Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Bad Scouting Signs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fiftydriver" data-source="post: 161558" data-attributes="member: 10"><p>SES50,</p><p> </p><p>First off, let me say I hope this convesation will stay good hearted. Heated debate is one thing but no need to flame each other which I do not think anyone is doing at this time so I hope it stays this way.</p><p> </p><p>Also, when I refer to the west and east coast liberals, that is exactly who I am referring to. I never did and do not believe you are one of these. I am fully aware of the fine folks that live in your state including yourself that are no different then any other nature loving person. BUT you have to agree that the liberals in these areas are a much larger voice then your conservative voice and that is why we now have wolves in Yellowstone and also Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and at the rate they are going, there will be many more states with them soon.</p><p> </p><p>Now to your comments in preply to mine.</p><p> </p><p>Yes, Predators are enjoyable to watch. That comment has nothing to do with saying it is enjoyable to watch a calf elk being pulled from its mother and eaten alive by a pack of wolves. Does this happen in nature, yes when the wolves were here naturally. SHould it happen now, in my opinion, NO. The reason, there is no need for it. We do not need the wolves to control the game populations, humans can do it much more effiecently and without waste then any wolve pack can and also without the added headaches that come with the packs.</p><p> </p><p>The area I hunt in is in north central Montana, flat land, river bottom hunting that until recently has not had a wolf in it since early in the 1900s. That said, last summer a wolf was hit on the highway just 3 miles from my house. The game populations in my area have not been intruded upon by wolf packs, YET, but if it stays the way it is, they will be before my kids will be able to hunt.</p><p> </p><p>I HAVE witnessed hunting areas that offered 2000 permits a season for either sex elk just a decade ago that now offer less then 100 permits????? IS that effecting how I hunt, you bet it does, figure if 14,000 people apply for 2000 permits every year. What the pecentages of being drawn. Now figure what the odds are with 14,000 people are competing for 100 permits............. Yes it effects me and everyone else in my state as well as the out of staters that get a 10% cut of all our permits as well. So that cuts the number of permits down to only 90 for instate hunters........ Yes it effects me.</p><p> </p><p>Your comment about this is how it will be until the predators start carrying rifles will not hold true either. IT was not like this before the wolves were reintroduced. It does not have to be this way now. The wolves are not a critical componant of the natural ballance in the area, they have not been for decades but now that they have been dropped into an ecosystem that has not had them in it for nearly 100 years, its like dropping a mad man with a gun in the middle of a crowded mall. Only thing is that in this case, there would be no one able to stop the gunman. They could just go and do what they wanted under the rule of natures law. When an ecosystem is not used to a large natural predator in the area, you will not get a natural balance result.</p><p> </p><p>You are correct that lions will bury their kills. SO will grizzlies simply because they can not eat everything in one setting. It is also true that at times they will not return to their kills but more times then not this is because they themselves have been disrupted by human interaction or something has disturbed their kill sight by stinking it up with human smell.</p><p> </p><p>That said, a single cat or bear will not kill nearly as many head of game as a pack of wolves. Cats are also dramatically more efficent killers then wolves. Yes there are some problem cats that need to be eliminated because they are a problem to live stock but this is very rare compared to wild dogs causing problems.</p><p> </p><p>The problem with California cats is that they have no reason to fear humans simply because of the laws your vocal liberal lawmakers have passed not allowing you to hunt them. ITs getting the same way here with the grizzlies. They hear a rifle go off and they know there is a fresh gut pile waiting for them and they come running. They have no fear of humans because there is no reason to, that is why hunters are now being killed in Montana by grizzlies being taken right off their kills. This has not happened yet with wolves but I suspect it will not be long until they figure it out.</p><p> </p><p>If your state would allow cats to be hunted, maybe a few less of those high class hikers would be attacked by cats!!!! We do not have a cat problem in Montana, they fear us and keep their distance in most cases because they have a reason to. The wolves and grizzlies have no reason to fear humans and because of that they do not. Again, another problem with having wolves around. Grizzlies are not that bad, they will not come down in your back yard unless you live right on the front, wolves will follow whereever the herds go.</p><p> </p><p>As far as the inefficent care of the game herds in yellowstone, thats a federal issue my friend, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming has done and are still doing a great job managing the elk herds in those three states. Our elk herds have grown steadily over the years in areas away from wolve packs in spite of may consectutive years of drought.</p><p> </p><p>So what is the cure, well, to be honest, the best would have been to allow selective game harvesting inside the park under very strick supervision which certainly could have been done correctly but again, could you imagine the stick that would have been raised by the liberals screaming about elk being hunted in Yellowstone park!!!! My god it would be better to let the elk herds die off from starvation or disease then that which is what was about to happen. </p><p> </p><p>Fortunately, the libbers came up with the great idea to put in a totally unregulated, unrestricted predator in this ecosystem. Read the sarcasm there!!!</p><p> </p><p>A disease would have been better because once its goes through a herd its over and the herd rebuilds, with wolves, the disease only gets stronger and larger in number until there is no more game to support it and then they move to a different game species or livestock. Again it was not needed to introduce wolves into the area. Humans could have easily managed the elk herds much more efficently if the liberal, progressive minds would have not taken over the issue.</p><p> </p><p>As to your two points of comments that you feel we disagree with. </p><p> </p><p>1. I will not shoot predators on site either. I hunt coyotes in the fall and winter when their pelts are quality. I do not shoot them in the spring when I know they have a den full of pups that will starve to death if I kill their parents. I will however shoot them if they are attacking deer and I see it. This may sound hypicritical to you and if so thats fine but in this area, there are so many small game animals that deer are not a major source of food for coyotes. That is until recently when we have witnessed coyotes hunting in larger packs specifically for deer. This is an evolved behavior and I will do everything I can to eliminate the pack leaders that are teaching this to the rest of the pack. So far, in this area anyway, we have done pretty good at doing this.</p><p> </p><p>I will not shoot a cat on sight, not a bear and probably not a wolf inspite of really wanting to do so to the latter. Now if any were threatening livestock it would be a done deal and I would deal with what came later.</p><p> </p><p>2. We are in agreement here as well. Most people have no idea what they are reintroducing into the wild because they have never seen what really happens in the wild!!!! Unfortunately most people that have the loudest voices come from the big cities and somehow they have the power to tell us what to do. Funny thing is that those people protecting this country, far and away come from the country compared to big city folks, so basically the country folk give the big city libbers the ability to control us.. How ironic is that.</p><p> </p><p>I think by and large we are not disagreeing with much at all expect a few personal experiences that have molded our point of view. If you had wolves in your back yard, I suspect your reaction would be similiar to that of what you did with the domesitc dogs, which by the way is exactly what I would and have done!!!</p><p> </p><p>Kirby Allen(50)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fiftydriver, post: 161558, member: 10"] SES50, First off, let me say I hope this convesation will stay good hearted. Heated debate is one thing but no need to flame each other which I do not think anyone is doing at this time so I hope it stays this way. Also, when I refer to the west and east coast liberals, that is exactly who I am referring to. I never did and do not believe you are one of these. I am fully aware of the fine folks that live in your state including yourself that are no different then any other nature loving person. BUT you have to agree that the liberals in these areas are a much larger voice then your conservative voice and that is why we now have wolves in Yellowstone and also Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and at the rate they are going, there will be many more states with them soon. Now to your comments in preply to mine. Yes, Predators are enjoyable to watch. That comment has nothing to do with saying it is enjoyable to watch a calf elk being pulled from its mother and eaten alive by a pack of wolves. Does this happen in nature, yes when the wolves were here naturally. SHould it happen now, in my opinion, NO. The reason, there is no need for it. We do not need the wolves to control the game populations, humans can do it much more effiecently and without waste then any wolve pack can and also without the added headaches that come with the packs. The area I hunt in is in north central Montana, flat land, river bottom hunting that until recently has not had a wolf in it since early in the 1900s. That said, last summer a wolf was hit on the highway just 3 miles from my house. The game populations in my area have not been intruded upon by wolf packs, YET, but if it stays the way it is, they will be before my kids will be able to hunt. I HAVE witnessed hunting areas that offered 2000 permits a season for either sex elk just a decade ago that now offer less then 100 permits????? IS that effecting how I hunt, you bet it does, figure if 14,000 people apply for 2000 permits every year. What the pecentages of being drawn. Now figure what the odds are with 14,000 people are competing for 100 permits............. Yes it effects me and everyone else in my state as well as the out of staters that get a 10% cut of all our permits as well. So that cuts the number of permits down to only 90 for instate hunters........ Yes it effects me. Your comment about this is how it will be until the predators start carrying rifles will not hold true either. IT was not like this before the wolves were reintroduced. It does not have to be this way now. The wolves are not a critical componant of the natural ballance in the area, they have not been for decades but now that they have been dropped into an ecosystem that has not had them in it for nearly 100 years, its like dropping a mad man with a gun in the middle of a crowded mall. Only thing is that in this case, there would be no one able to stop the gunman. They could just go and do what they wanted under the rule of natures law. When an ecosystem is not used to a large natural predator in the area, you will not get a natural balance result. You are correct that lions will bury their kills. SO will grizzlies simply because they can not eat everything in one setting. It is also true that at times they will not return to their kills but more times then not this is because they themselves have been disrupted by human interaction or something has disturbed their kill sight by stinking it up with human smell. That said, a single cat or bear will not kill nearly as many head of game as a pack of wolves. Cats are also dramatically more efficent killers then wolves. Yes there are some problem cats that need to be eliminated because they are a problem to live stock but this is very rare compared to wild dogs causing problems. The problem with California cats is that they have no reason to fear humans simply because of the laws your vocal liberal lawmakers have passed not allowing you to hunt them. ITs getting the same way here with the grizzlies. They hear a rifle go off and they know there is a fresh gut pile waiting for them and they come running. They have no fear of humans because there is no reason to, that is why hunters are now being killed in Montana by grizzlies being taken right off their kills. This has not happened yet with wolves but I suspect it will not be long until they figure it out. If your state would allow cats to be hunted, maybe a few less of those high class hikers would be attacked by cats!!!! We do not have a cat problem in Montana, they fear us and keep their distance in most cases because they have a reason to. The wolves and grizzlies have no reason to fear humans and because of that they do not. Again, another problem with having wolves around. Grizzlies are not that bad, they will not come down in your back yard unless you live right on the front, wolves will follow whereever the herds go. As far as the inefficent care of the game herds in yellowstone, thats a federal issue my friend, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming has done and are still doing a great job managing the elk herds in those three states. Our elk herds have grown steadily over the years in areas away from wolve packs in spite of may consectutive years of drought. So what is the cure, well, to be honest, the best would have been to allow selective game harvesting inside the park under very strick supervision which certainly could have been done correctly but again, could you imagine the stick that would have been raised by the liberals screaming about elk being hunted in Yellowstone park!!!! My god it would be better to let the elk herds die off from starvation or disease then that which is what was about to happen. Fortunately, the libbers came up with the great idea to put in a totally unregulated, unrestricted predator in this ecosystem. Read the sarcasm there!!! A disease would have been better because once its goes through a herd its over and the herd rebuilds, with wolves, the disease only gets stronger and larger in number until there is no more game to support it and then they move to a different game species or livestock. Again it was not needed to introduce wolves into the area. Humans could have easily managed the elk herds much more efficently if the liberal, progressive minds would have not taken over the issue. As to your two points of comments that you feel we disagree with. 1. I will not shoot predators on site either. I hunt coyotes in the fall and winter when their pelts are quality. I do not shoot them in the spring when I know they have a den full of pups that will starve to death if I kill their parents. I will however shoot them if they are attacking deer and I see it. This may sound hypicritical to you and if so thats fine but in this area, there are so many small game animals that deer are not a major source of food for coyotes. That is until recently when we have witnessed coyotes hunting in larger packs specifically for deer. This is an evolved behavior and I will do everything I can to eliminate the pack leaders that are teaching this to the rest of the pack. So far, in this area anyway, we have done pretty good at doing this. I will not shoot a cat on sight, not a bear and probably not a wolf inspite of really wanting to do so to the latter. Now if any were threatening livestock it would be a done deal and I would deal with what came later. 2. We are in agreement here as well. Most people have no idea what they are reintroducing into the wild because they have never seen what really happens in the wild!!!! Unfortunately most people that have the loudest voices come from the big cities and somehow they have the power to tell us what to do. Funny thing is that those people protecting this country, far and away come from the country compared to big city folks, so basically the country folk give the big city libbers the ability to control us.. How ironic is that. I think by and large we are not disagreeing with much at all expect a few personal experiences that have molded our point of view. If you had wolves in your back yard, I suspect your reaction would be similiar to that of what you did with the domesitc dogs, which by the way is exactly what I would and have done!!! Kirby Allen(50) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Bad Scouting Signs
Top