lewiston idaho paper had an article on a houndsman who lost three dogs to a wolf attack right near orofino. STOP THE MADNESS when will the feds wake up? when its too late?

Luckily the new 10(j) rules went into effect and houndsmen are at least able to defend against the wolves with lethal force if needed. Obviously in this case the dogs were too far away. Here is alink from IDFG that offers somes tips for those who may find themselves in wolf country wih Fido.....

Wolves and dogs

IV

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
Luckily the new 10(j) rules went into effect and houndsmen are at least able to defend against the wolves with lethal force if needed. IV

It remains illegal to use lethal force to protect pets or hunting dogs on public land.

Just more restrictions and loss of rights and freedom! The number of stock dogs killed, by wolves, just in Wyoming, is nearing 100! And hunting dogs so far haven't had to many losses. Spring seems to be the worst so far.

This is in my backyard and one of the areas I hunt and I'm not a happy camper as I have two dogs myself and would not sit and watch them get ate up..Owe well.....Here is the link with pictures from Orofino.
http://www.clearwatertribune.com/Current%20Weeks%20Homepage/May1205.htm

SSS......Jayco

That is pretty &ucking sick! What can a guy do? WE have hounds and use the bells but if honking a horn and driving an atv back forth doesn't deter them what will? The bells will just be like the bear joke! A bullet? It would be enjoyable to take Jemenez's or Bang's kids dog and and stake it out in the woods and see what happens. It isn't just hounds, it's bird dogs to. And stock dogs and pets.

Dr. Biles of Cody lost a family pet, a german shepard, in the fist or second year of the release. The pack actually lured his dog from the porch in the night, a female wolf would run up to the cabin to get the dog to follow, and as the dog tried to run back to the house the alpha male cut it off and the rest of the pack tore it to pieces!

Actually, outfitters can kill them if they are on "grazing allotments" and I would guess a large amount of land is under "grazing allotment".

If an outfitter is on "public land" making money then he/she should know the risks. Public land is public land and the majority of citizens (through the U.S. Congress) has decided wolves will be there; right, wrong or indifferent. Outfitters know this and if they still decide to go on land that they know wolves are on and they know that it is illegal to shoot them, then they are asking for it.

Don't misconstrue what I have said, I firmly believe that wolves should be classified as game animals, hunted and killed. But I have no sympathy for people who know the circumstances (wolves are out there) surrounding a choice they have made (to go onto public land where it is illegal to shoot a wolf) and then whine about it.

JMO

IV

It's pretty damned easy to be an armchair quarterback on the net from from the city when it is not your livelyhood going down the drain.Out west we pay a price in wages etc to live here and to have someone not even from around here try and tell us what to do...Well drink a couple Beers in some of the bars around here and spout off.

This is a guy just trying to make a living and there isn't a damned thing he can do "Legaly" to corerect it..His dog..Guess how much one of these cast?


And he was 200 yards away..Here is another of his dogs.


I bet he would love to have a Beer with the Wolf loving sons of a gun on here that don't no squat as to what is "Realy" going on and rely on news and the net to try and understand.

Owe well....Jayco

IV, it's difficult to have a civilized discussion about wolves taking all aspect's into consideration. Folks on both sides generally paint with a wide and emotion filled brush. I think your comments have been about as "balanced" as any I've seen on these forums. Kudo's to you...

quote:

But I have no sympathy for people who know the circumstances (wolves are out there) surrounding a choice they have made (to go onto public land where it is illegal to shoot a wolf) and then whine about it.

It is the guys profession, to guide and outfit. The wolves do not, and never will serve any good except to make some people wet and hard by the simple fact that they are here. They were wiped out for a reason. There was nothing wrong with the situation prior to the warm and fuzzies releasing them. And to even think there will ever be a season is the same as planning on winning the lotto! Like I said Wisc. Minn. and Mich. have no season and they are going on 40+ years of wolf presence!

It is this kind of thing that chaps a guy. Anyone who wants to go into the mountains with your pet has lost a freedom and is now more restricted. "The goal of the enviros"

This wolf never even ate one sheep! Yeah they only kill the sick and weak!

Wolf kills sheep near Livingston
Associated Press

LIVINGSTON - Paradise Valley rancher Bob Weber lost 11 sheep to wolves late Wednesday, apparently after leaving a small gate open on a pen built by Defenders of Wildlife.

The 4½-acre enclosure was built by the nonprofit group, which compensates ranchers for livestock lost to wolves. Weber's ranch, south of Livingston, has had several wolf attacks in the past 18 months.

"The contract I have with the Defenders of Wildlife is that when I am notified or have a depredation, I am required to put them in this pen," Weber said Friday.


"I have been putting them in for the past few days to get them used to it. (Wednesday) I didn't get around to closing a gate in the corner."

Weber said he had 90 ewes and 150 lambs in the pen.

Ed Bangs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf recovery coordinator, guessed the predator was a yearling lone wolf.

"He probably was overly excited - killing, grabbing biting - but was not very successful killing the ewes," Bangs said.

Weber said he lost four ewes and seven lambs, including some he had to put down because of their injuries.

"This is the fifth strike I've had in a year-and-a-half, and I'm not growing them fast enough to replace them," he said. "I'm going to run out of wolf feed soon."

Weber said a trapper spotted a wolf above his ranch Thursday, but was not able to shoot it without permission from a state or federal official.

"He was on his cell phone trying to get permission, but by the time he got it the wolf had moved," Weber said. "They don't just sit around for you."

Bangs said traps have been set for the wolves.

Hello again, Kudu! I hope all is well.

Now for the fun stuff...

So what if it is his profession? Things are always changing, literally hundreds of thousands of people have had to change professions because of changing circumstance. Is this profession somehow exempt from this? He obviously needs to adapt and change or he needs to get out of the business. I gave up a $60,000+ per year job because of changes in the economy; it sucks but it happens.

Its really quite simple, if he loses three dogs per year (or ten for that matter) then he factors that into a cost of doing business. It becomes unprofitable, then he changes professions. It amazes me how so many of these people claim to be so rough and tumble and the "rugged outdoorsman" and then nail "city types" to the wall, but they can't deal with a wolf pack once or twice a year? Then don't go in the woods!

I am glad to see wilderness is finally becoming wild again.

Again, JMO!

IV

The only reason the wolves are some what under control in NMN is they are shot, trapped And snared continuously year round. If they were not controled in this manner there would not be a deer or dog left up there. I believe the Feds know this is going on and turn a blind eye to everything except for the flagrant cases..The ranchers and outfitters in the west have to take the same approach, kill them any way or time and just dispose of the carcass..but you have to keep it quiet. S.S.S. it works and it has to be done. Civil ddisobedience we have to protect our life style

quote:

So what if it is his profession? Things are always changing, literally hundreds of thousands of people have had to change professions because of changing circumstance. Is this profession somehow exempt from this? He obviously needs to adapt and change or he needs to get out of the business. I gave up a $60,000+ per year job because of changes in the economy; it sucks but it happens.

Its really quite simple, if he loses three dogs per year (or ten for that matter) then he factors that into a cost of doing business. It becomes unprofitable, then he changes professions. It amazes me how so many of these people claim to be so rough and tumble and the "rugged outdoorsman" and then nail "city types" to the wall, but they can't deal with a wolf pack once or twice a year? Then don't go in the woods!

I am glad to see wilderness is finally becoming wild again.

Good point, I too have seen the downsizing and loss of employment, but the SOB's never killed my dogs!

I liked it the way it was, I didn't need a wastful, killing, machine that serves no good to mankind, illegaly reitroduced into the wilds of Wy, that will and is affecting mine and yours, opportunity to hunt, and enjoy the areas as we did in the past.

I tend to agree with Elkman and I am sure it has happend and will continue to happen.

The battle of typed words continue!

Wolves and hunting
By T. R. Mader, Research Director
Abundant Wildlife Society of North America

May 1, 2005

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 plan, 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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/hunt 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. Wolf 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 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 to 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 National 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 predators also carry other deadly diseases, 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 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 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, checked the moose out, and went 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 population numbers. Wolves prey directly on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate populations.

While doing research in British Colombia, a wolf biologist from the British Colombia 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 percent on the young (100 percent 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 30 yearlings to serve as replacements. A regular die-off rate on such a herd is about 10 percent. 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 within 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) that could be harvested by man.

Now, if this herd of elk were in an area of no wolves, there would be approximately 60 - 70 percent successful reproduction (calves making it to yearlings) or 200 young. Half of those surviving young would be male (100 animals). After figuring a 10 percent 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 seasons, 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; the hunter, the loser.

A point which should be stressed is "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 that the wolves didn't eat? In the same area, the same winter, and only a couple of months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a Spring snowstorm, and found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten.

The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied, and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days, by these 2 wolves, was 36.

Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves had 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 E. Kay, PhD, 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 Colombia, versus Sweden and Finland. Both areas have a comparable amount of moose habitat.

Dr. Kay stated:

"During the 1980s in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf, or the wintering population of moose, was approximately 400,000 animals and was increasing. While in British Colombia, it was 240,000 animals and decreasing."

"In British Colombia, where they have a population of 240,000 animals and after a calving season, they killed only 12,000 animals, which is a 5 percent 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 percent off-take rate."

"Now the two main differences, I don't want to imply that there's not vegetation difference and other things, but the two main differences are that British Colombia 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 predation, especially wolf predation, can replace your privilege to hunt.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T. R. Mader is Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of North America (AWS), a private wildlife research organization dedicated to the preservation of the Great North American Traditions of Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping. Permission granted to copy this article in its entirety, with proper credit given to the source.




Property Rights Research

Freedom-protecting empowerment tool available: 1,000 pages of property rights terminology available, yours for just $50.00. Makes a great gift!.





Sovereignty International

Visit our site for tons of information about the United Nations, and its influence on domestic policy





National Campaign




Internet Service

I have seen Dr. Charles E. Kay speak in person. He is a radical man, and is full of shit. He spoke at a "Living with Wolves" conference in Sheridan this winter. This conference had experts from Alaska, Minnesota, Canada, WY/MT/ID, and people from the tourism industry in the Yellowstone area, as well as a rep from Defenders of Wildlife. The conference had many wolf lovers, and many wolf haters, and we got to hear everyone's point of view. I'm confident that most people on BOTH sides of the wolf debate immediately concluded that Mr. Kay was full of shit. He gave his story about wolf impacts in BC and Sweden/Finland. He was quickly shot down by other experts and people who were familiar with those situations. Regardless of which side of the wolf issue people were on, he was the outcast of the conference. I'm not trying to stir the pot, but Mr. Kay is full of shit.

Yeah, I think he should change his profession too. He should become the first houndsman up there to hunt with a pack of pit bulls. About 8 or 9 pits oughta do it.

Well, T. R. Mader may be the “Director of Research†but he is an English proffessor from what I can find. He certainly has no published wildlife articles. The title “Director of Research†sure sounds good though doesn’t it. He certainly knows how to write well, but he had better brush up on his research of the facts. He is getting a little rusty…..

Aparently he cites Dr. Lester McCann as being a world renowned researcher. I have access to more journal archives than I could ever read and the only Dr. Lester McCann I could find published his last journal article in 1961. That was only 44 years ago, but who is counting?

On his website, T.R Mader cites research by Dr. McCann that claims:

Wolves destroyed 95% of the deer population on Vancouver Island in British Colombia in recent years. That was a common conclusion (that has since been proven to be far from accurate) during the pre 1961 years.

Here is that link should you so choose: http://www.aws.vcn.com/wildlife.html

I agree with some of his premise that wolves and man are competing for the same ungulates. But his ideas that wolves will eat them to nothing is not well founded in peer reviewed research, it is only his opinion. What I find most bothersome is that his OPINIONS are presented as facts backed up by research and they are not. This is why the HUNTING community keeps losing the wolf argument. People like T.R. Mader misrepresent themselves and think that the pro-wolf people wont see right through it and then exploit it when the opportunity comes their way. In the end he looks like he is representing hunters and we look stupid. Wolf people win another battle and we crawl back home to our computers and complain some more about the nasty old wolf.

I have said before and I’ll say it again…we hunters as a community had better come up with a better for reason than because wolves are going to eat everything. That argument is flawed and will not help.

Could you imagine what the anti-hunters would say if all of a sudden the hunting community said: “Wow, we were wrong about the wolf eating everything in site, research shows that is not the case, we now support wolf reintroduction but research also shows that wolf populations can be regulated at a different equilibrium than is now……..

They would start crying because we would finally bring a legitimate point to the bargaining table that the general public would side with. As it stand right now, the general public thinks we are a bunch of whining rednecks.

Enough for now!

IV

S.S.S. some in this neck of the woods have fallen to lead poisoning.They were killed off
by people years ago for a reason.
I reported 1 back in 1991 to the fish and game
and was told I was mistaken and that I had seen a coyote.Funny thing is I hunted coyotes for years prior to this.My reply was that if I shoot an 85# coyote in an area that has no wolves than it will be okay?they didnt like that! They were secretly transplanted up here
or interloped and the local fish and game knew about it and LIED about it.

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
Actually, outfitters can kill them if they are on "grazing allotments" and I would guess a large amount of land is under "grazing allotment".

IV

It is my understanding that outfitters and ranchers can use lethal force on grazing allotments only to protect "livestock" which includes working dogs, not hunting dogs or pets. The article you posted is somewhat unclear about that.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/wildlife/wolves/
Download the PDF file about livestock, which is the last "Important Link" in the list. Its immediately below the "wolves and Dogs" file that Vandal linked.

Private land is defined as any land that is NOT federal land.

Here's some bottom line truth's off the top of my head:



Personally, I would have preferred the wolf NOT be reintroduced.

We can bitch and moan ad infinitum... BUT: the wolf is here to stay.

One side of this debate see's the wolf as some sort of embodiment of evil... wrong BS.

One side of this debate see's the wolf as some sort of mystical embodiment of wilderness... wrong BS.

Yes... wolves DO kill indiscrimanately for, apparently, the fun/sport/joy/eductaion of killing.

Something had to be done about the overgrazed YNP... since hunting is verbotten (unfortunately) the wolf was the chosen solution.

The Fed's shoved the wolf down our throat.

Wolf management tools/policies are and will be put into place.

SSS is always in play and that ain't all bad... a little civil disobedience and loud vocal opposition will help "swing the pedulum" management wise.

Yes rancher's do suffer.

Yes rancher's get a little "free lunch" on BLM leases.

Yes rancher's should get a little "free lunch" for their good stewardship which enhances the western ecology in many, many respect's.

Ranching sucks from nearly every point of view and the wolf has made it that much harder financially and otherwise.

Yes, Defender's compensate for wolf killed livestock

No, Defender's do not compensate for all losses.

Yes, Defender's uses their compensation policy as a fund raising tool.

Yes, Defender's have an agenda that is often different from most hunter's.

The Greater Yellowstone Eco-System cannot contain an unchecked wolf population without humans losing hunting right's/privledges.

Often wolves and livestock live side by side with no attack's... killing livestock is a learned behavior.

Wolves that learn to kill livestock need to be killed ASAP.

Arial killing of wolves will absolutely have to be reinstated to manage wolves effectively.



I'm sure there are more...

Good points Brad, my sentiments exactly!

Boreal, the situation in N MN is entirely different from the situation in the Greater Yellowstone Eco System. The two do not compare and I think it does a disservice to the debate to try to compare them as one poster has. I agree entirely with your post...

I'd also add that not all rancher's practice SSS (probably VERY few)... the possibility of losing one's multi-million dollar ranch over a stupid wolf just isn't worth it. Most SSS is practised by outfitter's and hunters... in our situation out here I don't beleive it's wrong in the least. I'd also add actually getting an "opportunity" at a wolf is nearly impossible hence my comment that, ultimately, arial control will have to be reinstated.

Kudu, thank's for the vote of confidence

boreal, I lived in St Louis county for 30 years. I know personally about the killings of large numbers of wolves over that time frame. They were not incidental catches they were the targets, Do you remember the big sting operation in the 80's??? the fur buyer the feds set up to buy illegal furs? I knem most of the guys that were caught, during the time they were on probation and paying their fines what were they doing? They had wire set all over the woods. A lot of them are gone now, but at the time they were very active., I never did it my self but I knew the guys and have seen some of their work. It was common knowledge and not a problem for the locals, every one knew the wolves were a problem and wanted them taken care of. On year in Orr, the wolves were coming into town and killing dogs in broad day light, it was only a few days later the wolves quit coming into town, did they move on?? One of the guys that was busted ion the sting cleaned the whole pack out on his own property! I know what I'm talking about with the wolves in NMN. I left that mosquito infested swamp and would not go back at gun point.

quote:

Originally posted by poulsbo:
lewiston idaho paper had an article on a houndsman who lost three dogs to a wolf attack right near orofino. STOP THE MADNESS when will the feds wake up? when its too late?

well, in Alaska "wolves" can legally be hunted and trapped. Fish an Game also reduces the number of wolves in certain areas to allow for the recovery of moose and other game. Even so, wolves and bears kill quite a lot of game, and a few dogs each year in Alaska. Wolves will also attack humans. we had such a case a few years ago on a 9-year old kid. The kid survived because the wolf dropped him after being chased and hit with rocks and sticks by a few adults.

In the Yukon area of Canada, F&G manages predators and pray just like it's done in Alaska. If your F&G lets your wolves free, within a few years they will be killing your game populations. After that they will switch to easier targets around the towns (dogs, cats, cattle, etc.).

I lrft the swamp 2 years ago....Present tense!!

OK if you say so.

Several previous posts deleted- sick of the argument