# Wolves



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

I have read at nausea all the news articles, website propaganda, and posts I can handle. I am sickened and bothered by the thoughts and feelings of both sides of the argument. I agree that the government waited to long to delist the wolves. I wonder if things would be different if management would have started 5-7 years ago. I am all for predator management and wolf hunting, but we hurt our position as *educated* sportsman when we respond with pitch forks and torches. We alienate our hunting practices even further from the majority by responding with hate. This is where I get bothered. The media reports a small percentage of individual's extreme views on both sides, which I believe creates more distance between educated sportsman and the general public than is really there. I for one do not want to be lumped in with the extreme pro wolf crowd anymore than the eradicate them all crowd. Two ends of the spectrum, but with the same stubborn, unrational, set in my ways, mentality.


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

You can lump me in with the extreme anti wolf group any day. Go Wyoming go


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Wolves have their place. That would be in a wilderness area that is large enough for them to roam, with a prey base that will support the population. The only area that may have the possibility to do this in the lower 48 is the Yellowstone/Teton area. And only if their numbers are kept at a manageable level. That number was determined to be 30 packs/300 wolves. At five times that number, the wolves are moving into conflict with ranchers, and depleting the prey base. Their numbers need to be reduced. They should have been held to the 30/300 that was proposed in the first place. And they should be limited to the Yellowstone/Teton area. If Idaho and Montana wanted them in some of the larger wilderness areas, that should be a decision of the game departments in those states. I believe that the wolf experiment got out of hand, and the numbers should have been limited from the beginning. They should not have been released until the states had their management plans, and they should have been de-listed from the start.


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

Loke, I agree with the majority of your post, but hindsight is always 20/20.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Levy said:


> I have read at nausea all the news articles, website propaganda, and posts I can handle. I am sickened and bothered by the thoughts and feelings of both sides of the argument. I agree that the government waited to long to delist the wolves. I wonder if things would be different if management would have started 5-7 years ago. I am all for predator management and wolf hunting, but we hurt our position as *educated* sportsman when we respond with pitch forks and torches. We alienate our hunting practices even further from the majority by responding with hate. This is where I get bothered. The media reports a small percentage of individual's extreme views on both sides, which I believe creates more distance between educated sportsman and the general public than is really there. I for one do not want to be lumped in with the extreme pro wolf crowd anymore than the eradicate them all crowd. Two ends of the spectrum, but with the same stubborn, unrational, set in my ways, mentality.


Well written post, thanks.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

My feelings exactly Levy. There is a middle ground on this issue and it's the one that I have always taken. There is a place for a controled amount of wolves in the lower 48 states. The population of these wolves should be controlled through hunting. Expressing these views has gotten me roasted and flamed many times over by hunters who have a zero tolerance toward wolves. Funny thing is, now that hunting them is a reality and consits of only driving a few hours away, they are falling all over themselves at the new and unique opportunity to hunt a wolf. :roll:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

huntinco said:


> You can lump me in with the extreme anti wolf group any day. Go Wyoming go


+100 1/8


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree with you, Levy. I'm pretty sure there's a large number of sportsmen who also feel something similar to what you're saying. But trying to have an intelligent conversation about wolves is exactly like trying to make a PETA-phile understand hunting. It ain't going to happen, so why try? Same reactive emotionalism and hyperbolic b.s. Same pretense to authoritative wisdom, (and it's definitely pretense). And in the end, it's mostly talk because the majority of talkers on either side will never actually do anything more than talk. After all, hunters had an opportunity to get actively involved years ago when it could have made a real difference. So the way I see it, hunters can whine and belly-ache about environmentalists all they want, but they themselves share as much culpability for the current situation as anybody.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Good points. The propaganda and rhetoric from both extremes gets tiresome.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Well a lot of groups who are the wolf lovers are using the wolves to destroy hunting. Do you actually think they care about wolves when it comes right down to it?? When have you ever seen any of these groups get their hands dirty and do something good for wildlife such as deer and elk? Why are they only concerned about the predators? How will people benefit if we have wolves around? Livestock owners suffer losses due to wolves, the DWR loses revenue due to wolves, hunters lose opportunity due to wolves. Meat is wasted which could have been eaten by another human being since wolves like to kill for pleasure. Its in the nature of all dogs, YES even your pet dogs will kill for pleasure. Wolves need to be managed and if they are managed and hunted then this destroys the wolf lovers whole objective which is to stop hunting period. 

So what benefit would wolves bring?


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

See this is kind of what I was saying on the other thread that discussed how the wolf killing had already begun in WY. You have two sides that the pendulum will swing to. The extreme FOR wolf side, and the extreme AGAINST wolf side. When the de-listing occurred, the AGAINST side went out and immediately starting killing wolves. IMO, all this is doing is pissing off the FOR side, to the point where they will say "okay, you see, they are killing them all now, so they really are still endangered, so we had better put them back on the list." Then we end up in the same situation, only deeper in the mire that we were before, with way more wolves than the original objective proposed, and movement well outside of the intended area. Whoever said "management of wolves should have started 6-7 years ago", IMO, hit the nail right on the head. There should have been a middle ground. Now, we Utahns sit here all freaked out because the wolves are showing up, and we can't do anything about it but watch. This subject is an exact reflection of what is occurring on all political fronts in our nation. I, for one, am sick and tired of all the name calling and division amongst the democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, and so on. If this wolf problem (because I do see it as such) is going to get fixed, a "middle of the road" solution must be agreed upon soon. If not, the pendulum will continue to swing in both directions, and inevitably, the majority of people will be unhappy all the time. Sure, kill a wolf or 2 or 3 or 10, I am all for it, but realize that if you swing that pendulum up to your side, it will inevitably swing back to the other, and you won't be happy about it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ChaserOfAllBirds said:


> If this wolf problem (because I do see it as such) is going to get fixed, a "middle of the road" solution must be agreed upon soon. If not, the pendulum will continue to swing in both directions, and inevitably, the majority of people will be unhappy all the time. Sure, kill a wolf or 2 or 3 or 10, I am all for it, but realize that if you swing that pendulum up to your side, it will inevitably swing back to the other, and you won't be happy about it.


I somewhat agree with this statement. Where I take 'issue' is that the hunters HAVE for the most part been willing to meet in the middle, but when the extremists on the pro-wolf side they will NEVER agree to 'allowing' a single wolf to be "murdered", how is that possible? The MAJORITY of people in Wyoming have said designating wolves as the same as coyotes, so how is that 'extreme'? The whole wolf re-introduction was FORCED on the general public, yet now I hear 'hunters' saying the hunters should AGAIN cave into the wolf lovers. When do we stand up and fight back and say enough is enough? If only one wolf was killed during the month of April, do you guys really believe the wolf lovers would drop their lawsuits asking for the wolves be given protected status again? If so, click your heels three times because you are living in the land of Oz.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The extreme FOR wolf side, and the extreme AGAINST wolf side. When the de-listing occurred, the AGAINST side went out and immediately starting killing wolves. IMO, all this is doing is **** off the FOR side, to the point where they will say "okay, you see, they are killing them all now, so they really are still endangered, so we had better put them back on the list." Then we end up in the same situation, only deeper in the mire that we were before, with way more wolves than the original objective proposed, and movement well outside of the intended area.


Yellowstone is a safe haven for wolves and as long as they stay there they will be fine. The wolves can live happily and kill for pleasure, but once they leave the park they are fair game. Maybe they can train the wolves to stay inside the park. The day will come that someone will get attacked by a wolf in Yellowstone.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I do agree with Pro on a lot of this. I don't think, in any way, that wolves will be a good thing in Utah, however, all I am saying is that the reality now, is that we must deal with the wolf problem, as well as the proponents of wolf reintroduction. I do see what you mean, Pro, when you say that this was forced on the hunter side, without respect to our opinion. All I am saying, is that maybe it would be better to go about it in a more subtle way. Lull the FOR crowd into thinking that all is hunky-dorry by letting the dust settle for a while now that the de-listing has occurred, then quietly go about our business of extermination in the months to come. I just think that an abrupt, all out war on the wolf will only cause more backlash and recourse by the other side of the spectrum, which will put an end to hunting them, again.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Lull the FOR crowd into thinking that all is hunky-dorry by letting the dust settle for a while now that the de-listing has occurred, then quietly go about our business of extermination in the months to come. I just think that an abrupt, all out war on the wolf will only cause more backlash and recourse by the other side of the spectrum, which will put an end to hunting them, again.


Wolves are already way over objective and killing many of them won't hurt the wolf population as long as they are protected in Yellowstone. Therefore there is no need to wait a few months down the road.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I guess we as hunters need to take the high road, by continuing to fight hard politically for our cause, but do all we can to not fall into the FOR side by playing their games. IMO, an immediate rush into WY (to exterminate) after the de-listing occurs, although legal, constitutes playing their game, and I don't see that as being productive towards our cause as sportsmen.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

A valid point of view that many wolf advocates have, is that hunters are competition for wolves. The more they eat, the less we hunt. Given this, We do seem like a selfish bunch to outsiders, and rightfully so. That is the #1 reason WE don't want wolves around. So WE can still enjoy the things WE have become accustom to.

When you say "objective" Justin, that is a number presented with hunter harvest vs. wolf harvest in mind. Many would just as soon eliminate the "hunter harvest" part, and up the wolf "objective".

These are difficult facts to defend.

It is Human enjoyment vs. animal life once again.

Another thing is representation. When I read these different blogs, forums and comments. There are quite a few people defending hunters, who in my opinion have no business being a representative of our cause. They make us ALL seem like blood thirsty, toothless idiots.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I see your point CS, and I am all for bringing the numbers down. I recognize that it is necessary to do so. My point is, a rush on the wolves won't be detrimental to the ecology, but to the cause. Its just going to make the other side mad, giving them political fodder to keep up their bullcrap, which I oppose, just like you.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> It is Human enjoyment vs. animal life once again.


A little bit oversimplification tree. They get 'enjoyment' from seeing wolves and knowing every elk killed by a wolf is one less that a human can kill, and the wolf's life is more valid than the elks. I get enjoyment from hunting animals, therefore I like to see *more* animals. I would ask the supposed "Defender of Wildlife" what they have done to help elk/deer/moose/bighorn sheep/ducks/grouse/chukars/pheasants/turkeys/etc. They put less 'value' on a wild animals life that I as a hunter do. How many critters would be roaming the wild if not for hunters in the modern era?


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Spot on Pro- the value they are placing on one animal vs. another (or others) is what this is all about. Just as opponents of hunting us the excuse that us hunters want more animals so we can go out and kill them for our "selfish" reasons, they want one animal, the wolf, to satisfy their selfish reasons. So the large scale question becomes whether we value deer, elk, moose, buffalo, sheep, cattle, and other game and non-game species more than the wolf. Personally, I do value these prey species more than the wolf.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > It is Human enjoyment vs. animal life once again.
> ...


I agree. I probably put as much emphasis and energy into elk as they do wolves, so I understand their plight, but don't necessarily agree. I personally see room for them, but only under fairly strict management practices and therein lies the problem. Both sides are taking a zero tolerance stance on the whole thing and that's not going to work in the interest of compromise.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I


> personally see room for them, but only under fairly strict management practices and therein lies the problem. Both sides are taking a zero tolerance stance on the whole thing and that's not going to work in the interest of compromise.


Isnt the 300 wolves/30 wolf packs a fairly strict management and a compromise that hunters made?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Yes. The population they have grown to is obviously well beyond the original agreement. The federal government should be sued for allowing this to happen and 1200 wolves should be exterminated. Also, we should lobby to have cougars, coyotes and treehuggers exterminated and their practices and beliefs outlawed. Actually, While they are at it, I would like everyone but blond haired, blue eyed humans exterminated as well.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I would like everyone but blond haired, blue eyed humans exterminated as well.


Then Im safe on this one 

Your example is a little extreme.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Yes. The population they have grown to is obviously well beyond the original agreement. The federal government should be sued for allowing this to happen and 1200 wolves should be exterminated. Also, we should lobby to have cougars, coyotes and *treehuggers* exterminated and their practices and beliefs outlawed.


+1 :twisted:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > I would like everyone but blond haired, blue eyed humans exterminated as well.
> 
> 
> Then Im safe on this one
> ...


That was obviously intentional. The extreme attitudes on this subject are at best, ridiculous. But sadly, this has become the American standard.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I dont think people are being to extreme!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Unfortunately, you consistently prove my point. :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Unfortunately, you consistently prove my point.


When did I say that wolves should be wiped off the face of the planet. Wolves need to be managed and you agreed on that.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Elkhuntingfool said:


> The population needs to be managed and I'm wondering if the 'plan' will be implemented too late and the population out of control and then Utah will be reactive instead of proactive like they should have been when Idaho and Wyoming decided to sell tags and manage the population with lead and gun powder instead of words on a page.


For the foreseeable furture I guess those of us would like to be proactive in the management of the wolves population here in Utah are gonna have to live with the 3 S's (SHOOT-SHOVEL-SHUTUP) magement plan; I bet it works a whole lot better than those words on a page. :wink:

Some insistences of unlawful activity can sometimes benefit game animals.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)




----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

> For the foreseeable furture I guess those of us would like to be proactive in the management of the wolves population here in Utah are gonna have to live with the 3 S's (SHOOT-SHOVEL-SHUTUP) magement plan; I bet it works a whole lot better than those words on a page.
> 
> Some insistences of unlawful activity can sometimes benefit game animals.


In some instances you provide intelligent comments.........this would not be one of those instances, but your spelling is getting better.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Levy said:


> In some instances you provide intelligent comments.........


Right back at yah Kiddo!


----------

