Well for you greenie leaning types and rmef dinks - here is some more "good news" for you and bad news for real Hunters and those concerned about the future of Hunting in the Rocky Mountains!
Just click on the link. What with the Berkeley greenies (rmef!) and the new governor of Montana there just isn't much good news for real Hunters so far this winter!

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/news/2005/0107/1961940.html

Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Thanks - good news indeed.

Brent

That does sound like some trouble there. But I am not going to blame it on RMEF.

Seeing as Elk are doing well and not disappearing like you keep saying.

Quit finding blame and find a solution.

Delisting and regulated hunting would be a solution.

The first wolf I ever saw was in Montana in the Little belt mountains in 1992. Beforethe wolf introduction even began. Wolves were already on thier way.

Rmiller: The rmef does most certainly have to share the blame for this amazing overpopulation of Wolves! They endorse their being re-introduced in areas they have not been and they refuse to endorse their control!
The greenies at the rmef are absolutely green and are simply moneychangers with an agenda! The Elk were gaining in population long before the greenies at the rmef figured out a top heavy way to shuffle dollars! And if you endorse their refusal to set absolute, immediate and livable numbers on the Wolves then THEY ARE THE PROBLEM! And they won't - I've asked them!
If you believe the Wolves are not right now destroying certain Elk herds and hundreds of Hunting opportunities then you simply have chosen to be wrong!
Thats the point the Elk should be doing well EVERY WHERE! They are not they are being decimated in certain herds! Or do you not believe the populations and reports from various agencies and newspappers!
Yeah the Elk in certain areas are doing fine and at record levels! I know I shot a nice 6x6 Bull this year but the Wolves are decimating other herds and with agencies that refuse to hold to their promises and the Wolf numbers exploding far beyond what even the greeies at the rmef and in Berkely wanted. Well sir we have a problem now!
And I do blame the rmef among others
More in a bit
Hold into the wind
Varmintguy

RMiller, these guys blame the RMEF for wolves because they don't actively oppose their reintroduction. It's kind of like blaming the Salvation Army because they aren't doing enough to get rid of wolves either. Don't try logic, because invariably the reply you'll get (and we've already seen it again) is, "HEY, I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I KILLED AN ELK LAST YEAR - WANNA SEE MY PICTURES?"

McInnis, nothing was said by me about an elk. Nor in this post about the RMEF. Just info on, to many wolves and the effect they are having on elk in Wy. Proven fact there are to many wolves that are destroying the work that the RMEF and other organizations worked hard and spent millions building up. The REMF could and can oppose the wolf position, they don't and won't. Their stance on the wolf contradcits thier mission statement and there by, makes them pro wolf. Simply put I do not and will not support them as I did in the past. The RMEF could publicly condemn the wolf and urge delisting as the wolf is having a negative effect on elk populations. The Wy G&F has proven that in areas where elk were running about 35 calves per 100 cows the elk are now less than 5 per 100 cows. According to the G&F it takes about 15 per 100 to sustain herd numbers. Less than that the herds go backwards.

Now go back and put your head back in the sand. Your no nothing attitude, and know everything oppinion helps strengthen my oppinion of Texans.

Answer this Mr. McInnis, Why wouldn't a pro elk organization condemn wolf reintroducion? Mule Deer foundation opposes Mt. Lion Numbers, Ducks Unlimited opposes raccoon and fox numbers in nesting areas, The NRA and SCI condemn wolf numbers and management. I belong to all four of these groups, I go to thier banquets and support them. Now if they support and publicly condemn the wolf why wouldn't RMEF????

I wonder if it is because the RMEF is holding hands with the USF&W? Could it be that the RMEF is affraid of offending some one? I think they are supported and funded by hunters, guides, and outfitters. All of whom hunt elk and make a living hunting elk.

Kudu, I think you would be much happier in England or Scotland or some place where game management is synonymous with target production and where there are no mean scary predators of note. Or maybe you should just stick to pasture shooting.

Wolves take my breath away - more than any other species on the planet. I guess that makes me pro wolf. I'll be throwing my hat in the ring to draw an elk permit in wolf country too. If I don't draw, then I'll pay the same money to hunt moose in Ontario with wolves as well.

Brent

I believe that the RMEF has stated that delisting and regulated hunting would be a sound management plan.

I agree with that.

I do not think that the RMEF should have to get in the wolf fight in order to be pro elk. I think they are very pro elk.

We have the big wolf debate up here too. The state set up a wolf management plan to get rid of some wolves.

I thought fine at least maybe they might get to see if the wolf management plan will work.

But now there is talk of charging more for liceanse and tags for big game permits. To help pay for wolf management plans.
I think that is crap.

This whole wolf thing gets me cranky.

I like the RMEF

I get tired of everyone crying the wolves are eating all the elk or moose.

I think a simple plan would be to allow wolf hunting with no tag required and no limit in areas with lots of wolves. You still couldn't get rid of them all if there is enough food for them to eat.

Brent, Why would one fear a wolf? The chances of being attacked are about as great as you becoming a proficient hunter! I don't think there have been any deaths from wolves ever recorded. I hunt where there are wolves and grizzly bears. Very seldom see either. Stand a greater chance of gettting struck by lightning.

The wolf is decimating elk herds in NW wyoming. To the point of no return to the numbers they were 10 years ago. They sure as hell don't take my breath away, a 6 point bull does. They are here to stay, we will live with them. We will have fewer game animals to hunt but not the end of big game hunting in Wy, Mt, and ID. The presence of the wolf and its effect on game is having and will have an effect on people and thier livihood, outfitters, guides, business. Due to less hunters from less elk. It is obvious you don't care. There needs to be management of the wolf as this isn't 1805 it is 2005. I will bitch about it as long as the wolf remains on the protected list. The wolf has reached the recovery numbers as set forth by the USF&W and they refuse to delist because of Wy's recovery plan. I stand by the stance this state took and support them and thier desicion. The RMEF is still chicken shit for stradleing the fence. I can only hope that some day I can be such a big brave hunter like you Brent! Golly gee, Wally!

Keep dreaming Kudu. Someday you make it outside your own neighborhood.

Brent

Lots of wolves in Iowa, eh Brent?

Plenty in Texas, too, McInnis?

BRENT!
Quote:Kudu, I think you would be much happier in England or Scotland or some place where game management is synonymous with target production and where there are no mean scary predators of note. Or maybe you should just stick to pasture shooting.

No wolves there, more people than here and they have game to hunt.

Like in Texas where McInnis is from or like hunting in Africa? I wonder what the guys on this forum would say about your comparison. I have hunted in 4 Canadian provinces, 7 hunts. I never met a single Canadian guide, outfitter, or hunter that liked wolves! Or had any use for them. Two guides said if you see wolves don't stop shooting until your either out of ammo or they are all dead!

Brent!

Quote:Keep dreaming Kudu. Someday you make it outside your own neighborhood!

Why would I want to? Wyoming has the best to offer in the lower 48!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dungbeetle:
Lots of wolves in Iowa, eh Brent?

---

Just a few so far, but we are hopeful of more.

kudu - I truly miss the ignor button in your case, but I have to say, I find it amusing that you can't seem to handle living in a place with just a little bit of wildness. I think you would better off in a Texas game ranch where you can pot them from the truck.

Brent

Brent,

A little bit of wildness? I can't stand it? I work in it every day. Wyoming also has the most remote place in the lower 48. Least populated to. And it was fine prior to the illegal introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf.

No we just know that more wolves mean less game like elk, bison, sheep, moose, and deer. Whether I hunt them or not, which most I don't. I see no joy in a large, wild dog, hamstringing a live animal, letting it bleed, then eating is guts while it is still alive. We didn't need your beautiful, wonderful,take my breath away, wolves! We already had a large preditor, Grizzly bears!

Keep your head in the sand, your feet on the flat land, and your ideas and liberal beliefs in Iowa! It is funny how some one who doesn't have to live with a preditor that does no good, cost US taxpayers over $1,000,000 per wolf in the origanal introdcution, has no inkling of the damage caused, likes to support and give his two cents.

Why put some one on ignore? Truth hurts doesn't it?

Brent, Yeah I have made a (few) trips out of my neighborhood! Oh and the elk was shot on public land in a wilderness area, packed out on my back.

The above post has nothing to do with wolves or the fact the RMEF didn't support wolf control!

Brent: Quote:Keep dreaming Kudu. Someday you make it outside your own neighborhood.


McInnis, want to see my pictures??????

Hey mcinnis: Are the Wolves decimating the Elk herds down there in Texas? Are the Wolves down there destroying long standing Hunting opportunities in your neck of the woods? Are the Wolves in Texas hurting the economy? And are the Wolves down there in Texas destroying Big Horn Sheep, Cattle, Moose, Deer and domestic sheep?
Or do you even care that they are doing so in the Rocky Mountains? Or do you care that virtually every agency involved in their re-introduction and management is now back pedalling on promises made to the states and to Hunters in the Rocky Mountains?
You speak of illogic! Well illogic is a dude from Texas who won't acknowledge reality!
And for the rmef greenies to send out their disturbed and uninformed minions (you!) to try and prop them up, after being shown for what they are, is simply not going to "cut it"! Especially with those of us that live amongst the now WAY overpopulated Wolves!
If you, in your infinite wisdom, can disprove the facts regarding the overpopulation of Wolves and their decimation of ceratin Elk herds then cowdude, prove it!
You won't be able to so stand back little pardnah and let those of us with a better understanding of things try to get the ball rolling toward saving Elk Hunting and getting the feds to keep their promises!
If you believe that the unsustainable calf crops over the last many years from the Elk herds where Wolves now dominate will "just take care of itself" or "go away" then you dude are full of useless happy thoughts and illogical mind drifts!
You are "amazingly" wrong and everyone that is up on the situation knows so!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
Hold into the iwnd
VarmintGuy

BILLINGS, Mont. -- It was a frigid January day when the doors to the small crates finally opened, and the first gray wolf bolted into the wilds of Idaho. The event was cheered by environmentalists, who had wondered if they would ever see wolves reintroduced in the Northern Rockies, and decried by ranchers and others who had hoped to keep it from ever happening.

Ten years after gray wolves were first reintroduced to the region, passions still run deep. The wolves' incredible recovery and expansion in the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have ensured that.

Ranchers worry about livestock being attacked. Outfitters, like Edwin Johnson in Gardiner, worry the wolves are decimating elk herds and threatening their livelihood.

"You haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet, because wolves are going to be all over the place," he said.

Conservationists acknowledge some problems but say wolves haven't been the scourge some predicted they would be or claim that they are. In fact, they say wolves have had positive effects on both the ecology of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and economies of communities around Yellowstone National Park, where wolves also were reintroduced beginning in 1995. The park has become a wolf-watching hotspot.

Some conservationists say the true measure of success will come when the wolves are taken off the list of animals protected by the Endangered Species Act, a move that, despite the wolves' having already achieved recovery goals, could still be years away because of litigation.

"The book needs to be closed in order for us to say that the Endangered Species Act is doing its job and that wolf restoration is a complete success," said Jon Schwedler, a spokesman for the Predator Conservation Alliance in Bozeman.

The story spans decades, with wolves in the region gaining protection under the act in 1974. The animals were essentially gone from Idaho, Wyoming and Montana until the 1980s, when a small number migrated naturally into Glacier National Park from Canada.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a 1987 plan, proposed reintroduction of an "experimental" population in Yellowstone. After several years of study, public comment and controversy, a decision was made in the early 1990s to reintroduce wolves to the park and wilder parts of central Idaho.

Ranchers were among those firmly against it, worried about how the predators would affect their livelihoods. State Farm Bureau groups and others sued to stop the release of the gray wolves from Canada.

"You have wolf advocates from New York to L.A. They love these animals and have no sense of what they're capable of," said Jake Cummins, executive vice president of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation. "When they're killing a calf, they're not as warm and fuzzy as they're portrayed."

When the release finally came, some wolf advocates present, including Suzanne Stone, were worried not only about the wolves' well-being, but their own.

"There was a lot of hostility toward the people bringing them in, and the wolves themselves," said Stone, who is now the Rocky Mountain field representative with the Defenders of Wildlife.

Jan. 14, 1995, was frigid; the roads were ice-covered and slick. The first wolf let go in an area known as Corn Creek bolted from the crate. But others -- Stone remembers a total of four let go the first day -- were more tentative.

The wolves bound for Yellowstone stayed in "acclimation pens" for two months, before their release in March 1995. The idea was to allow both for family units to bond and for the wolves to get used to their new surroundings, so they wouldn't wander too far.

The next year, 37 more wolves were reintroduced in the two areas. Federal wildlife officials had expected to reintroduce animals for five years but stopped after two because the wolves were reproducing and the population was growing on its own.

The controversy grew with it. In 1997, a federal judge in Wyoming ordered the gray wolves removed, saying the reintroduction was illegal. An appeals court later overturned him.

Co-existence between ranchers and wolves has, at times, been uneasy. Conservation groups, like the Defenders of Wildlife, provide compensation for confirmed losses and offer assistance with proactive, nonlethal measures to help keep wolves from livestock. But farm group leaders say it's often difficult to prove losses and that little short of a shotgun will keep wolves from coming back.

According to the FWS, 278 cattle and nearly 800 sheep were confirmed killed by wolves in the three states from 1995 to 2003. During that time, 201 problem wolves were also killed, most by government agents, the agency said.

"The only thing that works with animals this smart is knowing that they can be killed," said Cummins, of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation. "Until you start using lethal methods, they pretty much adjust."

Gray wolves reached their recovery goals in 2002. But before the FWS can propose that wolves in the Northern Rockies be delisted, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming each need to have approved management plans.

The agency approved plans by Montana and Idaho last year, but rejected Wyoming's, which called for a dual-clasification of wolves. In areas where wolves would be classified as predators, they could be shot with little restriction.

The state is currently suing.

What happens between now and delisting could be telling. The FWS said this month that it would hand over to Montana and Idaho as much management authority for wolves as they want in the interim.

The states' performances "will be a guide in whether they can be trusted once wolves are delisted," said Ed Bangs, FWS wolf recovery coordinator in Helena, Mont.

One of the big challenges will be moving away from a mindset of recovery to a focus on management and conservation, said Carolyn Sime, gray wolf program coordinator with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. But she said the state is ready to take on a greater role.

So is Idaho. "We can do an excellent job managing wolves if given the chance," said Steve Nadeau, large carnivore program coordinator with that state's Department of Fish and Game.

Looking back on the wolf program, those on all sides of the debate have a wide range of still-strong emotions.

Maury Jones, an outfitter in western Wyoming, said he wishes the reintroduction never happened, and swears it will be the "greatest wildlife disaster ever seen."

Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said he still wonders if he could've done more to stop the reintroduction. The costs, he figures, probably would have paled next to headaches ranchers are experiencing now.

Doug Smith, the Yellowstone wolf project leader, said the wolf reintroduction has been the opportunity of a lifetime and a scientist's dream, providing an opportunity to compare an ecosystem with and without a key predator.

"It's one of the major conservation efforts of the 20th Century, and to be there and watch the population grow and study it -- it's one of the most exciting things that's happened to me."

E-MAIL THIS STORY

PRINTABLE VERSION

BRAILLE

quote:

---

Originally posted by VarmintGuy:
Hey mcinnis: Are the Wolves decimating the Elk herds down there in Texas? Are the Wolves down there destroying long standing Hunting opportunities in your neck of the woods? Are the Wolves in Texas hurting the economy? And are the Wolves down there in Texas destroying Big Horn Sheep, Cattle, Moose, Deer and domestic sheep? snip... Thank for nothing rmef!
Hold into the iwnd
VarmintGuy

---

Well said VarmintGuy. I never really understood the rationale of reintroducing wolves. The supporters of these efforts around the midwest and west seem to think these are cuddly little dogs that are fun to listen to on clear nights. They hop back in their greenmobiles and head back to town to sleep tight. The concept of "depredation" is not something familiar to them. They have nothing at stake - no livestock, no pets, no livelihood that will be impacted by the devastation these packs can initiate.

douglast

From a economic standpoint , would'nt it be better to have 1000 elk licenses for sale , rather than no wolf licenses to sale . When mortality of elk drop below huntable numbers in certain hunting districts due to predation , weather , and disease , will managment organizations then relize they could have minimized losses not only in dollars but in healthy game populations .

Wow, nothing like wolves to get the discussion heated.

Wolves are here to stay in Montana and Idaho. Apparently they have been around for a long time at least in some areas. The Yellowstone wolves are a bit different, because after reintroduction, they had a ton of food to pick from and reproduced rapidly. With all of the tourists they do not have a healthy fear of humans. The wolves I saw last October at a Canyon Village kill just stood there and looked at me while I shot photos. In my opinion that is not normal nor healthy. The park is kinda like a zoo. Coyotes walking within 20 feet and not showing any hesitation.

The RMEF may have some faults, but wolf reintroduction is not one of them. I do not know enough of that part of the story to have a valid opinion.

Congress and the public rode the wave of sentimentality for wolves, like our ancestors past fear of them. If the biologists are able to get congress to pony up tens of millions to reintroduce, study and manage wolves they will do it every time. Similar thing for Grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Mountains. You would too, say if congress were to pony up millions for individuals to study some new innovative accurizing technology. Now I am getting cynical.

Any way, wolves are here to stay. I hope the states are givin primacy for management, but with our governors debacle stopping the experimental bison hunt I am not going to hold my breath.

The argument is that the RMEF never denounced, or ever once said they did not approve of the wolf introduction. They actaully came out publicly in Bugle magazine, via writers, excitedly, supporting the reintroduction of the wolf. Wolves eat elk and the mission statement of the RMEF contradcits thier stance.

That would be the same as the NRA supporting gun control, the SCI supporting PETA, Muledeer Foundation supporting Mt. Lion reintroduction into deer wintering areas, Ducks Unlimited bulldozing water holes in.

Since MAdgoat likes rediculous analogies I am using this one.

Humans also eat Elk . So do I interfear with RMEF's mission statement ?

Gosh, another profound, mind rattleing, soul jaring, analogy!

Kudu56: Well said! And not only those things - the rmef greenies put out an UNBELIEVABLE TV program a couple years ago where the intellectual idiot wayne "the brain" carleton cooed and mewed over the wonderful little furry Wolves til I thought I was gonna puke! At one point he alleged that Wolves were neccessary for the Elk! LOL!
My immediate calls to the rmef after seeing that batch of bullshit on tv went uncontrasted by the money changers at the rmef and my nearly immediate trip to the rmef headquarters in Missoula, Montana (170 miles each way!) met with even less intelligible mutterings! The rmef is green! I never said they re-introduced the Wolves nor have I ever heard anyone espouse that! But they sure as hell were not in on the fight originally to not bring them back nor have they lifted a hand IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM to decry or to protest the huge overpopulation of the Wolves NOW!
Thanks for nothing rmef! At least they had the motivation never to show that stupid assed TV program again! Maybe they pay attention to things that "bite the hands that feed them"! Naw - I do not think they are that smart!!!
So throwing up unsubstantiated blather that someone has stated the rmef greenies are responsible for Wolf re-introduction is just a stupid bit of red herring throwing! Useless drivel and inaccurate besides!
The uninspired and stupid position the rmef greenies have now of "HOPING" things will get better is exactly contrary and exactly unhelpful to the problem that now exists! Wolves, ARE NOW, decimating certain Elk herds and the Wolves exploding population will only further curtail Hunting opportunities for Elk, Moose, Bighorns and Deer in the near future!
How can the rmef greenies possibly consider themselves a pro-Elk AND pro Elk Hunting organization when they stand by and NOT fight for immediate control and reduction of the now over populated Wolves?
My answer is - they CAN"T!
This matter is not strictly about the lack of any enthusiastic affirmative action by the greenies at the rmef its about the over population of the Wolves and the damage they are doing to Elk, Elk Hunting opportunities, economies, domestic animals, Bighorn Sheep, Moose and Deer!
So, you desperate, green members of the rmef turn a blind eye to the harm the rmef is letting happen IF YOU INSIST - but do not deny that the Wolves are NOT decimating Elk and Elk Hunting opportunities as well as the other game animals mentioned!
We (Hunters!) better get a handle on this Wolf "problem" immediately - by holding the various governmental agencies to their promises and original population goals or we will all be sitting at home come some future September and October REMEMBERING how much fun and how rewarding it was to Hunt Elk - back when we could!
And remembering how hard and for how long Hunters and state game agencies worked to propogate our Elk herds over the decades - just to let them become Wolf food!
Yeah maybe that makes good sense to greenies, send more money to the "happy word money changers at the rmef"! And wait til they have to change their name to the rocky mountain Wolf foundation - where their main objective then would be to buy domestic animals for the Wolves to eat and to buy land for the Wolves to run around on!
Makes no sense to me!
Thanks for nothing rmef!!!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Being an Alaskan who not only has to deal with the effcts of wolf predation but brown bears as well, I am very pro wolf control. But when I see this "only good wolf is a dead wolf" attitude, because game populations might not be as high in a few areas as they were in the recent past, it amazes me. I also don't give much creedence to outfitters claiming the herds are devastated - I have had to put up with outfitters blowing things entirely out of context here in AK, just to try to keep more of the game to themselves to believe what someone with a financial interest has to say.
If I am not mistaken the elk population in the West is about as high as it has ever been in the last century or so. You guys need to chill out a little.
Go testify at the public hearings. Try to support the change to a game animal status as soon as possible. But I will warn you that ranting and raving like a lunatic isn't going to do one bit of good.

Well said Rob.

Rob: Just exactly where did you see on this forum anyone say "the only good Wolf is a dead Wolf?
You are trying to create a diversion!
The original promised re-introduced Wolf population goal of the greenies and the feds was 325 Wolves in the tristate area around Yellowstone Park (Montana, Wyoming and Idaho!) we now have 525 according to latest census numbers. Pups are do pretty soon down here again! And the Wolves you may remember eat lots of Elk! The game biologist relay that each Wolf eats the bio-mass equivalent of 1.8 Elk a month!
Thats the bio-mass of 11,340 Elk per year (using last years Wolf numbers!)!
Hmmm... do you understand our problem down here? We are losing Hunting opportunities at an alarming rate! Please reference my recently posted links to official census numbers and Elk calf rates being WAY to low to sustain some herds.
Witness the one herd falling from 19,000 animals in 1994 (the year before the Wolves were re-introduced) to 8,000 animals last year! In the area of this herd the Wolves are especially overpopulated!
I do agree with you that the Wolves need to be held to strict population numbers that will positively keep human Hunting opportunities to a maximum!
Yeah, you are partially right also in that many areas of the Rockies do have record high numbers of Elk but those areas just do not have the high populations of Wolves as yet!
I hope I have shed some light on our problem down here in the Rockies. And don't you forget for a minute that we have also Grizzly Bears down here that prey upon Elk as well as Black Bear and record numbers of Mt. Lions!
Are there Mt. Lions in Alaska by the way?
I saw some Elk on Afognak Island last year and they sure looked plump and healthy! That was in May.
I certainly hope that you will not mind if I do not take your uninformed advice regarding chilling out while my Hunting opportunities are being taken away! I am not going to chill out one bit, and nothing you have posted even comes near convincing me that we do not NOW have a clear and present danger to our game herds and our Hunting opportunities from the way overpopulated Wolves!!
Thanks anyway.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Concerned Elk Hunters: I am attempting to post another article from the Bozeman paper regarding Elk numbers in this heavily populated by Wolves area.
The only thing I strongly disagree with in this article is the ambiguous reference/statement from unidentified "Park Scientists" that weather may have or has killed many or any Elk! In the last 7 years the winters have been exceptionally mild in this corner of Montana where this Elk herd has been counted.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/01/12/news/01elknumbersrise.txt

Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I also spoke with park employees (maintenance personnel) at Canyon Village and the biologists think that g-bears are have as big an impact on elk calves as the wolves. This was only heresay, but they were good guys and did not seem like they were exagerating. The number decline I heard was from 17000 elk to around 9000 elk in the park in the last two or three years.

"The original promised re-introduced Wolf population goal of the greenies and the feds was 325 Wolves in the tristate area around Yellowstone Park (Montana, Wyoming and Idaho!) we now have 525 according to latest census numbers."
_______________________________________________

Hell, V.G. there are that many just here in Idaho!!! And they are hammering the elk herds here, too.

Time for a season (long) on wolves, I say.

L.W.

Let's see now, if I were a left wing liberal lunatic who believed that the citizens of this country needed to be disarmed, so that they could not resist the oppressive rules of government I wished to see implemented in the near future. All of course in their best interests, as the citizens of this country are far to ignorant to know what is good for them.

If I were such a person, I would probably wish to see big game hunting oportunities reduced in any manner possible, as soon as possible. If one can reduce the ratio of hunters in this nation, it will be a lot easier to enact far stricter firearms control laws. Soon the entire nation will follow the lead of New York Illinois, Mass, and California.

Now has anyone seen a case where the presence of wolves has reduced or eliminated an opportunity to hunt game? Have you yet seen a season reduced or cancelled because the elk population could not take the pressure of a season.

If a particular elk herd can not take the pressure of a few hunters taking a selected few animals in decent weather (when the animals can afford the energy it takes to avoid the hunter), how will that herd survive another two or three years of totally uncontrolled predation from a relentless population which pursues them every day of the year. A population which hits the herd hardest when it is mosty vulnerable, as baby calves or when weakened by severe winter weather.

Now if the wolves have already reduced the numers in the herd they are now feeding upon, how will this smaller and smaller herd manage to continue feeding this wolf pack. They obviously can not, and the ever increasing number of wolves will have to move into ever expanding territories in search of new feeding grounds.

How long will it be before our hunting opportunities are reduced by 10%, then 25%, then 50%, because after all, it is natural for large predators to kill game, but not natural for people to kill game. And it does fit into the liberal agenda which is becoming ever more popular in this nation.

If I were a gun grabbing lunatic I would be clapping my hands in glee, and best of all these policies are being overwhelmingly supported by the very groups which will eventually be harmed the very most by them.

Am I being paranoid, yea and wolves only cull the sick and crippled from the herd.

Also I would like to address an issue which keeps arising, people keep mentioning that the elk herds in the west have had stable populations over the last few years, and this may very well be true. But if one would take the time to look at a chart of elk population numbers over the last several decades, one would see that due to the hard work of conservationists and hunters, elk populations have been increasing steadily. They are still increasing in many areas which are not subject to wolf predation. These increases have served to offset the losses due to wolf predation. This leads many who are uninformed to declare that wolves have not damaged our elk herds because harvest reports and population numbers over the region are stable.
It is not good enough for our elk populations to remain steady over the western region. These populations should still be increasing in the areas which will support more animals and should remain steady in the regions which won't. They should never be allowed to drop due to overhunting or predation.

The moose tags in the heavey wolf areas of Wy. have been greatly reduced. The G&F has also combined areas and quotas at lower numbers. The G&f have placed equal blame on grizzly's as well as the wolf. But Wyomings moose numbers were increasing prior to the wolf introdcution. I have no idea and never know who to believe.

One thing for sure, our G&F has to have x amount of dollars to operate and I think they will sell tags even if numbers are down. The area I elk hunt has 750 tags now. I have never seen 750 elk in that area in one season. And I have flown it looking for cattle right after hunting season several times. Regardless I think our G&F does an excellent job.

Idaho Shooter: Amen to your post and especially to your last two paragraphs! Extremely well said! I wish I could have expressed that which you posted - I feel that way - I just could not relay it!
Exactly! The populations HAVE been growing throughout the Rocky Mountains for decades (due to Hunters and Game Depts. hard work, money and sacrifices!) and now with the recent introduction of the Wolves certain herds are being decimated!
Tragic!
By the way if you ever travel I-15 there in north eastern Idaho (north of Idaho Falls) be on the lookout at milepost 151 on the wast side of the highway! Last week my partner Ben and I made a run to Idaho Falls and in the late afternoon we were headed back N/B on I-15 and there at milepost 151 I spotted a large herd of Elk (45 or so) with 3 (three) monster Bulls in it! I slammed on the brakes of the VarmintMobile (after checking the rear view mirror) and pulled over. We watched these Elk feed for 15 minutes and just marvelled over the three "BIG" bulls in the group! This is flat sage country and not far from some potato farms and ranches! Maybe they were seeking shelter there out on the Camas Prairie from the Wolves?
Thanks again for your clarifying posting!
We need more Elk and Elk herds not more "Wolf food"!
Stay warm this winter! 23 below zero up past me in Havre, Montana and Cutbank! But its a "dry cold"! LOL.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Wolf showdown set for Feb. 4

By BILL LUCKETT
Star-Tribune capital bureau Sunday, January 16, 2005




CHEYENNE -- The state of Wyoming wants to manage the wolves within its borders and wants the animals removed from the Endangered Species List, but state officials say the federal government has thus far been uncooperative.

That may change soon, however, depending on the outcome of Wyoming's lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The legal battle between the state and federal governments over Wyoming's wolf management plan is scheduled to come to a head during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson at 10 a.m. Feb. 4.

At that time, Johnson will hear arguments from state and federal attorneys over whether the Interior Department illegally rejected Wyoming's wolf management plan a year ago.

The federal government has offered to turn management of the gray wolf over to Wyoming, Montana and Idaho once they all have plans in place that will assure a sustainable population of the species.

After sending the state mixed signals for about a year, the department finally announced in January 2004 that Wyoming's plan and companion law were not sufficient for the agency to turn wolf management over to the state and move forward with plans to delist the wolf.

The decision came despite the scientific opinions of 10 biologists who said Wyoming's plan, taken in conjunction with those adopted by Montana and Idaho, would be sufficient to ensure that wolf populations recover in the three states. Only one biologist disagreed.

Wyoming's dual-classification plan called for managing the wolves as trophy game in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and nearby areas, and as predators that could be shot on sight in the rest of the state.

Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank said the state's case is that the Interior Department violated the applicable portion of the Endangered Species Act, which requires the department to use the best available scientific and commercial data in judging the state plans.

"They ignored the only science that was available to them and based their rejection on fear of litigation from environmental groups, political concerns, and fear that Montana and Idaho would adopt similar plans to our plan," Crank said.

Wyoming sued the Department of the Interior, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams over the department's refusal to accept Wyoming's dual-classification wolf management plan and law.

The federal government contends that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the issue, that Wyoming failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before going to court, that Wyoming failed to state a legitimate claim for relief, and that Wyoming lacks standing, or the ability to legally sue over the wolf issue.

Among the points that the case could hinge upon is whether the Interior Department's rejection of Wyoming's wolf plan and law can be considered a "final agency decision" that the state can appeal under the Endangered Species Act.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Carol Statkus said the Wyoming branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office has been recused from the case due to the close relationship between U.S. Attorney Matthew Mead and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, which has intervened in the wolf litigation.

In a separate action, Wyoming has also sued the federal government to force it to turn over 69 records or groups of records that may show how the Interior Department reached its decision on the Wyoming wolf management plan.

"When the language of the Endangered Species Act is as specific as it is, we were confounded as to how they reached that decision," Crank said.

The documents were prepared from Sept. 5, 2002, 13 months before the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission submitted its plan to the Interior Department, through Jan. 23, 2004, three months after the department rejected the plan, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit contends that the Interior Department is failing to disclose the records in violation of the federal Freedom of Information Act. The department is claiming attorney-client privilege as its justification for withholding most of the documents, and it claims that some of the records are "pre-decisional."

In the meantime, Montana and Idaho officials, whose management plans have been approved by the federal government, will soon assume management of wolves in those states. In Wyoming, wolves remain under federal control.

Capital bureau reporter Bill Luckett can be reached at (307) 632-1244 or at bill.luckett@casperstartribune.net.

E-MAIL THIS STORY

PRINTABLE VERSION

BRAILLE FILE

Interesting article in todays Bozeman Chronicle concerning wolves in MT they quote David Meech who even the huggers agree is the foremost authority on wolves has said that if 25 to 35%per year were killed by humans the population would not decline.I wold link but havent been able to w/regards