gun owners very well. With more and more user groups competing for control of wildlife management, it is vital that hunters participate on interests dear to their hearts.

Last edited by phorwath; 12-24-2011 at 06:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: See a wolf... what would you do?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wolf scoreboard. HARPERC Wolf Hunting 165 04-05-2012 07:49 PM
Crying Wolf youngbuck West 0 09-16-2011 05:41 PM
30 wolf? meatyrem Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 1 01-09-2011 11:23 PM
30 WOLF texas Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 120 08-19-2003 05:54 AM
My new .30 Wolf... STL_Shooter Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 23 01-03-2003 09:36 PM

Current Poll
Do you wear hearing protection while hunting?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC