I have been so depressed these past 3 days that I have found it hard to relay this information - til now!
On Monday night (January 17, 2,005) the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Department people hosted a regional meeting here in Dillon to discuss this years proposed changes to the Big Game Hunting regulations!
The meeting was well attended as compared to the usual number of folks that come to these "book-keeping" type inform the public of rules changes type meetings!
Well there were 6 Fish and Game officers in attendance that sure got an earful! The Hunters that attended were LIVID about the Wolf problem AND the Buffalo Hunt being cancelled by the new democratic governor!
I knew better than to take out my frustrations on these first line "underlings" of the Game Department (there was a Warden Sergeant in attendance and two game biologist Wardens and three line officer Wardens) they are obviously not the policy makers. Still it was good to get the ball rolling with these recorded statements by the average guy, pay the bills for this mess, Hunters.
Among other issues I asked to be clarified was the number "1,000 Wolves" being accurate for the present population in the Montana, Idaho and Wyoming area (as reported by the local newspaper)! Both biologists would not deny that there were that many Wolves they felt the number was or could be accurate!
I asked them to clarify what the feds had originally promised us (the Hunters!) would be the population level where the Wolves would be kept from exceeding! Their answer was "10 breeding pairs (10 packs) in each of the three (3) states - or 325 animals maximum"! I knew the answer already i just wanted the audience and all the Wardens to be refreshed in this regard! None of the wardens would dispute the reported 1,000 Wolf number from the local paper!
A great conversation ensued! It was alluded to and not refuted that the only way to try to control that many Wolves in this large an area would be to resort to poisoning - again! That by the way was the method in which the Wolves were originally brought to near extinction here in the U.S. (in the early part of the last century)! Ranchers and Hunters had been trying to shoot them into oblivion but simply could not succesfully do so!
Poisoning by the government was what ended the Wolves here in the Rockies back then!
Even I know there won't be ANY poisoning (legal) of Wolves in THIS century!
We are in a fix!
Hunter after Hunter derided the Game Department for the horror heaped upon the Elk, Moose, Bighorn Sheep and Deer by the abundance of Wolves!
The Game Wardens did defend themselves pretty righteously (after all it was not them that re-introduced the Wolves) and came out with this bit of news - the Montana Fish and Game folks are filing a lawsuit against the federal government to wrest complete control of the Wolves away from them (the feds)! Apparently the feds are willing to allow Idaho and Montana to assume this control (kill off by Hunting) of the excess Wolves BUT the feds are not happy with Wyomings plans so they have been stalling Idaho and Montanas plans out of ... spite I guess!
Anyway Montana has filed suit to get control no matter what the feds say about Wyomings plans!
The Montana Game Department does realize the damage and the stress's and the population problems in many herds being caused by Wolves!
And they are moving through the bureaucratic mess to try and correct the situation somewhat!
I also specifically asked about the return of Montanas Grizzly Bear Hunting opportunities and the biologists agreed with another warden I had queried in Bozeman last week who said "yes in five years we will again be Hunting Grizzlies in Montana"!
We'll see.
With this governor though he might still be afraid of "a black eye" from out of staters! What a phoney assed excuse to cancel a Buffalo Hunt, a Grizzly Hunt OR a Wolf Hunt for that matter!
We are in a fix!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

1000 wolves can sure eat alot of meat.

Time to get those choppers in the air. The area I live in has a limited number of mountain caribou and when the wolves get to a certain number, the ministry takes to the air and takes out a decent number of them. The problem is that there is a very large park nearby where we can't hunt them and they poor out every winter and make an easy slaughter. The caribou are in numbers well under a 100 and declining.

My neighbours lost a couple of cattle just next to my house this past summer and also killed a calf moose in one of my fields. They took two wolves off the kill. They are getting pretty bold.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have had wolves for over 40 years. And to date there hasn't been a season to hunt a single wolf. I honestly don't think it will happen here either. Just a ploy to give the states control, and force the state to control and regulate the numbers. One state might try and sneak in a hunt but as soon as the lawsuits start it will end as fast as it started. Right now it is a pissing match between the USF&W service's ego and Wyoming trying to stand up.

If the states are given management, like the grizzly manangement, with no real control, all it will do is cost millions! Last year the grizzly management in Wyoming went some where between $1 and $2 million for the year. With the feds chipping in a paltry $300,000.

I just wonder if the states refused control and told the feds you control "YOUR" wolves or else! Then at least the money wouldnt come out of the pockets of hunters as it does now. At least in Wy all the G&F funds come from hunters, fishermen, and trappers, Not the state.

If bear management is almost 2 million I can't even comprehend what 500 wolves will cost.

There is only one solution start poaching wolves. gosh that doesn't sound right, shooting wolves shouldn't be poaching. and the fish and game need to see no evil and hear no evil.

I don't want to alarm anyone but........ each wolf is good for about 125 deer/elk/moose a year. If you multiply that by your one thousand wolves........ well you get the picture!
I've been thru this and I feel your pain we pretty much lost our deer population here for about the last 30 some years. I hope every thing works out for the best for you but if you don't mobilize real heavy artillery against the govt. responsible your toast.
We could'nt get it done here and that was all she wrote for our deer.

That't the way I feel. A hunt just isn't going to happen. And management will break the Wyoming Game and Fish.

WestCoaster are you saying that a 10 wolf pack will kill 3 elk a day (1095 elk/yr)? Im no expert but that sounds just a little off.

365 / 125 = 2.92 / 10 = .292 or 1 every 7 hours

Is my math wrong?

Furor: Here is the equation I have seen many times in several print media's regarding Elk's eating habits.
Each Wolf kills and EATS the BIO-MASS equivelent of 1.8 adult Elk per MONTH!
So each Wolf is eating 1.8 adult Elk per month that equals the meat of 21.6 adult Elk per month - per Wolf.
Now Wolves also eat mice, rabbits, Deer, Bighorns, Moose and some domestic animals! AND the Wolves sometimes kill more than they can eat in one place or sitting (some meat is wasted!)!
But yes if there are 1,000 Wolves in the tri-state area (Montana, Wyoming and Idaho) then they are eating the bio-mass equivelent of 21,600 Elk per year!
I don't know myself, as I only catch the Wolves on the move so to speak but I do now come across skeletons more often than I used to in my neck of SW Montana!
Witness though the VERIFIED diminishment (kill off, predation, Wolf slaughter etc etc etc!) of the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd from 19,000 Elk in 1995 down to 8,000 Elk in 2,003/2,004! That herd should have AT LEAST maintained its 19,000 number - if not increased mightily during these past 8 mild winters and ten years! Instead, the Wolves were reintroduced, and that herd has gone down in number by more that 1,000 Elk per year!
That area is near the re-introduction site and the Wolves reportedly are very populus in that area!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Furor
One Adult Wolf would need to make a kill or eat every 3 days minimum to survive well. Keep in mind that once a kill is made and the wolves initial feed is over then every scavenger you can imagine will decend on that kill and go to work on it. In a good game area its no stretch to figure a kill every other day for a pack.
A Deer is just an appetizer for a pack of ten! An Elk would prolly do them for 2 days if guarded well and of course a moose might add a day.
Ten Wolves use alot of energy hunting and killing game so do you think they will eat alot of Elk/Deer/Moose. In a word yep!
Varmint Guys data seems to be pretty good to me. I was going off memory and may not of been as clear as one would have liked.
Also keep in mind there are other factors involved....like when a pack chases a herd of pregnant Elk continually how many calves are aborted or still born from the stress on the mother?
If the rut is being interupted by wolves hunting how many females don't get bred? If you have a severe winter and the Elk get really concentrated on winter range then watch the wolves got to town on your game. When the calves are being dropped how many do the wolves take in a day?
Here the deer pop. was in the tens of thousands when the wolves arrived in the area, they decimated that deer herd to unhuntable numbers in just a few (5-6) years!
I would'nt fret about the figures too much but the results well thats another thing! God help ya cuz your huntin is going to go fast if the Wolf numbers stays that high. In a short time you will have a Elk herd trimmed down to just barely huntable numbers.

Aaargh! This kills me. I would alos like to see "what if" the states said "here's your wolves; we don't want them." A wolf is indeed a beautiful creature, but for every elk they take, we don't get a tag....
I would never condone poaching, so please do this while I'm looking over "there."

Somewhere along the line, the Feds and the Pro-Wolf groups FORGOT why we got rid of the wolves to begin with. Now we are going to be reminded -IN SPADS! Why would any of us want to support the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, or help any of our state agencies build up good Elk habitat when the end result is WE WON'T BE ABLE TO HUNT THE ELK WE'VE PUT OUT THERE! First, we can't get into an area because it's taken up by a Guide or a private group or the Elk get smart and move to private property that the guides or ranches have and then throw in the wolves. I, for one, am getting into the frame of mind to load up a good 25-06 and start hunting wolves. If it means breaking a "Bad Law" to do it - - So Be It! Godsdog.

When the Wolves kill off all of the Deer and Elk what will they eat next? cattle I suppose and any children they can find. I bet the fish and game will then realize when it is to late that they fu**** up big time.

Swede, ever been to Northern MN?

They have had wolves forever. So far, no children devoured.

You guys are just too funny to be taken seriously.

Brent

I'm not afraid of the Big Bad Wolf - or Sponge Bob

Brent,

Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado's first or second source of income is from out of state hunters. Minnesota isn't exactly the hunting destination of people's dreams so the comparison isn't very valid.

They have a lot to lose there in the Rocky Mountain states and it IS a really huge issue.

VarmintGuy is right on the money with his concern and I really hate it that it's come to this.

The Feds have really created a monster here and without open hunting seasons on wolves there is little hope of a solution and even then it's a poor choice.

If the protection were removed from the wolves right away it would still be nearly impossible to control their numbers with hunting and it's almost certain that that the wolves reduce the deer and elk herds to levels where hunting will be a joke.

All they need out there now is just a few bad winters in a row, which favors the wolf, and they'll face an almost total collapse of the huntable deer and elk populations.

$bob$

Brent
I have seen where wolves have come right into peoples backyards killed their pootch and devoured him right there. I have also seen that when winter sets in and the game is tuff to get they will take a black bear right out of his den!
Sure people fear them, why not?
Because there are no documented cases that you know of. If a wolf has a choice between starving and killing a human I think its academic that the human is going to be wolf chow. At any other time I think their fear of man holds them at bay. But I know of some instances where they absolutely gave the impression if things had gone their way they would have dined on a few outdoorsman over the years.
Something else, ever notice that after wolves feed theres not much left but a bloody spot on the ground? Makes you think does'nt it!

The wolves main predator is other wolves.

I think that is part of the reason they like to chow down the backyard pooch.

When there is a healthy population of wolves the coyote population plummets. Wolves like to eat (kill) them too.

When the wolves food source goes down the wolf population will drop dramatically also. But I hope that is not what it takes to get thier numbers in check.

Quote from Dr. Rolf Petersons
1982 wolf study on the Kenai Peninsula...."The average intervals between kills in winter for packs of more than 2 wolves was 4.7 days."

Brent, your Quote, "You guys are just too funny to be taken seriously.", Sorta tells me you don't ranch or farm and I don't know if you hunt for Elk or Deer in these areas where the Wolves are. If you did, you might have a more Informed opinion. Godsdog.

Godsdog,
I spent 15 yrs living with wolves as a little kid running in the timber alone with a bb gun for protection. Not a problem. People that live with wolves don't really think about them. They may take the odd dog but more dogs were killed by coyotes in the 5 yrs I lived in KS than all the years I lived in NE MN.

No, I don't worry about cattle and sheep. They get an almost free ride out west anyway on public land. Plus, plenty of other people raise livestock with wolves in MN, and much of Canada.

The rest of this note is from another website where I posted a bit about wolves. Most of it applies here.................................................................


For those that really want to learn something about wolves, I've made it a little hobby to actually study the literature a little, rather than simply troll the internet as so many armchair experts here do.

If you wish, I can post urls to many papers on this issue. On the other hand if you prefer kneejerking, feel free to ignore. For those in the former category, here are two articles on wolves in Yellowstone and their impact on the vegetation. There are a LOT of studies besides these, so don't conclude that these are the do-all and end-all, but they are representative of many others.

[URL=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/Comm-Ecol/Wolves%20YNP%202000.pdf ]Wolves and YNP I[/URL][URL=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/Comm-Ecol/Wolves%20YNP%202003.pdf ]Wolves and YNP II[/URL]

Nonhunters that were generally supportive of hunting on the strength of the historical importance of hunting in conservation of ecosystems and natural areas are now becoming completely turned off by the viciousness of the attack. Even some hunters have begun to tune out other hunters and hunting organizations as a result of ignorant and stupid attacks by people that know nothing of what they speak (witness limbwalker as just one example).

This does nothing positive for hunting's preception in the eyes of the generally apathetic majority and turns more and more of that group of fence-sitters to the other side every day. That segment of the public has is giving less and less credibility to the past environmental accomplishments of hunters. Daily, we loose buckets full of the political capital accrued by our predecessors such as Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, Paul Errington, and Ding Darling and many many other hunters. And we deserve to loose it.

On a separate vein, I frequently hear that the pro-wolf people have an anti-hunting agenda. As a person completely behind wolf reintroductions and a hunter for 40 of my 47 yrs, I'm one of quite a few that are both pro hunting and pro wolf.

Given that anyone that actually understood wolves and the current situation prior to their reintroduction could see that wolves were inevitable, it amazes me that hunters failed to jump to the fore and champion them. Indeed, we, as a group, could have pre-empted the inevitable and claimed the high ground.

Instead, a sizable handful of vocal but scientifically ignorant hunters have put a black label on hunters as generally being against the reintroduction of a native species that was coming anyway. Hunters are rapidly being seen as a group only interested in the largest number of trophy targets, and not interested in nature in general (such as were historically important and influential hunters like Leopold, Roosevelt, Errington, etc.). Have any of you anti-wolf people actually read Leopold's rather famous discussion of wolves specifically and predators in general? Do you even know who he was? I'm just blown away that so many of you (at least the most vocal ones) appear to have no appreciation for the history of hunting and the traditional values that hunters have brought to the table over the last century.

Evidence of how far these critters walk and how little they care about political boundaries are documented by radio collared wolves that have walked from central MN to the coast of Lake Michigan in Central WI and then back. Another that walked from Central WI to South Central MO, and unradioed animals that have shown up in Iowa and the presumably gone back north (WI?).
We also see collared Mt. Lions walking from Eastern Montana and the Black Hills of SD to places like Oklahoma, probably Iowa/Illinois, etc. Moose that show up in Missouri and on and on.

The bottom line is that the wolves are going to eat those elk whether they were introduced or not.


I have little optimism for hunting in the long term. And I think it is because hunters, as a group, are really our own worst enemy. Yeah, Pogo said it better...

Brent

PS. One last comment. GD, I'm headed right now, for the post office to mail of my WY elk application. If drawn I'll be in units 67,68,69 - with the wolves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent:
Swede, ever been to Northern MN?

They have had wolves forever. So far, no children devoured.

You guys are just too funny to be taken seriously.

Brent

I'm not afraid of the Big Bad Wolf - or Sponge Bob

---

"Brent" I live in Kansas and I'm not afraid of the Big bad Wolf - or Sponge Bob.

I do think the Wife would look nice in a Wolf coat.


No offence taken have a great day.

Indeed, a wolf coat would look nice.

Enjoy Kansas. Beats the hell out of Iowa.

Brent

Brent: If you are so certain that Wolves are not a problem then maybe you have another explanation for the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd plummeting 11,000 animals in the 10 years since the Wolves were planted amongst them?
Do you have a rational explanation?
Do you care?
Are you aware that the Elk Hunting permits in one of the areas those Elk live in have plummeted from 2,300 down to 100?
Are you aware that those losses of Hunting opportunities are for EVERY year from now until who knows when?
And this brent every realistic and learned professional that has the cajones to say so in public blames the loss of Elk and the loss of Hunting opportunities on the amazing over-population of Wolves!
Or do you care?
I read your lengthy post and noticed no solution to this problem that you do not acknowledge! Your post had no reasonable argument what so ever regarding the amazing over-population of Wolves we are suffering with.
Whatcha gonna do brent when your permits there in Wyoming are decimated?
I would like an answer to these questions that I have posed to you and an admission that your head is so far up your digestive tract outlet that you do not know if you are coming or going!
Your ridiculous statement about cattle getting "ALMOST" a free ride while they graze on public lands is so unrealistic and unfounded that it barely is worth contradicting. Simply go look at the income that the Forest Service and the BLM gets from grazing fees and then thank your stars that the cattle are allowed those few months each year to graze on that land!
And while you are at it contact the Montana Fish & Game folks who have studied the Elk feeding habits over the last decade! The Elk actually prefer to eat right along behind the cattle as the grass that the cattle "mow down" comes back thicker, more nutritious and has less weeds in it. The Elk prefer the cattle grazed on grass to that grass that is not grazed on! I think the F&G folks would gladly send you a copy of the studies and the video movie they recently made showing this Elk preference!
You may think it "ignorant" and vocally "black labelling" (what ever in the hell that is?) for real Hunters to bemoan and worry about this extreme loss of Elk and Elk Hunting opportunites (and the resulting economic losses also) but I contend you brent are the ignoramus!
You have chosen not to acknowledge the blatant and amazing over-population of Wolves and the resulting harm they are doing - but I won't ignore it! And again you have not made one point that even approaches being an argument for this over-population of Wolves!
And I suggest that you take another look at the "facts" before you declare that the Wolves are the best thing ever to happen to Big Game Hunting in the Rocky Mountains!
Those of us that are actually Big Game Hunters and conservationists know that 1,000 Wolves in an area EVEN the greenies only wanted 325 to begin with - is going to have drastic consequences on Big Game of all kinds!
Exhibit "A" is the decimation of the Norhtern Yellowstone Elk Herd!
I am waiting for your "expalanation" of the population decline from 19,000 Elk in that herd the year the Wolves were introduced to 8,000 Elk last year!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Last week the Wy Game and Fish, reported in the Casper paper that the elk herd has stablized in the Northern Yellowstone area. But "BUT" They also said that the winter counts of elk might have been off by as much as 30% in previuos years and that the present count may not be a true indication of the numbers of elk in the NWY herd. Bottom line, no one really knows how many wolves there are, USF&W say the drought is as responsible for lower elk numbers as the wolf, G&F say the grizzly is responsible for lower elk more than the wolf. I wonder who knows shit? I think it depends on who is doing the reporting and counting.

One thing I do know is, we have seen wolf tracks in two locations in the Big Horns, two singles, and a pack of five, miles apart, also in the North Fork of the Owl creeks three different groups with 6 in the biggest group. And in the Grass Creek drainaige one single large wolf, and a group of 3. Do I care? Does it matter if I care? HELL YES AND HELL NO! There will be little or no control and when control is handed over to the WG&F it will break them. Only solution, raise nonresident fees to offset it.

Brent: there was a wolf killed in North East Nebraska three years ago that the USF&W determined came from the MN or Wis. area. The USF&W knew it was from there I think because of DNA. Everyone thought it came out of Wyoming.

TJ
That number is completely variable. Different ranges will bring different numbers avg. game abundance will skew it one way or another. Snowfalls have a huge impact etc.

WestCoaster:
Any study is variable. This 5 year study was done on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska.
Snowfalls do have a huge impact on wolf kills. The deeper the snow, the more they kill. They can run on top of the snow large ungulates cannot.
The figures I quoted from Petersen were a 5 year average. Summer and Winter.
Here's a couple more quotes.....
" While adult moose comprised 53% of the kills, they provided 71% of the biomass available to Kenai wolves in winter. Nontheless, since calves lack effective defense apart from the provided by their mother, wolves usually prey heavest on this age group."
Another....."On the Northern lowlands, wolves were supported primarily by moose, with few buffer species available."
Petersons paper is interesting.

Well Brent,
I see that you'd go over real good at the Cattleman's BBQ as "Guest Speaker". Hell, even the RMEF might be inclined to use you as Satirical Intertainment. In my book, you and a lot of folks like you scare me because I don't think you're living in reality. That makes it real bad for our Game and Hunting in general. Godsdog.

TJ
In some areas in B.C. they seem to target mostly Caribou in another it will be Moose. The effort/risk involved for them to take down a deer is minimal but a Moose well thats a whole nuther story cuz a moose can kill or maim wolves quite easily and requires a hell of alot of effort to bring down.
If your a small pack of wolves (2-6) then 4.7 days between kills is no problem they would just be finishing up one moose in time for the next one! LOL
You peaked my curiosity tho I'll try to google up ole Petersen.
I am sorta thinking along the lines that up your way the Moose and Wolves have evolved together and they each have their strategys for coping. So the wolves impact is not so bad.
But where they have been recently introduced I believe this process is lacking so the wolves have a unfair advantage over the ungulates and the U's will prolly need some considerable time to adjust or adapt to this new pressure.
Unfortunately this is very bad for the hunters opportunities in the ensueing decades!

WestCoaster, that is exactly what happened in this part of the world when the wolves were turned loose. It took a few years for the game to catch on. G&F seen several instances where moose just stood there and were attacked and partially eaten. They had no fear or idea what the wolf was. Same for elk, the calving grounds of yellowstone documented cases of wolves, taking calves as they were being born. The orignal packs, being from Canada, knew what to do but the wildlife of Yellowstone had no clue.

Excuse Brent, he lives in a Walt Disney world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WestCoaster:
You peaked my curiosity tho I'll try to google up ole Petersen.

---

Westcoaster - I'll save you the trouble, try this Of Wolves and Moose

quote:

---

I am sorta thinking along the lines that up your way the Moose and Wolves have evolved together and they each have their strategys for coping. So the wolves impact is not so bad.

---

Such evolved "memories" are not easily or quickly "forgotten". Look for an article by Joel Berger on this very topic. He looked at moose and elk responses to wolves in the Yellowstone area (Jackson Hole?) as the wolves moved in. Pretty simple result. Here is one of those papers in short form learning to deal with wolves

In addition to these four papers, you can look for work by Fred Wagner, Joel Brown, David Mech, and other work by the authors of the papers I've posted above. Read a little, learn a lot, and then deduce. Something that few here will attempt, but give it a go.

You might also look into predator-prey dynamics as a whole and you will see lots of information as to what to expect. But don't worry much about the elk adapting. They already are.

Brent

Kudu56: Here are some corrections of your interpretations that need be made! The drought has not affected the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd in ANY detrimental way! Those Elk (the ones that are still alive!) have plenty of feed and Elk can simply stay near or walk to water EASILY throughout that area! Witness this fact. The Elk herds that SURROUND the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd are ALL at record high numbers and remain so for now. Wolf predation is THE acknowledged factor in reducing that Norhtern Yellowstone Elk herd from 19,000 animals the year the Wolves were introduced to 8,000 animals last year (less than 9 years total - 1995 to 2004). The loss of those thousands of Elk Hunting opportuinites is not due to drought! It is due to over-predation by over-populated Wolves! Remeber this fact - EACH Wolf eats the bio-mass equivelent of 1.8 Elk per month! 1,000 Wolves equals the bio-mass equivelent of 21,600 Elk per year! Hmm... how long can our Elk and Big Game herds exist with that kind of slaughter going on?
The Grizzlies were in that area for decades prior to the Wolf introduction and during those decades the Elk herd grew to that record number (19,000)! THEN when the Wolves were introduced the herd was decimated! This is not coincidental it is THE reason!
In addition at the meeting of the F&G folks I specifically asked them this question - "do you have concerns that the 2,300 lost Hunting opportunities for Hunting Elk in the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd will cause Hunter congestion in other Elk Hunting areas"? The answer was "yes"! And the biologists went on to explain their concerns and the concerns of the Big Game Hunting Commission's in keeping an even load of Hunters in traditional areas.
Your other concerns are well founded! Our Fish and Game Department here in Montana several years ago took on the Parks department and is now called The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks! Ever since then the Hunters have faced rapidly increasing and in most cases doubling of tag and license fees and a myriad of ADDITIONAL permits needed to use public land and etc!
The burden of Wolf regulation will greatly harm the budget of Montanas F,W & P Department - no doubt! This question was also posed at the meeting I attended last week! My friend D.J. asked "who is gonna pay for this Wolf control"? D.J. continued before the wardens could answer - "its not gonna be the Hunters and fishermen I hope, as we did not want the Wolves here in the first place"! Their answer "yes the F. W. & P. department will pay for control, enforcement and investigations"!
In spite of what brent and his green buddies want and envision - the Wolves in the Rockies are gonna continue to cost money, cause problems and destroy Big Game and Big Game Hunting opportunities!
And that is a shame!
I know how hard all the game departments in the west worked over the decades to bring our Game Herds back and all the Hunting opportunities our conservation efforts have created. To watch them go up in smoke (Wolf farts!) is sickening to me!
More later
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

brent: Everyone is wondering why you WON'T or CAN'T answer my simple questions that I posed to you!
I predicted you wouldn't AND couldn't. How typical of you blusterers!
Your hot air bluster is not going un-noticed!
You are so full of crap that your eyes most certainly are brown!
Your outrageously stupid contention that the "Elk are adapting to the Wolves" is so bizarre and out of touch with reality that people are laughing at you!
And rightfully so.
Unless maybe your "version" of adapting is Elk decimation! Yeah brent, come on and explain how a herd of 19,000 Elk being decimated down to 8,000 animals by Wolf predation is "adapting"?
I think your Elk adapting blather is one of the ten stupidest things I have ever heard a human utter! And I have been listening to humans for 57 years now!
You are simply incompetent to rationally discuss the problems facing Big Game and the Big Game Hunters in the Rocky Mountain area!
I feel sorry for you.
Come up with some answers to my direct questions of you before you even consider more hot air and happy words! Your "green ass" is showing - big time!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Answering you vg, is sorta pointless isn't it?

You have read nothing, learned nothing, have no data, no understanding. You can only spew vitriol while remaining unable to respond intelligently to anything I post. I'm working towards putting you in the same category as kudu56 who spews only "You are ignoring this user".

But I'll give your one last response. The declining number of elk and elk permits are the direct response to the WGF deliberately managing their tags to drastically reduce elk numbers as a responce to whining subsidized ranchers (BTW, how many dollars has the ATM increased in the last three decades? Answer=0). WGF have been deliberately overallocating tags to reduce elk grazing pressure and having done that, can now reduce the number of tags available.

How do I know that? One of my former grad students is a WGF wildlife biologist in west-central WY and so I got the information directly from the source over Christmas while he stayed with me enroute to his in-laws. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

In the meantime, I've applied to hunt elk with wolves. I'm putting my money on the line, how about you?

Now I shall permanently switch your translator over to "You are ignoring this user" while you go off and study up. I will be happy to debate the topic of wolf predation and predator prey dynamics with anyone that wants to hold a civil discussion, which, apparently, you do not. Unlike, Westcoaster, you are embarrassing.

Brent

Here is some interesting info directly from the Wyoming Game and Fish website:

CHEYENNE – As the Feb. 28 application deadline approaches, prospective moose and bighorn sheep hunters are alerted to changes in license availability for 2005.

On the south side of Yellowstone National Park, moose areas 7, 14 and 32 have been closed by the Game and Fish Department for 2005 and 2006 to conduct an extensive study on population demographics and survival to get a better understanding of recent population declines.

On the east side of the YNP, areas 11, 12, 13 and 31 have been further combined into one area after being managed as two areas last year. The change is also due to a declining moose population and to allow the few hunters more area to spread out.

The antlerless licenses in areas 30 (Wind River Range) and 37 (west side of Tetons) have been eliminated for 2005 due to declining populations.

I hunt in the Jackson Hole area every year for mule deer, elk, black bear and Shiras moose, depending on what tags I draw. Over the last 10 years the moose population in the Unit where I hunt (17) has declined precipitously as the Gros Ventre wolf pack has increased. As a result, Shiras moose tags have declined over the last 3 years as follows:

2002 Resident Bull:60 Cow:38 Total:98
Non Res. Bull:30 Cow:5 Total:35 Grand Total:133

2003 Resident Bull:44 Cow:5 Total:49
Non Res. Bull:17 Cow:1 Total:18 Grand Total:67

2004 Resident Bull:28 Cow:0 Total:28
Non Res. Bull:7 Cow:0 Total:7 Grand Total:35

Most of the moose from this unit winter along the Gros Ventre River and the Snake River within Teton National Park. In a discussion with the Big Game Biologist in Jackson, I was told that calf survival for this herd had declined 85% since 1998, when the first wolves arrived. Before that, calf survival was high and even more moose tags were given to hunters.

Good or bad? Depends on whether you are a big game hunter or a Conservation Biologist/Ecologist. Each of which has their own well intentioned idea of which is "best". I was told that decreased herbivory by moose has resulted in increased willow canopy and neotropical bird populations. Maybe Wyoming Game and Fish will start issuing Yellow Warbler licenses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent:
Godsdog,
I spent 15 yrs living with wolves as a little kid running in the timber alone with a bb gun for protection.

---

Hi Brent,

WoW!! You had a BB gun for protection?
You lucky dog!

Your family musta been rich. All the kids in my neighborhood only had pointy sticks for protection. On our way home from school, when the wolves were after us, all the kids would form a circle and point our pointy sticks out from the circle. Those silly wolves could not get in back of us to attack. A lot of kids got taken down, though they were mostly the weak and sick kids. My neighbors, the Wainwrights (I liked them), were completely wiped out. The whole family got eaten! But dad told me that they were weak and stupid people, and that was nature's way. My friend Monty says that a wolf can eat 1.4 people biomasses each day. That adds up to about 50 billion people every year!
Even my best friend got eaten one day. He had polio as a baby and could not keep up to the rest of us kids.
Yup, they ate my best friend.
I remember thinking:
OH MY GOD! THEY KILLED KENNY!
THOSE BASTARDS!

Brent what can you say about Chets post? Aliens? Or did you round them up and put them in one of your Disney Movies?

If you draw 67, 68, & 69, remember you need a guide or resident to accompany you if your in one of those wilderness areas. And as for being so brave and hunting with "the wolves" 67 has most of the wolves. I am anxious for you to give your report next fall on how many elk you see. Hopefully you won't draw so you can't flap your tree hugging gums! But if you put for the type 9 it should be a sure bet to draw.

If there are any die hard archey hunters and they want to hunt Wyoming areas, 67,68, 69 type 9 give it a try.

To all you wolf troubled gents.
Has anybody got any type of movement/protest re. dealing with this wolf problem in your areas yet? Like marching on your Capitol buildings stuff like that?
From what your telling me its the feds that need to get their excretement straightened out.
But I guess its gonna take a whole lota yelling on the Hunters (your) part to get the message thru!
It seems to me your also worried about your game depts. going broke if they have to trim the wolf pops. down, why not start some kinda deal where hunters raise $ for them to get the job done? It would be kinda user pay I guess if you can make it fly.
Just tryin to help get the ball rollin I guess but you are prolly already on it.

In Wyoming, Feb. 4th, the State of Wyoming, A livestock organization and SFW, (sportsman for wildlife) go to court against the USF&W in a lawsuit they filed. I sent money to SFW.
I wouldn't want to guess on the outcome. MN. Wisc. have had wolves longer and no hunting yet. So I really can't see it happening here. Maybe state control where wardens kill and cull.With the hunters, fisherman, and trappers footing the bill the same as grizzly management.
Who knows!!!!

But one thing I do know, the illegaly introduced Canadian Grey wolf has done nothing in WY but eat elk, moose, deer, and sheep. They are a killing eating machine that have contributed nothing to the state of Wy in the form of jobs or income. No good has come from the wolf being dumped here. How much money does elk hunting put in the economy?

The facts are facts and Bret's dumb ass attitude, with his reports, which are compiled by pro wolf people prove nothing. I can find as many antiwolf people that have just the opposite studies and reports. Within the WYG&F there are biologists that can give you all kinds of warm and fuzzy, positive stats, on wolves. And there are Game Wardens that can tell you just the opposite. It all depends on who you ask. Bret and his walt disney attitude are meaningless.

I find it ironic that Brent bad mouths ranchers and lives in a state that probably is tied to agriculture more than any midwest state. And you came from Mn, lived in Kansas. All big ag states. I hope your a vegitarian.

Boreal, my man, where ya been? I figured you musta got et while making a run on your snowmachine to Embarrass for some of those extra cold ice cubes to chill your scotch. Good to se you are above ground yet. Sorry about this pathetic pile of driveling wolf-fraidy-cats. The little city children have permeated this thread with their usual line of whining.

I'm real sorry to hear about your friend Kenny. Sounds like he needed to move out to WY when it was safe, oh well.

And yes, I confess, I was a rich spoiled kid with my own Daisy bb gun - not the Red Rider of course - we weren't THAT rich. I had the break-action job, a hand-me down from my dad. It threw a mean right curve (very conservative rifle). But I could compensate for it well.

It saved my life many times when I was out and about. I never had to gun down a charging wolf with it of course, but several times, I did have to use it to knee-cap a school chum when the pack charged. Of course wolves especially like whiney lightweights and knee-capping them made them whine like the cry babies there were. Worked every time.

Now don't be so quiet out there and don't let me hear about you doing soy-burger lunch with your greenie friends at the Chocolate Moose in Ely either. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to come up there and kneecap ya with my Daisy.

Brent

Truth hurts doesn't it Brentski! Stay on your flat feet in your flat land!