WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

[Shrek]

So you can hunt in an intact as possible ecosystem with ungulates that behave like ungulates rather than livestock?

Ecosystems are dynamic. Whatever the system is is what it is. Nostalgic desires to mythologize and recreate a long past ecosystem is infantile. Humans have long ago displaced the wolf as the apex predator. The only real question is do we farm wolves too and I don't think that is in my or any one else's best interest.

 

[Ray]

I like equality and fairness. The Feds should spread the love and reintroduce apex predators and game animals into all their historic ranges, not just the western states. Wolves, cougars, bison, and elk all over the eastern states like when the Pilgrims arrived. Its the right thing to do. And we would not have to put up with east coasters lamenting that they wished the could see a wolf, cause there is one in their yard right now eating their poodle. Its what this nation is all about, equality.

 

[TraderMike]

So you can hunt in an intact as possible ecosystem with ungulates that behave like ungulates rather than livestock?

so you mean to imply that the elk and deer I hunt in CO behave like livestock which I take to mean they are stupid/easy/less challenging than the ungulates in regions that are inhabited by wolves. Are there any guys from the wolf infested states that care to corroborate this assertion? I have not personally had the good fortune to hunt the northern states with the exception of north west Wyoming, right on the eastern boundary of YNP before the wolves. Of course I do understand that I am privileged to hunt a rather large elk herd in CO and that the more animals there are in your area the odds are better for seeing/harvesting.

 

[tri2hunt]

I like equality and fairness. The Feds should spread the love and reintroduce apex predators and game animals into all their historic ranges, not just the western states. Wolves, cougars, bison, and elk all over the eastern states like when the Pilgrims arrived. Its the right thing to do. And we would not have to put up with east coasters lamenting that they wished the could see a wolf, cause there is one in their yard right now eating their poodle. Its what this nation is all about, equality.

That is exactly what I was saying, equal and fair distribution. Thank you!

First I don't think that any states should have introduction...I don't mind that wolves have appeared, and in not going to yell from the roof tops to kill them all. you asked a question why they are not reintroduced in the east, it's pretty simple, there is no space. Wolves need a lot of space and can travel great differences couple that with the tiny amount of public land, it's pretty simple to see, they have no where to put them.

My mindset is I'm much more worried about keeping our lands public and not letting them get sold off. Then if there may be some wolves on it.

So what you are indicating is that wolves should only be allowed where there is available, Federally owned land for them to roam on. That sounds like a vote for eradication allowances for private land owners. It also sounds like you are assuming that every piece of land that is not Federally owned is populated and should not have wolves.
That is how twisting vague assumptions would put you in the anti-wolf crowd, which by your other posts indicate that you are not?

So my question is, what makes landowners in the Eastern states more privileged to not have to deal with the introduction of apex predators even though that area was part of the wolves historic range?

 

[5MilesBack]

So you can hunt in an intact as possible ecosystem with ungulates that behave like ungulates rather than livestock?

Wow........if those elk I chase every year are acting like livestock, then those ranchers are NEVER going to be able to gather up their cattle again.

 

[tipsntails7]

That is exactly what I was saying, equal and fair distribution. Thank you!



So what you are indicating is that wolves should only be allowed where there is available, Federally owned land for them to roam on. That sounds like a vote for eradication allowances for private land owners. It also sounds like you are assuming that every piece of land that is not Federally owned is populated and should not have wolves.
That is how twisting vague assumptions would put you in the anti-wolf crowd, which by your other posts indicate that you are not?

So my question is, what makes landowners in the Eastern states more privileged to not have to deal with the introduction of apex predators even though that area was part of the wolves historic range?

I'm not indicating anything your constantly twisting words that suit what you are trying to do. You asked a simple question, I gave you a pretty simple answer, your trying to make more out of it then it is. It's not a vague assumption, what's a better idea if your goal is to reintroduce wolves and create a viable population, put them in a place where there is a ton of available food and expanses of land not affected by human influences, or in the back forty of granpa toms land.

The reason they have been placed where they have been is those areas serve as the best places to allow wolves to grow into viable populations.
The thought of fair and equal distribution is a joke, in regards to anything much less wolf reintroduction. Your being obtuse just for the sake of being.

 

[mtluckydan]

One of the reasons they are not back east in places like the Adirondacks, Vermont, New Hampshire & Maine is there are not enough animals to feed them. The deer populations in the central Adirondacks are 1-2 deer per square mile. The coyotes have pretty much kept those populations low for years. Also, logging is so limited to none on public lands in most of those states. The game populations are only higher in farmland and forest fringe areas and they would not be tolerated. They tried reintroducing the lynx in places back there and that didn't work out well because of no food sources(hares) because of reasons stated above.

The reason they were allowed in the west is because people didn't fight it long enough & caved to the promises that it would be ok. The ranchers accepted it because, as mentioned above, they would be reimbursed for their loses. Well guess what, they ran out of money. As mentioned in an earlier post, part of the plan is to drive said ranchers off public land leases and this is working. I have visited with several ranchers who have basically said they are going to have to give up land they have used for decades because their losses of animals have been too great to be profitable.

I will not support wolf management because the associated agencies, both state and federal, have lied and continue to lie about the entire process. They have taken money illegally and promoted something that is detrimental to the management of game animals. These state agencies started out being funded to recover and support game animal populations. It is only in recent times that they have been twisted around to include many of the predators that are detrimental to the management of game animals. They have never honored the original agreements regarding numbers that establish when species such as wolves or grizzly bears are recovered and delisted from the endangered species act.

It's alot like the US entering into an agreement with Iran when we all fully know that they won't keep their end of the so called agreement. The reason some of us are very passionate about such things as wolves is we like game animals quite a bit more than wolves and we don't feel guilty that they got taken out to begin with. They were killed previously because they are bad for both wildlife and domestic livestock. Canada and Alaska would of done the same thing but their land mass was so great it wasn't feasible. It is only in recent decades that environmental terrorists have tried to make everyone feel guilty about taking them out. As far as what was mentioned about playing nicely and having less lawsuits, you are truly naive if you think that is going to happen. No matter what the issue, these groups will sue, sue, sue. It is there only strategy and they will never side with hunters. In Montana, they file suit on every timber sale no matter how well the impact statement has been prepared. They have very high success with all the liberal judges out there and know full well they are likely to prevail. After all, it took an act of Congress to get the wolves delisted.

The strategy should be to kill wolves, don't buy tags - you are supporting the program and funding it, and don't play nice thinking the environmentalist are going to go along with any management plans.

 

[DaveC]

Ecosystems are dynamic. Whatever the system is is what it is. Nostalgic desires to mythologize and recreate a long past ecosystem is infantile. Humans have long ago displaced the wolf as the apex predator. The only real question is do we farm wolves too and I don't think that is in my or any one else's best interest.

Prior to this and other conversations here I really thought this (the above, and elsewhere) sort of thing was a hyperbolic stereotype, the sort of pejorative caricature that hardly ever actually existed. I've done what I'd like to think is my best to go outside my own bias and consider these points of view, and still have a hard time believing anyone can say them out loud and be in earnest. Everyone gets their opinion, no foul there, but if you're curious and care about why so many conceptions of hunters are negative, this sort of thing would be a good place to start.

 

[dreamingbig]

Mtluckydan - I don't remember the Feds asking our permission or input before reintroduction. Did I miss something?

 

[Violent Hippie]

So you can hunt in an intact as possible ecosystem with ungulates that behave like ungulates rather than livestock?

Livestock ? Really ?

 

[jmden]

Prior to this and other conversations here I really thought this (the above, and elsewhere) sort of thing was a hyperbolic stereotype, the sort of pejorative caricature that hardly ever actually existed. I've done what I'd like to think is my best to go outside my own bias and consider these points of view, and still have a hard time believing anyone can say them out loud and be in earnest. Everyone gets their opinion, no foul there, but if you're curious and care about why so many conceptions of hunters are negative, this sort of thing would be a good place to start.

Would you please explain yourself and give concrete data/logic/reason/experience instead of a mind and tongue twisting narrative (that isn't supported by what you write) and then try to make other feel badly about some negative conceptions? It 'sounds good' but there's really nothing there until you give you reasoning.

I will not be made to feel badly/guilty for being a hunter. There's bad apples in every group--so be it. Nor will it be a motivator for me. This is a classic leftist tactic that unfortunately (think political correctness) has worked only too well in this country, greatly contributing to it's current inability to truly wrestle with reality.

 

[jmden]

Mtluckydan - I don't remember the Feds asking our permission or input before reintroduction. Did I miss something?

There were meetings around the country about it, but folks everywhere got a say, while mostly folks in the West got saddled with them. In the end it was just to placate. They were going to do it anyway.

There's a good section or two on this in Crying Wolf: https://vimeo.com/28858208 Start about minute 39, but if anyone hasn't seen it, I personally think it well worth your time. JMHO.

 

[velvetfvr]

Predation is the number one factor that will control the rise and decrease of herbivore populations.

Now it is not even possible to let nature run its course because there isn't enough habitat left with growing populations of humans. As human population grows and expands depleting habitat, the demand for predators decreases, with animal populations and humans have to become more involved in sustaining populations.

It's simple, do you let wolves and other predators run free and drop populations, or do you as humans let hunters do the majority of the work and predators the minority?

I'm fine with SOME wolves but there was a reason they were kept so low in #'s.

 

[TraderMike]

there have been more than a few comments citing other reasons for ungulate numbers falling in areas where wolves are present; poor management and other predators for example. The matter of other predators is interesting, especially with concern to lions. Now, most of the guys inclined to spend time on this forum likely know that lions are not protected (except in Kalifornia, I believe) and can, in theory, be hunted and thus their populations can be managed. Additionally, most Rocksliders know that the only way to effectively hunt lions is with dogs. Well, it seems that houndsmen may be somewhat reluctant to hunt lions in wolf country when there is a very real probability that their dogs will be killed if they are unlucky enough to cross paths with a wolf pack.
http://biggamehoundsmen.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=34145&hilit=wolf#p212907
So the amplified effect "may" be, by introducing wolves, that we lose some of our ability to even remotely control the other apex predator that has a tooth for ungulates as well.

 

[mtluckydan]

There are multiple sources that discuss the "Public participation" - this is one :

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.09702.x/abstract

We all know that unless the push back is sustained and to the max, the feds will do as they please. The important point here is that the political climate has continuously been changing. Just look at this thread and how many serious hunters somehow support the wolf population. Most have not lived or hunted where the wolf population has done the most damage. As mentioned above by others, it is easy to blame the game departments for poor management. Most of the biologists I have talked to do not like wolves and realize the damage they have done, but they want to keep their jobs and they are stuck with keeping their mouths shut in the public forum.

One thing about the environmental terrorists that push things like this through, they never give up and they have an endless supply of money from out of state donators. As an example, the next two animals that are on the agenda in Montana are the lynx and the wolverine. The environmentalists are already suing over logging operations in the name of the endangered lynx and wolverine. I'm not sure if they succeeded, but they have been trying to stop trapping of wolverines here in Montana for the last several years and have spent big money on a wolverine study in Glacier National Park. Their agenda is like gun control. It is not a point of limiting or regulating - they want to stop hunting or stop logging. They have this vision of a perfect world and that vision doesn't include humans. The grizzly bear recovery plan accepts a certain amount of loss of human life in the process of protecting grizzly bears. Guess what - that has happened. This is why you can't compromise with people like that because they never are satisfied with the compromise. They always want something else. It is well documented.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Just look at this thread and how many serious hunters somehow support the wolf population. Most have not lived or hunted where the wolf population has done the most damage.

There is a significant difference between supporting the wolf population and speaking out against propaganda that tries to use the Northern Yellowstone elk herd as an indicator of what will happen anywhere there are wolves. And yes, I've both lived and hunted in areas with wolves.

 

[Randle]

I have hunted with wolves heavy in my area for 4 -5 years and the elk were skidish as all get out. you could not hear a bugle for nothing, elk herds were smaller as bulls were not vocal and the gathering phase was very low key. Small bulls running the herds and cows were not getting bred. Numbers droppped for a few years. If you did get a bull going they would shut down as soon as the wolves would start sounding off. It was frustrating to say the least. It does seem as tho the wolves have moved out or something cause we no longer hear them and sign is gone which is fine by me, the elk seem to be back to business as usual and vocal again. I talked to hound hunters that during those years they wouldn't let their dogs out cause every time the cut scent when they got out to check there were dog tracks 4 -5 sets . Now this past year he said they have not seen dog tracks for a few years maybe 1 or 2 sets over the last few years. Which goes hand in hand with the elk being vocal again.
So yes it does affect elk behavior and numbers. Also during those years we found more elk carcasses then I care to remember while we were out shed hunting, not good. Walked in on 7 of those dogs feeding on a 5x5 in april 1 year. So yes it does make hunting more difficult

 

[jmden]

Their agenda is like gun control. It is not a point of limiting or regulating - they want to stop hunting or stop logging. They have this vision of a perfect world and that vision doesn't include humans. The grizzly bear recovery plan accepts a certain amount of loss of human life in the process of protecting grizzly bears. Guess what - that has happened. This is why you can't compromise with people like that because they never are satisfied with the compromise. They always want something else. It is well documented.

Exactly... Don't be fooled about what we are up against. Don't be a Neville Chamberlain.

 

[BroodBuster]

~750,000 elk. ~2000 wolves.

Sorry to bring bad news but arguing that we need kill all wolves so we can fill our freezers with elk easier is not a politically winning argument. But it does make hunters look like dumbass's.

 

[5MilesBack]

Prior to this and other conversations here I really thought this (the above, and elsewhere) sort of thing was a hyperbolic stereotype, the sort of pejorative caricature that hardly ever actually existed. I've done what I'd like to think is my best to go outside my own bias and consider these points of view, and still have a hard time believing anyone can say them out loud and be in earnest. Everyone gets their opinion, no foul there, but if you're curious and care about why so many conceptions of hunters are negative, this sort of thing would be a good place to start.

It's not just hunters that are against wolf reintroduction. They were eradicated for a reason, much like smallpox was. If some group got a wild hair up their butts to reintroduce smallpox into the population to bring our society back into a more natural state.......would you be for that? And then care about the many negative conceptions about those against it?