The antis are at it again. They are threating a boycott of Alaksa tourism if the proposed aireal wolf hunt continues.

We as hunters need to write the Govenor and support him and the state. I have already done so.

Boy that would really be terrible,no tourist season in alaska. What would that state be like without every granola head motherfucker running around during the summer months.

They need to leave the wolves alone,they only hunt the weak ,old and sick.

Correct, from what I've heard from the folks who live around wolves (in all areas) they have seen healthy animals killed and not even eaten. Apperently the 'sick and old' deal is just a myth.

I support the aerial hunting even at the expense of some tourism dollars. Here in Sitka tourism is king. We get up to three large cruise ships in everyday except weekends( summers only). I'd hate to see a large scale boycott, but I don't think the kind of folks who would actually boycott over this topic are the same folks buying tickets on cruise ships.

Damn tsturm,I can't put anything over on you.

The latest word, is the fuckin' sierra club believes that wolves may seak out animals with CWD. If that isn't pulling at straws,trying to justify releasing these worthless cocksuckers,what is?

boreal,
There are places such as you speak, in Alaska there are something like 100 million acres of National Parks that these wolves can live in peace and harmony with all the moose and other animals. That is not where the state is proposing these hunts. These places are where predator populations have devasted moose herds near villages. Its 30-40 wolves that are slated to be killed by the aerial method, not the entire population. Just enough to balance out the predator/prey and human relationships.

Look, if you manage prey animals, you have to manage predator numbers. If you want to see wolves, you go nearly anywhere in this state and get a good look at them. In Ketchikan they are roaming town neighborhoods, and beginning to do that on the hillside in Anchorage.

We aren't talking about killing all the wolves in the state, just balancing the numbers.

DPhillips,
I know of those places! I don't know about "peace and harmony" though. Nature doesn't work that way.

If you read my post closely, you will see that I have no problem with Alaska's management of wolves. I wrote that it is a "legitimate management tactic." In fact, I'd like to hunt wolves. I've called them in while coyote hunting. I think they would be great game animals to hunt. Talk about wary and intelligent! I agree that wolves should be hunted and thinned to preserve more prey for us. We should "manage" them. I was and am addressing the lower 48 states. As I said, I don't care what Alaska does, as they have plenty of them. And I don't want to go to Alaska just to see a wolf or bear or moose or whatever.

I live in extreme NE Minnesota. There are an estimated 3-4 thousand wolves in northern Mn. I see them once in a while out of my living room window. Mn hunters just killed the highest number of whitetail deer ever recorded for a hunting season in this state. Obviously, we can have a whitetail population AND a wolf population along with the black bear and moose and lynx etc.. \

I agree that folks get weirded out on both sides and that a tourism boycott is silly and was called for by preservation activists who are uninformed and way left.

What gets my hide is when someone (or a few) get up and start mouthing off about the wolf introduction in the lower 48 and about how wolves are gonna kill everything, including your animals and your kids and your truck, whatever. We gotta kill 'em all before they kill all the game and then come after us..... The feds are all stupid and trying to screw us up with lies ..and their taking all our money..and..and.. The wolves are "cocksuckers" and I am a "green" "tofu-eatin" limp-wristed, faggot who only wants to take our land and guns, etc.......

These ignorant asses, yes asses with ONE BIG BROWN EYE need to be challenged with a little truth. The truth is that the citizens of the US and their representatives want wolves in a FEW places in the west. We created laws that deal harshly with offenders. The feds will hand over control to the states soon and wolves will be managed well. We will have wolves in our wild lands.

The FACT is that wolves keep the population healthy and the healthy population because the fittest are MOST LIKELY TO SURVIVE.

Wrong! Wolves will always try to out smart its pray, regardless of health conditions. For example, two weeks ago there was this huge bull moose near a friend's trap line. The moose not only had huge antlers, but it was in its prime, somewhere around 4 to 5 years of age, and with a good layer of fat (didn't look skinny). It ran away when my friend approached, and a few hours later it had bedded down to rest. That's what my friend saw on his way out. Two days later he came back to check his traps, the moose was dead, large pieces of meat missing and blood everywhere, and wolf tracks all around the carcass.

Events such as these are often witnessed by trappers and hunters in Alaska. Last year there was a moose hunter on a stand, and a young cow with calf ran under the stand trying to get away from a pack of approximately 16 wolves. The guy shot three wolves with his .338WM, killing two and injuring the other.

This is what wolves will do with a bull moose on its prime: They will harass the moose from different angles until the moose is so tired that it has to bed down. But as the moose gets tired from all the efforts of keeping the wolves from biting its hind legs, the wolves increase the number of bites on the legs' tendons. Finally the moose bleeds a great deal, or gets tired and beds down, or drops. Once the moose beds down to rest, death is eminent.

It is much easier for wolves to kill a calf. What they do in this case is surround and harass the cow and calf, and as soon as both are separated from each other the calf is butchered alive with their fangs. If the cow allows the wolves to get too close, she too will succumb to the attack.

But the easiest target is a newly born caribou, since they are taken by the wolves before they hit the ground. In those conditions, the cow can be easily killed with bites to the tendons on the hind legs. I have seeing pictures of caribou herds killed by wolves, and only a couple of caribou eaten by the wolves.

Other animals that learns ways to out smart its pray are the bears. There are several F&G documented cases in Alaska, where grizzly bears have learned to target and kill muskox. In some cases, one bear can kill several oxen, and only consume one or none. It not understood why a bear or wolves can kill numerous animals and not consume them, but F&G biologists suspect that it may be a "killing instinct."

Boreal, calm down. Take a deep breath. RMK does that to you. There is a lot of truth in what you say but a great number of folks aren't interested in truth. And you can understand their fright. Imagine them having to actually get out of their jacked-up, big tired SUV to kill an elk or a deer. Kinda scary, huh.

Like you say boreal , a little truth never hurt . Trouble is on this issue , there is a little truth on both sides .


boreal posts:
"Mn hunters just killed the highest number of whitetail deer ever recorded for a hunting season in this state. Obviously, we can have a whitetail population AND a wolf population along with the black bear and moose and lynx etc.."'

I would submit that the bulk of the record Mn deer harvest came from low- wolf or non-wolf areas . Furthermore , Mn has been blessed with a number of back to back mild winters . I would also submit that when more normal winters return , the expanding wolves will make a very large impact on your whitetails .

Question , are moose expanding numbers , holding steady , or shrinking ? If not expanding , why not given plenty of suitable habitat ? Why has the moose season in the north-westerly zones been closed for many years ?


boreal posts:
"The truth is that the citizens of the US and their representatives want wolves in a FEW places in the west. We created laws that deal harshly with offenders. The feds will hand over control to the states soon and wolves will be managed well. We will have wolves in our wild lands"


Wolves in Mn have been well over their stated population objectives for around twenty years . Yet still the Feds have not handed over control to the state . Still no hunting seasons . Still no management . I don't see the Feds handing over control anytime soon , in any state . Feds dearly hate to give up control of anything........

Define wild lands and FEW places in the west . If you mean places like Yellowstone and adjacent wilderness areas , along with the MN Arrowhead , I think most of us could live with that . If you mean every nook and cranny of WY , Mt , ID and Col . , like many of the wolf proponents (along with central and southern Mn and even Iowa cornfields) , then you might be one of those tofu-eatin , limp-wristed green faggots .(hehehehe.....sorry , you asked for that one....grin)

Wow,I can't believe I just read all that. I don't want to get in the middle of a pissin match,though I just put myself there. Good dope on both sides! Very emotional issue!
Kude56 I would be happy to write a letter or better yet, send a e-mail. Maybe you could post a address and I bet many would get right on it if you made it easy. I am pro game managememt, regardless of species. I believe wolves will thrive where they have been planted. Look at Idaho. Wolves are truely a magnificent creature, but now they have to manage a species they can't kill if need be. I know we have them here in Wash. I hope we can fight off reintroduction. Wolves will expand to fast for me as it is. I'd hate to see the game management on the animals we hunt thrown away. Some may think its narrow minded, but to me. I comepare this issue to gun control. Wolve reintroduction is the beginning to the end of hunting.
BW, I think your right about those who want to boycott not being the bulk of those who buy the tickits.

Like you say boreal , a little truth never hurt . Trouble is on this issue , there is a little truth on both sides .

"I would submit that the bulk of the record Mn deer harvest came from low- wolf or non-wolf areas."

You may submit that, but it is not true. County by county harvest records show high harvest in all parts of the state. In my area, likely the "wolfiest" part of the state, harvest was very high. Check-in stations recorded some of the highest numbers ever. There were more deer around my hunting area (a few square miles around my house) than any time in the 13 years I have lived here. We even had doe permits this year. I have a dozen or so deer in the back yard every night now. Never been that way before.


"Furthermore , Mn has been blessed with a number of back to back mild winters."

Exactly. Winter weather is the limiting factor in my neck of the woods.


"I would also submit that when more normal winters return , the expanding wolves will make a very large impact on your whitetails."

When a "killing" winter returns to N. Mn., it will be the "winter severity index" (a combination of snow depth and temperature) that will be the telling factor, not wolves. Wolf numbers are not expanding anymore, except in "fringe" areas. In most of the north numbers are stabilized by pack area and competition between packs, something that I understand is only beginning to happen in the west. Last time we had a bad winter (1997?), many were crying "WOLF", as we lost a lot of deer to heavy snow. Now that the population has climbed, not a peep out of anti-wolf deer hunters. Again, it is winter severity that is the limiting factor. Yes, wolves will eat well, but did you know that during most years (especially heavy snow years) that in Cook Co. (my county) more deer are killed by vehicle collision that wolves? More vehicle kills than by hunters? That's because the deer in Cook Co. migrate to Lake Superior every winter to escape the snows. Our only highway runs along the Lake, right through all the deer yards. Maybe we should kill all the "big rigs" that ship stuff back and forth in and out of Canadia.


"Question , are moose expanding numbers , holding steady , or shrinking ? If not expanding , why not given plenty of suitable habitat ? Why has the moose season in the north-westerly zones been closed for many years?"

Habitat in NE Mn is declining because logging activity is being stymied by preservationists. Less cutting means older forest, which means less food for moose. Moose populations may be declining slightly in the NE. Nobody knows why for sure. It may be only a natural pop swing, habitat loss, disease, wolves, etc., or a combination of them all. I sure wish I could get one of them moose permits!!! I've been applying since 1975, which was the last time I drew a permit.
There has been no moose hunting in the NW because of declining numbers. Collared moose have died at high rates in the NW and pregnancy and birth rates are low. Collared moose in the NW are recovered when they die by means of radiotracking. Death due to wolf kill has been very low amongst the study groups. Most of them are found emaciated with unknown causes of death. And there is brain worm, spread by whitetail deer, which are not killed by the parasite. Brain worm is deadly to moose. Whitetail populations in the NW are booming.
We are struggling with the NW problem and no good answer has been found. Moose numbers in the NW have historically been low. It has only been a decade or two where moose numbers have been at huntable population numbers. It is hoped that the same condition does not happen here in the NE. The point is that wolves are not to blame for our NW moose problems. If it were wolves, you'd think that the NE moose numbers would have crashed long before the NW. Yet, of course, some jump to the conclusion that it was those !@#$%^ wolves! No proof of that at all.




"Wolves in Mn have been well over their stated population objectives for around twenty years . Yet still the Feds have not handed over control to the state . Still no hunting seasons . Still no management . I don't see the Feds handing over control anytime soon , in any state . Feds dearly hate to give up control of anything........"

Twenty years???? That's news to me! The state does not want to manage wolves. That is pretty clear. The feds have been trying to hand over management for several years now. It has been the state that has been dragging their feet on this. The "roundtable discussions" deadlocked on how to manage, and the state has finally come up with a wolf plan that is submitted to the feds. Wolves were removed from the "endangered" list in Minnesota for some time, and have recently been relisted as threatened in western states. As far as what is "soon", I agree the feds are really slow. My guess, depending on what Wyoming does, is sometime in the next five years, during Bush's second term.


Define wild lands and FEW places in the west . If you mean places like Yellowstone and adjacent wilderness areas , along with the MN Arrowhead , I think most of us could live with that . If you mean every nook and cranny of WY , Mt , ID and Col . , like many of the wolf proponents (along with central and southern Mn and even Iowa cornfields) , then you might be one of those tofu-eatin , limp-wristed green faggots .(hehehehe.....sorry , you asked for that one....grin)

---

I'd say they belong in Jellystone, Glacier and some wilderness areas of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado. I can't say more because I'm not familiar with all the states' various "wilderness" areas. They do not belong around ranches and most other private lands. They do not belong where habitat is lacking, like some of the "wintering" grounds where development crowds game animals and game animals have to be fed because there is poor habitat. I don't know all the answers, but generally, I think you get my drift.

And call me a faggot to my face and I'll knock your lousy teeth down your throat!!!

Gentlemen,

Evidence holds that prior to historic times, "natural selection" insured (at best) very cyclitic conditions as relates the predator/prey relationship. In our terms, this meant cycles that showed a "balanced ideal" of just a couple of years with numbers on either side of the relationship struggling for many years to regain what numbers had been lost. At best, this cycle would see the "ups" lasting for a couple of years and the "downs" holding sway for extended periods. Many people call these "downs" the natural population mean.

Some have attributed only the "efficiency" of or lack thereof to natural selection. Others have commented on environmental conditions that have played a role in these "boom and bust" cycles as well.

Now however, enter man into the equasion. As a nomadic being capable of affecting his environment, he also has the ability to affect all of the lesser animals. He is the only one proven to be reasoning and calculating. He most definately is at the top of the food chain.

As such, he may utilize his abilities to balance out this prey/predator relationship to the advantage of all by manipulating and maintaining densities on both sides of the ratio to their optimum number. This is called "maximum sustained yield," which is practiced in the State of Alaska, and directed by law. This effort insures that both populations are healthy and that man may utilize the excess prey species for their benefit. There are too many factors that are considered by State of Alaska biologists to maintain this "optimum" ratio to go into here; however, a trip to the State's website will fill in all of the questions you might have about this practice.
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/management/fur/wolf-pol.cfm

Problems arise however, when people become emotional or self-centered (just another trait that seperates lesser "animals" from us!) Regardless of the reasoning, whether misguided by false information and holding good intentions, or using calculated un-truths which allow an overlooking of the means to justify a personal end, if emotions become the rule, we all loose! The prey, predators, and people alike...it will not matter!

Because Man IS part of the equasion, the ONLY valid answer is to manage. This means sustained yield, which will allow for a good balance of environmental concerns, prey and predator populations, and hunting. To allow predators to be unchecked will cause their own demise. Cause the demise of a great part of the prey populations and we will be "smack-dab" back to the boom and bust cycles of old, where "bust" was the order of the day and "boom" was short lived indeed!

It seems ironic (to me) that those who choose to let emotions ride rampant or those that have an idyllic (yet unreasonable and unachievable) end in mind will actually do more harm to the populations they so want to aid if their agenda is realized.

All Alaska is desireous of is to maintain the greatest number of prey and predators (suprised?) alike that the land is capable of sustaining...and still allow for the harvesting of game for food. In order to return to a truly unaltered "natural selection" state of being, man must be totally eliminated from the equasion. This means no hunting, no viewing, no contact or presence allowed. Whatsoever! In the words of my grandaughter..."like that's going to happen!"

best,
bhtr

boreal

"We even had doe permits this year. '

I think you make part of my point . Doe permits are hardly anything new in the less wolfy parts of Mn . Maybe you could have lots more doe permits with less wolves , eh ?


As far as the round table wolf group goes , well , yeah , there are no doubt quite a few in Mn that would like to see the Feds remain in charge of Mn wolves......as to the twenty years , check the stated population goals for Mn wolf recovery and also the estimated population back in the Eighties. The goal was exceeded even back then .......


I have trouble with the parasite theory about the moose in NW Mn . Usually parasites are not an ongoing problem in a scarce population . And I hear moose are doing well in ajacent areas of ND . They would likely be suject to the same parasites , and also exposed to numerous whitetails......


Lastly , I hope you realize the fag remark was meant in jest , and borrowed from your post ? If we ever meet in person , I will buy you a beer and we can discuss the situation . If you still feel like knocking my teeth out , you are welcome to try . (grin)

Boreal: All those things you have said may be true, since it is written by biologists and one can read it at F&G and other sites. However, in the Alaska case where 40 wolves will be killed to enhance the moose population, the folks who live in the area are the witnesses of what has taken place. There is no such thing as a smart of dumb moose. Their behavior is learned as days go by. A moose in it's prime may not necessarily be "smarter" than another moose regardless of age or physical condition. A moose that has been exposed to wolf attacks and survived to continue his "moosy' life, has learned something about those specific wolves that attacked it, but it does not mean the it has learned the tactics of another wolf pack.

A wolf pack will target any pray regardless of physical condition, because wolves are predatory. Their success and survival depends on being smarter than its prey, and are constantly changing their mode of attacks depending on how the pray reacts. I have a friend who has filmed a pack of four wolves harassing a huge moose. He filmed about 30 minutes from a tree stand as the wolves were "faking" attacks from all angles to get the big and strong moose tired. The next day the moose was dead on the trail, about a mile from the stand. Even on PBS TV I have seeing shows on exactly how three to five wolves do to kill the strongest moose around. It usually takes from one day to the next, because they have to weaken the moose until it beds down dead tired. Wolves also pray on domestic animals such as dogs, right in town.

In the case of the muskox of the Arctic, a few grizzly bears have learned how to tackle a herd and kill a few on the process. If the herd does not change their mode of defense, they will be exterminated. Of course, F&G will probably have to intervene before the herd is killed. The muskox being killed are animals in their prime as well as the young, even though muskox have been a very difficult animal to put down by predators.

"I think you make part of my point . Doe permits are hardly anything new in the less wolfy parts of Mn . Maybe you could have lots more doe permits with less wolves , eh ?"



Because we have fewer deer than southern Mn has little to do with wolves. Southern Mn is cropland and small farms with mild winters. You should understand that our habitat is marginal for deer because of heavy snow and little winter habitat. In Cook County during the summer, the deer generally occupy a strip of land that ranges inland from Lake Superior for a varying distance, according to deer denities. I see deer 20 miles inland sometimes. After a bad winter you will find few deer inland more than five or so miles. The deer migrate to the lake every winter (unless no snow) and yard up there to avoid the snows. Inland areas are mainly occupied by moose. Our county never has had many doe permits given out. Of course you could go to the adjacent county, where you could shoot two deer this year. They have as many wolves as we have. I bought the "all season license" this year, so I could shoot two deer around my house too. Far cry from the early 70's when there was no deer season in the state because of low deer numbers. Oh yeah, there were very few wolves in the state then.

I'm sure that we could have more deer if there were no wolves. So what? I'm willing to share a few, just like I'm willing to share a few bunnies with coyote, fox, avian predators, etc. I'll share a few walleyes with the northern pike. I'll share a few bear with the tourists too! But, as I said before, winter weather is the main limiting factor around here.





"I have trouble with the parasite theory about the moose in NW Mn . Usually parasites are not an ongoing problem in a scarce population . And I hear moose are doing well in ajacent areas of ND . They would likely be suject to the same parasites , and also exposed to numerous whitetails......"



I mentioned them as a possible part of an unknown problem. I really don't know much about it, but I know the biologist for the Mn DNR (retired) who is probably one of the most learned on the subject and on moose in general. He disected most of the road-killed, etc. deer and moose for many years in Cook Co.. He believes in the brainworm/deer/moose connection in this area.





"Lastly , I hope you realize the fag remark was meant in jest , and borrowed from your post ? If we ever meet in person , I will buy you a beer and we can discuss the situation . If you still feel like knocking my teeth out , you are welcome to try . (grin)"



Yes, I realize that. Me too.

Mabe after a few beers, we could work on that last part too!

bearhunt'r,
I equate maximum sustained yield to farming. We harvest the crop, be it timber, or sugar beets, or elk. We share game animals with lots of different predators. Wolves are just one of them. I think there should be a few places in this country where we can share some of the crop with wolves.
And of course maximum sustained yield is a human invention. I think there should be a few places where the concept is not applied.

"There is no such thing as a smart of dumb moose. Their behavior is learned as days go by."

I guess that is the only part of your post that I disagree with. I think intelligence levels vary in animals, including moose.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a smart moose. They all seem pretty dumb to me. But I would think some are dumber than others, say, like "Dumb and Dumber".

Boy, you guys have gotten me pretty tired out.
Roger and out!

The wolf management hunt in Alaska, one that I completely agree with, is explained in the F&G site below:



http://wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/news/2003/11-05-03.cfm



The following is one of several news articles in relation to muskox predation by bears in the Arctic: The Juneau Empire



And the following posts has pictures of a wolf that was hunted in Canada, and the author also tells the story. Great story and pictures!:



http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=226922&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

bearhunt'r:
You put it as succinctly as anyone and I have to agree with you totally. Since I've been involved in one to many "pissin" contests on the board lately I'll refrain from getting involved in this one. Suffice it to say that I still don't give two hoots in hell what the granola crunchers do about this question and they have no business whatever telling us how to manage our game. The number who would cancel any trips to the state is minimal and the income derived therefrom would be, at most, a drop in the bucket. Finally, as far as I'm concerned, any PETA member, Friend of Anmal member or anyone else of that ilk can kiss my rosy red posterior. I'm fed up trying to reason with 'em. Bear in Fairbanks

Although I think this is an Alaskan problem, I would be willing to write your governor to support your wolf management methods. I guess I could give him a perspective from an nonresident. Anybody have an address or email address?
It sounds to me to be an internal problem, though. Alaskans need to decide who to listen to. Is it their hired professional biologists and hunters or the tourist industry? Didn't Alaskans bow to the tourist industry recently (1-2 years ago?) over a similar aerial wolf kill? Was it not cancelled?

My only question is; Why don't hunters just go out and shoot some wolves? Don't you have a season on them? Do you need a license? Are they even protected game animals? Just wondering.

Here's his e-mail address...

governor@gov.state.ak.us

and his website...

http://gov.state.ak.us/

The people did not bow down to the anti-wolf hunter outside pressure, the ex-Governor did. The democrat liberal named Tony Knowles. He also failed to appeal a Federal Court ruling on subsistence hunting, which some folks thought we could win.

So, the people of this State spoke, and voted his ass out.

"bearhunt'r,
I equate maximum sustained yield to farming."

I can see your point...other than there is no "hands on" effort placed on any of the prey. I think that equating M.S.Y. to "giving nature a hand by optimising the animal's habitat" comes a little closer to the reality...these animals remain wild after all!

"I think there should be a few places in this country where we can share some of the crop with wolves."

Alaska has millions of acres where this is the norm. The problem is that in a few places, the predators are not playing fair!

"And of course maximum sustained yield is a human invention."

But of course it is. As another poster has related, it has been practiced in Alaska for many hundreds of years. In other native cultures across North America, writings and spoken histories have gleaned evidence of the same practices. It has been practiced by learned men of all cultures. Unfortunately, there have been those of both native and non-native cultures that have abused wildlife populations for their own gain.

"I think there should be a few places where the concept is not applied."

Again, Alaska is there already. I could take you less than 50 miles away from where I'm currently typing this and show you a multitude of predator/prey relationships taking place each and every day. I would guess that fewer than a hundred men have ever viewed the landscape from a particular rock outcropping I have in mind. And this is just one place I know of. I'm also guessing that you are referring to more places in what Alaskans "affectionally refere to" as "America!"

best,
bhtr

[quoteless than 50 miles away from where I'm currently typing this and show you a multitude of predator/prey relationships taking place each and every day. I would guess that fewer than a hundred men have ever viewed the landscape from a particular rock outcropping I have in mind. And this is just one place I know of. I'm also guessing that you are referring to more places in what Alaskans "affectionally refere to" as "America!"

best,
bhtr

---

You could sit in my livingroom and look out the window and see a multitude of predator-prey relationships taking place.... and I'm pretty sure that fewer than a hundred women have looked out that window... But that's another story....

Seriously though, I'd like to sit on your rock outcropping for a while, but I ain't going to Alaska. Its too far. I will not go through an airport anymore. I only get a couple of weeks vacation each year. Maybe if I can retire at 55, I'll get up there. Yes, I was talking about the lower 48.

PS: I call America (North and South) "America". I call Canada, USA, and Mexico "North America." I call the USA the "USA". Just another "pet peeve" of mine.

[quote
PS: I call America (North and South) "America". I call Canada, USA, and Mexico "North America." I call the USA the "USA". Just another "pet peeve" of mine.

---

As to your quote, my feelings mirror yours. In "Alaskan" context however, it (American,) is used as a simile regarding anyone from anywhere else who might decide they have an opinion that will not hold up to the "Been there...done that" litmus test! Of course, in this day and age, it does seem to have taken on a more pointed focus of describing Washington D.C. political appointees!
best,
bhtr

ps. I really, really, really did not respond just to get in the last word...

Boreal your posting on here, is a testament to just how fucking stupid the pro wolf side of this situation is. If wolves equate to an area being pristine,then obviously L.A California,must be virginal with its healthy population of coyotes it has.

The fact that you somehow believe that the majority of the people and their representatives want wolves,further shows how stupid you are boreal.

When you have a little over 40% of the population voting,which in most cases,is exactly what you have in america. You don't have the majority represented. On top of this,when was the last time an elected official actually represented the wants of the people,and furthermore,when was the wolf reintroduction placed before a popular vote. Elected officials look out for those that lobby and line their pockets and provide campaign funds,during election years. There have been lists on the net,of contributors to the reintroduction of wolves,none of these individuals were common citizens. Instead these contributors were the wealthy and those in positions of power. While on the subject of politics,the states that are now having problems with wolves(wyoming,montana and idaho),are under represented,due to the the fact that the number of representatives a state has is based on population,something that these states lack when compared to other states. In fact,when the people still had a voice in goverment during the 1940's,wolf extermination was still being funded by the feds,now look at where we are.

The reintroduction of wolves in the west,further illustrates that the will of the people wasn't being represented,simply by the fact that wolves were only reintroduced in a National Park. The states wouldn't have stood still for the reintroduction on national forest or state lands,because they still have some control of these lands. Jellystone was picked for several true reasons and a couple bullshit reasons to try and sell it to the public,even though the public has no say in it.

The true reasons for yellowstone,was that its under federal control and the feds do whatever they feel like. There wasn't sufficient studies done on the impact of wolves,according to alot of the biologists that did the studies,yet because the feds had say in it,they went ahead with the reintroduction. The foremost reason that yellowstone was picked,was because you can't hunt in yellowstone or have firearms,in other other words you can't shoot these useless wolves or boreals favorite term "cocksuckers" when they get out of hand.

The bullshit excuses for reintroduction of wolves in yellowstone,was the supposed remote location and food supply. While yellowstone may have a good prey population,this population is largely seasonal and migrates from the park,onto state and private lands and of course the wolves follow. Now its the states problem and a problem they aren't allowed to handle. On top of this,the remote location of the park and its pristine condition,did nothing to stop the wolves from immediately leaving the park.


As for the wolf helping to keep prey species healthy. Thats largely a wet dream of the pro wolf segment,that they use to try and justify the abortion known as wolf reintroduction. The majority of prey species are as healthy as they've ever been and their population are greater then ever,without the wolf. Instead man has acted as a predator and unlike wolves,man as a predator can be shut off during seasons. On top of this man supports the prey species and himself,through licensing. Wolves are nothing but a burdon that must be totally funded and does nothing to support itself.But instead forces funds from other areas such as big game to be spent on the wolf.Not to mention the cost of reimbersment to livestock growers when wolves prey on these animals.

If the Population of game species are to high for the habitat,allow man to hunt anytime and anywhere,just like wolves are allowed to and the population problem will be put in check and money made off of the situation. But unlike wolves,when the target goal is reached,mans role can be ended,wolves continue.


In this day and age of human population growth and lack of habitat,the wolf represents nothing but another burdon on the system. The only way pristine wilderness is going to be restored,is by removing man. In removing man,you've now eliminated the very assholes that want to see these wolves.

One last thing boreal,if you're worried about my language on this board.Please refrain from talking about your sexual preference,of having you're brown eye or ass streached out.

Another example;
akpls writes with disdain;
"Maybe you would like to sell this theory to the people of McGrath and other villages that don't have the luxury of going down to the local Safeway for their dinner."

Boreal: Perhaps you don't understand what akpls implied, but must Alaskans in this forum, including myself, clearly understand on what akpls based his opinion, simply because we have known for years about what the residents of MaGrath have gone through. This tiny and isolated Native village has been the main subject of discussion in relation to game management in Alaska. It is one of those very isolated areas I mentioned in my previous pots, and where you won't find McDonald's, nor supermarkets of any kind. These folks kill game primarily for consumption, and use from hide to hoof for other needs; nothing is wasted. I posted the F&G URL in one of my responses above, and if you take the time to read the information, you will notice the State of Alaska as well as hunters and trappers came to the conclusion that the wolf population must be managed in order for the residents of McGrath to survive.

Your facts, at least to me, are just opinions that may hold true in relation to your life experiences, and the same holds true for the rest of us. It does not mean, however, that yours are the only true facts in relation to the subject of this "Aerial Wolf Control" that is taking place in Alaska, because there is a chance that Alaska residents know more about this subject than you do.

"Maximum sustained yeild (MSY) is an old but often effective management practice (not a theory) that managers are moving away from in many cases."

Boreal, would you like to share some examples where managers are moving away from MSY? Also, any reasoning behind it's (?) ineffectiveness, or rather, what are managers "moving" to?


"The problem with MSY, is that the yeild is often overestimated at the cost of soil loss, spoiled watersheds, unbalanced bios, etc."

I'm not sure what possibly led you to this conclusion...care to shed some light on your reasoning?

best,
bhtr

RMK,
You really are a genuine fucking idiot. You must live in Brain-deadville, Wyoming.
To alienate somebody who is in charge of managing our resources, is really stupid. The next time Boreal is making a management decision, I hope he doesn't make a protectionist one, because he remembers you and the shit you said. Professional managers like him are classy, and this forum could use a lot more class.
Are you some kind of fucking anti-hunter troll that is trying to "divide and conquer"? Fuck you too.


HEHEHEHE,
GigglinJoe

I have been seeing a bumper on alot of vehicles around my area. "KILL A WOLF SAVE A HUNDRED ELK"
I dont know if 1 wolf would kill a hundred, but I do know they are hell on the young.

gigglin joe must me giggling cuz boreal is boreing it to him from behind! Your a joke Joe!

I really don't have a dog in this fight but I have started to lean toward the pro-wolf side merely because of RMK and his stupid, vile, personal, pointless attacks are anti-wolf. Rmk is the sort that makes one kinda ashamed of being a human.
Shouldn't a lot of you folks go back to the political room with the other nasty, little people?

beemanbeme:

Well, here I go breaking my own promise that I made above about commenting further on this thread. Gotta admit, I think you're right but not about the wolf situation. I still trust the studies/recommendations of our State biologists and stand by them fully.



I too, get quite sick and tired of the nonsensical and ignorant use of four letter invectives. I'd think most persons with a modicum of common sense or education could express their opinions without the use of profanities. Seems the minute one posts a comment that is not within the "popular realm", then he becomes a "low down, dirty, blah, blah, blah. Wish those folks would either clean their acts up or quit posting.

Guess now I'll be labelled a "low down, dirty, blah, blah, blah. Oh, well that's life & it won't affect me. I'm still gonna call 'em as I see 'em & attempt to avoid those 4 letter & larger profanities.



BTW you Alaskans: If I heard correctly on the news today (Thurs.), they're going to be taking out another 140 wolves from the Nelchina Basin. As I recall, they're giving out 30 permits for aerial hunting teams. Looks as if it's "here we go again". I'm outa here for now. Later, Bear in Fairbanks

It was just on the Wyoming evening news, K-2 to be exact. Winter counts of elk are down in areas near the park. This winters count was down close to 1000 head over last year and fall kills were down in addition leading to all speculation that wolves are directly responsible for fewer elk! DUH! Must be rocket science. It was also stated on the program that fewer tags will issued in adjacent areas. And success will reflect the decline. I hope you enjoyed what we used to have.

Outfitters are being quite, so as not to scare off prospctive clients as is the G&F so as not to scare off applicants! IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!

When the money stops coming in from hunters then maybe the wolf situation will have to be reevaluated.



I am all for wild wolves. But they cannot be left unmanaged.



kudu56 I think you should start a new thread with your last post. Here and any other forums you frequent. I bet it would get some attention.



Topic: Wyoming wolves.



It was just on the Wyoming evening news, K-2 to be exact. Winter counts of elk are down in areas near the park. This winters count was down close to 1000 head over last year and fall kills were down in addition leading to all speculation that wolves are directly responsible for fewer elk! DUH! Must be rocket science. It was also stated on the program that fewer tags will issued in adjacent areas. And success will reflect the decline. I hope you enjoyed what we used to have.