quote:

have a bumper sticker that I could send you that might help cover up your Petaness. It says: "I Kill for Sport and Pleasure" Its red. Want one?

I bet it is Rainbow colored!

Telling people you kill for pleasure says alot!

my opinion..

OK... I feel on nat'l forest they are a trophy animal hunted by outfitters/guide with clients.. good source of revenue generation for the state and will make up for someo f the lost revenue of the outfitters due to the wolves.
Off nat'l forest I think they should be classified as a preditor..

I feel they can be managed like the big cats are.. only so many tags and once they are filled thats it for the season on nat'l forest.

I know and you know that pencil pushers have a good idea of the numbers of wolves we have here... afterall if they didn't they wouldn't have been caught releasing 3 of them in a calving pasture in Meeteetse....

Kamogariborealbrent, thinks the wolf is good, and has done no negative impact on anything in Wyoming. No one has ever advocated total extermination, just management, and the sooner the better. The wolf does some good, but I sure can't find much. It's presence, as reported in many Wyoming papers, by the USF&W, would boost tourism. Well the last two years visitation to Yellowstone has been down, 6% last year,2004. So much for that theory.

No one will convince me that the wolf is not haveing a negative effect on elk. Numbers don't lie, but prowolf people do.


1000 hunters in Wy, 35% success, you loose 350 elk for one year. 400 wolves, one elk per wolf per month, (conservative) 4800 elk per year. How long before the herd goes backwards? Another well publicized fact with the drought, the whole state has been affected by the drought, but in non wolf areas, Snowys, Big Horns, (two small packs so far) South West corner, Laramie Peak, elk numbers continue to grow, areas with wolves, numbers are dropping. Reports from the G&F, NW corner, including Absorkas where I hunt, number of calves per 100 cows, less than 10. Other areas of Wy, as high as 25. According to the WG&F it takes 15 to maintain a herd.

Yes that realease was on Larsens on upper Gooseberry. Good people and they took the USF&W to task, on trespassing charges but lost.

We used to lion hunt on thier land, but with the wolves in most of that area it is to risky to lose any dogs. We made two early morning drives up there this winter after fresh snow, and never seen a lion track. I wonder if the wolves are displacing some of the cats?

I didn't know they lost the court battle.. that ..well.. sucks.. somthin' smells fishy...

I too hunt the Absorokas.. my guest ranch is at the begining of them... I know of three wolves on Table Mtn.

Well Park County wanted the USF&W cited for it, but the feds got it in federal court in Cheyenne. The outcome was evident after that ploy.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

I bet it is Rainbow colored!

Telling people you kill for pleasure says alot!

Trolling, trolling, trolling....alooonngg!
Yeeeeeehhhaaaa!

Kudu's shows of ignorance and trolling style are simply astounding.

Despite the blizzard today, I'm heading out the door for a little walk. The 45 colt and knife go on the belt. A canteen full of Dewar's, a couple sparks, and a few candy bars go in a small pack. A compass in one pocket and my little binocs in another. I'll strap on the snowshoes and head east, following the little trout stream (that flows through my property) up to the height of land. There is a nice pond, surrounded by old growth cedar, that feeds "my" trout stream and the opposing stream that flows east to the Cascade River. I'll turn northeast when I get to the pond and head to the bald overlook above the main river where I'll probably holler my lungs out and nobody will hear me because I'm the only human out there. It will be something like "THANK YOU GOD!!!" or whatever. Its all National Forest land and my house is the closest one around. When I get to the Cascade River, I'll turn south to follow it until I cross a couple of tributaries at their mouths. I will then turn back to the west for the two mile walk back to my house. I won't see any deer, as they have migrated down to the "big lake", but the moose winter back there, and the local wolf pack could be around, but they only show up around my house every couple of weeks or so. Maybe I should bring a pointy stick, in case the wolves come after me! If the wolves don't get me and I manage to get back, I'll put a log or two on the fire which will have died down, and heat up a big plate of turkey and veggie leftovers in the microwave. Maybe a big hunk of apple pie. I'll sit in my lazy boy and flip on the wide screen TV. Maybe I'll order a good movie from Direct TV. The Chronicles of Riddick looks good.

And Kudu will still be in his sad little troll world of hate and disgust.

Have fun kamogariborealbrent, the great Rainbow warrior that takes pleasure in killing!

Trolling? The lake is still froze over. I am on call, three on two off. So I sit by the phone, which happens to be by the computer, and irritate guys like kamogariborealbrent, who hate the truth, and whose liberal elitist rhetoric, hates to be contradicted.

Debate roils over wolves' effect on elk, ecosystem

By BECKY BOHRER
Associated Press writer Sunday, February 20, 2005




AP

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK -- Hunters and outfitters blamed wolves when they began seeing fewer elk in areas near the park in the decade after gray wolves returned. But some researchers say drought and even years of great hunting played an important role, too, and the wolves themselves seem to be paying a price.

"To a degree, people are crying wolf way too soon," said Yellowstone wolf biologist Doug Smith.

Smith and others concede that wolves have contributed to declining elk numbers near Yellowstone, particularly in the northern range herd that migrates into Montana in winter. But there is intense debate over how great their role has been -- and whether it has been necessarily bad.

To outfitters like James Hubbard, the wolves' effect has been huge, and they point to the case of the northern range herd -- for years, a rich source of winter hunting near Gardiner, Mont. -- to make their point. The herd, as recently as 1994, had 19,000 elk. The most recent count last month put the population at only 9,545.

That's not just coincidence, Hubbard said: Wolves, reintroduced to the region in 1995, are "killing the industry."

"Hunters come out and don't see near the elk," the Gardiner-area rancher and outfitter said. "They used to see so many it was unreal."

But J. Christopher Haney, a senior conservation scientist for Defenders of Wildlife, said wolves are being made a scapegoat. Elk numbers in parts of the West, including the northern range herd, were very high for a number of years, he said, but much of the area has also experienced extended drought, which can further stress range conditions.

"Hunters have had it good for a long time," he said. "When you have these high numbers, it gets in people's heads, 'This is natural, this is what it should be,' when nature is always changing," he said.

The population of the herd grew dramatically after federal officials stopped trying to regulate elk numbers in the park in the 1960s.

Elk leaving the park have been hunted in Montana since the 1970s. But Kurt Alt, a state wildlife manager, said that since 2000, the population has steadily declined. He said there is concern whether the population can sustain itself with the number of calves -- among the more vulnerable animals in the herd -- withstanding predators, including bears and wolves, to survive a year.

Hunting permits in the area have been scaled back to see if that might help stabilize the elk population, he said.

But Alt said he believes the weight of evidence has shown adding wolves to the mix has been the "major factor" in the herd's decline. Before the federal wolf reintroduction in and around Yellowstone in 1995, he said the herd was able to maintain relatively high numbers and rebound fairly quickly from natural events, such as major fires or drought.

"One thing that has changed is the addition of wolves to the system," Alt said. "We're seeing a decline in the population with the addition of that extra mouth."

Ed Bangs, a federal wolf manager, said wolves, mountain lions and other predators may speed up declines in game populations caused by other factors, such as hunting, changes in habitat conditions and harsh weather. When elk populations are at such highs, there's "no way to sustain that, and when numbers go down, people are always looking for something to blame," he said.

"You hear, 'Wolves are killing off all the elk,' and none of that's true. Some people say they're not having an effect, and that's not true, either," he said, adding: "What wolves do is cut out the highs and lows."

Skinnier wolves

There are places in the three-state region where wolves are present and elk populations are thriving. A key difference between those and Yellowstone is wolf densities, Smith said.

The density drops sharply at Gardiner, near the park's northern boundary. Wolves outside the park that get into trouble, say for killing livestock, can themselves be killed.

But there's new evidence suggesting wolf numbers inside the park may now be leveling off, or even declining, he said.

Smith, who has been studying the wolves here since their return, said that in the past four years, as the number of northern range elk has declined, there has been more fighting among packs for food, scrawnier wolves and indication their numbers may have peaked, at 174 wolves.

That does not mean wolves are eating themselves out of house and home, though, Smith said. Instead, he believes wolves and other predators have helped thin out the weaker, more vulnerable elk, leaving a smaller population of stronger, healthier animals.

Because wolves tend to pick off prey least likely to put up a big fight, they're having to work harder for a meal -- some, like the Mollie's pack, are taking on burly bison in late winter -- or go hungry, Smith said.

In the past five years, he said, wolves in the park have eaten fewer elk in late winter than before.

"I have seen wolves starve when there's adequate numbers of prey out there," he said.

Some wolves now are in poor condition. Wolves overall are lighter than they used to be, and fighting has picked up between packs competing for carcasses, leading to far more dead wolves a year now than in the first years after reintroduction, he said.

Last year in Yellowstone, wolf numbers declined for only the second time since reintroduction, to 171 animals. In another decade or so, Smith guesses there could be half the wolves there are now.

The big question is: How will wolves contend with declining elk numbers? Either wolf numbers will fall off, too, or wolves will augment their diets with bison, which is in ample supply in Yellowstone but difficult for wolves to kill, Smith said. He has known wolves to be gored and even killed trying to take down bison.

"It will be exciting to see what happens," he said. "It will affect not only the wolves but the elk and elk hunting."

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
So I sit by the phone, which happens to be by the computer, and irritate guys .

Yup, gets paid to troll the internet and "make" friends. So very sad.


Was a great day. Saw a few moose. The wolves had moved through recently, using the same trails they always do, split up into singles and always using the exact same tracks. Its weird how they can do that. Bagged a hare for tomorrow's lunch. Tired.
Time to leave Monty/RMK/AKhunter/kudu/+ here to talk to himself and "make" new friends.

How can anyone here that hunts defend wolves? They even found one dead on I-70 in Colorado last July, so they are now down here too. And that is the last thing our struggling Colorado mulie population needs is another predator. They already banned trapping in 1996 for ALL animals here. Coincidentally the deer population has been on a steady decline. And the trapping ban also happened to coincide with the Lynx introduction. Obviously the DOW doesn't want any trapper accidentally taking a lynx. So who is winning here? The predators win, the prey and hunters lose. Great system, the antis never wanted wolves, they just wanted hunters less. Looks like the antis are winning. Guess I will never get to go on a late season elk hunt in Gardiner since the season is gone after 2006 thanks to the wolves. You can read it right on the Montana D&R website.

OK....
I hunt and guide... I still say there is a need for all predators... think about it.. you cannot eliminate certain aspects of the chain...

I strongly dissagree with the amount of predators we have....

dogcatcher.... you are on the right track....

this "movement" was started by the anti's about 15+ years ago... and yes they are winning...their plan is starting to work... they have ALOT of money and are using it in that big white house back east...

see the point is eliminate the excess abundance of game animals... through "managment" ( read predators ) and soon there will be no need for hunting as a managment tool... once you do not need to hunt you do not need firearms...

and the snowball begins to roll...

wake up... people...

Ric,
How do you suppose that wolves have not already eliminated hunting in say, Alberta, Alaska, Minnesota, just to list a few.

The "movement" was started by hunters - much like myself.

Brent

Brent,

I know outfitteres in Alberta that do very well...
I know then in Alaska who do very well...

I guess I am not following you.. please elaborate

Ric,
I'm saying that the coming of wolves does not spell the end of hunting. It is as simple as that. In fact, most of us pay a pretty penny to hunt areas where wolves are abundant. I grew up hunting deer with wolves (fully protected wolves at that). Since the 70s that deer herd has increased several fold and yet the wolves were/are protected the entire time.

Wolve will have effects, but the end of hunting is not one of them.

Brent

I am not saying they are the reason hunting will end.. I am saying it is part of their plan...

Ric,
You give them more credit than they deserve.

Brent

the wolves or the Anti's?

The wolves are taking their fair share.. the drought is bad and a large contributing factor... combined it is devistating here in the west...

You are sadly mistaken if you think the anti's are not winning this battle.... they are and almost easily... complacency and ignorance is a bad thing...

The anti's.

Of course the wolves are taking their fair share. Whenever you release a predator in a prey-rich environment, that happens. But the fact that deer herds are better than ever in places with fully protected wolf populations tells me that wolves are not so hot at regulating their prey. More specifically and accurately, you can read some of those references that I posted earlier in this thread and draw your own conclusions.

I don't see any anti's winning any battles myself. Mostly they make fools of themselves, not unlike some hunters as well.

As an interesting aside, when a few really stupid duck "hunters" whacked some re-introduced swans here in Iowa, hunters formed a group to raise money for additional swan reintroductions to far out pace those shot by the idiots. In this way, hunters, not anti's have co-opted the swan reintroduction program and enjoy the "good guy" status from the non-hunter's perspective. Anti's were left with no where to turn. Could do the same thing with wolves.

One thing is for sure, they are here to stay. Better to run with them, than run against them.

Brent

explain why firearms manufactures are paying out in court cases for the ignorance of a mentally deranged citizen(s)....

I agree more sportsman groups should be formed and intiate a positive image...


but if you think the PETA's, Green Peace, Sierra Clubs arn't winning... or do not have an effect... I think you need to re-evaluate your thought paterns...

Ric,
I don't see them winning here. A recent poll showed 85% of Iowans want to see hunters kill MORE deer. 4% are ambivalent and the rest are "anti". That's way down from years past. Elsewhere I see a lot of rhetoric. But the size of the noise is not proportional to the numbers of antis or the effect that they have in any tangible way. I don't discount them, as I generally see a bleak future for hunting, but I don't think anti's are the biggest problem out there.

Brent

Brent no ofense but Iowa isn't speaking for the rest of the US... common be realistic...

Ric,
I didn't say Iowa was speaking for anyone. Then again, no one does. But be specific. How are they winning? Where and how. In CA, sure. In WY, no way.

Brent

Where are they winning..

you think hunters wanted wolves introduced.. you think the trappers in Colo. wanted trapping to stop... You think Bushmaster wanted to pay out millions for 2 idiots using their firearm...

thats just off the top of my head....

wanna know why the wild fires are so bad.... because your tree huggers have the Forest Service tied up in court for the past 10 years asying they shouldn't be able to clean up the underbrush and deadfall... so now when a fire does happen to start we get BIG ones....

holy crap man are you freaking blind????

ok ok deap breath....

Ric,
Calm down. You are gonna be okay

A lot of hunters wanted wolves introduced. I'm one of them.

Fires are definitely not part of the anti's agenda either. They ain't gotta clue. The fire issue dates back to the onset of total fire control. There is no two ways about it.

The Forest Service can't and doesn't clean up brush by the square mile. Never has, never will. They are too busy selling timber to the Japanese or whomever wants it, at far below cost.

Like I keep saying, wolves and hunters will continue to coexist. Just as they have in Minnesota and everywhere else.

Now breathe deeply once or twice more and have a good day...

Brent

exactly why did you want them introduced when they were multiplying and thriving at a substantial rate on their own....??

Or were you one of those guys that believes what the gov't boys tell ya...

spend anytime in these hills around the park in the last 5 years?

I did almost everday from may thru oct.

Ric, read back look up those papers and figure it out.

I've spent a lot of time in those hills recently and soon again. Chasing elk among other things. Go back and read some of those papers for which I've posted links. It might make sense to you. Just maybe.

In the meantime, the wolves and elk and deer and moose will carry on. Just like always.

Brent

links are not working

explain why G&F want to now hunt them

explain why our horses are harrased

explain why my neighbors dogs got attacked

explain why horses were killed

explain why F&G we caught transporting wolves into a ranchers calving pasture

I live here Brent .. you just visit

The links work

The G&F want to hunt them because they make a good game animal. Why not?

Your horses are harassed? Oh MY! So what?

Explain why none of my dogs were ever touched in 25 yrs in wolf country? Even though wolves killed deer within sight of the cabin. Again, Oh MY! Coyotes kill dogs, bears kill dogs, sheep herders kill dogs, lions kill dogs. Get used to it.

G&F caught transporting wolves to calving pasture that sounds like a good one. Were they too old to walk? I presume the G&F folks are now resting quietly in a federal pen for this federal felony.

Tough Ric, learn a little.

You read dozens of books but apparently understand none of them.

Read again.

Brent

See thats the trouble with you armchair westerners you think you know whats good for the places you don't have to live...you are no better then the tree huggers...

horses harrased so what ... well kiss my a$$ brent I make my living here..with my horses, I have lost foals due to our mares being harrased and absorbing the fetus... I have had mares so stressed they terminated.... so what you say....it cost me thousands of dollars but I get nothing because I have to proove it...they told me it was coyotes.. yotes don't chase horses....if they kill my horses I get nothing not a cent... thanks to you buddy!!

easy for you to determine what is best for us who live here... Jesus Christ.. Brent... who are you to know what is best for us...

I know Ric, you gained all your knowledge of the world by birthrite. Still haven't figure it out have you.

Life is tough. Are you going to exterminate all the bears, lions and coyotes too?

Like I said, read a little and look around. You aren't making much sense. You worry about wolves but nothing else, you have no clue how the rest of the world that has wolves has managed how to live with them. You can't imagine how the WY once got along with wolves. You really can't see much beyond your own nose.

Hang in there, 'cause the wolves aren't goin' away anytime soon.

Brent

I didn't have the problem 5 years ago...

If YOU re-read you'll see I agree we need them... just not as many as we have....

there are other problems I realize this and I have also typed it... so feel free to go back...

You must be in politics , out of work, retired...or sit in the office with no supervison...

funny the big cats don't bother our horses.. the grizzly's don't either... and we have lotsa them too....

but heyyou have read all this literature and by God it must be true because they would never print a lie would they...

but what the hell do I know I live here...

always wondered what the world looked like through rose colored glasses...

that Iowa corn sure does make good shine don't it...

Enjoy Ric,
In the meantime, while you figure out how many wolves you need, and you do the work, and publish it all, I'll go with the science that already exists.

What would you propose? Hunting wolves? I reckon that will happen. But it won't happen overnight either and the nights are long in the world of population dynamics.

In the meantime, if hunters were a little more supportive of the wolf re-introduction, then I reckon their credibility would be higher with the nonhunting, nonantihunting crowd that will make the majority decisions via public pressure and their votes. But hunters are doing a good job of shooting themselves in the foot on this issue. RMEF is one of the exceptions apparently.

Brent

I just want the right ot protect what I have... right now I don't.. but that doesn't seem to bother you...
I am not a biologist but my wife does have a degree in Science and Biology... maybe we should sell everything and live in a teepee and conduct our own scientific survey...
Your trouble is you have no real experience here.. just a few weeks here and there hunting... and what you've seen has given you enough data to take a stand... and then as ignorate as you are you belive all the published information reguarding these issues... and Clinton didn't inhale either... and blow-jobs arn't sexual relations... and the media as wellas gov't officials always tell the truth to the general public...

and your friends at RMEF.... ask them the background of some of the executives.. and their stand on firearms.. the truth may suprise you...

yes they purchase land.. and I donated for several years.. but things arn't always as they appear...

oh and by the way ever hear what happend on the Elk refuge in Jackson this year... kinda a smorgasboard for a big pack...

you just sit your tight little fanny in that big ole computer chair and feel safe a night knowing that you have all the answers.. meanwhile guys like me will worry about how I'll protect my horses and ths years foal crop... but you have all the money you need and the 10's of thousands I have invested in my horses is just expedable assets and hell I could probobly write it off ...

hell Brent go buy yourself a case of Scotch... so you can watch this whole thing unfold from the comfort of you home 1100 miles away... on me... checks in the mail.... no really .. I'm good for it.. the gov't thinks so....

Ric,
You don't have any understanding of predator-prey dynamics any more than I have what you call an understanding of what being there is like. You have given NO data. None. And data is a tricky beast. It takes work to get, and more work to understand. If want to do learn you can. But if you don't you won't. I know that Clinton didn't inhale, unlike our current president. And I know that Iraq really does have WMDs and blew up the World Trade towers, because I know, that saying so, makes it so - just like saying wolves will bring the end of the world.

Like you say, "things arn't always as they appear" and indeed that is the way it often is with predators.

Glad to hear that the wolves found the dining room at that Jackson Hole barrel shoot. Now if THAT is what you call "hunting" then you and I differ on more than wolves. If you want the USFS and USFWS and WDG&F to raise you some more targets like the Jackson herd, then expect a difference of opinion.

You got horses and they get eaten if you don't do something. That's true, and I understand the issue. We have all kinds of livestock in these parts and cattle, horses etc. are raised by many in places with woves and sometimes they get eaten too if one doesn't move them in when they are vulnerable. Nothing new there. Yeah, it's work, but I'll be you can do it.

Life is a terrible; thing it is hard; but in the end, it manages. You will too I bet. But you gotta get over the complaining and get on with it. Cause the wolves are there.

Brent

PS. I don't do Scotch, but I'll consider it.

PPS. The wolves are coming here to, and we have a horse (only one so far) and dogs and cats and live in the timber, etc etc. Sleep easier knowing we will get our's too. Just a few more years.

PPPS. Now do tell us about those jokers that got jailed for transporting wolves to someone's calving ground. I want to hear more about that. I also want to hear more about how nothing else but wolves kill horses and dogs. Damn I knew those weren't coyotes in Kansas! They were wolves that killed my neighbor's dogs.

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
And I know that Iraq really does have WMDs and blew up the World Trade towers,

Iraq blew up the Towers? Those BASTARDS!!!

Oh boy the spongebob rainbow boys are back in full force. Good to see the dean of the wolves and the one and only arm chair expert, kamogariborealbrent!

Ric, go back about two pages and try to follow these idiots. They refuse to read news articles by the G&F, USF&W. They read into it what they want. I don't fear the wolf will wipe everything out nor will they end hunting, but the wolf is having an effect on elk and moose in North West Wy. Hunters will take the matter into thier own hands in time. Not wholesale slaughter but some control. I am sure it is already happening. These "experts" kamogariborealbrent refuse to read any facts, but the ones they want to. Selective reading.

Never mind that every outfitter in NW Wy is saying the same thing, fewer elk, fewer or no moose. I won't decree to be an expert, nor that I am quite learned like Brent, (He is a teacher or something at some kind of college in Iowa), nor will I proffess to be an expert hunter, superb outdoorsman like Kamo gari, touts Brent as being. Just common sense, real true stories by ranchers, outfitters and people who really live in wolf areas. People who spend more than two weeks a year in the mountains.

Ric, your right, Brent is wrong! And Boreal and kamo gari, are his puppets and probably one and the same. Brent will not listen to logic, just data. Every one involved in the wolf issue has data, one says good, one says bad!
I agree with the bad.

Boreal has made some brilliant Posts being from Minnesota I have found them especially entertaining. Thank you! Brent also made an extremely insiteful point in His first post when he correctly said that Wolves would have entered Yellowstone even without being Transplanted there. I have heard tons of Bitching about the stupidity of stocking those Wolves in Yellowstone every time Im out West hunting and I tend to agree with them but I believe Brent is correct in that Wolves would have ended up there anyway. Here on my Farm in Minnesota we now have Coyote. We have never ever had Coyote in this Area. Coyotes are taking Dogs and Cats in the Upper Class Suburb of Eagan. Now you see Possum dead along the Road all the time. We have never ever had Possum in Minnesota. Bear are for the first time in Recent history coming into Southern Minnesota even into the Northern Suburbs of Mineapolis.40 years ago if we saw a deer during the hunting season it was a great season now you are afraid to drive the roads at night without running into one.

Wolves were here before the release. An elk hunter from Worland Wy. shot a wolf south of the park. Jerry Kyser. He shot it and turned himself in. Told the USF&W there were 3 and he shot one. It took about a year to sort it out. The USF&W finally admitted it was a wolf. Little did we know the release plan was in place. This was in 91 or 92. Isolated incident they said,. Even though Jerry said he seen 3. and the Urbigkits of Riverton had vidoed a small pack in the Dubious area and it was aired on the evening news.

The USF&W had to deny all of it because they wanted to have the reintorduction and a population of resident wolves would have stopped the releases.

These were true incidents, in the newspapers, on the G&F website, and in the news. Jerry actually got the wolf hide back and had it tanned. He also made a poster of him holding the hide with a qoute, "There are no wolves in Wyoming" "Clinton won't raise taxes" and Elvis lives in Jackson". He sold quite few at $9 bucks a piece. We have one in our office.

And if everyone thinks, that if the wolf is delisted, and we will be able to hunt them, I will never believe it. To many Brents out there.

Looks like kamogariborealbrentminuch now! Growing like Pinocheo's nose!