ENN FULL STORY
Idaho Governor Calls for Gray Wolf Kill

January 12, 2007 — By Jesse Harlan Alderman, Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho -- Idaho's governor said Thursday he will support public hunts to kill all but 100 of the state's gray wolves after the federal government strips them of protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter told The Associated Press that he wants hunters to kill about 550 gray wolves. That would leave about 100 wolves, or 10 packs, according to a population estimate by state wildlife officials.

The 100 surviving wolves would be the minimum before the animals could again be considered endangered.

"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," Otter said earlier Thursday during a rally of about 300 hunters.

Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry. The hunters, many wearing camouflage clothing and blaze-orange caps, applauded wildly during his comments.

Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife in Boise, said Otter's proposal would return wolves to the verge of eradication.

"Essentially he has confirmed our worst fears for the state of Idaho: That this would be a political rather than a biological management of the wolf population," Stone said. "There's no economic or ecological reason for maintaining such low numbers. It's simple persecution."

Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains a decade ago after being hunted to near-extinction. More than 1,200 now live in the region.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to start removing federal protections from gray wolves in Montana and Idaho in the next few weeks.

A plan drafted by Idaho's wildlife agency calls for maintaining a minimum of 15 wolf packs -- higher than Otter's proposal of 10 packs.

Jeff Allen, a policy adviser for the state Office of Species Conservation, said 15 wolf packs would allow "a cushion" between the surviving wolf population and the minimum number that federal biologists would allow before the animals are again considered endangered.

Allen said Otter and state wildlife officials agree on wolf strategy and will be able to reach a consensus on specific numbers.

"You don't want to be too close to 10 because all of a sudden when one (wolf) is hit by a car or taken in defense of property, you're back on the list," Allen said.

Source: Associated Press

Gov. Otter will have to get up pretty early to beat me standing in line for a wolf tag!

L.W.

quote:

Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry

Not true according to brent and idaho vandal. (our local AR wolf experts) They are absolutely sure that all the wolves released, and repropagating at record levels, are vegitarians. The lack of elk and other species is a figment of our imagination.

They have assured me numerous times that the Wy G&F employees, the hunters, the ranchers,and the outfitters, who all spend 10 times the amount of time in the woods as they do, are completely full of shit about wolves affecting big game numbers in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana!


Holy wolf SHit batman! Could these two experts be worng???

It's nice to see a Governor with some balls.

Lets see him sue under the 9th and find the whole Endanger Speices act unconsitutional.

I see no aunthority for the feds to even control game in a state.

But then the supreme court doesn't seem to know the 9th and 10th are even in the consitution.

Yea they know it, they don't care!

quote:

It's nice to see a Governor with some balls.

Hey ours instructed the state to file suit against eddy bangs and misguided USF&W! And by all indications the feds want to settle and compromise, before they go to court.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

quote:

Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry

Not true according to brent and idaho vandal. (our local AR wolf experts) They are absolutely sure that all the wolves released, and repropagating at record levels, are vegitarians. The lack of elk and other species is a figment of our imagination.

They have assured me numerous times that the Wy G&F employees, the hunters, the ranchers,and the outfitters, who all spend 10 times the amount of time in the woods as they do, are completely full of shit about wolves affecting big game numbers in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana!


Holy wolf SHit batman! Could these two experts be worng???

Vegetarians? I don't remember saying that-- maybe you could do a search through my posts and show me?

"Figment of imagination?" I don't remember EVER writing that.

"10 times the amount of time in the oudoors?"

I work in the field fairly consistently-- where is that coming from?

Come on Kudu-- you can do better than this-- did someone get your logon and password or something? Is this really you???

Now back to the point of the thread-- (sorry for the interruption)

I think (and have always maintained) that the best way to maange wolves is to hunt them. I posted about 2 years ago how I could hardly wait to be able to get a wolf tag and attempt to contribute to the reduction myself. Did you read any of those things?? Or, because I dared to step away from the typical rancher/neo-con psychobabble that states the only good wolf is a dead wolf and because I steered clear of the liberal morons who think the wolf is somehow above being hunted-- I guess I'm alone on this one (kind of like a "lone wolf"--excuse the pun)-- the liberals hate me because I advocate hunting them and the conservatives hate me because I don't suport the complete eradicatin of the species.

Well, at least one thing is clear, if both sides are pissed off, I must be somewhere close to the truth.....

Good day!

IV

IV, you and brent have a long standing belief that all the information coming in from the last 4 years about declining big game speicies was not attributed to burgening populations of wolves, when in reality it is!!! You two have doubted G&F people, who have all along known, and simple common sense says the same thing, and until only recently been able to speak out, the end result of placing an eating machine in an enviroment that has not had such for decades, will and is very, very, significantly reducing elk numbers in many areas.

Basically destroying years of good management and hard work by many organizations to keep elk and other big game species alive and well.

Even if God himself told both of you that the reintrodcution, which has never taken place and no one knew for sure of the end result, that wolves are not good in this day and age and no good comes from having them run slipshod over elk herds, you would not believe his word!

quote:

Vegetarians? I don't remember saying that-- maybe you could do a search through my posts and show me?

I can only assume that is yours and brents belief as you both have never believed 1000 wolves are reducing elk numbers, thus I must only think you two think the wolves are vegitarians!

brent, also likes to blame fewer elk on loss of habitat, drought, bears,over grazing, and aliens! because in reality, the #1 cause is wolves! Ask the Wy. G&F.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

Even if God himself told both of you that the reintrodcution, which has never taken place and no one knew for sure of the end result, that wolves are not good in this day and age and no good comes from having them run slipshod over elk herds, you would not believe his word!

AT that point I will concede-- I do not believe in the whole "God" thing.

And yes, I do doubt what comes form G&F if they don't have the data to back it up; as a researcher that IS MY JOB!

If you search my posts or re-read them you will see that I never have said that I did not think elk or deer or whatever would not be eaten.

What I have said is that re-introducing wolves should be allowed and data should be collected and ONCE the hard DATA is in, then the public can be given true and correct information and be allowed to decide what to do through the POLITCAL process.

VarmintGuy and I went round and round (I am sure you remember)about this, we merely disagree about the correct approach to deal with wolves. (In fact Brent and I are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum on this as well.)

Some people on this forum merely want to kill all wolves and eradicate them. Others are under the illusion that they are vegetarians (as you pointed out)-- my position is (and has always been-- go re-read my posts-- none are edited) that we need DATA!!!! (in order to make an effective argument) and that wolves will have an effect on game populations in the beginning but that they should be managed through HUNTING THEM!!!

IV

Ok! So long as you and the flatlander are at opposite ends of the spectrum! And he is at the end of a rectum!



Save an elk, kill a 100 wolves!

quote:

"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," Otter said ...

So the Governor (and the Idaho Wildlife Department ???) has decided to turn the wolf fiasco into a money making situation for the State.

I'm shocked ANY politician would do such a thing. Absolutely PITIFUL!

I hope the non resident tags are reasonable!!!! If not I have to wait for Wyomings!!

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
AT What I have said is that re-introducing wolves should be allowed and data should be collected and ONCE the hard DATA is in, then the public can be given true and correct information and be allowed to decide what to do through the POLITCAL process.

Some people on this forum merely want to kill all wolves and eradicate them. Others are under the illusion that they are vegetarians (as you pointed out)-- my position is (and has always been-- go re-read my posts-- none are edited) that we need DATA!!!! (in order to make an effective argument) and that wolves will have an effect on game populations in the beginning but that they should be managed through HUNTING THEM!!!
IV

I believe we got rid of wolves before because they were eating everything in sight. Given the vast distance they can travel, and the 50 or so years they have had to reproduce and travel back to the states, I've been against the waste of money to bring the large (130 pound) Canadian wolf here and release them. In the past few years, we have seen Yellowstone wolves show up a long way from the release site in places such as CO.

As many people felt, they were already here as we see by the wolf shot in the Bridger Teton Wilderness in 1992. You can see the picture on the Naational Park Service Sight listed here on page one.( http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nps.g...Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG )

Even after identifying this animal as a wolf, it was still claimed there were no wolves in Yellowstone.

I have not believed for one minute that the wolves would never leave the 32 millon acre park as we were once told. I never belived the 10 packs of 10 breeding pairs or the 300 some total wolves. As we now see, the area has been increased to the "greater yellowstone area" instead of the park and seems to be getting bigger everyday. Wolves have now been sighted in NE & SE Washinton, which is a long way from the park release site. I also never believed the line of Bs that wolves eat mainly mice and rabbits as we were told to now be told they eat mainly ELK.

What I do believe is that this reintroduction is the straw that broke the camels back. Even without hunting them, I don't see any hope for the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd.

I do believe I will hit one with my car before I'm given a tag to hunt one.

Snapper...Right on!!!They eat any animal they can catch, the BS about the sick and old is just that BS!!!

Wolves are probably the smartest animal in the bush. In harsh, deep snowed winters keep your pets inside or in eyesight or the wolves will get them. The only thing as bad or worse for hunting stocks are poachers and big black bears. I say shoot wolves, big black bears & shit kick poachers!! This will plentify your hunted population. If you don't believe me about big blackbears decimating calves & fawns. Talk to a knowledgeable Consevation Officer(as called here) about them.

It's too bad, really, that the Govenor declared his support for a wolf control hunt with such bravado--for, as you can see, it only gives the anti's fuel for their argument.

In fact, they wouldn't have had him say anything different, if they could have put the very words in his mouth!

It's also inflamatory for the Govenor to hope to bring population levels right down to the absolute, bare minimum--where any single further death of an individual animal would give the anti's justification for putting the population back on the ESL.

A more sensible way to achieve that end would be to do so quietly but firmly. Why throw it in everyones' face? That's only what the anti's want.

I see this getting VERY drawn out...

friar

Bravo for the Idaho Governor!
I will lead all REAL Hunters in 3 cheers for Governor Otter!

Hip-hip-hooray!
Hip-hip-hooray!
Hip-hip-hooray!

I will be there right alongside Governor Otter bidding for those first Wolf Hunting tags!
I will open the bidding at $375.00!!!

Friarmeier: If you think this "situation" (the amazing over abundance of Elk killing Wolves!) has not been "drawn out" already then you simply have ANOTHER think coming!
The Wolves PASSED their promised populations 6+ years ago and the Hunters and folks who depend on and cherish healthy Elk herds have been "drawn out" ENOUGH!
The damage that 1,250 Wolves (when 325 were promised maximum!) have done on Elk, Moose, Bighorns and Deer herds has been dramatic and drastic in many areas - let ALONE the predation domestic horses, llamas, cattle, sheep, dogs and all other animals they have killed!!!
Even if the bold and dynamic Governor of Idaho could realize this 500 Wolf reduction in an instant, the harm already done and the harm the OTHER Wolves would do on an already stressed Elk, Moose and Bighorn Sheep population would take 15 to 25 years to undue (regain pre-Wolf game herd populations!)!
I am so thrilled with the Governors stance I will now lead all REAL Big Game Hunters in another cheer for him!

Hip-hip-hooray!
Hip-hip-hooray!
Hip-hip-hooray!

I only wish the Governor of Montana was half the man Governor Otter is!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I dont think they will ever get the numbers down to the minumum by hunting.They never really got rid of them anyway I have friends who live Meagher county White Sulphur Springs and they have told me there were prarie wolves there before the re-introduction of Canadian wolves.What people forget is there were people who made their living killing wolves by any method including poison and they never killed all of them.w/regards

Gophershooter,

You are on the money. Because we can never hunt wolves in Yellowstone, their numbers will never drop below the 300 or wolves they wanted in the first place.

They (FW&P) documented over 500 livestock kills this year alone that the wolf huggers refuse to accept. Killing 20% of the wolves does not make up for the loss of livestock that good folk need to make a living.

Their numbers need to be brought back in line with the original number of (300?) wolves they sought to have IN THE PARK when this was agreed upon the first time. Are they men of their word?

Feds continue to lie, and give conflicting information. They can not be trusted and eddy bangs leads the pack, pack of liers, not wolves!


Gov says press, state receive different wolf stories
By MEAD GRUVER
Associated Press writer Saturday, January 13, 2007





CHEYENNE -- Federal officials told newspapers one thing and state officials another about the minimum number of wolves that Wyoming will eventually be expected to support, Gov. Dave Freudenthal told the Wyoming Press Association.

"We're a long way from knowing what the current status of the federal minimum target is," he said Friday at a luncheon for newspaper representatives and people who work with the media.

Publishers, editors and reporters also asked Freudenthal about legislative issues.

He said he opposes Wyoming having a lottery but would approve joining a multistate lottery, such as the Powerball, if such a bill gets to his desk. Also, he opposes saving more lump sums in the Permanent Mineral Trust Fund like the Legislature approved last year.

And he cast doubt on the prospect of the Legislature buying back federal minerals leases to prevent oil and gas drilling in the Wyoming Range.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say they're close to submitting a plan for how wolves could be managed in the state after their removal from endangered species protection.

But Freudenthal has been displeased by differing things he's heard and read.

"One of the requests we made was, `Tell us who can speak on behalf of the Department of Interior.' We have yet to receive that notification," he said.

"But everybody is speaking on behalf of the Department of Interior in newspapers. And what they're saying in the newspapers is different than what they said in the meeting with us."

He said Interior officials said in a meeting with state lawmakers and Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., that they would accept a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves in the state.

"I read in the paper the other day that now they're saying, `Oh, we meant 15 breeding pairs,"' Freudenthal said. "Sort of, `Oops, we're sorry."'

"Well, I've been down this road with them three times. I mean, I can negotiate with the devil himself, and I've got to know what his position is and I've got to know who speaks for him," he said. "And at this stage, we know neither of those."

A message left with Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Helena, Mont., was returned by Sharon Rose, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver. Rose said that Mitch King, the regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver, would have returned the call but was out of town.

She said King has been in touch with the state on the issue.

"We're certainly working with the state of Wyoming to help clear up this confusion and we will continue to do that," she said.

She said 15 breeding pairs is the Fish and Wildlife proposed minimum. A breeding pair, she said, is an adult male and an adult female traveling with two pups in December.

King said Thursday that he expected his agency to submit a formal wolf proposal to Wyoming in time for the Legislature to act before adjourning.

Wyoming has a lawsuit pending in federal court over the federal government's rejection of a state plan for removing wolves from endangered species protection. Idaho and Montana submitted wolf management plans that were accepted; the rejection of Wyoming's plan is holding up the process to delist the species.

quote:

Originally posted by Snapper:
Gophershooter,

You are on the money. Because we can never hunt wolves in Yellowstone, their numbers will never drop below the 300 or so wolves they wanted in the first place.

They (FW&P) documented over 500 livestock kills this year alone that the wolf huggers refuse to accept. Killing 20% of the wolves does not make up for the loss of livestock that good folk need to make a living.

Their numbers need to be brought back in line with the original number of (300?) wolves they sought to have IN THE PARK when this was agreed upon the first time. Are they men of their word?

They will just keep increasing the numbers needed!

whoa, Keimosabe (Varmint Guy)!

If you understood me to be suggesting that the wolf population doesn't need to be checked, then you've misunderstood.

What I am suggesting is this: the best way to reduce the wolf population to an "appropriate" size (whatever that may be--I don't know), is to do so in a quiet, yet deliberate and consistent manner. Turning up the rhetoric only makes the anti's that much more indigent.

And no lecture is needed, friend, to point out that this has been going on for quite some time. Victory won't be gotten, though, by bashing people over the head and saying "I told you so," but only when we sportsmen can be persuasive.

And persuasion comes with respect, logic, patience, and persistence.

Best wishes,

friar

300 Wolves in Yellowstone Park would have every Elk, Moose, Bighorn Sheep and Deer killed off in 6 or 8 years! Then they would get to work on finishing off what few Buffalo would be left!
Then they would just travel on out of the Park and do what they are doing now - decimating the game in many areas open to human Hunting!
The original plan was - lest anyone be suffering under a misunderstanding - that the Wolves would number 325 total animals in and OUT of the Park - throughout Montana, Idaho and Wyoming! Not JUST the park.
The latest census is 1,250 Wolves minimum! With the new crop of Wolves come spring we are looking at 1,500 Wolves by May/June!!!
And in case you are wondering about that 250 Wolf jump in census numbers, the biologists are stating that.
The Wolves are reproducing at an alarming 20% per year! That will be 2,100 Wolves come spring of 2,008!
Lets look at 2,008 with it 2,100 Wolves! Remembering that Wolves eat the bio-mass equivelent of 1.8 Elk per month EACH! That would be a net bio-mass loss equivelent to 45,360 Elk going "up" in Wolf farts in 2,008!
How long can our hard fought for Game Herds last with predation like that???
The answer IS - NOT LONG!
Green bastards - "they" are out to destroy sport Hunting by humans - nothing more, nothing less!
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Friarmeier: I completely disagree with you! WE tried being "respectful, persuasive, logical, patient and persuasive back before 1995 - when the greens were ramming the Wolves down our throats! What did that get us? It got us fucked in the ass!
We have Wolves coming out our friggin ears here in the Rocky Mountains and the game herds in many areas are being decimated!
If I have my choice of being respectful to these green sons of bitches and daughters of whores who foisted these lies and these Wolves upon us or having some Elk and Bighorns to Hunt well - LOL - I say fuck those green sons of bitches and daughters of whores - I worked hard and long propogating those wonderful herds of Elk, Bighorn Sheep and Moose! I want them to be healthy and have healthy populations that are high enough to have humans Hunt them. Just like we have done for quite a few generations.
Now those hard won game herds are going up in uncontrolled "Wolf farts"!
You are irrational and ineffective in your "ambiance" there Friarmeier, I have dealt with the lying cretins in the USFWS service in past decades and the outcome is always BAD for the traditional sportsman!
You have NO idea what the green sons of bitches and daughters of whores at the USFWS have done to sportmen and recreationists over Seals, Steelhead, Spotted Owls, Salmon, Indian rights, Snail Darters, Grizzlies, rare houseflies, Lynx, Sea Lions, Black Footed Ferrets, Prairie Dogs etc, etc, etc!
Respect of, and for, these liars is as useless as tits on a Bull!
If an "I told you so" is a VALID "I told you so" then in fact it is useful! You are wrong on that point as well!
And maybe YOU are LATE to this butt-fucking we Hunters in the Rockies are getting at the hands of the greens and the USFWS - the number "they" promised us was 325 Wolves total then "we" (the states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho!) could then kill off the extra Wolves! The 325 number was what the "greens" who foisted this shit storm on us was the number that the game herds could be fed upon (used as prey!) and the herds still would remain "healthy"!
Well "WE" now have 1,250 Wolves, minimum, and NO State has been allowed to control the Wolves in any way except for the rare killing of Wolves that repeatedly kill domestic stock and animals!
Even that little bit of "control" by the states is fraught with delay, red tape and bullying!
For emphasis - so you will have NO possibility of misunderstanding ME, I will repeat paragraph number 3 (three) of this posting for YOU!
"If I have my choice of being respectful to these green sons of bitches and daughters of whores who foisted these lies and these Wolves upon us or having some Elk and Bighorns to Hunt well - LOL - I say, fuck those green sons of bitches and daughters of whores - I worked hard and long propogating those wonderful herds of Elk, Bighorn Sheep and Moose! Now those hard won herds are going up in uncontrolled Wolf farts"!
Frankly Friarmeier, I could care less what someone in Brainerd, Minnesota says regarding the actions of the Governors of Montana, Wyoming or Idaho!
Let alone what you say about the USFWS - I KNOW what lying, useless, deceitful, green sons of bitches and daughters of whores these people BE!
I REFUSE to show them one IOTA of respect!
NONE!
You would do well to take the advice I am offering you!
I suggest you treat them the same way I do - show them the same respect you would show lawn fudge in your waffle stompers!
With disdain and disgust!
After 40+ years of dealing with them that is EXACTLY what they deserve!
Roll over play dead if you choose.
I won't.
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VarmintGuy,

I appreciate that this issue gets you fired up, and you're perfectly entitled to a vehement opinion on the matter, but I'd appreciate it even more if you'd remember that this forum is frequented by a lot of wives and kids. We all want more kids involved in this lifestyle, and we'd like to have an environment around here where parents wouldn't mind their kids participating.

Keep in mind as well, that kids are learning while they are here. Diversity of opinions is a great thing....but those opinions are lost if you can't keep it reasonably civil.

Thanks in advance.

Canuck

Good afternoon VG,

I'm not interested in telling you, or the govenor of Montanta or Idaho anything. "Telling you" that is, in the sense that I would "make you" do anything. I'm not interested in that, and I don't pretend that such a thing is possible--with anyone.

I am of the conviction that our task as hunters & sportsmen (and, though I do live in Brainerd, MN., I also count myself among those ranks), will be more productive, and more persuasive, if we don't let the anti's "get the better of us."

That doesn't mean being soft, or wishy-washy. I'm not, just as you aren't. Don't mistake my mild speech for being lacking in conviction. I imagine most people who post at AR are more than willing to go the extra mile when it comes to defending our rights.

Again, approach this how you see best. I simply think that you will be more persuasive towards those who are not yet against us if, in confronting "greenies", if you are less abrasive.

And perhaps we agree on that point. The fight isn't to convince the greenies of the need & right to hunt & control populations--they are beyond hope. The fight before us is to convice those whose minds aren't yet made up--to convice them that we're not lunatic throwbacks to the time when a person's only choice was to kill to eat, or to die.

Again, best wishes.

P.s. I spent a lot of money to hunt the Bridger Teton National forrest in 05--and I am not a man of great means. I think I can honestly say, then, that I can begin to understand your frustration with elk, deer, and moose populations.

Am I against you? Who here is against you?

You may have more friends than you realize!

friar

I know someone will get pissed at me for saying this, but ..........

Who cares if we shoot off all of the wolves, because if we shoot them into extinction again (which I am all for) then all we have to do is go back and fetch some more from canada if it´s ever found that they provide some positive benefit to the balance of nature. It would be more productive to transport the earth-muffins and tree huggers to canada and let them enjoy the wolves, than to ship wolves to the US.

I haven´t lived in Murka for 29 years, but I travel there twice yearly to hunt. It was beyond me why we even brought them back to the US in the first place. Did we do it just so we could have wolves, or did we do it because somebody (like those tree-hugging pin-dicks who think that just because THEY like something, we all should like it)wanted to ´feel good´ about hearing a wolf howl while they camped under the stars eating tofu?

Maybe we should bring back the smallpox virus, the plague and start releasing more rattlesnakes in the inner cities as well.

quote:

Originally posted by murkan mike:
...It was beyond me why we even brought them back to the US in the first place. Did we do it just so we could have wolves, or did we do it because somebody (like those tree-hugging pin-dicks who think that just because THEY like something, we all should like it)wanted to ´feel good´ about hearing a wolf howl while they camped under the stars eating tofu? ...

Hey Mike, That is fairly close to reality.

It happened because enough fools voted democrat, put clinton in office and his man babbit decided to put them back in. Since the Ultra-Liberal Radical-Leftists are all in support of the democrats, we have similar fiascos to look forward to if they return to power.

Nothing complicated about it - people voted for democrats.

quote:

Originally posted by murkan mike:

Who cares if we shoot off all of the wolves, because if we shoot them into extinction again (which I am all for) then all we have to do is go back and fetch some more from canada if it´s ever found that they provide some positive benefit to the balance of nature.



Maybe we should bring back the smallpox virus, the plague and start releasing more rattlesnakes in the inner cities as well.

Wyoming had a great idea. Go ahead and shoot those that leave the park. Because we cannot hunt in the park, the remaining wolf will continue to reproduce and kick out more packs and never be hunted to extinction ever again in the lower 48. They never were extinct in North America. Like Elk that once ranged across the US, their range changed, but like Elk, are not anywhere near extinct.



That English House Sparrow was a great introduction wasn't it? Agressive competitor as a cavity nester killing off our native Blue Bird population with help from Starlings, nice.

Instead of killing surplus wolves, lets move them to areas like Iowa that don't have Elk, because they don't eat elk anyway.

Lets restore their native range so everyone can see they're harmless.

quote:

"Essentially he has confirmed our worst fears for the state of Idaho: That this would be a political rather than a biological management of the wolf population," Stone said.

Since when has this not been a purely political issue? Since he is advocating the elimination of wolves, it is her "worst fear". And if the magic number to be considered endangered is 100 why have they not been removed from the list yet? Because of political groups who argue with emotion instead of facts. I know from reading above posts that there are definitely none of those types here

I still contend, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan have wolves, they have had them going on 40 years and still no hunting,. The feds want to hand over control to the states and clean their budget. Then the states can deal with the lawsuits and such.

Screw em! They brouht them, let them manage them and pay for it. But the bottom line, we pay one way or another, less game, money, freedom!


Wolves, Government Sponsored Terrorism!

More years of watching wolves are needed to get a handle on the elk's decline, says Ken Hamlin of Montana's Fish, Wildlife & Parks department. He's inclined to blame the wolves, noting that elk in areas with few, or no, wolves, seem to do better. And species that wolves prey on far less often, such as mule deer and bison, haven't seen big drops in numbers, he says, despite going through the same drought and severe winters.

The drought and a combination of other factors are a ploy by the pro-wolf zealots.

The fact is, Wyoming is in the midst of a drought that is 5 to 7 years long, driest in recorded history, affecting pretty much the entire state, fact, in non-wolf areas, elk numbers and cow to calf ratios are on the rise, in wolf areas, cow to calf ratios are almost zilch and elk numbers are half what they were in the late 90's. So the other factors are pretty much, BULLSHIT!

Yellowstone Wolf Experiment Out of Control
— by Jim Slinsky

I found this article written in 2002 interesting. Link to entire article listed below.

http://www.theoutdoorlodge.com/features/articles/outdoo...wolf_experiment.html

In less than 10 years the effect wolves have had on Yellowstone’s wildlife has been nothing less than devastating. Elk populations hang around 10,000; the moose and deer are almost completely gone. Antelope went from 600 to 200 specimens. Sheep populations have fallen from 300 to 40, possibly an inadequate amount to repopulate the Park. Wolves are attacking horses, mules, livestock and stalking children. The economic health of the region has collapsed and so has the outfitting business north of Yellowstone.

The wolves are multiplying at the rate of 34% a year. There are now 370 wolves in Yellowstone and 770 in the tri-state area of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Wildlife in that region is getting hammered.

Forget what you heard about wolves killing only the weak and sick. Wolves are canines and like dogs, they kill by instinct and for fun. Aerial photographs document dead, red wildlife carcasses over the landscape. Wolves practice “surplus killing†whether they are hungry or not. The wildlife of the region can not rest and they live in constant fear. Like coyotes following a deer herd, a wolf pack pursuit is relentless. One wolf will kill 23-25 mature elk a year, not counting calves. Now multiply that by 770 wolves.

The recruitment of newborn game animals into their populations has been the hardest hit. Elk calf survival is averaging 14 out of every 100. In high-density wolf areas, only 4 out of every 100 calves survive the wolf packs. Keep in mind, these wolves are not native to the region.

The Rocky Mountain wolf at 80 pounds, which hunts in pairs, has been displaced by this Canadian gray wolf (at 130 pounds), which hunts in packs.

This predatory machine has no predator.

quote:

This predatory machine has no predator.

How about a 160gr Accubond at 3050 fps?

Cow to calf ratios???

Lets suppose you have 300 cows and 60 calves—that equates to 5:1 (cow:calf). Then suppose wolves come in and eat 30 cows and 6 calves. Your population has dropped by 10% and your magical cow:calf ratio is magically unaltered at 5:1.

Even better, lets suppose the wolves eat 30 calv

How about the state of Wyoming basis it on 100 cows. The ratio's in some areas per 100 has dropped from 37 to less than 10. That's 10 calves per 100 cows, instead of 37% now we are at 10% survival. Some attributed to bears but the majority to wolves. Not drought, not loss of habitat, not over hunting, not ranching, not aliens, but maybe the presence of a new preditor, the wolf!

quote:

The Rocky Mountain wolf at 80 pounds, which hunts in pairs, has been displaced by this Canadian gray wolf (at 130 pounds), which hunts in packs.

Technically two different species, the same as tule elk and rocky mountain elk. According to the Wy G&F it would be illegal for me to import tule elk to my ranch. Not a native species of Wyoming, state law. The hier to the Cambells soup fortune found it out 15 years ago when he tried to import non-native deer to Wyoming,he lost, yet the feds can bring in non-native wolves that have displaced existing populations of Wyoming wolves that were proven on film and by one being shot south of the park to exist.

Anybody know when the drawing for Idaho wolf tags is scheduled?

I want to be sure to be present with 2 or 3 -0- balance credit cards so I can get in on the eradication of alien wolves.

We need the room for our local population, which are MUCH smaller in size than the illegal aliens presently running around the hills.