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
Wolf Hunting
See a wolf... what would you do?
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="Scot E" data-source="post: 588504" data-attributes="member: 10832"><p>They weren't exterminated in the Western States. That is one of the big lies. Northern Idaho and Montana have always had timber wolves being so close to Canada. Like I mentioned before there were wolves in the lower parts of ID, MT, and WY as well. I guess my point is that I don't for a minute buy that this "reintroduction" was for the purpose of wolf proliferation. They were already here. It also wasn't becuase they were endangered, there are 100's of thousands throughout the whole world and 10's of thousands in and around the Rockies. Now comes the grizzly bear "reintroduction". Like they aren't here now. Hell, maybe we can do some Jurassic park science and reintroduce the sabre tooth tiger too. They were after all originally here! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Not snarling at you Phorwath, just at what I deem to be bad science based more on money and politics than any real care for wildlife. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The non-native or invasive wolf argument is not a topic I am willing to dismiss. Prior to 1994 I had multiple encounters with wolves in Idaho in some of the most rugged parts of the Sawtooth Mountains. Beautiful creatures and great experiences each time! In every case they were much smaller than the ones reintroduced. They were also much more cautious and elusive. </p><p>There are only a couple options here. </p><p>1. All the packs I saw were immature wolves:very unlikely. 2. The species of wolves in Idaho prior to the re-introduction were not timber wolves. Very possible. 3. Somehow the Idaho wolves prior to 1995 had grown smaller compared to their ancestors: Devolution perhaps <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p> I am not saying I have the answer to this and I realize my info is anecdotal but there are a lot more folks saying similar things than just me and the funny thing is they are just good ol boys that work hard and grew up in this country, not some suited up politician trying to convince me of something. Sorry but I have a lot more faith in my neighbors than I do in some politician or government scientist that is very likely motivated by forces I can't see. </p><p></p><p>Option #2 is really the only options that makes sense to me. Idaho fish and game biologists have off the record made some comments that would leave me to believe that there is a genetic difference as well. I just find it interesting that we can shut down major industries to find out exactly which variation of the striped green tree frog is being harmed but in this case there is zero information on potential genetic differences. Interestingly, with the 2nd go-around of wolf re-introduction into the States, the feds are now very serious about making sure they get pure genetic Mexican wolves for reintroduction into Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. They are either learning from their mistakes or are making sure there isn't that argument to use against them this time. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess I look at it a little differently. I am not resistant to change per se. But I am very resistant to the federal government and environmentalist groups outside of our State telling us how to manage elite predators. Idaho chose long ago to bolster big game populations for the purpose of industry, recreation and food. IMO, the States and their citizenry have every right to do so. Therefore States should have the right to manage predators at lower numbers so big game numbers can be increased to reached the desired goals. We are not being allowed to do this and it is at the cost of our big game herds and 100's of millions of dollars that have been spent over the last 40-50 years.</p><p></p><p>Also, the Indians survived with wolves because nature was the only regulating force at that time. The ebb and flow of predator vs prey was naturally balancing. We do not live in that world any longer. We have artificially bolstered our big game numbers with sound management practices and have now introduced an elite predator to the mix that can't be managed. I would think most folks would see this for what it is, a recipe for disaster. And not just for the industry, recreation, food source and big game numbers but also for the wolves. If left unchecked the food supply will continue to crash and the wolves will starve to death until a balance is met. I wonder what all the environmental wackos will be saying when their cash cow is seen all over TV dieing one of the worse deaths possible. Like you said some wolves will try about anything to survive and WILL end up attacking a human and then all hell will break loose here. You think the wolves were persecuted in the late 1800's, wait till the something like this happens. It isn't going to be pretty. State management is the only answer and I would prefer that management to be based on the original agreement of 15 packs and 150 wolves in Idaho. This is the best way to help our economy and regain our recreational activities.</p><p></p><p>States have successfully managed other elite predator like bears and cats for 50 years. So why can't they do it with wolves? The answer is simple. There is far more wrapped up in this than wildlife management. Unfortunately it is at the very bottom of the priority list. </p><p></p><p>Scot E.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scot E, post: 588504, member: 10832"] They weren't exterminated in the Western States. That is one of the big lies. Northern Idaho and Montana have always had timber wolves being so close to Canada. Like I mentioned before there were wolves in the lower parts of ID, MT, and WY as well. I guess my point is that I don't for a minute buy that this "reintroduction" was for the purpose of wolf proliferation. They were already here. It also wasn't becuase they were endangered, there are 100's of thousands throughout the whole world and 10's of thousands in and around the Rockies. Now comes the grizzly bear "reintroduction". Like they aren't here now. Hell, maybe we can do some Jurassic park science and reintroduce the sabre tooth tiger too. They were after all originally here! :) Not snarling at you Phorwath, just at what I deem to be bad science based more on money and politics than any real care for wildlife. The non-native or invasive wolf argument is not a topic I am willing to dismiss. Prior to 1994 I had multiple encounters with wolves in Idaho in some of the most rugged parts of the Sawtooth Mountains. Beautiful creatures and great experiences each time! In every case they were much smaller than the ones reintroduced. They were also much more cautious and elusive. There are only a couple options here. 1. All the packs I saw were immature wolves:very unlikely. 2. The species of wolves in Idaho prior to the re-introduction were not timber wolves. Very possible. 3. Somehow the Idaho wolves prior to 1995 had grown smaller compared to their ancestors: Devolution perhaps :) I am not saying I have the answer to this and I realize my info is anecdotal but there are a lot more folks saying similar things than just me and the funny thing is they are just good ol boys that work hard and grew up in this country, not some suited up politician trying to convince me of something. Sorry but I have a lot more faith in my neighbors than I do in some politician or government scientist that is very likely motivated by forces I can't see. Option #2 is really the only options that makes sense to me. Idaho fish and game biologists have off the record made some comments that would leave me to believe that there is a genetic difference as well. I just find it interesting that we can shut down major industries to find out exactly which variation of the striped green tree frog is being harmed but in this case there is zero information on potential genetic differences. Interestingly, with the 2nd go-around of wolf re-introduction into the States, the feds are now very serious about making sure they get pure genetic Mexican wolves for reintroduction into Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. They are either learning from their mistakes or are making sure there isn't that argument to use against them this time. I guess I look at it a little differently. I am not resistant to change per se. But I am very resistant to the federal government and environmentalist groups outside of our State telling us how to manage elite predators. Idaho chose long ago to bolster big game populations for the purpose of industry, recreation and food. IMO, the States and their citizenry have every right to do so. Therefore States should have the right to manage predators at lower numbers so big game numbers can be increased to reached the desired goals. We are not being allowed to do this and it is at the cost of our big game herds and 100's of millions of dollars that have been spent over the last 40-50 years. Also, the Indians survived with wolves because nature was the only regulating force at that time. The ebb and flow of predator vs prey was naturally balancing. We do not live in that world any longer. We have artificially bolstered our big game numbers with sound management practices and have now introduced an elite predator to the mix that can't be managed. I would think most folks would see this for what it is, a recipe for disaster. And not just for the industry, recreation, food source and big game numbers but also for the wolves. If left unchecked the food supply will continue to crash and the wolves will starve to death until a balance is met. I wonder what all the environmental wackos will be saying when their cash cow is seen all over TV dieing one of the worse deaths possible. Like you said some wolves will try about anything to survive and WILL end up attacking a human and then all hell will break loose here. You think the wolves were persecuted in the late 1800's, wait till the something like this happens. It isn't going to be pretty. State management is the only answer and I would prefer that management to be based on the original agreement of 15 packs and 150 wolves in Idaho. This is the best way to help our economy and regain our recreational activities. States have successfully managed other elite predator like bears and cats for 50 years. So why can't they do it with wolves? The answer is simple. There is far more wrapped up in this than wildlife management. Unfortunately it is at the very bottom of the priority list. Scot E. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Wolf Hunting
See a wolf... what would you do?
Top