Ladies and Gentlemen:

As a hunter, gun owner and shooter, I have to ask this question: Why were wolves re-introduced into the lower 48 states?

There appear to be a number of theories. One is, hey, this is cool, they were here before, and we can balance nature out and make the elk and deer into real wild animals again. Two, similar to number one, let's return wolves, hunt them and provide a natural hunting experience. Three, let's re-introduce wolves, knock down the big game population and reduce the number of hunters.

Now, I've discussed with members of the AR Forum privately, who live in the effected areas, like Wyoming and Idaho what the wolf re-introduction has done to the big game populations. Their unabridged opinions comport with the research that I have done. The Canada timber wolf is knocking the hell out of the moose, elk and deer population in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

Pretty soon this will be the case in Colorado, Washington state, Utah, Oregon, California, etc.

I, probably like a lot of sportsmen and sportswomen in 1995 when the re-introduction of wolves began looked at that event with some interest, but also with a bit of trepidation. What was going to happen?

Well, after the re-introduction, every time a state wildlife agency wanted to start to manage these wolves, through hunting them, the PETA crowd sued in federal court. And the PETA crowd has been successful.

Now, if I'm a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, I would not only like to see wolves happy and playful, but what about the prey animals? Aren't I on their side, too?

Seems not.

The only people on the side of the prey animals, and this goes back almost 150 years in the USA are hunters.

Now, since most hunters use firearms to hunt prey animals, and predator hunting is not as ubiquitous as other forms of prey hunting, then if the number of prey animals is reduced dramatically, then hunters will grow less interested. So, the PETA crowd will start to say, hey, you don't need those guns anymore, since there isn't much in the way of hunting anymore.

Where does one draw the line between the anti-gun and the PETA crowd? Answer, there is no line.

I subscribe that the wolf re-introduction into the lower 48 states was done with the primary purpose of removing firearms from American sportsmen and sportswomen.

My admonishment is as follows. We can get caught up in the minutiae of the flavor of the balance of nature with a new predator, or we can look at the history and determination of the anti-hunter and anti-gun crowd.

I would examine the latter and their strategy even further.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

I agree with you. It was done to eventually end hunting as we know it. JMO

You left out a couple of important points:
1. Wolves are a form of economic warfare against the ranchers/farmers currently inhabiting the land. PETA etal wants to force them out of business and off the land. It is about controling the land.
2. Control of States and their citizens. As you alluded, filing suit in Federal court deprives the voters of the state with any ability to express their opinion or pursue their ambitions.
3. Usurping the Pittman Robertson funds from the State DNRs and putting those funds at the disposal of USFWS. Remember the goal of all bureaucrats is FIRST - PERPETUATE THE BUREACRACY and second - grow the bureaucracy. Taking these funds goes a long way towards both goals. Please, everyone, write a letter and ask how much has been drained away from legitimate projects to fund wolf research/ reiintroduction. Don't expect an answer though.
4. An unintended consequence that is just starting to show up in wolf areas is the increase of wild animal and human conflicts. As the elk/deer etc. move to escape the wolves, they are showing up in suburban lawns. Guess what follows the prey species. It is only a matter of time before toddlers become another protein souce for wolves. A terrible consequence of meddling by the greenies.

It was a self serving attempt by liberals to return the west to what it once was. Their lame attmept at playing mother nature. They live in a la-la world in their sick minds. They forget it is the 21st century not the 17th. Probably nothing more, maybe an ego trip to get one up on the hunters of the west. They would prefer a pack of hybred, non-native, canines, attacking and ripping a live animal apart and eating it before it dies, as opposed to a human buying a license, humanly shooting a big game animal, and feeding his/her family with the spoils.

You/we are not delaing with rational people.

I think they want wolves to replace human hunters. Then these hunters won't need their guns. Just another attempt to disney-ize America

The PETA/greenie crowd is made up of people who put the interests of animals above those of humans, not out of a sense of dedication or love of animals, but out of a desire to control the actions of their fellow humans and force them to live according to the PETA/greenie code.

Most of the left's political activism isn't really about whatever cause they are alledgedly working for, it's about grabbing more power.

They were introduced because The Loonies are in charge of The Asylum.

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:
You left out a couple of important points:
1. Wolves are a form of economic warfare against the ranchers/farmers currently inhabiting the land. PETA etal wants to force them out of business and off the land. It is about controling the land.
2. Control of States and their citizens. As you alluded, filing suit in Federal court deprives the voters of the state with any ability to express their opinion or pursue their ambitions.
3. Usurping the Pittman Robertson funds from the State DNRs and putting those funds at the disposal of USFWS. Remember the goal of all bureaucrats is FIRST - PERPETUATE THE BUREACRACY and second - grow the bureaucracy. Taking these funds goes a long way towards both goals. Please, everyone, write a letter and ask how much has been drained away from legitimate projects to fund wolf research/ reiintroduction. Don't expect an answer though.
4. An unintended consequence that is just starting to show up in wolf areas is the increase of wild animal and human conflicts. As the elk/deer etc. move to escape the wolves, they are showing up in suburban lawns. Guess what follows the prey species. It is only a matter of time before toddlers become another protein souce for wolves. A terrible consequence of meddling by the greenies.

Dear Pancho:

Thank you for the additional information.

After living in (1989-1993) and going to law school in Nancy Pelosi's district, I saw the absurdity of the liberal agenda in full force and effect.

While living in the lovely, almost center of San Francisco, the Tenderloin, we were serenaded nightly by the small caliber handgun fire of the local drug gangs duking it out. Usually around 10:00 p. m. the big stuff would kick in, that was the cops.

After a semester stint in the San Francisco District Attorneys office in the fall of 1991, and while still in law school, I got to talk to a number of the SFPD. Very enlightening.

They said that they could clean up the city in a long weekend, because they knew who all the bad characters were, but they could not do it because of the politicians.

Let's add the fall out of Fast and Furious to this discussion about wolves, and see if you still trust your bureaucracy.

And where again, did the Vigilantes start?

This has all happened before, Byzantine empire, Rome, Egypt, Spain, etc. It can happen again.

I don't see wolves as the enemy per se. I see them as a weapon, pure and simple.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Not living in an area effected by any of this(at this time) I watched with interest & hoped for an oportunity to book a hunt & help control the population of these beatiful animals.
WRONG AGAIN!!
With the ability to get a federal judge to undo whatever the states decide to do to control numbers, peta is winning this war.
But remember, it is us who elect mealy mouth, spineless selfserving politicians who nominate & confirm these lifetime appointed judges.
The wolves are just 1 of the many areas our govt. puts the screws to its populace.
Animal Planet & Walt Disney are no friends of mine!

Yale

As a resident of Idaho I agree with your position on the reintroduction of a non native species into my state.

I would add a decimation of another species to your list and that would be the Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep as those numbers have dropped off the chart and these wolf movements into the southern part of Idaho poses a threat to another sheep species here in Idaho, the California Big Horn. Interesting enough one of the first release sites for these wolves was about 5 miles from one of the better wintering grounds for the Big Horns near Salmon, Idaho. A look at any map showing the areas covered by the wolf packs here in Idaho will show the northern 60% of Idaho completely covered with existing wolf packs with some sightings now occurring in the southern part of the state with fears of migrations into other areas of the state. I spoke this fall, while deer hunting, with a cattle rancher in Southwestern Idaho about the wolf in his area. His comments were that they have seen a slight reduction of some coyote numbers with 2-3 reported wolf sightings in his immediate area. He voiced a real concern for his 4,200 acre ranch and the cattle on it for the future if wolf predation becomes a factor.

The early compliance of the Idaho Fish & Game Department to the concept of reintroduction was also at fault. I believe that their intentions in the beginning where simply misguided and not the result of some dark conspiracy. They were merely attempting to be viewed as PC and thought that the wolf population would not be a significant factor on big game populations and that they would be able to wrest the management of the wolf in Idaho from the Feds rather quickly. Both positions were proven to be WRONG!. When Idahoans started to early complain about reductions in the big game herds from their experiences out hunting their favored areas they were told by the F&G that the population counts indicated that the big game numbers were holding up, just that the pressure from the wolves had caused those herds to move out of their traditional habitat areas. We were told all that we had to do was to scout new areas and our success would return. Later in this process the F&G awoke to the reality that big game numbers were indeed down, that out of state hunters experiencing zero success had lead to a reduction in out of state license revenue and that the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Assoc was starting to complain loudly about reduced bookings and some of their members going out of business.

Through multiple changes of top administration of F&G a new approach was manifested. The desperate need to gain control of the wolf population through management became the matra of the Department. Wolf numbers had far exceeded any negotiated target population and those targets were constantly increasing. Hunters started to find the facts about the total wolf numbers to be alarming and revenues continued to decline sharply. Gov. Otter was able to negotiate/direct a solution with some hunting to finally get the ball rolling in the right direction to the point of today we have a open hunt in most areas for these predators.

What was interesting to look back on here in Idaho is the naive approach taken by the F&G Dept. on the front end and the political inability of the Outfitters and Guides Assoc., who traditionally had a strong voice in legislation here in Idaho, to stop this reintroduction.

Lessons to be learned could be to never trust a Government program that starts out with "I know what's best for you". Also the political power of a liberal movement who is supported by the agency's bureaucracy and the media to achieve many of their political goals which to them become their religion. These liberal philosophies do include a reduction and elimination of the hunting heritage we have here and without the need or availability to hunt, why then is there the need for hunting firearms. It is said that we need to "follow the money"; but when dealing with this liberal conglomeration, there is also the need to see what their deeply held political/religious belief systems advocate to reveal their true agenda.

Don't let this problem infest your own state and learn from the mistakes that Idaho made. I applaud the efforts of other states to stop this blight especially Wyoming.

Dear Teancum:

Your wonderful and detailed assessment of the folly of re-introducing wolves into the Idaho eco-system needs no addition from me as far as wolves are concerned.

What I can add is that here in Pennsylvania, the increase in the fox, coyote, hawk and eagle population has caused the wildlife prey species to adjust. Groundhogs and rabbits now build their warrens in the brush between fields, instead of in the middle of the fields.

Pheasants have been knocked out by a number of factors, but predation is certainly in the top three.

I have more rabbits in my back yard than I've seen in the past 10 years out in the state game lands.

As far as the deer herd, I have no idea if the coyotes have made a dent or not.

When I started hunting in 1975, the pheasant and rabbit population was huge, not now. There are many factors effected that, including much more efficient farming techniques, earlier cutting of hay, etc.

Nevertheless, I would not want to see a top line predator, wolves introduced here.

Well, maybe in Fairmont Park in Philadelphia, but that is a thought for another day.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

These wolf threads are hilarious to me. I live in an "effected" area I have seen a little bit of difference in the amount of animals that I see, but not that much. I think that like American Deer, the American hunters are gonna have to adapt to changing conditions.

Why not?? Without the wolves and the bears, the WILDerness areas become mere deer or elk parks. (have you heard the latest elk call? It makes a noise like a hay wagon)
I'm not saying they should not be managed, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't learn that man can hurt them from a long ways away, but to me, their presence adds a zest to the total experience.

It's certainly not "hilarious" to me! Wolves Suck.

quote:

Originally posted by schmaus:
These wolf threads are hilarious to me. I live in an "effected" area I have seen a little bit of difference in the amount of animals that I see, but not that much. I think that like American Deer, the American hunters are gonna have to adapt to changing conditions.

Schmaus,

As I recall there are no prohibitions in Canada regarding the hunting of wolfs nor bears. I do not recollect Canadian hunters expending millions of dollars annually in each province to rebuild deer and elk herds as well as to build and/or maintain habitat for these herds. However I have read that Canadian game herds are beginning to suffer repopulation loses due to predation against the young with concerns that some herds may be lost completely in the not too distant future.

Here in the USA hunters have expended millions of dollars annually in fees and direct taxes in each state to rebuild deer, elk, and sheep herds as well as to build and/or maintain habitat for these herds with great success.

Unfortunately in a number USA states there are prohibitions against hunting bears and cougars with both populations increasing to numbers that have begun to adversely impact the repopulation numbers required to maintain healthy game herds.

Add in the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf into the USA…prohibit hunting to limit their numbers and expansion…and these game herds hunters have financially nurtured back to healthy numbers are now being decimated. Wolfs were not needed to maintain healthy herds…as noted they were the “Disney” propaganda tool used to further inhibit hunting within the USA. Disney’s first anti-hunting propaganda tool was the movie “Bambi”. But that’s another topic.

So…perhaps rather than disparage USA hunters who have been prohibited from hunting Canadian grey wolfs for 20 years or so in the continental USA while their numbers have dramatically expanded…you might want to do some research to determine whether the increasing numbers of Canadian grey wolfs are having an adverse effect upon Canadian game herds.

Dear Capoward:

Well said.

Dear Schmaus:

Being a British Columbia resident, you might want to do some research on what wolves have done to the Caribou herds in Alaska. Oh, I think that they have been "effected" by wolves.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Why not?? Without the wolves and the bears, the WILDerness areas become mere deer or elk parks. (have you heard the latest elk call? It makes a noise like a hay wagon)
I'm not saying they should not be managed, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't learn that man can hurt them from a long ways away, but to me, their presence adds a zest to the total experience.

I knew I read something similar to this quotation above.

Here it is from the Los Angeles Times, March, 20, 2009:

"Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, of course, is crying foul -- and the group places the blame for what it calls a "sweeping wolf massacre" squarely on the shoulders of Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin. "Removing such huge numbers of predators from a region will do untold damage to all the wildlife that depends on that habitat. Governor Palin is recklessly pursuing policies that could turn America's last frontier into nothing more than a large game farm," said Rodger Schlickeisen, the group's president.

--Lindsay Barnett"

Curious similarities. This "game park" catchphrase sure looks like a PETA talking point to me.

Just more BS being used to eventually remove firearms from hunters.

Sincerely,

Not only the wolves but the bears in Alaska and the lower 48 have been protected and allowed flourish. Between the wolfes/bears/coyotes the deer/elk/moose and other prey species are taking a beating.

quote:

Originally posted by flickt:
Not only the wolves but the bears in Alaska and the lower 48 have been protected and allowed flourish. Between the wolfes/bears/coyotes the deer/elk/moose and other prey species are taking a beating.

Dear Flickt:

I agree. Finally, they re-opened black bear season in New Jersey, and you should see the monster someone shot in NW Jersey.

I believe this wolf re-introduction was insane, and we sportsmen and sportswomen will have to spend millions more to correct that stupid move.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Why not?? Without the wolves and the bears, the WILDerness areas become mere deer or elk parks. (have you heard the latest elk call? It makes a noise like a hay wagon)
I'm not saying they should not be managed, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't learn that man can hurt them from a long ways away, but to me, their presence adds a zest to the total experience.

I knew I read something similar to this quotation above.

Here it is from the Los Angeles Times, March, 20, 2009:

"Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, of course, is crying foul -- and the group places the blame for what it calls a "sweeping wolf massacre" squarely on the shoulders of Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin. "Removing such huge numbers of predators from a region will do untold damage to all the wildlife that depends on that habitat. Governor Palin is recklessly pursuing policies that could turn America's last frontier into nothing more than a large game farm," said Rodger Schlickeisen, the group's president.

--Lindsay Barnett"

Curious similarities. This "game park" catchphrase sure looks like a PETA talking point to me.

Just more BS being used to eventually remove firearms from hunters.

Sincerely,

tell you what, Yale. Take your "talking points" (tell me that's not a puzzie phase) and stick them up your ass. When you learn what you're talking about, come back to the big boy room and make a contribution.

My primary objection isn't the reintroduction of predators int wild areas per se, it's letting them spread into populated and/or livestock areas and making them untouchable.

Basically, the PETA weenies are telling landowners "too damn bad about your lost income (due to wolf predation). Wolfy is more important than you!"

quote:

tell you what, Yale. Take your "talking points" (tell me that's not a puzzie phase) and stick them up your ass. When you learn what you're talking about, come back to the big boy room and make a contribution.

"Oh, oh, no." - Mr. Bill, Saturday Night Live

WALLACE, Idaho — The Shoshone County sheriff says two dogs were attacked by four wolves near the northern Idaho town of Wallace.

Sheriff Mitch Alexander said that one dog died and another sustained a facial bite in the attack Wednesday evening, and that there were many wolf tracks in the area.

The newspaper reported that Idaho Fish and Game officials told residents in the area that it is legal to shoot the wolf pack. Idaho Fish and Game official Josh Stanley didn't return a call for comment.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
WALLACE, Idaho — The Shoshone County sheriff says two dogs were attacked by four wolves near the northern Idaho town of Wallace.

Sheriff Mitch Alexander said that one dog died and another sustained a facial bite in the attack Wednesday evening, and that there were many wolf tracks in the area.

The newspaper reported that Idaho Fish and Game officials told residents in the area that it is legal to shoot the wolf pack. Idaho Fish and Game official Josh Stanley didn't return a call for comment.

Hopefully the town residents will eliminate the problem before other residents suffer similar losses.

I enjoy the wild, I enjoy hiking in the wilderness, but most of all I enjoy hunting. Given that, I don't want to hunt on a game farm and I don't want our wildlife managed like one either. I'd like to see both wolves and grizzlies reintroduced into Colorado, put a little more excitement back into that family camping trip. If I have to work a bunch harder to get my elk so be it. It's funny how we work so hard to save the lion in Africa where they're actually eating people, though not Americans, and yet the wolves are a pest to be exterminated. I for keeping the lions and wolves healthy, reintroducing them where possible to their former habitat and hunting (not exterminating) both species.

chuck375 the problem comes from unreasonable restrictions on killing them after they are reintroduced.

A lot of people wouldn't mind having a few around if they could kill the ones causing trouble.

But when you have to let them kill your dogs livestock, reduce game populations to where humand hunting is really restricted because of them. Then you run into hated for them.

Some hunting units have had their hunting permits reduced by 80 percent due the decline in big game populations.

We are not taking making it a little harder to shoot a elk we are talking about not having a lic to shoot a elk because they are not there any more.

You are taking about being treated as a crimnial with a protential feloney, lost of all your hunting rights and gun ownership rights for just defending yourself.

Trust me you do not want uncontroled wolves,grizzly in your area.

Arizona's Game and fish Departments thoughts on the Mexican Grey Wolf situation.
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/es/mexican_wolf.shtml

Excerpt;
The Game and Fish Commission recognizes that it is both unfortunate and ironic that successful Mexican wolf conservation may hinge on removing it from the Congressional act intended to help restore it. While the Endangered Species Act has proven beneficial to a number of species, most notably the bald eagle, in the case of the wolf, it has created an impasse that could lead to the demise of a species in the wild through an ineffective conservation program.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
chuck375 the problem comes from unreasonable restrictions on killing them after they are reintroduced.

A lot of people wouldn't mind having a few around if they could kill the ones causing trouble.

But when you have to let them kill your dogs livestock, reduce game populations to where humand hunting is really restricted because of them. Then you run into hated for them.

Some hunting units have had their hunting permits reduced by 80 percent due the decline in big game populations.

We are not taking making it a little harder to shoot a elk we are talking about not having a lic to shoot a elk because they are not there any more.

You are taking about being treated as a crimnial with a protential feloney, lost of all your hunting rights and gun ownership rights for just defending yourself.

Trust me you do not want uncontroled wolves,grizzly in your area.

I agree with you. I used to live in Montana and spent a lot of time in "the Bob". When I first moved to Montana in the late 60s we had 25 grizzly tags a year and that was enough to keep the population managed and to make them a bit nervous around people. It was the grizzlies in the National Parks that were truly dangerous ...

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
chuck375 the problem comes from unreasonable restrictions on killing them after they are reintroduced.

A lot of people wouldn't mind having a few around if they could kill the ones causing trouble.

I think that this is alot of the problem. If people could have hunted and trapped them years ago then it wouldn't be as big of deal to people now.

That said there are still alot of hypocrites that reveal themselves in these threads and elsewhere. They complain that the greenies and liberals are trying to play god when it was the white man that played god by exterminating them. They also whine and cry that a wolf doesn't kill it's meal right away. Get over it panty waists, they are wild animals and it's what they do. They say that wolves aren't native to the area. What? Our modern day wolves and Dire wolves used to inhabit most of NA. I also hear that the wolves out west are bigger than what they were originally. From what I've seen killed this year and in the past they don't seem to be bigger to me. There are all kinds of "kill them all" bear hunters here in WI because they kill a few hounds every year. Then the hound guys say we should get rid of them because they kill dogs and eat all of the deer. You will never hear them say that we should kill more bears to help the deer even though there are about 15,000 bears in WI.

We moved into their backyard yet we complain about them. Political or greenie movements aside, when you get down to it people in this thread and elsewhere just don't like when there are predators other than themselves in the woods competing for the same animals. It's ironic that we as a group of hunters/outdoorsman/conservationists can complain about a native species so.

Does anyone have proof that the wolves released out west were hybrids?

quote:

Posted 17 January 2012 15:49 Hide Post
I enjoy the wild, I enjoy hiking in the wilderness, but most of all I enjoy hunting. Given that, I don't want to hunt on a game farm and I don't want our wildlife managed like one either. I'd like to see both wolves and grizzlies reintroduced into Colorado, put a little more excitement back into that family camping trip. If I have to work a bunch harder to get my elk so be it. It's funny how we work so hard to save the lion in Africa where they're actually eating people, though not Americans, and yet the wolves are a pest to be exterminated. I for keeping the lions and wolves healthy, reintroducing them where possible to their former habitat and hunting (not exterminating) both species.

Regards,

Chuck

CZ 550 500 Jeffery
Rem XCR II 375 Weatherby Magnum
Rem 700 BDL 270
Springfield V16 Longslide 45 Super

"There's a saying in prize fighting, everyone's got a plan until they get hit"

Now this I can agree with

Solution simple. You see one -- shoot it and let it rot. You see two -- try to shoot two.

oooops. I thought they were wild dogs chasing a game animal -- which most states allow you to shoot.

Barstooler

Mr. Yale, Pancho hit it Spot on !! Chuck are you willing to work harder for No Elk. Thats what we have in Idaho since the wolf intro.

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:
oooops. I thought they were wild dogs chasing a game animal -- which most states allow you to shoot.

Barstooler

Funny, you'd probably get into less trouble if you killed a man and said you thought he was a deer (see several of the shootings in the northeast this year.....no charges).

quote:

Then the hound guys say we should get rid of them because they kill dogs and eat all of the deer. You will never hear them say that we should kill more bears to help the deer even though there are about 15,000 bears in WI.

Actual all the hounds guys I hunt with say we should be killing more bears.

Are bear population is booming the DNR last count says there is some where between 23000 to 40000 plus in Wis.

Its common to have several differant bears coming to the same bait.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

Actual all the hounds guys I hunt with say we should be killing more bears.

Are bear population is booming the DNR last count says there is some where between 23000 to 40000 plus in Wis.

Its common to have several differant bears coming to the same bait.

That didn't really come out right. I also live in WI and know that there is a huge bear population. I also know that the DNR admitted being off my a huge number. What I should have said is yes the bear hunters want to kill more bears but seeing as how the bear population outnumbers the wolf population by what, 2000+&, the majority of the blame is put on the wolves while the bear problem is overlooked by the general public. How many fawn's do 20,000-40,000 bears eat in the spring? When you hear a hound hunter on TV bitching about something it isn't usually about the high bear pop., but about the wolves killing or posing a threat to their dogs. Hunting the woods far from your dogs is dangerous and they can't seem to accept that. I'd like to hear how many hounds get seriously injured or killed by bears each year.

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:
Solution simple. You see one -- shoot it and let it rot. You see two -- try to shoot two.

oooops. I thought they were wild dogs chasing a game animal -- which most states allow you to shoot.

Barstooler

You probably bitch and moan when you hear a PETA freak open their mouth yet you fit right into their stereotype. Congragulations!

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getPage=121

Update on wolf harvest in Idaho to date. 257 taken by hunting and trapping.

Interesting to note on the chart that two area have been close with many wolves still unharvested according to the quota for that region. Reason???? To placate the idea that Idaho can't manage wolves responsively and to provide a PC answer to critics. Well planned.

We will close down those two area early and continue with the rest.

There are some really good true points posted here.

The problem is the eco kooks have convinced a good portion of people that wolves are just wild puppys, and everyone loves puppys.

The fact that wolves will kill for the fun of it is never mentioned, they claimed there was never a recorded attack on humans by wolves; this to is a lie, here in Alaska in just the last 3 years 2 people I know of have been attacked and killed by wolves.

I spent 4 years living in Big Timber Montana shortly after wolves were put back into Yellowstone. In that time guys hunting in the Absoroka wilderness went from full freezers to not even seeing an elk during the hunting season.

Maybe it's time to put the grizzlies back in California, Mostly in the lake Tahoe and Yosemite areas. Let the eco croud get the full nature expierence.

Individuals I deal with occaisionally are HSUS and PETA supporters. They claim to be better educated about all issue pertaining to wolves and other wildlife.

That being said, can we charge PETA as a group or as idividuals with premeditated murder when wolves start taking down children or adults?

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getPage=121

Update on wolf harvest in Idaho to date. 257 taken by hunting and trapping.

Interesting to note on the chart that two area have been close with many wolves still unharvested according to the quota for that region. Reason???? To placate the idea that Idaho can't manage wolves responsively and to provide a PC answer to critics. Well planned.

We will close down those two area early and continue with the rest.

Dear Teancum:

257 less mouths to feed with deer and elk. Now, that's a trend that warms my heart.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis