RMK I agree with you entirely.



Boreal go crawl back under you moss laiden rock! You are a wanna be, tree hugging, granola eating, fudge packing, misguided, misinformed arm chair biologist.



All I was making a point of was the fact that the last time the state of Alaska tried to (MANAGE) the exploding wolf population in a certain area of AK the "friends of Boreal" threatend a boycott of AK. No tourists. The state of Ak dropped the hunt. Ak economy needs tourists. Now I posted in a way that maybe hunters could off set the near minded threats of Boreals friends and fudge packing buddies. Write the state of AK and support them and the states decision to manage wolves.



Now as for Boreal the wolves may be delisted in the west but all indications are that it will be maybe 5 years. And when they are, do you think they will be managed by hunters? I doubt it. The feds and state wardens will have to do it to keep your buddies from suiing the state of Wy, Mt, Id.... Mn. has had wolves for close to 40 years and still no control. Do you think the feds will actually do that and lose part of some thing that promotes the USF&W existence? NOT! These wolves were introduced not natually recurring. And a prey species that had no fear of such an animal. Elk numbers are being affected in a serious way. And according to the "real biologists" once they eliminate or reduce one prey species they move on to another.



We live here, over 50% of the voting population of Wy wants some control, not wiping them out but controlling them. And every day the state of Wy sits on its hands with thier thumb up thier asses! Which makes me think you (Boreal) might like and enjoy ! Ohhhhh the stories you could tell!

You made some good points, Kudu. I will add that once wolf reintroduction takes place, it becomes increasingly difficult for F&G to introduce "predator control" measures. Animal right groups will put up a tremendous fight in opposition to any predator management that can be introduced. They will fight it in court, they will fight it in the news media, and they will even boycott your state in any way possible. Since the "suckers," most of who live in Connecticut, NYC, Seattle, and California will donate to their cause, they have lots of leverage.

But there is one thing about Alaska that makes it special: Tourists from all over the world won't stop visiting Alaska, regardless of how much the animal right groups whine. This also holds true for the Yukon area of Canada, where "aerial wolf hunts" are performed every few years. I remember about 8 years ago when one of such hunts was going to take place, and the animal right groups could not stop it. They then bought flight tickets to have local commercial aircraft flying them in so they could interfere with the aerial hunt. However the only aircraft companies that could fly them to the region refused to do it, so they could not fly in. The hunts continued as scheduled.

What animal right groups don't tell you is that by reducing the wolf populations, wolves will benefit in the long run. As the wolves are thinned out, the game population recovers, which in turn benefits the wolves as they too grow in number. The key is "management," or maintaining a healthy number of predator and pray population. The problem is that animal right groups only want nature to do a balancing act, without any considerations in regards to humans. In Alaska, game and predator management are allowed by our Constitution, but we still have to argue in court every few years. The animal right groups lost the most recent case in court, so aerial wolf hunts will proceed as scheduled.

I am surprised Brent who also is from MN hasn't chimed in on this subject. He is a real pro-wolf backer.

Boreal, could you be Brent with a new posting name?

To RMK and your imaginary friends,

I have a MS in Aquatic Biology.

Lived in N MN for 50 years.

Lived in the Arrowhead for the past 13 years.



What are your qualifications? Let me guess!

Evil little trolls that live to spew your filth and bile toward anyone who disagreers with you. Living in your primordial-ooze pit mumbling to yourselves. Rolling in your filth. You have no class.



If RMK and his ilk would clean up their presentation style, I would gladly reply to their theories, no matter how misguided they are. If what Rocky Mountain residents want are game farms in the west, then go for it. Pay the money, go shoot some placid elk and go home. Quite an adventure, huh? For, of course because we know how to "manage game better", we can get rid of the wolf, the coyote, the bear, the fox, the harrier, the owl, the songbird that preys upon the insects that destroy our crops. Heck, lets get rid of all the predators except us. Then we can take our two weeks off every year, travel to the great western plains, where we can shoot some moo-moos in their pens, then go back home to our dreary little office. Not me!



Despite the fact that I feel wolves belong in a few places in the west, I really don't care that much. The west is pretty much domesticated anyway and I already live in relative wild. I do know, however, that the die is cast, and you rabid anti-wolf types are in the stranglehold of the whim of the masses.



I can understand why Brent does not post on this forum about this, as he probably gets the same welcome as I have. I thought he was from Iowa or something.



The rest of you fellers seem pretty centered to me. I hope we can disagree about a small part of this stuff. I hope you have not fallen to RMK's belief that everyone who is for the wolf introductions is a queer, animal rights activist, raisin gobblin', tofu eatin', whatever.





This discussion has pushed me even further into my beliefs. I have learned how evil and vile some of the anti-wilderness people are!



I leave you all and this forum with a little classiness from Theodore Roosevelt's book; THE WILDERNESS HUNTER. Now THIS sounds like jolly good adventure!!!





"The true way to kill wolves, however, is to hunt them with greyhounds on the great plains. Nothing more exciting than this sport can possibly be imagined."......."Prize-winning dogs of high pedigree often prove useless for the purposes. If by careful choice, however, a ranchman can get together a pack composed of both the smooth-haired greyhound and the rough-haired Scotch deer-hound, he can have excellent sport. The greyhounds sometimes do best if they have a slight cross of bulldog in their veins; but this is not necessary. If once a greyhound can be fully entered to the sport and aquires confidence, then its wonderful agility, its sinewy strength and speed, and the terrible snap with which its jaws come together, render it a most formidable assailant. Nothing can possibly exceed the gallantry with which good greyhounds, when their blood is up, fling themselves on a wolf or any other foe. There does not exist, and there never has existed on the wide earth, a more perfect type of dauntless courage than such a hound. Not Cushing when he steered his little launch through the black night against the great ram Albemarle, not Custer dashing into the Rosebud to die with all his men, not Farragut himself lashed in the rigging of the Hartford as she forged past the forts to encounter her iron-clad foe, can stand as the more perfect type of dauntless valor."



Bye

No elkslayer, Boreal is his own person. I'm still just plain ol' Brent. Still very much a wolf-hugger in Iowa, (formerly and sometimes, from Minnesota) and still waiting for them to float on down here. Won't be long.

I just haven't read this thread, been hunting actually. I have little patience for most of the people on hunting boards when it comes to wolves, there is very little knowledge, but lots of "experts" who don't let their lack of knowledge hamper their expounding. Unfortunately, hunters are killing only themselves over the wolves, by giving themselves a really black eye over this issue instead of jumping to the fore like true conservationists and promoting the reestablishment of a truly amazing species. As a group, we give anti-hunters more ammunition to use on the 95% of the population that is neither for nor against hunting, but simply sitting on the fence. They are leaning more and more the other way everytime I hear a holier-than-thou "hunter" pound his chest over the 3S philosophy (of course, anyone practicing the 3S philosophy is not a hunter - he is a common poacher and criminal).

In the meantime, I think Boreal knows what he is talking about. Like most people that have actually lived with wolves and as someone that actually knows a bit of biology beyond the arm-chair brilliance of most posters on threads like this, he has a pretty good idea of what wolves are all about. Unfortunately, intelligence, experience, and knowledge have little to do with internet debates when it comes to wolves.

Well, that should be enough for this thread - sorry I opened it.

Brent

The best thing I've heard about the bunny hugger boycotts is that the ones that take it in the shorts are the bunny hugger "eco tourist" operations in AK.

Now if we could just get some good fires going to produce some good young moose friendly browse, we'd really be helping out the moose.

Note that the bunny-hugger eco-tourists are by and large much more progressive with regards to fire and the "let it burn" policy than almost all of the conservative persuasion which have currently throttled any hope of a reasonable let it burn policy.

Brent

Brent: Things are much different in Alaska. For example, certain portions of forests are allowed to burn to enhance moose populations. A few of these burns have been accomplished near Fairbanks.



But since this is such a large State, when we have forest fires, these may take weeks or months to go out, and thousands of acres are burned. All the fire fighters can do is "try" to keep the fire from reaching populated areas, the rest mostly burns or is put out my rain. The fires you have in the lower-48 are more dangerous to humans because of the large populations, but in Alaska most of the land is not populated.



About wolves: In Alaska, hunters and trappers do not want to exterminate the wolves, but instead to allow F&G to "manage" wildlife in accordance to our Constitution. We don't want the moose, caribou, as well as wolves and other fur bearers to become extinct like the buffalo almost did in the lower-48. Logic will dictate that humans must intervene in order to create some type of balance, and that's what is intended at the present moment in Alaska. The same has also been accomplished in the Yukon area of Canada in recent years.



One thing for sure: Most Alaskans know that tourists won't stop coming to Alaska regardless of how much whining animal right groups do. If tourists could not fly up here, they would drive.

Boreal and Brent, our elk are not prospering with the introduced wolves. They are being reduced dramatically. Read the latest Outdoor Life issue and American HUnter. Wait and see what this years winter counts of elk are. Last winter some areas had less than 10 calf elk per 100 cow elk. WY G&F have stated over and over that it takes 25 or more calves per 100 cows just to sustain the herd. Herds are going backwards! YOur enviro buddies say it is the drought. But in areas with no wolves and the same drought the elk are fine and increasing. BUt in wolf areas they are being reduced. You two will say anything to make you feel warm and fuzzy about wolves. I never advocate wiping them out, they are here to stay. I just want some control.

And you two are as full of shit as a christmas goose. Go suck each other and blow it out your a$$

This thead was about Alaska and thier problem and maybe garnering some support from hunters.



RMK AND I live in Wy where the wolf is having a negative effect on elk herds.

Kudu56: I was just reading an article about wolf reintroduction in the lower-48. Great article! Thank you for reminding the rest of us about it.
----
The very long and detailed article, titled The Wolf Trap, was written by Chuck Adams, and the introduction to it reads as follows:

"As predicted by many Western outdoorsmen, WOLVES reintroduced to the Northern Rockies are spreading and killing both wildlife and domestic stock; just as troubling is the vicious cycle facing states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, which now must grapple with the prospect of MANAGING animals they never wanted."
-----------
The article covers almost seven pages packed with information in text form, pictures, and tables.

I was not going to return to this forum because its apparently a total waste of time. I've got better things to do (coyote hunting today). But I "got to wondering" how many of the "filth and lie" crowd here really are ignorant and lacking in reading comprehension and how many are just one or two posters under several names that use the style and back each other. kudu likes to open with agressive profanity, then writes his opinion, then ends with more disgusting profanity. That way I won't answer him and his argument will then stand, unchallenged. Its an old ploy that many fall for. Some may think that I simply don't have an argument for his opinion, when in reality his presentation destroys his credibility and is not worth an answer. It is effective, however, and many fall for the ploy.



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."



Well, akpls- maybe I wouldn't. Fistly, the quote you used is not a "theory" it is simply how I feel about allowing room for predators. Maximum sustained yeild (MSY) is an old but often effective management practice (not a theory) that managers are moving away from in many cases. The problem with MSY, is that the yeild is often overestimated at the cost of soil loss, spoiled watersheds, unbalanced bios, etc. Other things not quoted which I have talked about are biological fact, not theory.

Where in all or any of my postings have I said or implied that I wanted the good people of McGrath to go hungry. I SUPPORT the management of wildlife by Alaskans. I support the efforts of the McGrathians. I even offered to write the Governor of Alaska! I'm a good letter writer and can often get results. Of course kudu56 (the guy who "wants support" from hunters) opened his filthy mouth at me and ruined any chances of me supporting him. And, the hunt is on and letter writing is likely moot anyway.



I have only written that I support wolf introduction into a few places like Yellowstone. What has that got to do with Alaska?



The second possibility is that akpls is trying to get everyone to beleive I said what he said I said because that is an effective political ploy. Is he trying to make me look like a bad boy by making it look like I don't care about the poor McGrathians and I'm so horrible for it? I must hate the poor subsitence hunters who will starve because akpls says I want to hug and protect the predators? I am ignorant because I'm just a city boy who buys his food at Safeway and has no concept of the poor subsistence hunters?



Again, I support the management efforts in Alaska.



I know some of you don't like facts, but lets look at the facts again, just one more time before I completely recuse myself from this disscusion:

The largest town within 80 miles of my house has a population of 1,000. It has one stoplight and two grocery stores; no Safeways.

McGrath is a town of 401. It is about half white and half Indian and mixed race. The median household income is $43,000 (more than I make) and the average house value is $86,000 (as much as my house is worth). It has a primary and middle school (grades: PK-12) with 94 students. The "length of stay since moving in" is above the state average. It does not sound too bad to me!



Again, I support the McGrathians, so don't try to make me out as the bad guy for beating up on the poor McGrathians. Firstly, because I do support them, and secondly because your implication that I don't care about them is contrived.



Is it a political ploy, or is it truly poor reading comprehension by akpls?



MILO,

I see you have some disdain for me too. You even try to link me with the "unabomber." Are you also one of RMK's imaginary friends, or are you just using the same tactics? What I don't "really care" that much about is whether or not the west has wolves. I think they belong there and there are a few places left where they could get along ok without bothering livestock and such, but its not real important to me. I've long grown tired of hunting and fishing Montana (except I still like chasing deer and antelope on the eastern ranches), Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado because its getting too much like a pay-as-you-go game park for my liking. I look at the timber wolf as a magnificent game animal. Nothing more or less. I won't be going to the western states to hunt or see wolves, so I "really don't care" THAT much whether wolves are residents there! My point was they could be there, there is room for them, and they ARE THERE, not depending on your acceptance. Whether I don't really care or you really care or whatever, doesn't matter, as others have already made the decision for us. What got me going was the fact that some were spewing biological garbage about wolves, I was disgusted and thought of those who are here trying to learn, and possibly actually thinking that hunters and shooters all think like those posters. I corrected the biological facts and replied to differing opinions and questions from those who respectfully addressed me. I did type a lot. This will be my last post. You need not read me any more.



Ray,

Darn if I can find it right now, but I think I read the article too! Is it the one with the maps showing where the wolf packs are located? It seemed to me the wolves are spreading too wide also. Maybe too far north of Yellowstone? They could probably use a little hunting. I was a little disapointed in the author for his one-sided portrayal. Seemed like he sort of dismissed the professional biologists and only listened to some of the guides. The guides have a financial interest in large numbers of elk, including the migrating elk from Yellowstone. They want lots of slickers to come out, pay big bucks for a horsey ride up the mountains where they can kill an elk that the guide found for them. What do you think the guides are gonna say? Do you actually think the guides can be impartial?



Have any of you folks ever hunted elk outside the park during the late season? It was way too regulated for my liking. I did it once. I drove south toward Yellowstone, up the Madison River, through the Beaverhead National Forest, looking for my "wilderness entry point" as I passed hundreds of elk behind barb-wire fences on private land. At the "entry point" the west side is motorized, and the east side non-motorized where the steady procession of city-fat "hunters" precariously ride the guide's horses up the trail, hoping that the guide will point out a good one that they can shoot. Yah, sure, Wilderness hunting! If you want to pay a few grand to a rancher, you can shoot one of the hundreds of elk you can see from the road behind the fences. While I was there, several of the "guides" were accused of herding the elk with snowmobiles, to keep them on the target ranch. I faithfully walked up the mountains into the "wilderness" for 5-8 miles each day, where I hunted a mix of nice mountainsides and summer cattle pasture. I saw some elk and mule deer, but nothing big. It was beautiful, and a pretty good time, but it was not much of a wilderness adventure. While I was in the area, I stopped at my favorite bar in the world; the Old Saloon in Emigrant. I was totally disgusted that a shiny new Espresso Bar had been built alongside it. I asked the big, American Indian bartender about it and he just shook his head. An old, rough-looking cowboy with a callused handshake helped me make fun of a chubby, soft-handed, newly-clothed "outfitter" that was trying to get me to hire him.



I wondered "What has this world come to?"



Ok, I'm all done now fellas. You can forget about me. I won't bother you again.

GOOD!

WOLVES AND HUNTING
>
> By T.R. Mader, Research Director
> Abundant Wildlife Society of North America
>
> I'm convinced, based on several years of wolf research, that hunters
> will bear the brunt of wolf recovery/protection regardless of
> location.
>
> There is no language written in any wolf recovery pan to protect the
> hunter's privilege to hunt. Wolves are well known to cause wild game
> population declines which are so drastic hunting is either eliminated
> or severely curtailed. And there is no provision for recovery of wild
> game populations for the purposes of hunting. It simply will not be
> allowed.
>
> Example: A few years ago the US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the
> Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed that the state
> should take over the responsibility of wolf management. The DNR felt
> wolves were impacting their deer populations and wanted to open a
> short trapping season on the wolf.
>
> The environmentalists sued and won. The USFWS could not give wolf
> management back to Minnesota in spite of a desire to do so.
>
> The problem with wolf recovery is that most people, especially
> hunters, have not looked "beyond press releases and into the heart of
> the wolf issue."
>
> It must be stated clearly that the wolf is the best tool for shutting
> down hunting. The anti-hunters know this. Most hunters don't. Thus,
> wolf recovery is not opposed by the people who will be impacted most.
>
> In order to understand the impacts wolves have on hunting, let's look
> at some biological factors of the wolf and compare some hunting facts.
>
> The wolf is an efficient predator of wild game and domestic
> livestock. Due to its ability as a predator, the wolf was removed
> from areas of the US where man settled. There is no such thing as
> peaceful coexistence between man and wolf - one has to give to the
> other since both prey on the same wildlife/ungulate populations.
>
> Did the removal of the wolf cause it to become endangered? No, there
> are 40,000 to 60,000 wolves on the North American continent. The
> animal is doing quite well. During the years of wolf control, the
> wolf's territory was eliminated throughout most of the lower 48
> states. That factor is the reason the wolf is on the Endangered
> Species Act (ESA).
>
> A wolf requires five to ten pounds of meat per day for survival, thus
> the wolf requires a considerable amount of meat in one year - nearly a
> ton of meat per year per wolf. A wolf is capable of consuming great
> quantities of meat, up to one fifth of its body weight, at one time.
> Thus, a wolf does not have to kill each day to survive.
>
> Wolves hunt year around - 365 days a year. That means predation is
> not limited to two weeks, one month or whatever a hunting season
> length may be, it is year around.
>
> Wolves are opportunistic hunters, meaning they kill what is available
> and convenient. For years, hunters have been fed the line, "Wolves
> kill only the weak, sick and old." Worse yet, hunters have believed
> it.
>
> It is true, wolves do kill old animals, but so do hunters. Those are
> the big bulls or bucks prized by many who hunt. In fact, biological
> studies have shown wolves kill older male animals more than any other
> adult member of a wild game population.
>
> Regarding sick animals, there are not many sick wild animals today.
> Hunters and trappers are directly responsible for healthy wild game
> herds today.
>
> In the cyclic "balance of nature" of years past (no hunting by man),
> ungulate populations would thrive until they overgrazed their habitat
> and starved. This malnutrition made the ungulate populations
> susceptible to disease. Consequently, disease was more common. Lewis
> and Clark wrote of such herds. (The other major factor contributing to
> the decline in wildlife populations was predation.)
>
> Hunting controls this cycle so that herds are kept at proper levels
> for habitat, preventing malnutrition and susceptibility to disease.
> Hunting dollars went into habitat improvement and biological studies
> which, in turn, help maintain healthier herds of ungulates.
>
> Even agriculture plays a part in the dispersal of salt and other
> minerals to domestic livestock. Wild animals access these nutrients as
> well. Thus, disease is not as rampant as when nature regulates it
> naturally. It is also interesting to note that where disease is a
> problem today, such as Yellowstone Park, hunting is not allowed.
>
> Trapping completes the cycle of game management by controlling the
> predator. The predator is to wildlife what weeds are to a garden.
> They must be controlled or they will take over. Additionally,
> predators are disease carriers. Some people are aware that predators
> carry rabies since reports of rabid animals or some person being
> bitten by a rabid animal are often in the news, but few realize that
> predators also carry deadly diseases to other wild animals, i.e.
> raccoons carry a deadly fowl cholera. And finally, trapping benefits
> the predator by keeping their numbers in check. This keeps the
> population healthy. If predators do overpopulate, they become more
> susceptible to rabies, mange and other diseases.
>
> Wolves do not not eat sick animals unless forced to do so. We have
> found this true in many cases.
>
> Example: A Conservation Officer for the Minnesota Department of
> Natural Resources (DNR) found a moose with a brain worm. Brain worm
> completely destroys an animal's instinctive and natural behavior.
> This moose had wandered out on a frozen lake in winter and was slowly
> starving to death. Wolves came by, check the moose out and went on
> their way. Tracks in the snow verified it. They did not kill it even
> though it would have been extremely easy to do so.
>
> Wolves do kill the weak. Weak animals are not sick animals, they are
> simply the "less strong" of the herd. Wolves target these animals -
> the young and pregnant - due to their inability to escape. This is an
> important factor in limiting wildlife numbers. Wolves prey directly
> on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate populations.
>
> While doing research in British Columbia, a wolf biologist from the
> British Columbian Ministry of Environment took the time to show me how
> wolves could impact hunting so severely. Here's his example.
>
> In this particular example he used a number of 300 females in a herd
> of elk. In his region wolf predation is often 90% on the young (100%
> mortality rates due to predation are common in the north). If 300
> females gave birth in an area of wolves, the approximate loss would be
> about 270 young calves killed during the summer months, leaving the 30
> yearlings to serve as replacements. A regular die-off rate on such a
> herd is about 10%. So the 30 yearlings would balance out the regular
> mortality rate of the female segment of the herd.
>
> But overall there is a decline in the elk herd due to the fact that
> the 30 yearlings are usually sexually split in half (15 females and 15
> males), thus the reproductive segment of the herd declines although
> the numbers appear to balance out. Without some form of wolf control,
> the rate of decline will increase with a few years.
>
> There were approximately 100 males in this herd of elk. Figuring the
> regular mortality rate and compensating with the surviving young
> leaves 5 animals (males only), which may be harvested by man.
>
> Now if this herd of elk were in an area of no wolves, there would be
> approximately 60 - 70% successful reproduction (calves making it to
> yearlings) or 200 young. Half of those surviving young would be male
> (100 animals). After figuring a 10% mortality rate, 90 older animals
> could be harvested without impact to the overall herd numbers. In
> fact, the herd would increase due to additional numbers of the
> reproductive segment (females) of the herd.
>
> Now you have some insight of the impacts wolves can have on hunting.
>
> In spite of the negative publicity generated by the anti-hunting,
> anti-trapping movements, hunting and trapping are some of the best
> wildlife management tools.
>
> Hunters' harvest can be limited through numbers of licenses issued,
> bag limits, length of season, and specification of sex of the animal
> harvested. Thus, only the surplus of an ungulate population is
> generally hunted. If the need arises that an ungulate population needs
> reduction, it is easily accomplished by allowing an "any sex" hunt and
> increasing license numbers. Additionally, hunters will pay for the
> opportunity to hunt which in turn pays for wildlife management.
>
> Wolves do none of the above. They simply kill to survive and for the
> sake of killing. Studies have shown that ungulate populations cannot
> withstand hunting by man and uncontrolled predation by wolves for any
> length of time. One has to give to the other. In this day and age,
> the wolf will be the winner and the hunter the loser.
>
> A point which should be stressed is that wolves kill for the sake of
> killing, not just to survive. Many are convinced wolves kill only
> what they need to eat. That simply isn't true.
>
> Remember the moose with brain worm the wolves didn't eat? In the same
> area, the same winter and only a couple months later, the same
> Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and
> found that the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were eaten upon.
>
> The snow gave the wolves advantage. These deer were autopsied and
> many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2
> days by these wolves was 36.
>
> Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian
> biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves have killed 34
> caribou calves in one area. Another example came from Alaska. In the
> Wrangell Mountains, a pack of five wolves came upon 20 Dall rams
> crossing a snow-covered plateau. All 20 rams were killed by the
> wolves. Only six were partially eaten by the wolves.
>
> Dr. Charles Kay, PH.D has lectured on the impacts of wolf recovery.
> To illustrate the impacts of wolves on hunting, he did a comparison of
> moose populations in British Columbia versus Sweden and Finland. Both
> areas have comparable amount of moose habitat.
>
> Dr. Kay stated, "During the 1980's in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf
> or the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals
> and was increasing. While in British Columbia, it was 240,000 animals
> and decreasing."
>
> "In British Columbia where they have a population of 240,000 animals
> and after calving season they killed only 12,000 animals whish is a 5%
> off take. In Sweden and Finland on the other hand, they have 400,000
> moose and guess how many they killed in the fall? They killed 240,000
> moose in the fall which is a 57% off take rate."
>
> "Now the two main differences. I don't want to imply that there's not
> vegetation differences and other things, but the two main differences
> is that British Columbia has somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 wolves,
> all sorts of bears, grizzly bears and black bears which are also
> important predators, and mountain lions. Sweden and Finland have none
> of the above."
>
> Veteran wolf biologist John Gunson, Alberta Ministry of Environment,
> summed it up when he said, "Really, there isn't any room for harvest
> by man if you have a healthy wolf population."
>
> Hunters. please understand the impacts of wolf recovery on hunting and
> the role wolf recovery plays in the anti-hunters' agenda. Natural
> predations, especially wolf predation, can replace your hunting
> rights.
>
> � Copyright 1991
>
> Troy R. Mader is Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of
> North America (AWS), an International Wildlife Organization dedicated
> to the preservation of the Great North American Traditions of Hunting,
> Fishing, and Trapping. For more information write:
>
> Abundant Wildlife Society of North America
> P. O. Box 2
> Beresford, SD 57004
> Phone: 605-751-0979

Boreal you can't help but show back up here and post. Where else can you spew your bullshit. I am impressed,after having your ass spanked on here boreal,you at least waited a couple posts before bringing out the last straw of "you're a troll". Most dipshits like you boreal,start that shit on their first post.

I'm really impressed with your Masters of Bation degree. I guess the most amazing of your credentials,is the 50 some years spent on earth. This is more a testament of how civil our society has become. Since 100 years ago,someone as fucking stupid as you are boreal,would've been shot and put out of their misery. While listing your credentials boreal,you should have listed your membership in the sierra club. You just about have to be sierra club boreal,or maybe you were to fucked up for even the sierra club to take. At any rate boreal,the shit you spew on here is straight out of the sierra club doctrine. None of which is based on any real field data.

I always get a good laugh out of dipshits like you boreal,quoting people like Roosevelt. Old teddy was nothing but a slob and a joke. Not to mention a typical politician with his "Do as I say not as I do" bullshit. This is an asshole that hunted both Bison and Grizzly,when few were left in the US,basically teetering on extinction. But that was OK,since teddy was the one doing it. Lets not forget to mention the hundreds if not thousands of deer,elk,antelope,bear and various species that the fearless teddy harvested while participating in long term hunts with members of European Royalty and by himself. His diaries are a written account of waste. Its also worth mentioning,that teddy killed a record book lion within the current boundries of Yellowstone park. In fact after teddy killed all the animals he wanted within the boundries of the park and decided to hunt outside the continent. Teddy then with our best intrests in mind.Ya right.Decided that the park should be kept from hunting, for our good of course.

All the wolf is,is a major win for anti hunting. The excuse that man is needed since predators have been removed,back fired. Not because its not valid,but because the goverment without regard for the consequences,wrecklessly released wolves. What the wolf truly signifies,is the first step towards eventually down the line removing the sport of hunting. I wish I could recall the name of a show that aired on Public television. It primarily delt with Idaho and the impact of wolves. This show had interviews with USFWS members that openly admitted that the reintroduction of wolves was a mistake. It also had interviews with a couple assholes that are deep into the private sector of wolf introduction. Their main goal is the elimination of both hunting and ranching in the yellowstone area. Were talking about ranching on private ground,not public ground,in other words none of these guys business.

The mention of people living with wolves,having the best grasp of what wolves are all about,is correct boreal. The trappers used to capture the wolves that were released,openly told USFWS personnel,that they were fuckin' idiots and didn't have a clue what they were getting into. The fact that the USFWS couldn't even capture wolves themselves.But had to enlist the help of locals,further shows their lack of knowledge dealing with wolves. But that didn't stop them from unleashing them on the yellowstone area.

The comment about certain members of the public wanting to get rid of all predators,is another idiot comment and lie by asswipes like boreal. The reason the wolf has to be hunted hard,is because of its nature. Where bears and lions reproduce at much lower rate and number. Wolves replicate (all the time)much like coyotes,except wolves are twice the size of a coyote enabling them to kill much larger animals,and therfore cause heavier damages. Wolves have an advanced social behavior(they always live and hunt in packs)which leads to even more damage. All in all,the wolf is differant than any predator we currently have or have had. Wolves are much more detructive.

I strongly believe what we are currently seeing,is a " buying for time" effort by goverment and pro wolf assholes. Both the goverment and anti's learned long ago,with both wolves and coyotes. That once you reach a certain population density with both wolves and coyotes. It's next to impossible to kill them off or make a significant dent in the population. In fact,the feds and states had to literally spend millions of dollars,to finally kill off the wolves in wyoming. In this day and age you'll never get enough support to truly manage the wolf,because of all the bleeding heart assholes like boreal. The anti's are constantly crying about the organized coyote hunts,even though their own hired biologists concur that the coyote population is so out of control that you couldn't possibly hunt coyotes out.

As soon as we have four or five thousand wolves in the the three state area. The chance of being able to actually control wolves will be gone. The antis and govt.are fully aware of this. The goverment will never again supply enough funds and resources to fully exterminate the wolves,like they did at the beginning of the 1900's. The goverment will never allow year round hunting of wolves,further restricting the true control of wolves. On top of this,the wolf in the yellowstone area and surrounding areas, will never die out from lack of prey,because there are simply to many slow elk(cows) and sheep available and wolves will travel hundreds of miles to kill.