See a wolf... what would you do?

[jamesmc2]

Im from Wyoming and will be hunting in the Gros Ventre this fall. The area I hunt is home to a pack of 14 wolves. Wyomings wolf management plan is trying to work its way through the courts. It the meantime Wolves are still a protected species. What would you do if you saw a wolf while hunting?

 

[Broz]

I am not sure people will want to answer this question on a public forum. I myself would make sure they look healthy and take them some doggy treats for Christmas.

 

[jamesmc2]

I am not sure people will want to answer this question on a public forum. I myself would make sure they look healthy and take them some doggy treats for Christmas.

Ha Ha... you may be right?

 

[Pdvdh]

I'd shoot one if there was a hunting season. Other than that I'd enjoy the observation. I expect to be in the minority here based on quite a few threads I've read. I've lived and hunted in the presence of wolves for 33 years now. I don't view them as public enemy, or hunter enemy #1. Some of the States where they're being introduced could be too wolf lovey dovey until they get some more time and experience managing them with a hunting season, and providing some balanced means to harvest the most problematic wolves.

I find it perplexing that so many climb on board the only good wolf is a dead wolf train. I've snared a number of them during Alaska's trapping season in years gone by. But driving any species to extinction is pretty contradictory to the message I think hunters ought to be broadcasting. And contradictory to the positive 'management of the animal resource by controlled regulated hunting' message that has been established since around the 1930s.

If State Fish & Game Departments are allowed to manage their fish & wildlife resources without too much political influence, they by and large eventually find and adopt a reasonably balanced approach to most fish and wildlife management issues.

 

[ss7mm]

I am not sure people will want to answer this question on a public forum. I myself would make sure they look healthy and take them some doggy treats for Christmas.

I always have some "treats" loaded up for them just in case.

 

[royinidaho]

If I had a tag and if I could make the shot, I'd take it.

If there were no season open I'd shoot with a Cannon D5, zoom lens and take some video also.

I would also GPS the location and publish the info in several local news papers and email all locals on my list.

I'd then simply sit back and listen to the quiet. . .

I'm not a law breaker but don't expect others to live up to my high standards.

Heck's fire, all we want is effective regulation.

 

[kcebcj]

Im from Wyoming and will be hunting in the Gros Ventre this fall. The area I hunt is home to a pack of 14 wolves. Wyomings wolf management plan is trying to work its way through the courts. It the meantime Wolves are still a protected species. What would you do if you saw a wolf while hunting?

I would obey whatever laws are in place. With that said Wyoming needs to get off the pot and get their wolf management program in place so hunters can hunt them.

Responsible management is necessary!

 

[bigngreen]

If I lived in an area that the Gray wolf was native I'd take what I had a legal right to or sit and enjoy the sounds and sights, unfortunately in my area they are a non-native invasive species, there are Californians living in MT that have deeper roots here than the Gray wolf. I won't pretend I want anything other than total eradication of the Gray wolf in our area and I'll do my part if I can, whenever I can! Doggy treats, Boolits or jail are the three options I'll take the first two if at all possible but a wolf is not worth my family having me in jail or fined into the poor house.

 

[Mikiedem]

I would do the right thing. Of course you know whats right to one isn't always right to someone else. lightbulb

 

[Magnumitis]

I would also do the right thing. It would be wrong not to shoot.

 

[sendero72]

Not the hijack the thread......but there is a movie starring Liam Neeson called "The Grey". He's a wolf hunter who protects workers in Alaska and their plane crashes and the survivors are being hunted by a pack of wolves. Should be interesting to see if there will be any politics in the movie especially since the school teacher was killed by wolves. Comes out in a couple of months.

 

[Scot E]

until they get some more time and experience managing them with a hunting season, and providing some balanced means to harvest the most problematic wolves.

The real problem is that State's have NO experience managing them because the feds won't give them the power. This is the REAL issue.

I find it perplexing that so many climb on board the only good wolf is a dead wolf train. I've snared a number of them during Alaska's trapping season in years gone by. But driving any species to extinction is pretty contradictory to the message I think hunters ought to be broadcasting. And contradictory to the positive 'management of the animal resource by controlled regulated hunting' message that has been established since around the 1930s.

I think you will find far more guys just wanting to have them managed than wanting all wolves dead. I don't find that to be an accurate depiction at all. Yes, guys that live in the Rockies are hacked off that our big game numbers are being destroyed over politics and money and yes, most of us want to help reduce those numbers as much as we can to save our big game herds but I have talked to very few hunters that aren't equally impressed by them and really enjoy their vocalizations. Much of the frustration about wolves is an indirect response to the ineptness and corruption of the government officials doing little for real wildlife management.

Also, this falsehood regarding extinction needs to stop being bantered around as truth. Wolves are not endangered. They weren't before the introductions to the Rockies, they aren't now. And nobody wants them extinct. There were wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming prior to 1994, there are over 10,000 wolves in Alaska and 5-7 times that amount in Canada (depending on which report you read). Minnesota has 3-5000 wolves. Then there is Russia and Europe and on and on. The entire argument which originally got the wolves on the ESA is a farce.

If State Fish & Game Departments are allowed to manage their fish & wildlife resources without too much political influence, they by and large eventually find and adopt a reasonably balanced approach to most fish and wildlife management issues.

Without too much political influence? That hasn't gone so well for sportsman and big game herds in the Rockies. The originally agreed upon numbers were 15 packs and 150 wolves per State to be considered recovered. These numbers were offered as acceptable by State and federal scientists. We are past this number by 20-40 fold and still no resolution.

This is one of the most politicized topics in the nation right now and will continue to be in large part because there is only one side being told and much of that story is untrue. People are living in fantasy land if they think that this issue is just going to take care of itself. Real wildlife lovers, sportsman and hunters, etc. need to step up and get the truth out and donate some time and money to get this mess fixed or we will end up looking back at was used to be.

And to the OP, we are still a nation of laws and we should abide by them. If we disagree we are much better served to get involved in changing the laws than to give our opponents more power by being able to show how unlawful and heartless we are as a whole. And that is exactly how such actions are portrayed to the other side.

Scot E.

 

[Pdvdh]

Also, this falsehood regarding extinction needs to stop being bantered around as truth. Wolves are not endangered. They weren't before the introductions to the Rockies, they aren't now. And nobody wants them extinct. There were wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming prior to 1994, there are over 10,000 wolves in Alaska and 5-7 times that amount in Canada (depending on which report you read). Minnesota has 3-5000 wolves. Then there is Russia and Europe and on and on. The entire argument which originally got the wolves on the ESA is a farce.

Scot E.

Yeah, I realize timber wolves were not driven to extinction worldwide. I was busily hunting and trapping them in Alaska prior to their re-introduction out west. But they were exterminated in the western states. Which is why they were re-introduced. They weren't introduced as a non-native species. They were re-introduced to lands they'd inhabited long before the white man arrived. Even within this thread there's the claim they're an invading non-native species in these western States. They were abundant until they were trapped, hunted, and poisoned to extermination.

I'm not heavily invested in the matter of western states wolves one way or the other. It doesn't surprise me that the States' management of the wolves is lacking, since there's little history of managing wolves in current times, and the dust hasn't yet settled in the fight between wolf lovers and the wolf haters. That political fight must still be played out, and then eventually some balance of management will be achieved.

I am primarily noting my observation of how resistant people, including hunters, are to change. Wipe out the western timber wolf and after a generation or two they're considered an invasive, non-native species? The Indians managed to survive with wolves competing for the available game species. With modern wildlife management, we can often minimize the wild swings in populations of predator/prey species that commonly occur when simply left to mother nature. And hunting is ofter a primary tool of wildlife management, especially so after native predators are exterminated.

Alaska manages wolves very aggressively, when required, even though it's a political hot potato. They're common here like they were in the western States long ago. We'll track them in the winter snow from the air and shoot them from planes when necessary to rebuild the depleted prey species (caribou and moose). Or should they attack and kill a school teacher, as the two wolves in Chignik, Alaska did last winter.

 

[jmden]

Yeah, I realize timber wolves were not driven to extinction worldwide. I was busily hunting and trapping them in Alaska prior to their re-introduction out west. But they were exterminated in the western states. Which is why they were re-introduced. They weren't introduced as a non-native species. They were re-introduced to lands they'd inhabited long before the white man arrived. Even within this thread there's the claim they're an invading non-native species in these western States. They were abundant until they were trapped, hunted, and poisoned to extermination.

I'm not heavily invested in the matter of western states wolves one way or the other. It doesn't surprise me that the States' management of the wolves is lacking, since there's little history of managing wolves in current times, and the dust hasn't yet settled in the fight between wolf lovers and the wolf haters. That political fight must still be played out, and then eventually some balance of management will be achieved.

I am primarily noting my observation of how resistant people, including hunters, are to change. Wipe out the western timber wolf and after a generation or two they're considered an invasive, non-native species? The Indians managed to survive with wolves competing for the available game species. With modern wildlife management, we can often minimize the wild swings in populations of predator/prey species that commonly occur when simply left to mother nature. And hunting is ofter a primary tool of wildlife management, especially so after native predators are exterminated.

Alaska manages wolves very aggressively, when required, even though it's a political hot potato. They're common here like they were in the western States long ago. We'll track them in the winter snow from the air and shoot them from planes when necessary to rebuild the depleted prey species (caribou and moose). Or should they attack and kill a school teacher, as the two wolves in Chignik, Alaska did last winter.

phorwath,

These wolves introduced (introduced IS the correct term as something cannot be 're-introduced' that was never here in the first place) in to the Rocky Mountain west are not what was here before the wolves that were here were exterminated, as you say.

The entire thing is a farce from the get go. I'm not trying to start a fight. These are just the facts of the matter.

This is a philosophical battle and we need to be very educated on what the competing philosophies are ultimately about so that we fight for the right thing for the right reasons.

Dr. Val Geist immigrated from Soviet Union and due to this may have more complete view of the wolf than many other north american born/bred biologists.

Interview with Leading Wolf Expert Dr. Val Geist

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

Panel Roundtable: Canadian Gray Wolf Introduction into Yellowstone - Black Bear Blog