Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Chatting and General Stuff > General Discussion

General Discussion Must wear red or OD green socks to participate. I can't see your socks, please be honest.


Reply

Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #50  
Old 03-17-2010, 09:50 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,325
Re: Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
No offense intended to anyone, but drunk driving fatalities and statistics has nothing to do with wolf management. For one thing, there are a whole lot more drunk drivers on the road than there are wolves. But most important is that drunk driving fatalities do or any other terrible thing justifies mismanagement of wolves. Two wrongs have never have and never will make a right. They will still be tallied as two wrongs. It's like saying, ignore the termites that are slowing eating your foundation away and only worry about the fire that's burning your house down. You need to address both issues appropriately. Drunk driving has nothing to do with wolf management, period.

For anyone out there reading this who doesn't live in wolf country and whose lively hood isn't affected by wolves, I ask... would you want a pack or packs of wolves roaming your neighbor? I want an honest answer. Do you want wolves to be turned loose to breed and multiply in your forests and fields virtually unchecked.? Do you want them roaming near your children?

I actually like having some wolves around, mostly to hunt. But they need to be managed properly. Wyoming had a great plan IMO... Make them a game animal in areas near the Park and Predator/Varmint status in the rest of the state. If we could do that here we could effectively reduce their numbers and we would start seeing elk and moose came back. And the ranchers would have a lot less losses. The wolves would learn in a hurry to stay off ranch land and stay away from cows and other livestock.

What's going on here now is utter madness and a crying shame.

BB, you said this...



First off game populations are not at an all time high in areas were wolves roam freely. They are at almost all time record lows. They have already placed hunting restrictions on a nearby elk district that used to be one of the most popular in the state, district 310 to be exact. I'm not up to speed on some of the other areas. My guess is that available moose tags will be reduced if they haven't already, in many districts, as well as elk. Game populations in these areas were very good until recent years and now they are dropping quick, so the implication that wolves are not having affect on these populations is totally bogus and it angers me to see and hear people making such claims. It is false information, period.

BB, if you are a student of animal sciences you will know that typical prey and predator populations are cyclic. When there are few predators, prey populations increase, and when prey populations increase, the predator populations also increase... until the predators start killing off large percentages of prey and then reduce their populations, which in turn leads to reduction of predator populations, and then the prey populations begin to rebound and on and on.

We as humans, have the power to control those swings with good management. We don't need large numbers of wolves. A few here in there is plenty. If you or anyone else want to save wolves, then please take them to YOUR state. We LIVE HERE,and it's WE who have to live with the wolf consequences... the real consequences... not fairy tale consequences.



Just what exactly is "Artificial Management"? Management is management. It's because of management that we have good populations of game. And it's because of poor management that we will loose much of our game plain and simple. The fact is that wolves kill and they are very good at it. They kill and eat a lot of elk and moose... elk and moose that no hunter will ever have the chance to hunt. To say that they are just changing the nature of the populations is bunk. They are systematically eliminating the populations and it makes me mad. The elk population in Yellowstone has been reduced by two thirds. Did you get that? Two thirds! And it will not increase as long as the wolf population remains the same or increases. It will continue to decline until there are almost no elk left. Then the wolves will die off and move out until the elk come back. Then the wolves will be back again. This is a man made catastrophe. Yellowstone had good numbers of animals but they are systematically being wiped out and in a few years the Park will be void of animals, including the precious wolves.

For every wolf that runs, "x" number of elk die each year to feed it. A pack can go through an elk a day and that adds up to 365 in a year. Do the math. Elk and moose can not sustain good populations for very long under that kind of pressure.

On the subject of killing people, there have been very few attacks and killing of humans by wolves over the years, but this is the first time that wolves have had such a high level of freedom and protection. They will in fact learn to loose their fear of man and become more dangerous. I don't care what the blasted statistics say in the past... if I lived in wolf country with children, I would be very concerned and I would take the law into my own hands to protect mine. There are no statistics that tell us how wolves behave when they are not threatened with hunting. This is a whole new deal.

Finally, here's my definition of "Artificial Management".... letting wolves run free without fear. That has never been the case in the existence of wolves and man history ever. Man has always preyed on wolves and their populations were checked and they had much more fear. The situation we have now is what I would call "Artificial"

JM $.02

-Mark
Right on!

They got rid of them for a reason the first time. It's a monumental mistake to artificially bring them back. I think this will turn out like when the F&G decided to introduce a new salmon species into Flathead lake. Long story short, they destroyed the largest kokanee salmon fishery in the world. There is no longer any, I mean zero, kokanee left in Flathead lake. And the salmon species that they tried to introduce did not make it either. This time the experiment is on wildlife and covers the Western United States. This will not only affect the wildlife, but also our food supply. By predation and disease. Not to mention the occasional, unlucky, human victim. How much collateral damage is acceptable? Some body needs to explain to me how we as people are better off with wolves. To say that we now have a new hunting opportunity does not cut it. Loosing the ungulate populations and adding a wolf hunt does not sound like an added hunting opportunity to me. For those of you who do not understand, we have seen our game populations plummet in the last 2 years. I am not using the word plummet lightly. I mean game is scarce. The wolf does not stop killing when the population of prey gets down to "acceptable levels". For that matter they don't stop killing when they are not hungry. Why do you think the typical wolf kill has the prime pieces eaten and the rest of the animal left behind? They only eat the whole animal if they are having trouble finding something to eat.

I should stay out of these wolf discussions. We are stuck with it now and it is too late.

Steve
__________________
To hunt... or not to hunt...? What a stupid question.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-17-2010, 09:56 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,430
Re: Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
No offense intended to anyone, but drunk driving fatalities and statistics has nothing to do with wolf management. For one thing, there are a whole lot more drunk drivers on the road than there are wolves. But most important is that drunk driving fatalities do or any other terrible thing justifies mismanagement of wolves. Two wrongs have never have and never will make a right. They will still be tallied as two wrongs. It's like saying, ignore the termites that are slowing eating your foundation away and only worry about the fire that's burning your house down. You need to address both issues appropriately. Drunk driving has nothing to do with wolf management, period.

For anyone out there reading this who doesn't live in wolf country and whose lively hood isn't affected by wolves, I ask... would you want a pack or packs of wolves roaming your neighbor? I want an honest answer. Do you want wolves to be turned loose to breed and multiply in your forests and fields virtually unchecked.? Do you want them roaming near your children?

I actually like having some wolves around, mostly to hunt. But they need to be managed properly. Wyoming had a great plan IMO... Make them a game animal in areas near the Park and Predator/Varmint status in the rest of the state. If we could do that here we could effectively reduce their numbers and we would start seeing elk and moose came back. And the ranchers would have a lot less losses. The wolves would learn in a hurry to stay off ranch land and stay away from cows and other livestock.

What's going on here now is utter madness and a crying shame.

BB, you said this...



First off game populations are not at an all time high in areas were wolves roam freely. They are at almost all time record lows. They have already placed hunting restrictions on a nearby elk district that used to be one of the most popular in the state, district 310 to be exact. I'm not up to speed on some of the other areas. My guess is that available moose tags will be reduced if they haven't already, in many districts, as well as elk. Game populations in these areas were very good until recent years and now they are dropping quick, so the implication that wolves are not having affect on these populations is totally bogus and it angers me to see and hear people making such claims. It is false information, period.

BB, if you are a student of animal sciences you will know that typical prey and predator populations are cyclic. When there are few predators, prey populations increase, and when prey populations increase, the predator populations also increase... until the predators start killing off large percentages of prey and then reduce their populations, which in turn leads to reduction of predator populations, and then the prey populations begin to rebound and on and on.

We as humans, have the power to control those swings with good management. We don't need large numbers of wolves. A few here in there is plenty. If you or anyone else want to save wolves, then please take them to YOUR state. We LIVE HERE,and it's WE who have to live with the wolf consequences... the real consequences... not fairy tale consequences.



Just what exactly is "Artificial Management"? Management is management. It's because of management that we have good populations of game. And it's because of poor management that we will loose much of our game plain and simple. The fact is that wolves kill and they are very good at it. They kill and eat a lot of elk and moose... elk and moose that no hunter will ever have the chance to hunt. To say that they are just changing the nature of the populations is bunk. They are systematically eliminating the populations and it makes me mad. The elk population in Yellowstone has been reduced by two thirds. Did you get that? Two thirds! And it will not increase as long as the wolf population remains the same or increases. It will continue to decline until there are almost no elk left. Then the wolves will die off and move out until the elk come back. Then the wolves will be back again. This is a man made catastrophe. Yellowstone had good numbers of animals but they are systematically being wiped out and in a few years the Park will be void of animals, including the precious wolves.

For every wolf that runs, "x" number of elk die each year to feed it. A pack can go through an elk a day and that adds up to 365 in a year. Do the math. Elk and moose can not sustain good populations for very long under that kind of pressure.

On the subject of killing people, there have been very few attacks and killing of humans by wolves over the years, but this is the first time that wolves have had such a high level of freedom and protection. They will in fact learn to loose their fear of man and become more dangerous. I don't care what the blasted statistics say in the past... if I lived in wolf country with children, I would be very concerned and I would take the law into my own hands to protect mine. There are no statistics that tell us how wolves behave when they are not threatened with hunting. This is a whole new deal.

Finally, here's my definition of "Artificial Management".... letting wolves run free without fear. That has never been the case in the existence of wolves and man history ever. Man has always preyed on wolves and their populations were checked and they had much more fear. The situation we have now is what I would call "Artificial"

JM $.02

-Mark
Amen.

Below is an excerpt from one of the many articles compiled at
www. saveelk.com seen here at: The Outdoorsman. This is one of the things that makes many quite angry, myself included. These aren't even the wolves that were here!!

I would encourage anyone to set aside some time and visit the saveelk.com site and learn about this issue from another side than that propagated by popular media outlets.


Bangs Ignored ESA Subspecies Criteria
In that letter Bangs changed the definition of a
confirmed wild wolf to be protected under the ESA to any
animal that looks and acts like a wolf and has either
survived in the wild or reproduced in the wild. He boldly
asserted that neither domesticated wolves nor wolf-dog
hybrids can survive in the wild and said any animal that
has been observed to survive is “confirmed” as a wild wolf.
By providing that new definition, Bangs ignored
20 years of scientific deliberation during which the FWS
Deputy Solicitor ultimately determined that only the
distinct subspecies known to have inhabited an area couldbe reintroduced to satisfy ESA requirements. Bangs paved the way to protect and propagate assorted wolf-dog, wolfcoyote and wolf-wolf hybrids in the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf Recovery Areas.
__________________
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
  #52  
Old 03-17-2010, 10:28 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,654
Re: Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyMtnMT View Post
Right on!

They got rid of them for a reason the first time. It's a monumental mistake to artificially bring them back. I think this will turn out like when the F&G decided to introduce a new salmon species into Flathead lake. Long story short, they destroyed the largest kokanee salmon fishery in the world. There is no longer any, I mean zero, kokanee left in Flathead lake. And the salmon species that they tried to introduce did not make it either. This time the experiment is on wildlife and covers the Western United States. This will not only affect the wildlife, but also our food supply. By predation and disease. Not to mention the occasional, unlucky, human victim. How much collateral damage is acceptable? Some body needs to explain to me how we as people are better off with wolves. To say that we now have a new hunting opportunity does not cut it. Loosing the ungulate populations and adding a wolf hunt does not sound like an added hunting opportunity to me. For those of you who do not understand, we have seen our game populations plummet in the last 2 years. I am not using the word plummet lightly. I mean game is scarce. The wolf does not stop killing when the population of prey gets down to "acceptable levels". For that matter they don't stop killing when they are not hungry. Why do you think the typical wolf kill has the prime pieces eaten and the rest of the animal left behind? They only eat the whole animal if they are having trouble finding something to eat.

I should stay out of these wolf discussions. We are stuck with it now and it is too late.

Steve
Here is just one more thought to throw in. I live a loooong ways away from Colorado and I know of several Non-resident hunters for that state . I know some of the locals don't like the Non-resident hunters but we foot the bill and make states like colorado MT Wy big bucks but with what i'm hearing you guys say then why would I want to pay $550.00 for an elk tag and another $450.00 for a muley tag $800.00 for diesel (at the very least) Not to mention sleeping and eating costs . Drive out to hunt were their is NO Elk ? I think what's going to really get their attention is when all the big money flow stops flowin into their state .Maybe then they will open their eyes!

Bigbuck
__________________
"Molon Labe"
IN DIXIE WE DON"T CALL 911 !
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-17-2010, 10:42 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,325
Re: Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbuck View Post
Here is just one more thought to throw in. I live a loooong ways away from Colorado and I know of several Non-resident hunters for that state . I know some of the locals don't like the Non-resident hunters but we foot the bill and make states like colorado MT Wy big bucks but with what i'm hearing you guys say then why would I want to pay $550.00 for an elk tag and another $450.00 for a muley tag $800.00 for diesel (at the very least) Not to mention sleeping and eating costs . Drive out to hunt were their is NO Elk ? I think what's going to really get their attention is when all the big money flow stops flowin into their state .Maybe then they will open their eyes!

Bigbuck
It is a Gov. agency, since when do they worry about their income vs expenses. I am not sure what the percentage of income to the F&G is out of state tags. There is still fishing licences, and they have started to implement State lands trespass fees. I suspect that will expand to all Government owned lands. The trespass fees are not just for hunting, you have to pay these to hike as well.

Steve
__________________
To hunt... or not to hunt...? What a stupid question.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-17-2010, 10:59 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,654
Re: Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyMtnMT View Post
It is a Gov. agency, since when do they worry about their income vs expenses. I am not sure what the percentage of income to the F&G is out of state tags. There is still fishing licences, and they have started to implement State lands trespass fees. I suspect that will expand to all Government owned lands. The trespass fees are not just for hunting, you have to pay these to hike as well.

Steve
I think I partially understand what your saying steve but what about the Big money guide services they make big money for trophy hunts then they hopefully pay their state taxes so if their is No Elk then that would mean to me less buisness /less tax money to the state. Have you ever sat down and roughly figured the amount of money that out of staters bring in to your state? All I'm saying is the wolf problem will affect several different areas in the future .

How does the tresspass fees work ?

Thanks BigBuck
__________________
"Molon Labe"
IN DIXIE WE DON"T CALL 911 !
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-17-2010, 11:11 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,325
Re: Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbuck View Post
I think I partially understand what your saying steve but what about the Big money guide services they make big money for trophy hunts then they hopefully pay their state taxes so if their is No Elk then that would mean to me less buisness /less tax money to the state. Have you ever sat down and roughly figured the amount of money that out of staters bring in to your state? All I'm saying is the wolf problem will affect several different areas in the future .

How does the tresspass fees work ?

Thanks BigBuck
When you purchase hunting/conservation license it is automatically added to the price. It used to be elective, now it is mandatory.

I understand what you are saying about the financial impacts. I think it is too late to do anything about it. Sorry for the glass half empty attitude.

Steve
__________________
To hunt... or not to hunt...? What a stupid question.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-17-2010, 11:52 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,654
Re: Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyMtnMT View Post
When you purchase hunting/conservation license it is automatically added to the price. It used to be elective, now it is mandatory.

I understand what you are saying about the financial impacts. I think it is too late to do anything about it. Sorry for the glass half empty attitude.

Steve

Thanks for the Info steve. It would be real nice in the future if they would allow a bonus wolf tag for all hunters that purchase say an elk and cow tag . That would be a reason to keep the staedy flow of hunters coming back but thats probably to good to actually happen.

BigBuck
__________________
"Molon Labe"
IN DIXIE WE DON"T CALL 911 !
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: Wolves Kill Woman in Alaska
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
*what a real woman does* Southpaw Humor 0 12-16-2010 06:25 AM
Alaska Dall Sheep and Brown/Grizzly Bear Hunt s - 2009 - Alaska Remote Guide Service ADMIN Sponsors Marketplace 0 12-31-2008 10:06 PM
Woman Swallowed Whole magicofmt Humor 4 04-27-2008 10:55 AM
Rifle for a small woman Pattonsdad The Basics, Starting Out 5 11-16-2004 05:47 PM

Current Poll
In the last 12 months, what was your longest rifle kill on big game?
0 to 200 yards - 25.90%
1,485 Vote
201 to 400 yards - 32.05%
1,838 Vote
401 to 600 yards - 23.11%
1,325 Vote
601 to 800 yards - 10.03%
575 Votes
801 to 1,000 yards - 3.94%
226 Votes
Over 1,000 yards - 4.97%
285 Votes
Total Votes: 5,734
You may not vote on this poll.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 PM.


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