IV, that was a good post and I think you are right, the wolf/prey cycle will go on, with ungalates rebounding and wolf numbers dropping in time. Thanks for a real, non-gut,non-emotional, reply. But, I am not sure that cycle will occur in my life time. And as for hunting, I honestly doubt that will take place in the near future. I use MN, Mich., and Wis. as examples. They have had wolves for over 40 years and still little or no hunting.

I guess with me the big bitch is having them shoved down our throats with no recourse. This Jim Beers has hit the nail on the head and his opinion is backed up with real credentials, unlike the liberal wisdom of Brent and his clones! Which is unsubstantiated or documented. They read the reports from thier like people, and we read ours. The only difference is ours are right!!!!!!!

IV, seriously, do a search and read about Jim Beers and his reports. I was under the impression that all USF&W people were pompus ass holes like Brent and Ed Bangs! It is to bad Beers was forced to retire. It stands to reason since it was done under the Klinton administration.

Boreal and Brent, your frustrations have nothing to do with this forum, I am sure it has more to do with Michael Jackson and similar convictions!

There was hunting of wolves in MN and Wisconsin until ESA was passed in 1973. Mn even had a bounty on them until then. We have more wolves now then we had back then and the anti's still see no need to control the numbers.

There would be less anger and more willness to have them around if there were a hunting season and one could kill them if they were attacking ones pets and live stock. The ones causeing the trouble would soon be done away with and the rest would be afraid of coming close to humans because they could be hunted.

We are increaseing wolf numbers by 40 to 100 (DNR numbers) a year the population goal of 350 here in Wis has been long meet. Most likely higher.

One only has to know that if there are 30 breeding females out of the 400 plus the state says. Let say each of them only has 4 pups a year at is a 120 extra per year. 30 breeding females out of 400 seem like a low number to me. if only 10 percent we breeding that would give on 40 bitchs and 160 pups per year if 20 percent were breeding bitchs that would be 80 and 320 extra pups a year. the numbers really mutiply real fast even at a modest increase.

We need to kill 50 to 80 A low number in my opinon) a year just to keep the numbers under controld. Most likely even more.

Will we ever be able to it I hope so and I speak out for any chance I get but the anti's have more voice in the media then the pro hunt group but we are fighting for reasonable controls.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
IV, that was a good post and I think you are right, .

OK, I get it. Nice trolling.

Tell us more about Michael Jackson, Kudu the great master baiter. I'm sure you have lots of "first-hand" info.

I know wolves are scary, but look out for those scary bears too. Be afraid, be very afraid.

cumminscowboy...

quote:

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

Amen to that! The answer is SSS...

Sorry BOREal, you put the bore in Michaels wet dreams. By the way, how is the trial going?


No trolling on my part, I agree with IV. You see he is for real and studies these kind of things, unlike you and your butt buddy Brent. The thumbs up is for you, and I am sure we know where you stick yours!

Very good point about how we may never see wolf hunting, from my perspective the issues should not be focused on whether wolves are healthy for the ecosystem or not, because to continue that debate against the pro-wolf people simply seems to be a diversion from the real issue- should they be managed by hunting seasons and the like? I have gone to so many lectures and meetings where I have chummed up to them and agreed that wolves are a great idea etc. etc. and you ought to to see their faces drop after about 10 minutes into the conversation when I tell them I am looking forward to the day that we can buy (or draw for) a wolf tag." 'I thought you were for the wolf?' they often ask with a puzzled look on their faces. I then have to go into the whole we are the dominant predator on this planet. Our actions have the greatest impact on any species so to fail to manage them properly is akin to burying our heads in the sand. I am quite comfortable in my role as a killing predator, I don't "harvest"- I kill. Not everyone on this planet is comfortable doing it, we all have different roles to play but I am very comfortable in mine. They know that when and if the debate shifts away from "are wolves healthy for the ecosystem" (which as I have agreed-may NOT be the case-we just don't really know) that the debate will then become one of management via hunting and most dont want that at all. They would rather that those who oppose the wolves keep debating the validity of them when in fact the wolves are 99% likely to remain and continue to be. Once the debate really kicks in to high gear as far as hunting them goes- only then will progress be made towards that end. At least thats how I see it today.
Also, I am actually a new user, not a fake name for someone else etc. Very interesting forum though. I was actually looking for wildcatting stuff rather than wildlife stuff but this a cool forum. It seems very active which is unusal but indicative of good moderation and participation.

IV

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Sorry BOREal, you put the bore in Michaels wet dreams. By the way, how is the trial going?


No trolling on my part, I agree with IV. You see he is for real and studies these kind of things, unlike you and your butt buddy Brent. The thumbs up is for you, and I am sure we know where you stick yours!

Liar.
Jeez, Kudu. You are getting real boring. Being a master baiter, gay expert, and world-renowned troll, you should be able to do better than that. You must be a Wimpodite. Its no wonder that everybody is ignoring you.



Here's one last picture of scary wolves in Yellowstone park for you.

Boreal!
Must not be to boring, you keep replying!


I can't quite figure out the troll part, as you do the same. No intention to troll, I just agree with IV! And with most of the posters, except you and Brent and his imaginary friends!

I reiterate, the wolf was illegally transplanted here, they serve no good to the hunter, farmer,rancher, or those of us that use the outdoors, there is a hidden agenda from the people that supported the wolf issue, as: limit the use of the outdoors, and reduce big game numbers that will in turn limit and reduce hunting opportunities,and to the tune of millions of dollars. And only to cost millions more!!!!

Take two minutes from your masterbaiting and read about this guy, a real biologist, and past employee, 30 years worth, of the USF&W Servcie!
http://www.vlrc.org/authors/13.html

Given the gestation period, and the availabity of food, there is about to be 2000 wolves. Time to rename the thread? Start a new one?

According to the USF&W and an article that was in the local paper the numbers have leveled off and is only growing by 6% per year!???

So we need to rename it 1060 wolves, unless it compounds then it would be 1063.6 wolves!

Hello;
At least here in Canada,we can deal with the problem. I did my persoal bit this last week. Got a call from a rancher on the edge of the forestry, where wolves had killed two newborn calves. things were so bad they were running through the yard and they had to re-locate a couple of hundred head of calving cows into corrals to ensure their safety. A night spent overlooking a couple of carcasses got me a gut shot when he tok a step and I lost him in heavy snow. Went back the next day, looking for my friend and stumbled on a pack of four, including 2 black ones. A little stalking and a little preadator calling put one of them in the bag. As I was skinning him out, wolves were howling all around me. I went back out on Friday and found things hadn't improved. Wolves killed another calf and the Fish Cops were setting traps. Oh yes, one of my wife's friends keeps asking me, why do you hunt them? They are endangered you know. Dead calves? probably the ranch dogs.
Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams:
Hello;
At least here in Canada,we can deal with the problem. I did my persoal bit this last week. Got a call from a rancher on the edge of the forestry, where wolves had killed two newborn calves. things were so bad they were running through the yard and they had to re-locate a couple of hundred head of calving cows into corrals to ensure their safety. A night spent overlooking a couple of carcasses got me a gut shot when he tok a step and I lost him in heavy snow. Went back the next day, looking for my friend and stumbled on a pack of four, including 2 black ones. A little stalking and a little preadator calling put one of them in the bag. As I was skinning him out, wolves were howling all around me. I went back out on Friday and found things hadn't improved. Wolves killed another calf and the Fish Cops were setting traps. Oh yes, one of my wife's friends keeps asking me, why do you hunt them? They are endangered you know. Dead calves? probably the ranch dogs.
Grizz

Sounds like fun. I like hunting wolves. I'd "ride herd" for any rancher with a wolf problem any day, just to be able to hunt wolves. And since when are wolves endangered in Canada?

Ranchers in most of Idaho and Montana who catch a wolf chasing livestock on their property can legally shoot it dead. They can "deal with the problem" too.


http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/02/05/news/02oahead.txt


http://news.fws.gov/newsreleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=FE24D7AB-1143-3066-4071C26E625EB741

As soon as Wyoming gets with the program, they will be able to do the same. I have to admit that Kudu and his imaginary friends has changed my mind about one thing concerning wolves. I used to be positive that states should manage their game, whether or not on Federal lands. After listening to some on this forum, I'm starting to think "to hell with the states" (at least Wyoming). Its federal land, and all of us should have equal say on how its managed. Maybe we SHOULD protect predators from asswipes like Kudu. Maybe we could even kick the Wyoming ranchers off some of the more sensitive federal land so we can have more wildlife. That could also lessen wolf/human conflict. Well done Kudu.


Yellowstone wolves running free! In your faces, bad boys.

I did some research on Jim Beers, He brings up some valid points with respect to "invasive" species. (re:his recent article about his float trip in Montana) I have often wondered myself at what point does a species lose the "invasive" title? Europeans could be considered an invasive (sub)-species by many scientists logic.

But I also believe Mr. Beers is trying to generalize a much more complicated issue. He is correct when he points out that Hungarian Partridge, Pheasant and Bass (in Western N. America) are exotic species and by that general definition why are they not being "removed" by the USFWS or some other governng body. I think the answer to that is encased in flaws on both sides of the invasive species argument. First, whenever a group offers up the justification for removal solely because something is "non-native or exotic" we should definetly question the idea. Generalizations like that are designed for the masses who do not want to think. They want to read a short 30 second soundbyte in a pare or magazine and trust what they hear. For those people, generalizations work great. Unforunately, most voting Americans fall into that group.

On the other side of the coin, Mr. Beers argues that because these generalizations are used, it negates all of the arguments against removing non-native species. He contradicts himself in his own argument. Judging by his overall body of work he no doubt would recognize that, and probably did so with intention-(based upon the fact that he is writing for an organization with an agenda-as most organizations on either side of the issue do-) he knows that most people that feel the way he does, read his article and will trust and conform to his opine. I do not condemn him for that at all, thats just the way we all know the world works.

I guess my point (if there is one!) is that he does offer some intersting points to evaluate, I don't necessarily agree with his conspiracy theory stuff but very interesting reading nontheless, thanks for pointing out his work.......

quote:

As soon as Wyoming gets with the program, they will be able to do the same. I have to admit that Kudu and his imaginary friends has changed my mind about one thing concerning wolves. I used to be positive that states should manage their game, whether or not on Federal lands. After listening to some on this forum, I'm starting to think "to hell with the states" (at least Wyoming). Its federal land, and all of us should have equal say on how its managed. Maybe we SHOULD protect predators from asswipes like Kudu. Maybe we could even kick the Wyoming ranchers off some of the more sensitive federal land so we can have more wildlife. That could also lessen wolf/human conflict. Well done Kudu.

Boreal, Any time dipshit! Why would the state of Wyoming want to manage the wolf the same way they are forced to manage the grizzly bear? Answer that great guru of the north! Wyoming spends almost $1,000,000 a year of hunters tag money to manage grizzlys, Wyoming has the most bears of any lower 48 state, with a population that is increasing and no hunting. There are 4 times as many grizzlys in Wy now than there was when it was legal to shoot one and still no hunting. It is money spent with no return. What makes you think it should be any different with the wolf?????? I don't think the state should be forced to manage a federally instituted program, even though you and your liberal butt buddies think we should.

I will be watching for you at Micheals trial!

And if states with federal land lose thier rights to manage game it will go for all states. Alasaka included. How much federal land is in Alaska?

Yes they increase lets say at 6% per year the 1060 this year 1123 next 1190 then 1261 then 1336 then 1416 then 1500 then 1590then 1685 then 1785 at this point the wolves are increasing at more then a 100 per year big jumps in population

I would bet they are increase at more then 6 percent.

There well only be enough for the pro wolf growd when the game populations are reduced so man can not hunt anymore.

pds, I don't believe the 6% either, but that is the number that Mike Jemenez quoted in the newspaper. I really don't think they know how many wolves they have either. How could they? They only can only get an accurate count on the collard ones. The rest have to be + or - a 100 or so. They can't even get an accurate count on the elk. Estimates!!!!

It is relatively easy (but very expensive) to get an accurate population estimate based upon genetic heterozygosity levels in most species.( ELk, deer, wolves- pretty much any species that has had microsatellites defined)

I suspect that one of the challenges to Grizzly management is that even though the population may be at a certain level (say for the sake of argument it is 1000)it is not the number of animals that is important, it is the genetic composition of those animals. for example, a population of 1000 animals lives in a set habitat for 1000's of years, for whatever reason it shrinks to 20 or 30 animals; then through recovery it grows back to 1000. An important consideration is the genetics of the new animals. The new population of 1000 animals does not have anywhere near the genetic diversity that the original population had. Most of the 1000 new animals will be very similar to the 20 or 30 "founders." Genetic diversity is hugely important. Thus, in order to get back to the same level of genetic diversity that you may want to have, it may take 20 years and/or a population increase to 3000 animals before you have it. (I hope that makes sense)So, it is not just the number of animals in a population that is important to consider but overall genetics of the population.

With respect to the wolf population growing at 6%, that will probably not always occur, at some point a limiting factor will come into play and the growth rate may even decrease or go below 0 some years (resulting in a net loss of the population). That limiting factor could be lowereing of prey populations, hunting of carnivores, climate etc. This is where management comes in: what is the right balance to keep all of the stakeholders of these lands happy; non-hunting recreational users happy, game hunters happy; and provide the optimum health to both carnivores and herbivores? That is the million dollar question.......

IV

1000 or 3000 wolves of the same genetic back ground eat the same amount as a 1000 or 3000 wolves of differant gentic back ground. It sill is a 1000 or 3000 wolves

Why is genetic diversity so important. It is a red herring thrown out by the pro wolf group to beable to increase the numbers. Seems to me the wolves are doing well with this so called small genetic pool they are increasing in number and area. So what is the number of wolfs needed. Only trouble is the pro wolf group do not want to set a number or if they do they want to change it when it gets there.

As far as the 6% some years most likely more some less the 6% is a avg. the limiting factor right now is how long it well take them to fill up available land. Being protected they well expand until they use up the prey animals and start to starve to death.

By then it well be to late to save the elk deer ect for Human use. The goal of a lot of the pro wolf group is to get rid of human interference.(ie humans are bad wolves are good)

Ones sees in the hard core pro wolf group a very anti human theme. They would like belive that it is possible to get back to where this world was before the white man came. They can only do this by getting rid of human influence. (IE humans bad wolves and other animals good)

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
This is where management comes in: what is the right balance to keep all of the stakeholders of these lands happy; non-hunting recreational users happy, game hunters happy; and provide the optimum health to both carnivores and herbivores? That is the million dollar question.......

IV

And the manager gets beat up by all sides. But we're used to it, and grow pretty thick skins after a few years. Luckily, the hard core loud mouths generally are of little consequence. Name calling and foot stomping gets attention but is not seriously responded to. Reasoned scientific presentation usually wins in the end. That must be quite disturbing for people like Kudu. Poor fellow.

Boreal, the scientific information that IV posts helps me understand the situation and gives me a new perspective on the issue of wolves and bears. His is based on real life experience as well as education and training. Not liberal poo poo that spews from your and Brents finger tips. I also put some stock in what Jim Beers writes. He is on the radical fringe, willing to put his career on the line against Big Brother!!!! So the scientific info it is not near as disturbing to me as the anti wolf beliefs, and truth is to you! I can cope, and appreciate IV's information. It is sad you can't cope with your sexual deviation!!!!

PDS , IV was talking about grizzlys and genetic diversification. Not so much the wolf. I would bet the wolf will not suffer the same problem of genetic diversification as the grizzly. The wolf has already proved it will roam wide territories while the Wyoming bears are farely isolated and don't roam as far and wide as the wolf will.

IV why doesn't the USF&W transplant a bear or two to help with the genetics? Or is it not that simple?

(quote)
Ones sees in the hard core pro wolf group a very anti human theme. They would like belive that it is possible to get back to where this world was before the white man came. They can only do this by getting rid of human influence. (IE humans bad wolves and other animals good)

PDS, I agree whole heartedly with your last paragraph! I to think the same goal is in place and the momentum will continue to grow in that direction of thought.

quote:

Originally posted by boreal:
Reasoned scientific presentation usually wins in the end.

Boreal if you believe what I have quoted you as posting then explain why Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan was not accepted by the Feds when all but one expert scientific wolf managers who reviewed it said it was viable?

quote:

Originally posted by Elkslayer:

quote:

Originally posted by boreal:
Reasoned scientific presentation usually wins in the end.

Boreal if you believe what I have quoted you as posting then explain why Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan was not accepted by the Feds when all but one expert scientific wolf managers who reviewed it said it was viable?

Elkslayer,
I hope you read my posts to understand what I believe, not take what Kudu says to be what I believe. First, I think that the Wyoming plan is a good way to manage the wolves in Wyoming. I agree with them. I've said that several times before. I'm not a protectionist.
As I have posted elsewhere, the Feds are accepting "baby steps" for the change in who manages wolves. They are not ready to accept Wyoming's plan because it went too fast. Now that Wyoming's suit against the Feds has been dismissed, maybe the process can proceed again. Lets hope so.
Reasoned science will prevail in the end means IN THE END! This is not the end, the first step was not the end, the next step will not be the end, but the end may be near.

Good day!

pds- To answer why genetic diversity is so important would be difficult with a forum like this, it took me 2 years of upper level classes to fully understand it. But, in a nutshell- organisms all have 2 possibilities at any given point of their DNA (1 from the father and 1 from the mother) only 1 trait is "expressed"; this organism can pass along either of the 2 traits to its offspring however. Having gentic differences in the population is the mechanism by which natural selection and evolution can occur. In many cases, the mother and the father will contribute identical genetic information at any given point on the DNA. This is called homozygosity (different genetic info is called heterozygosity) When a population has high levels of heterozygosity in its genetic make-up its evolutionary ability to adapt to changing environment is greater. It is true that wolves wander much greater distances so genetic diversity is not as tough to maintain as it is with grizzlies- and yes current projects are underway to introduce new animals into the various depressed genepools. In many cases it only takes 2 or 3 per year to accomplish.

I agree that the very hard core "pro-wolf" people may have an agenda that they are working towards with regards to hunters. However, I spend a significant amount of time around researchers, professors and students who are moving into wildlife management and I can tell you with 100% accuracy that hunting big game is never going to be threatened to the point of which you speak. Every single professor, researcher etc. is very aware of the role hunter dollars play in funding their research. I was very surprised when I got here.

Both the anti-wolf and the pro-wolf extreme groups are very good at stirring up media hype about their views, and it does have strong influences on the public perceptions. In the end "good science wins" as (I think Boreal stated?) With respect Wyoming, we just are not at the end yet, politics is holding things up. I would suspect that people involved in the process who absolutely do not want to see wolf controlled via hunting have something to do with it, but that can only go on so long.(Thats just a guess..)

Finally, it would be next to impossible for wolves to decimate elk or deer herds from Montana, Wyoming or Idaho to the point of extermination. Hunter surplus may go down, but humans are probably the only species capable of wiping them out.

IV

Bottom line why the Wy plan wasn't accepted was the classification of the wolf. Trophy game and preditor. Ed Bangs, who holds the cards, didn't like that classification. He wanted the classification of preditor thrown out, the state refused. I take sides with the state. But I also don't want to see the state have to pay to manage the wolf, the feds put them here, let them pay for them.

If a season was opened today, no limits, no season, or means of killing, with the exception of poison and aireal gunning, you would not kill all of the wolves. No way, no how! You will not convince me of that ever!!!!

Right now it is a pissing match between Ed Bangs and the State of Wy.

IV, what is your oppinion of transplanting a few grizzlys from say, Alaska or some where, to help with the genetic diversification? Would it work? Would it do any good? Or is it not that simple?

Transplanting is a good idea, they may be doing it already. Taking animals from Alaska could be difficult due to expense and they are also very different genetically from the lower 48 bears. The best place to get them is in Canada from the Rockies which is what Yellowstone is trying to do at this point.
The classification "predator" is another issue. I prefer to use the term "carnivore" so in this case I have to side with the Feds. There are a couple of reasons for this: 1) The term "predator" came into wide use to describe large and medium size carnivores during the 1920's when various state and federal agencies decided it would be wise to control the numbers of carnivores in and around the Kaibab Plateau of northern Arizona. In order to influence public support, the agencies began referring to them as "predators". This canged the perception of the public so that they get their plan approved. The idea was that the removal of bears, cougars, coyotes etc. would allow the mule deer population to increase substantially. It did, but came crashing down when deer populations ate themselves right out of a productive landscape, as soon as the first year of less than optimal weather with respect to the conditions needed for strong vegetation growth, the deer starved off literally by the thousands. A very good book to read about it is called "In the Absence of Predators" by Christian Young. Its cool because it provides great background as to why hunting is valuable as a mangement tool and it is not "left wing environmentalist" propoganda (or anti-wolf, carnivore, predator-whatever you want to call them) either. To me it seems to be a good balance and focuses more on facts than on opinions. 2) The public perception today is that when they here "predator hunting" they envision a bunch of us riding around in trucks with AR-15's shotting and laughing it up while killing every "predator" in site. Many perceive that this is wasteful and fail to support it. If we call them "game" species, or "carnivores" I think it gives the public more of a "this is done in the name of biologically sound management" impression. I am not suggesting that we completely try and cater to the softness of the general public; for example I never use the term "harvest" I always say kill, because that is what we are doing, and to say any less gives the impression that I am "ashamed" to kill, and, I am not. But, I am rambling again. I really think that if we take the side of science and are mindful of media influences etc, that in the end we will get to the point that we (hunters- I can't speak for ranchers, as I said before they have a different agenda than I)will get what we want by besting the techniques used by the other side. Helthy wildlife populations and a strong position with respect to carnivore hunting as a means to control poulations.

IV

Thanks!

One thing that you don't realize IV, is that wolves inhabiting areas of WY under the designation of a "predator" would allow for the unregulated take of those animals. Critters classified in this state as predators can be taken at any time, by any means (a few exceptions), without a license.

Your vision of Wyoming folks driving around in trucks with AR-15's shooting at wolves would become reality. Coyotes, skunks, coons, porcupines (for example) fall under this classification, and currently may be killed by any means, with a vehicle, from a vehicle, etc. This is a sore spot with the feds, because after spending all that $$ to bring wolves back to Wyoming, the last thing they want is for them to have the same status as a skunk. Unfortunately, too many folks who didn't know better (Fremont County wackos) supported this position, instead of a "trophy" game status across the state. At least with the trophy game status, wolves outside the GYE could be managed loosly, (with liberal seasons running year long with no mortality quota to keep numbers low). If for whatever reason wolf numbers declinded in the GYE, a "trophy" status would allow for some flexibility in management to keep them off the ESA and keep within the pack criteria set by the USFWS.

Essentially what has happened now, is that our thick headed decision to go for "predator" status over "trophy", has cost us one court decision and will keep this mess tied up in court instead of getting these things off the ESA and to my taxidermist.

In Wyoming, there is no sound biology in wolves...only political manuvering. What is even more unfortunate, is that our cash strapped G&F is stuck on the sidelines and taking some of the blame for something they had nothing to do with in the first place.

MG

Oh, and to correct KUDU's "I am not sure that cycle will occur in my life time. And as for hunting, I honestly doubt that will take place in the near future. I use MN, Mich., and Wis. as examples. They have had wolves for over 40 years and still little or no hunting."

This is the type of jargon with no factual basis that gets folks up in arms!

In Michigan last year, 500,000 whitetail deer were harvested...which is the same amount as was estimated in the entire state in 1970. Seems like they are still having good hunting to me.

MG

Perhaps I misunderstand your post but I do realize that the designation "predator" allows for the taking at mostly anytime in an unregulated fashion which is why I don't believe that it is a good idea to designate them as such. Maybe I wasn't clear. But anyway, it is not necessarily "Wyoming" folks that I envision in trucks etc. I think that is what the public envisions. (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming- I don't think the public cares geographically where they are coming from.) Sorry if my post was confusing.
With respect to KUDU I believe he is referring to 40 years without wolf hunting, not hunting overall. You are absolutely right about jargon with no factual basis- on both sides of the issue it only serves to lengthen the process.

quote:

I use MN, Mich., and Wis. as examples. They have had wolves for over 40 years and still little or no hunting."

And to correct the man that put the MG in MGD and the bourp in bourbon, if I have told you once I have told you twice, lay off the booze before you try to type!!!!

Thanks IV,

That is what I meant, they have had wolves longer than 40 years and still no wolf hunting! What makes anyone think because Wyoming takes over management they will be hunted here? No facts or studies to say they will. Just more dead weight for an already cash strapped WY G&F. The same as the grizzly bear!

Madgoatfuckers whitetail scenario holds no water. Considering the current makeup of most northern states,being that of subdivisions and semi rural farming along with major metro areas. Whitetails have very little exsposure to predators such as wolves,they instead thrive under the conditions of man. Elk on the other hand have little tolerance for man kind and do better with minimal human contact,which places them in direct contact with large predators.

As for bears sure genetic diversity is important,but by far the most limiting factor in reproduction and population growth,is the number of mature animals that are of breeding age. When a bear must be 4 to 5 years old to reproduce,you've drastically limited your potential for population growth within that species.

With wolves,you have a canine that fucks like a rabbit. The prowolf assholes will tell you that only alpha members reproduce,but thats been proven as bullshit. So you're left with an animal that will continue to reproduce until it eats itself out of habitat. The chances of it eating itself out of habitat is slim,considering all the domestic livestock that is available.

There are no secrets to the wolf or unknowns. The state of wyoming paid out millions of dollars up until the 1940's to eliminate wolves. In some years more money was spent on wolf management then on the university. The state still survived and the wolf was eliminated. The WYGF pisses away more money every year on meaningless shit and still manages to survive and screw the public out of more money. A little wolf management isn't going to put them under.

If the wolf is placed on the predator list,then funds from the USDA will be used to manage wolves. On average the usda and dept. of interior dumps about 30 million dollars annually into predator control. Some years its much more. You'd have the goverment both spending money to promote wolves and control them. Which is just about stupid enough for the goverment to go for.

So then the real question is what are the limiting factors that keep bears from getting into the breeding age class? Reproduction is only 1 of 4 parts to the equation with regard to population dynamics (Birth-Immigration-Death and Emmigration) although as you point out it is an important factor.

I also agree that it is ridiculous to pay for wolves and pay to "control" them. Let the ranchers pay for it and if the cost of beef goes up, so be it. (I don't eat much beef anyway.)

Of course the ranchers are going to say that they can't compete in the market because other beef producers may not have to bear the cost of "predator control;" then, my take is that they need to get out of the business because the invisible hand of economics is working as cattle ranching in these areas may not be the most efficient means of beef production.

IV

Idaho Vandal: I'll tell you what I am for! I am for your friends in the government sticking with their promise of 325 Wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho! Not 850 to 1,000 like we now have!
Run the numbers on that and see where the real population increase percentage is at!
The answer to this unanticipated explosion of Wolves was relayed in a newspaer article that I read late last year. In this article the game biologist relayed that the Wolves were increasing at such a dramatic rate because of several reasons! Abundance of food was the least of reasons he felt was the cause of the overpopulation of Wolves. His contention was that the Wolves had not yet settled in to territorial areas and that for some reason not just the female leader of each pack was becoming pregnant but that ALL females in some packs were having litters that each numbered 5, 6 or 7 pups! Figure in to this equation many smaller than normal packs of Wolves (2 or 3 animals) and the population explosion is somewhat explained.
I just referred to one of my Wolf reference books and litters of Wolf pups as large as 14 have been documented! So a Wolf population increase in the Yellowstone area of only 6% a year has not been the norm and I see no evidence the exploding population will "settle down" to the promised 325 total number of Wolves EVER!
Lets don't get to far from the main problem here wadgoat! The Wolves have exploded past what the feds promised us Hunters and the resulting over population is NOW harming the Elk herds in many areas and destroying traditional Hunting opportunities for humans!
ladgoat, avoid that fact as often as your conscience will allow but sooner or later your Elk Hunting opportunities will be affected - in quality or in numbers or both!
And like another poster stated/inquired above those 1,000 Wolves are gonna be eating something!
Unfortunately they like to eat our hard fought for game herds! Yeah they like to eat most all of our game types including verified cases of Bighorn Sheep killings, Moose, Antelope, Mule Deer, Whitetailed Deer AND the Elk!
IdahoVandal, the real question is where the Wolf population is going to stop at and when will our Elk herds be harmed even more? When will they be harmed to the point where the Elk Hunting opportunities for humans becomes drastically curtailed? Maybe you don't care? Maybe you are not a Hunter? Maybe you do not care that the feds are not upholding their promises to Hunters and to the involved states?
I do care about all these things and fear for more bad outcomes from this Wolf over-population!
I do not know where or if you Hunt Big Game and in particular Elk? But if you were in the habit of Hunting Elk in the areas of Montana that the former 19,000 strong Northern Yellowstone Elk herd ranged you would now know and you would be concerned that the Wolves have decimated that herd down to 8,500 Elk in a very short time! Yeah the year the Wolves were brought to the Yellowstone area (1995) the Elk numbered 19,000 in that herd! Now 9-10 years later the herd is at 8,500 animals and UNABLE to sustain it self due to predation and very poor calf survival caused by the Wolves ! By the way let me relay to you specifically that the human Hunting opportunities to Hunt Elk in that area under special permit circumstances has fallen from at or near 3,000 permits each year to 148 permits this year!
That my friend is "the real question"!
Your sloughing off the cost for the federally introduced Wolves onto the ranchers is foolish and iresponsible! Laughable and ludicrous is more appropriate!
sadsackgoat and his green friends in Berkeley, New York City, Missoula and in the federal government should pay for the costs incurred managing their furry friends - the Wolves!
Certainly not ranchers or Hunters!
I also righteously disagree with your contention that Hunting will never be threatened by the greens (and their surrogates the Wolves!) you simply need only to refer to the well documented illustration of what HAS already happened to the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd!
I could care less if Bears are genetically compatible or anything in that vein! I do care that 1,000 Wolves are gonna eat a lot of Elk and other game animals! It has been published that each Wolf eats the bio-mass equivilent of 1.8 Elk per month! Granted the Wolves do not only eat Elk but they do eat and kill a lot of animals! Simply multiply 1,000 Wolves by 1.8 Elk bio-masses (every month!) to get a VERY CLEAR picture of what the real problem - or the real question is!!!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

IdahoVandal: I feel I need to add this - I do not want to describe it as a criticism of you but as a criticism of scholarly and intellectual types in general! These types talk a lot but very often don't get much done - in my opinion.
Let me relay just ONE instance I was involved in where intellectual types and scholars and their cohorts the greens in the federal government really screwed up!
I will begin at the beginning! I was born (1947) and raised on a river in Washington State. Its name is the Cedar River and runs out of the Cascade Range not far from Seattle, Washington then into the ocean (Puget Sound!). This river had one of the most distinctive and beautiful runs of native Steelhead game fish in it! Its not a large river and the run of native fish was not large either 5,000 to 6,000 Steelhead a winter and a smaller run of 1,000 to 2,000 summer Steelhead! These fish like I say were distintively beautiful and distinctively colored. In the know Steelhead fishermen could tell a native Cedar River Steelhead at a glance and could tell where it was caught even if not told. These fish were short and stocky (powerful!) and I relished fishing for them! All went well for many decades until the bounty was taken of off Seals and Sea Lions in Puget Sound! In just a couple of decades the Seals and Sea Lions became Over-populated and many just simply waited at the mouth of the Cedar River (Lake Washington Ship Canal) and began decimating the Steelhead! The runs started to diminish (fish counters made accurate counts of this precious run each year!) and many local sportsmen groups (including mine) raised concerns over the overpopulation of these predators. The scholars and the intellectuals and the greens slowly began arguing how to deal with the dwindling stocks of these irreplaceable fish! They bickered and bantered and wasted time and got nothing done! Meanwhile we concerned sportsmen tried every tactic in the book to try to get the USFWS (they deal with Marine Mammals and such!) to get off their asses and do something before this coveted run of fish was destroyed! These tactics included state and fedral lawsuits. More bickering and blustering and posturing by the intellectuals (by this time we had begun calling them intellectual idiots!) and the greens in various governmental agencies! Finally after several years of blathering the intellectuals and the greens now facing runs of Steelhead that were so small 300 to 400 fish a year, and that were now probably unsustainable, came up with an idea! They played loud music near where the Seals and the Sea Lions preyed on the Steelhead! That didn't work! The runs diminished even more! They (the intellectuals and the greens!) tried fireworks the next year! That didn't work! The runs became desperately small to the point where even the most optimistic sportsman could no longer hold out hope for them! The intellectuals quiveled some more! They came up with a plan to buy a huge Killer Whale decoy to "scare" the Seals and Sea Lions from the area! The decoy cost over $1,000,000.00 and had to be transported from Europe to the estuary of my beloved river! It was tethered in the water and the Seals and the Sea Lions simply swam right past it and fed on the now doomed last vestiges of my beloved Cedar River Steelhead!
This sickening illustration I am relaying only touches on some of the highpoints of the greens bizarre and often "disassociated" ideas and mental processes! Believe me it was a sad and almost surreal situation - often the greens and the intellectuals denied real danger and offered up happy words and blather to stifle the sportsmens concerns!
The final effects of the intellectual posturing and bickering and ignoring of the real and immediate dangers facing that run of Native Steelhead can only be described as sad and unwarranted! Those spectacular fish could have and should have been saved! Instead they are gone forever - I think the term is "EXTINCT"!
The ineffectiveness of the scholars, intellectuals and the green government types was again glaringly exposed to me during this sad situation!
These people were "so smart" they were stupid! Thus the term "intellectual idiots" became reality to many saddened sportmen who will never again be able to fish for that wonderful strain of Steelhead in the Cedar River!
A fucking shame if I may be so vulgar as to point it out that way!
But a lesson learned again for me!
Now Idaho Vandal I am not accusing you (yet) of being an intellectual idiot but I will not hesitate to do so if need be (if you prove yourself to be one!)!
I have seen firsthand what the combination of intellectual idiots, scholars and greens can do to a valuable resource! I am not about to set back and allow it to happen to our Elk herds. Be warned!
I do not trust intellectuals!
I do not trust scholars!
I do not trust greens!
I make pretty good decisions based on my own investigations, data gathering and curiosities!
The sad fact is the over population of Wolves in many areas is destroying our game herds and rendering futile the efforts sportsmen and many state game agencies have put out (for more than 3/4's of a century!) to bring our game herds to recent levels! Only to have them go up in non-productive Wolf-farts!
That is a shame and a waste - reminiscent of other intellectual screw ups I have observed in my lifetime!
Sad!
Thanks for nothing rmef!
Hold into the wind
Varmintguy

Thanks again varmitpussy for enlightening us to the fact that you are a fucking moron.

You said yourself:
"I do not trust intellectuals!
I do not trust scholars!
I do not trust greens!
I make pretty good decisions based on my own investigations, data gathering and curiosities!"

You're right, most of the guys who work managing wildlife on a day to day basis with plenty of degrees behind their names don't know a damn thing. VP, you are the man! I'm just afraid I haven't seen any of your "not so formal" studies published in any form of literature (your crayon drawing don't count).
I saw a cow lay down the other day and then a few hours later it began to snow. Based upon your wonderous, uneducated correlations, when cows lay down = snow storm. Crap, they must stand 9 months out of the year.
Are you from Jordan by chance? You would fit in well there.

MG

dickwadgoat: A typical unintelligble and pointless post from you!
I feel sorry for ignorant personage!
Most of the guys working at the game agencies do not have "plenty of degrees behind their names"! I know many such individuals in many states and most have one or no degree to their credit!
And I will reiterate for your delight -
I do not trust intellectuals!
I do not trust scholars!
I do not trust greens!
Again its a sad state you find yourself in.
Unable to answer or confront even the simplest of questions and contentions posed to you! Yet you expect ANYONE to have any trust or give any creedence to your blatherings!
Go back into your small room and play with yourself!
Once you have can answer the simplest of questions or have any credible information or experiences to add then do so! You have not done so as yet and you only defame yourself with your immature personal attacks! In short you have no credibility and nothing to add here! Just repeatedly making a fool of yourself badgoat is pointless! Take another tact.
Your attempts at defaming anyone else are foolishly espoused. immature and futile!
And again, YOU add nothing to the discussion we adults are having here.
Shame again, on you.
Thanks for nothing rmef!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Intersting political argument. I don't base my argument in politics so rather than banter back and forth on worthless politics let me answer a couple of your questions:

Am I a hunter?
Thats a valid question. And to take it further- Do I support hunting?
Well, I started in 1976. I Hunt deer, elk, bear, cougars (but that has curtailed) coyotes (my personal favorite) waterfowl (I handload BIsmuth-what a bitch!), upland birds and turkey (they are much smarter than I gave them credit for) rabbits.
I handload for all of my rifles, shotguns etc.( Aint easy getting x-bulets to shoot good, but once their dialed in-look out!)
I blackpowder hunt once in awhile (depending on the seasons)
I am crazy about wildcatting (ever heard of .257 WRAITH?)
I buy licenses in 2 states every year and hunt them both.
I volunteer to teach hunter safety 6 times per year in two states.
I host a weekly radio show in a liberal college town where I am probably the only conservative voice in the local media; regularly discuss 2nd amendment rights and hunting rights.
I gave up a $70,000 retail job to pursue a gaduate degree so that I may research the declining mule deer herds in the west (I think its genetic introgression.....)
I run a non-profit group called "Back to Camp" which specializes in helping people who have becom paraplegic through accidental causes get back into hunting (try pushing a wheelchair down a logging road)
I hunt on average 100-150 days per year.
I don't suck the dicks of the liberals by referring to killing as "harvesting" its killing anyway you look at it-and I'm not ashamed of it.
Are you a hunter?

Irresponsible to burden the ranchers and hunters with the cost of wolves?

I guess if the government paying to support a small minority group is your argument, I have to disagree. That sounds like socialism to me. I prefer to the let the free-market and capitalism decide the most efficient means of production. But socialism has its value if properly applied I guess.

Good discussion to have in any case. I have a few more questions/answers for you but those will have to wait until later....gotta go!

IV