Wow Varmitpud...just what I would have expected as a reply from a little bitch like yourself. You have no real knowledge of this subject besides what you pick up in your paper. You only give a SHIT about elk when you have a late season bull tag in hand and are looking for antlers. Otherwise...fuck em! You can't hunt by the road side anymore when the elk are in belly deep snow you little baby!
If you would ever actually READ my posts, I have never mentioned that I am for the reintroduction. Quite the contrary. All I have ever said, is that there is more at work here that just the wolves, but you are still way toooooo stubborn (and without the intelect to have any rational thought) to realize that there are a lot of other things going on. There are hundreds of pieces of literature about habitat alteration done by elk in Yellowstone. Go borrow someone's card and go to your library! Funny that Snapper jumps on your "it has nothing to do with habitat" bandwagon. What do you think the elk eat all freaking winter when the snow is belly deep? Habitat IS EVERYTHING...WITH OR WITHOUT WOLVES! I guess you can't understand some simple concepts...8th grade too hard? Go back to your exclaimation points...it is all you have.
As for the calf ratios...I know they are down. I do know that the MT FWP study showed that in the northern YS elk herd, wolves and coyotes made up 15% of the calf mortality. Bears had a greater affect. Maybe according to your twisted logic, the wolves MADE the bears do it?
Heck, I live in a place that has wolves too. Our calf ratios are lower than the average (22), but our elk herd is still above objective. Are our wolves different from yours?
But you're varmit guy! You like killing shit! Does it get you off? Better than Viagra? Go back to writing your manifesto you fucked up whacko.

MG

quote:

I just wish the USFWL people understood what the wolves are doing to the wildlife here in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

I honestly don't think they care or really give a shit. In my honest opinion, leaving the wolves unchecked allows them to expand from the Yellowstone pack base into neighboring states without having to transplant them or having to go through all the reintorduction hassles.

The wolf will self regulate themselves from yellowstone, and the singles and doubles will leave the park for greener pastures. That is why they are showing up in Colorado, Utah, eastern Wyoming and God only knows where else. It is all part of the master scheme!

And if anyone thinks in thier life time that we will be allowed to hunt wolves in Wyoming, I have some alkali bogs that I would love to sell to you!

They have already crossed highway 90 and have been seen in the Bridger mountain range and Absorkas.Before long we will see plenty wolves(that will make the greenies happy)and very few elk.The wolves won't wipe out out elk populations cause Montana makes too much money on them,something will be done like delisting the wolf and permits will be given out.Montana and other states won't let their cash cow get slaughtered and wolves will become the hunted.Drop-Shot

quote:

The wolves won't wipe out out elk populations cause Montana makes too much money on them,something will be done like delisting the wolf and permits will be given out.Montana and other states won't let their cash cow get slaughtered and wolves will become the hunted.

I truly hope your right

Our local news tonight showed a black wolf video taped in Walden, CO. just Northwest of Denver.

Sweet! Don't they have more Elk than Montana?

Found a photo of a coyote eating a lamb that has died. Wait this ones still alive! That can't be, coyotes don't eat live sheep.

We coyote hunt on a large ranch where the owner got out of sheep saying that coyotes cost him $10,000 dollars. When he would come out to feed in the morning, he would find sheep still alive that were bit up pretty good and had to be put down in addition to remains of those not as lucky. Tracks in the new snow indicate they were chased all over before being brought down.

When raising livestock, one of the duties is looking for and treating sick animals. The future of anyone in the livestock business hinges on an extremely low death rate.

Most of the sick animals are moved to a sick pen close to the house for more treatment.

I just wonder how long it will be until someone goes off the deep end and starts to poison wolves. There have been reports somebody was poisoning dogs up near the Flagg Ranch (South Entrance to Yellowstone Park). Apparently their target were wolves however, they did this when the place was full of tourist. You hear stories of people killing a wolf here and there, could just be gosip.

Steve

Last summer the Wis DNR did a report of someone trying to poison dogs in the NF. Well one would think that dogs were not the target because there are many square miles of woods that never see a dog. But that was the DNR's story.

Steve,
It appears that their efforts weren't very effective except for killing a bunch of dogs. People like that just make it harder to get wolves delisted. I hope they catch the sick bastard, I'd go ballistic if someone poisoned my dog.

LongCarbine

I couldn't agree with you more about getting the wolves delisted. With the shoot, shovel,shut up therory will only make things harder in getting the wolves managed by the states.

Steve

IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID

Date: March 6, 2006
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700



wolf proposal will go to feds in 30 days


The Idaho Fish and Game Commission has given Fish and Game officials up to 30 days to revise a proposal to remove up to 43 wolves in two game management units in the Clearwater Region.

Meeting in Boise March 1-3, Commissioners agreed unanimously to have biologists incorporate suggestions from peer reviews and public comments "in a timely fashion, no longer than one month," before submitting it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for approval.

Fish and Game officials have proposed reducing the wolf population in the Lolo elk management zone, which comprises game units 10 and 12, and keeping it low for five years. The object is to give the declining elk herd in these two units a chance to recover. Fish and Game has already cut elk hunting and increased black bear and mountain lion hunting in the Lolo zone.

"We can manage all the other things; we can't manage this critter," Clearwater Region Commissioner Alex Irby said. "Until we can, we'll keep losing elk."

Fish and Game biologists say wolf predation is a significant contributor to the decline of elk numbers in the Lolo zone, and may be preventing population recovery. The proposal to reduce the wolf population is made under the revised 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act, which took effect in February 2005 and allows removal of wolves having an unacceptable effect on elk and deer populations.

They had hoped to get started this winter. But officials and commissioners recognized that the project, even if approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service, would not be in time to kill any wolves this year.

The proposal was submitted for peer review and for public comment in January and February. Fish and Game received more than 42,000 comments-the vast majority opposed the proposal. Comments not part of a Defenders of Wildlife e-mail campaign stacked up about 2 to 1 against the proposal.

Wolf management is undeniably controversial, Wildlife Bureau Chief Jim Unsworth said. Some oppose any removal and other call for removal of all wolves.

"I was encouraged about the level of understanding in general about wildlife and nature," Unsworth said.

Most comments blamed the problems on habitat, asserted that Fish and Game's population goal is not realistic, and that population modeling was too restrictive. Peer reviews of the proposal noted similar weaknesses, including the point that the effects of habitat conditions are difficult to separate from predation, Unsworth told commissioners.
He agreed that population demographic used in the computer model could be improved and that more frequent surveys-at least every other year-would give better data.

But Fish and Game has already taken the deterioration of elk habitat in the Lolo zone into account. In 1984 the area boasted about 17,000 elk. The current population goal is for about 7,400 elk in the two units that make up the zone. Though the most recent survey numbers show a small increase in the elk population, the numbers still are far below that goal.

Numbers from aerial surveys this winter show just over 5,000 elk in the Lolo zone.

"Wolves are going to force us to be better elk managers," Unsworth said. "But being better elk managers comes with a cost."

And wolf numbers have met biological recovery goals with about 500 to 600 wolves in 61 documented packs and 36 breeding pairs in Idaho.
"Taking 40 wolves out of that population will not be an easy task. & It's tough country," Fish and Game Director Steve Huffaker said. "But taking those animals out of the

Hello wolf friends! Just got back from a wildlife conference in Boise, and just to throw a monkey wrench in all of this, a recent study showed that wolves in areas where elk are sympatric with mule deer may actually benefit mule deer. Elk can outcompete mule deer within certain parameters, thus the reduction in the number of elk by wolves and the displacement of cougars by wolves actually has increased the growth rate of the mule deer population within the study area.

This (of course) has no bearing on areas where mule deer and elk are not sympatric, but it was very interesting preliminary data.....

IV

Damn,
Don't ya just hate it when the armchair quarterbacks get it wrong - again.

Brent

Brent

Being from Iowa...you know more about our wildlife than the people that live here. Talk about a armchair quarterback...

Steve

IdahoVandal

The key is the word MAY.

Did they present any hard evidence that wolves help mule deer. Or were they just talking in out of the top of there hats.

Just trying to come up with another reason wolves might be useful.

A few years ago the feds and G&F dept talked of bringing wolves back to Vermont& NH. They " just want things to be like they were originaly" they said. The bioligist then went on to say, but because the original wolf here was the red wolf, and that they interbreed with the eastern coyote, that they would have to use the canadian wolf that dominates coyotes.
So tell me, where does the bioligist come up with his " just like it used to be" statment?
I have little faith or belief in the G&F dept here, as they are either puppets, or only looking to keep the coffers filled at any cost to wildlife. And that was admitted to a large crowd at a special deer meeting when they were asked why they dont cut the bow tags to one per license or one deer per calender year in the season of choice. The deer population was at a long time low due to unaturaly high winterkill.

quote:

Hello wolf friends! Just got back from a wildlife conference in Boise, and just to throw a monkey wrench in all of this, a recent study showed that wolves in areas where elk are sympatric with mule deer may actually benefit mule deer. Elk can outcompete mule deer within certain parameters, thus the reduction in the number of elk by wolves and the displacement of cougars by wolves actually has increased the growth rate of the mule deer population within the study area.

This (of course) has no bearing on areas where mule deer and elk are not sympatric, but it was very interesting preliminary data.....

IV

It has been a long time contention that where there are lots of elk there are fewer mule deer. The last time I read a G&F report on this (15 years or so ago) they still didn't know why and they proved that deer numbers have declined when elk increase.In areas where habitat over laps. Nothing new there!

And if you read the posts above that were quoted from biologists, both wolf loving ones and biologists just doiong thier job, the number of deer thus far killed by wolves is pretty low. Why? Probably because where there are lots of elk and lots of attention by biologists, there really are not that many deer and never has been. Yellowstone is one place.

Don't you think they(wolves) eat what is availible? And which species gives them the most bang for thier buck!

I don't doubt it at all that when the elk numbers go down in areas where there used to be lots of deer the remaining deer benefit. "BUT" what happens to the deer when the elk numbers declined severly and there are more deer? DUH! They will eat the deer.

You blood thirsty wolf lovers are easliy aroused! Home life must be hell!

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
IdahoVandal

The key is the word MAY.

Did they present any hard evidence that wolves help mule deer. Or were they just talking in out of the top of there hats.

Just trying to come up with another reason wolves might be useful.

Well yes, the key word is always "may" I use the word "may" because the only things certain in life are death and taxes.

But, in answer to your inquiry, yes, very hard evidence was presented, I imagine it will be published soon (in the scientific community- soon means 6-12 months??)

IV

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

I don't doubt it at all that when the elk numbers go down in areas where there used to be lots of deer the remaining deer benefit. "BUT" what happens to the deer when the elk numbers declined severly and there are more deer? DUH! They will eat the deer.

Of course they will eat the deer, but will the increase in mule deer that results from the loss of competition with elk and the decrease in loss of mule deer to predation by cougars outweigh the predation on mule deer by wolves??

If the answer were no, the results of the study would not have shown any increase in the mule deer population, the rate of change of the population would have remained constant (as fewer elk opportunities become available the wolves would have capitalized on mule deer opportunities and no net increase would have been shown)

In other words fewer-larger meals or greater-smaller meals? Before the armchair quarterbacks weigh in, remember wolves evolved with the greatest selection pressure with elk as their prey species (across large temporal and spatial scales.)

Before the name calling starts-- I could care less if we wipe out the wolf while maintaining a healthy ecosystem.(Whether that is possible I doubt) I would love it more than anyone if we managed for artificially higher numbers of game animals. I could give a shit about the wolf.

But lets not bullshit each other either! We need to prioritize: 1) a healthy ecosystem (which means some wolves in it.) 2) Quit looking like idiots when we talk about wolf/prey dynamics and 3) Cut to the chase and admit that some wolves are OK and that we want AND DESERVE artificially high game populations (rather than trying to argue that the number of elk and deer out their in the world were at "normal levels" before the wolf and now that the wolf is here they are at "below normal" levels.

If the best we can come up with when debating the wolf issue is that:
A) they eat everything
B) unless you live in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming you don't know anything (unless you hate the wolf too, then you know something)
C) Unless you hate the wolf and join the bandwagon you are a greenie or a wolf lover
D) The best way to manage wolves is SSS

Then our game populations are in far greater danger than any wimpy-ass pack of wolves.

Hunters used to be known as common sense oriented conservationists. More and more we are becoming known as far right whackos who care nothing about conservation. Care nothing about science. Maybe this is due to a lack of education and/or intelligence amongst new hunters-- who knows?

IV

quote:

Hunters used to be known as common sense oriented conservationists. More and more we are becoming known as far right whackos who care nothing about conservation. Care nothing about science. Maybe this is due to a lack of education and/or intelligence amongst new hunters-- who knows?

Unfortunately nowadays the hunting community seems to only prioritize:
1. Their chances of killing a big bull
2. Their chances of killing an elk due to artificially high big game numbers
3. Other big game species availability to hunting opportunity
4. Cheap gas for their truck, and electricity for their house
5. Having the newest short mag or best hunting equipment
6. Scenic beauty
7. Maintaining healthy ecosystems
8. Preservation of critical habitats

quote:

If the best we can come up with when debating the wolf issue is that:
A) they eat everything
B) unless you live in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming you don't know anything (unless you hate the wolf too, then you know something)
C) Unless you hate the wolf and join the bandwagon you are a greenie or a wolf lover
D) The best way to manage wolves is SSS

I too hope, this isn't the best we can come up with as hunters/conservationists.

MG

So far the guys and gals in Idaho have been pretty good at keeping them on their side of the Snake River. We have a few that crossed last year though. The cattle ranchers I've spoken to have told me that they will keep them "under control" regardless what the state and federal folks say. What never fails to amaze the hell out of me is that most of the people back east who'd like to see this alpha preditor spread all over the west have no property stake in the matter. I really don't think many state DNRs like to see these wolves introduced because elk make money for them and wolves cost money. I don't know how this is all going to play out. I'm old now and probably won't live long enough to find out.

Wolves eat Voles and mice, not elk.

Can anyone plot the elk decline and tell us when we will not have a Northern Yellowstone herd? Maybe in 5 years?

quote:

Can anyone plot the elk decline and tell us when we will not have a Northern Yellowstone herd? Maybe in 5 years?

I only visited there and hunted elk for about twelve ot thirteen years and that was almost fifteen years ago.. At that time we hunted both private and public land around the Quake Lake area. We always killed elk. Some of the locals I have kept in touch with in that area now tell me that elk are getting rare.

quote:

Originally posted by Snapper:
Wolves eat Voles and mice, not elk.

Can anyone plot the elk decline and tell us when we will not have a Northern Yellowstone herd? Maybe in 5 years?

The elk population will never hit 0 because of wolves. As the number of elk gets lower it becomes harder and harder for wolves to kill them, the wolf population will begin to decrease and the elk will come back-- then the wolves will come back and the elk will go down again in a cyclic fashion. The most accurate way to summarize the relationship is that without wolves we may have a population which fluctuates between 10000 and 4000 (mean of 7000) but with wolves it would fluctuate between 6000 and 2000 (mean of 3000) these numbers of course are only a hypothetical example.

One thing to keep in mind when referencing stories that "locals who live here used to see elk all over and now they see far fewer"-- that is probably true but the distribution of elk has been changed and although their are far less than before, it may not be as bad as it seems--- the elk are pretty intelligent they are probably not occupying areas where people are seeing them because of greater risk to predation. Just something to keep in mind....

IV

The wolves have already peaked in Yellowstone, and have declined according to Doug Smith and the other park gurus! If you go back and read my posts on page two, the information posted is from the people who argue both ways to. When it boils down to it, I honestly don't think any one knows what will happen, what will continue to happen and what is happening. The prowolf crowd has thier studies and conclusions, as do the antiwolf folks.

I stand by my opinion, the wolf will do no good! They will only reverse what took a generation to build up, and they have done it in a short time. I don't mind a few wolves. I just don't see any good from any wolves. Yes we have to live with them, they will incerease and decrease as time goes on. I don't want to see the State of Wyoming handed management, because all it will do is stress an already over burdend dept. The feds put them here, sue them and sue them, and make them manage them to numbers that don't continue to reduce traditional big game spieces! Make them foot the bill. And Wyoming is leaning that way as we speak.

I will say it again, there is no way there will ever be a prolonged hunting season. There might be one, the first one, but as soon as the fanatics get rolling they will file suits and stop it, all the while the wolf will continue to spread and expand thier range, which is already happening. The packs in the park are seed stock, as it grows, offspring strike out on thier own and move into other areas with out any dollars, any management, any costs, and with out any permissions or blessings from all the western states.

They are here, there is little we or you or I can do. Learn to live with them, I see tracks, I have seen wolves in the area I pack into to hunt elk, you have to keep your dog close, and the elk are more scarce!

Besides that, with the current political(gay rights,liberalising of America,crime,wars,and bickering) and financial (trade deficit,debt,etc.)situation in this country, the wolves are the least of our worries!

P.S. You wolf lovers can lick my nuts!

quote:

P.S. You wolf lovers can lick my nuts!

WOLVES GONE WILD

Wolf numbers in Northern Rockies continue to rise; pass 1,000 mark.

By scott McMillion, Bozeman Daily Chronicle.Friday, March 10, 2006

That constitutes growth of 20 percent from the 2004 figure of 846 wolves.

The wolves are dispersed in 134 packs.

The increase is due partly to increasing wolf numbers, but also better monitoring.

Montanans should be aware that wolves are established well enough in the Northern Rockies now that a wolf appear where none has been seen for decades.

Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group that pays ranchers market value for "confirmed" losses to wolves, has spent an average of $84,000 annually on that program for the past five years.

www.westerngraywolf.fws.gov

Kudu56

I hope you're wrong about well never get to hunt wolves here in Wyoming. If you are right then hunters and land owners will have to take the task into hand themselves. They turned some wolves loose in New mexico, down in the Gila and the ranchers went out right after there release and shot everyone of them. Maybe we could learn from them N.M. ranchers.

How did you're boy do hunting lion over in the Bighorns?

Steve

So according to your logic Steve, just because we don't like cattle eating all the forage on critical mule deer and elk winter range, we should take matters into our own hands and just blast em?

That will sure make hunters look good to the rest of the public, just the same if they started shooting wolves. It is folks like yourself, that will ruin hunting for the rest of us.

Go back to your banjo practice.

MG

Madgoat

You can shove your're banjo up your ass. You're the kind off person that sit around and does what everyone tells you to you. I didn't ruin hunting or will I ever...the wolves will. And If you don't think it's already happening your're crazy. I don't want the wolves wiped out just controled. So our children and grandchildren can hunt.
What people fail to realize is that we live in a managed erra. We control the game population, and the predators need to be controled.

Steve

Actually Stevo, how do you expect to control the wolves, when right field whackos as yourself take it upon themselves to initiate martial law on critters they deem "annoying" or "socially unacceptable". Your grandchildren won't be able to hunt, because their fucking hillbilly of a grandfather made hunters look like a bunch of uneducated third grade drop outs!!
The US has spent BILLIONS of dollars on coyote control (each county in WY has it's own coyote assassin assigned to "control" the coyotes...and I must say there sure seems to be a bunch of dogs around these parts!) and it hasn't done any good. If you knew a little bit about predators, they regulate themselves better than we ever could. This is a fact, go to your library and look it up.

MG

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Lefforge:
Kudu56

I hope you're wrong about well never get to hunt wolves here in Wyoming. If you are right then hunters and land owners will have to take the task into hand themselves. They turned some wolves loose in New mexico, down in the Gila and the ranchers went out right after there release and shot everyone of them. Maybe we could learn from them N.M. ranchers.

How did you're boy do hunting lion over in the Bighorns?

Steve

Yeah Steve, I'm sure we all want to make it harder than it is already to get the wolves delisted...No matter what ranchers here think of them, it's pretty damn clear that they want them off the endangered list. That's not going to happen if every hillbilly running around the countryside in his 4x4 is following the SSS rule. I'm not saying that the situation as it stands is ideal (far from), but we as hunters need to not look like a bunch of ignorant, stubborn morons on the issue...

quote:

I hope you're wrong about well never get to hunt wolves here in Wyoming. If you are right then hunters and land owners will have to take the task into hand themselves. They turned some wolves loose in New mexico, down in the Gila and the ranchers went out right after there release and shot everyone of them. Maybe we could learn from them N.M. ranchers.

"Man, I'm going to take matters into my own hands and kill every domestic sheep and cow I see on public land for the years of spreading disease to native wildlife, overgrazing of critical wildlife habitats, and destroying riparian areas."

Do you think that with this logic, anyone is going to take you seriously, or did I just make myself look like an idiot? As hunters, this is the kind of image we are portraying.

MG

Guys,

In my posts, I've tried to show that we've been mislead from the start. The wolves were coming back on their own, as proof look at the wolf shot just South of Yellowstone just before the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone and the distances they've traveled since the reintroduction.

I also believe the wolf count they give us has been low to calm everyone. With a 20% recent increase in numbers from 2004, I believe we will see a further reduction in Elk numbers. Living around Yellowstone for the last 15 years, I've seen lots of pictures of wolves harvested when we wanted to eliminate every wolf in the US. These wolves were half the size of the Canadian sub species that was brought in to replace them. This may prove to be a problem.

It has been shown that the wolves have greatly reduced the number of coyotes in the area. This is good for balance because coyotes are hard on deer and antelope fawns so we should see their numbers grow.

Just a few comments on the following statements.

So according to your logic Steve, just because we don't like cattle eating all the forage on critical mule deer and elk winter range, we should take matters into our own hands and just blast em?

University studies show that proper cattle grazing removes older, coarse grass and allows for regrowth that wildlife can beter utilize, this is good. Of course you know that deer/antelope are forbes grazers and cattle prefer grass. You will never see cows eat all the leaves/twigs off an apple tree when they are hungry like the deer in my neighborhood do.

* The US has spent BILLIONS of dollars on coyote control (each county in WY has it's own coyote assassin assigned to "control" the coyotes...and I must say there sure seems to be a bunch of dogs around these parts!) and it hasn't done any good.

A recent article I've read shows that reducing coyote populations by hunting or other means increase numbers of pups born per litter. Makes sense. The comment above shows we shold be able to hunt the wolves that leave the park and not hurt their population. In fact, livestock owners in ID and Montana can shoot wolves trying to kill their livestock and report any wolf kills to the warden within a certain time period. For some reason, Wyoming hasn't followed suit with their proposal. As long as we don't hunt wolves in the park, we should never be able to greatly reduce their numbers ever again. We are allowed to manage everything but the super predatior we've been forced to place into Yellowstone.

"Man, I'm going to take matters into my own hands and kill every domestic sheep and cow I see on public land for the years of spreading disease to native wildlife, overgrazing of critical wildlife habitats, and destroying riparian areas."

Buffalo seem to be the main source/problem of disease around Yellowstone. Maybe you should start with eradicating them? Not a chance, the FWP's enjoys this exercise and has rounded up over 900 this winter and taken them to slaughter. Your tax dollars at work.

Lets see, 134 packs, 6-8 pups per litter, some packs having more than one breeding pair, we should see around 800-1000 pups born this year thereby doubling the numbers of wolves. Yee-Ha.

Madgoat

You got this al wrong I never mentioned cattle or sheep. The only thing I went by is the statement Kudu56 stated that we might never get to hunt wolves,and he might be right I just hope he's not. I didn't say the ranchers in New Mexico did the right thing I was just spreading a story I had heard, altough I never heard of any of them getting into trouble by the USFWLS.

I have never mentioned going out and wiping out the wolves, not that it could be done.
I'm in agreement with Long Carbine, the last thing we need is some wacko going out and killing the wolves. However, I did mention it's already happening.
We'll have to wait and see if the state takes control and set up hunting seasons.
And as far as coyote's go they to are out of control...but they sure are fun to hunt.

Steve

Snapper

I may be wrong about this, but know their saying wolves puppies are getting Parvo in some of the litters...that a first that I've heard.
Media propagada
They think the wolves and coyotes will contol their onw population growth, but at what cost.

Steve

Madgoat figures anyone that disagrees with him is a third grade hillbilly , yet we see here who is the first to use 4 letter words and personal insults .

Steve,

Yes, several articles have reported losing pups to parvo. It happens and they have also reported mange, which is also found in coyotes in MT. Survival of the fittest.

quote:

How did you're boy do hunting lion over in the Bighorns?

He treed three, got some nice photos to. Small female, a yearling male and one mature female that the rancher shot. Conditions were not to conducive to lion hunting this year and there numbers were down. Just not sure why. He loves to run them and rarely shoots any cats. He is headed to New Mexico this spring to run bears.


Now as for the wolf, I just honestly believe that the G&F might pull off one hunting season of some type, but once the law suits start who can afford to fight them. I still stand by the premise that the feds put them here, let them cull the numbers as they have been doing for several years. Let the state, livestock industry, hunting groups, sue the feds and force them to control thier problem. I use Minnesota and Wisconsin as an example, they have had wolves 4 times as long as the western states and there is still no hunting there. Why would we be any different?

The grizzly is in the process of being delisted and I would expect the same results when an attempt is made to hunt them.

quote:

The wolves were coming back on their own, as proof look at the wolf shot just South of Yellowstone just before the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone

This one was shot by Jerry Kyser, he made a neat poster and sold dozens of them with him holding the wolf hide and it read "clinton won't raise taxes, "elvis lives in Jackson" and there are no wolves in Wyoming"! The feds had a big problem with this as having wolves here it screwed up thier plans to reintroduce the wolf.