# WOLVES



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Who needs them. 8)


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I am going to go take pictures of some. Leaving tonight. (After I woop everyone's a$$ in fantasy. :wink: ) If I get any good ones I'll post em up when I return.

T


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

Don't post any pictures like itchys did on the old forum. Remember his Uinta wolf picture that caused a big hubbub?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

That's funny, I have that photo on my screen saver and I tell everyone that I guy took the picture above Bountiful. :lol:


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Who needs them. 8)


Not hunters; but having a season would be fun for them. I think a full body mount would compliment my bobcat & kitty cat mounts.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

I do. Wolves are a vital top predator that existed for millenia in our wildlands and forests until we thoughtlessly wiped them out. I for one support the re-introduction and management of wolves into our wilderness areas. I know that gets the veins bulging on the forheads of many big game hunters, but so what. Artificially inflating the herds in the absence of top predators so local wildlife departments can sell more tags is a bad way of doing things in my opinion. How are the herds any different than cattle or sheep if the management objective is to produce as many harvestable animals as possible? Wolves keep the herds more wild and healthy. People pay top dollar to go to alaska and canada to hunt trophy animals where all the top predators are also found, but god forbid they be allowed to exist in Idaho, Montana, or Utah. Why the double standard?


----------



## Rustynail (Sep 13, 2007)

> [/Wolves are a vital top predator that existed for millenia in our wildlands and forests until we thoughtlessly wiped them out.quote]
> 
> It wasn't thoughtless. It was intentional and for a very good reason. Range and herds are a fraction of what they were when wolves were around. It is a changing world with no room for them in the lower 48.
> 
> And if you can't see the differnce betwean Utah and Alaska you are going to get it anyway. :roll:


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

I don't think they should be allowed to populate the whole intermountain west unchecked, but there is a middle ground that I think can be reached. Maybe with specifically outlined wolf management areas like the high uintas wilderness area, book cliffs, boulder mountain, etc.

And you are right, it wasn't a thoughtless slaughter. It was to protect the thoughtless overgrazing of the entire west. Predators had no place in a region designated as nothing more than a huge cattle and sheep ranch. Neither did bison, elk, or deer as all of them were slaughtered without thought or mercy. We saw the error of that in time to save the big game animals, but the predators were always a piece in the puzzle too. They are needed to keep true ecological balance.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Seems to me that arguing whether wolves are good or bad is a moot point. They're coming and nothing will change that. What we really need is an intelligent consensus on how to cope with them *in Utah*. And thanks to the experiences of other states, we're actually in a position to use our heads about this issue instead of getting all emotional about it.

First and foremost, we need to promote state control exactly because it protects our interest in existing big game management objectives. Utah's wolf management plan has an excellent chance of being accepted by the feds once a viable population of wolves is established. Of course, the feds also need to be convinced that we intend to really abide by the plan and that won't happen as long as Utah hunters seem to support S.S.S. because of the perception that federal offenses carry more punitive weight than state offenses.

To help calm all the emotional baggage that goes with wolves, we need to educate ourselves about wolves and understand that Utah is unique. For just one example, we have far less suitable wolf habitat than Wyoming or Idaho. Even after wolves have been reestablished here, the majority of our game animals will never encounter one.

Finally, we need to look at the bigger picture with regard to our big game management philosophy. Due to special interest influences on the wildlife board, we're currently using a ranch management philosophy. There's no place for any predators in that philosophy. Now that's fine for the old boys back east. They don't have much of a choice. But we do and I think we'd do well to consider our options before we just accept rqanch philosophy as the way to go. I mean, given the choice between hunting a wild, predator wary animal and a farm animal, my choice is simple and it doesn't much matter to me how big the antlers are.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

Wolves, Grizzlies,...what else can we reintroduce... :lol:


----------



## DBL (Sep 11, 2007)

Hate 'em, hate em', hate em. We already managed to get rid of them once now we have to do it all over again, if we can this time. When you have raised cattle your whole life it really bugs you that someone who doesn't even live where the wolves will be can come in an say here you go have some wolves. They then tell you that you can't protect your cows from them because they are endangered( which is b.s. by the way, they are just wolves from Canada, and they are *NOT* endangered). I don't care if you think cattle and sheep are not as important as wolves, for some of us they are our living.

This is pure hyperbole of course, but how would you people who work on a computer all day like it if all of a sudden they passed a law saying computer viruses were protected and you just had to let them destroy all your information and crash your computers. Your way of making a living would be in serious trouble.

And I'm tired of typing so I won't even go into the effect on the elk moose and deer herds.That is how I feel and I'm stickin' to it.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I for one would like to see wolves in suitable habitat here in Utah. I understand the implications to ranchers, farmers, and wildlife. But as it was said earlier, they would need to be managed properly. I don't agree with the explanation of wolves being compared to a computer virus. Little bit of a stretch. IMO if we are just going to eliminate wolves because of cattle/sheep, why don't we just kill of all the animals that could be eating their (sheep & cattle) grazing feed. :roll: I'm sure deer/elk cause problems to ranchers/farmers as well. But through time, I think some middle ground can be found. JMO


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

> Suitable habitat for wolves can be found at Hogle Zoo. 8)


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

That was funny!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

This has always been a funny thread because of the wolf lovers only see one side of the coin and talk about the great wolf as the missing link which it isnt a missing link. How many wolf packs would be suitable for the bookcliffs or the boulder without greatly impacting the deer and elk herds???? Would the DWR loose money because of the wolves impacting herds in those areas. Would the DWR be forced to raise tag fees because they will have to lower permits because they arent reaching objectives.The wolves wouldnt just stay in the bookcliffs and the boulder. They will impact the surrounding areas.

The deer and elk have problems with:
Drought
Loss or habitat
coyotes and mountain lions
road kills
etc

and we have mindless people who think wolves wont have an impact on deer and elk. ScottyP claims that wolves will make deer and elk MORE healthy and wild. People say that wolves only kill the sick and injured. How stupid can people really be. ScottyP even compares Utah to Alaska where habitat is totally different. Alaska has thousands and thousands of unsettled land where the only way to get to remote areas is by boat or small airplane.



> Wolves keep the herds more wild and healthy.


ScottyP I also thought this was pretty funny. Yeah elk and deer arent wild anymore because the big bad wolf is gone and the elk and deer and very unhealthy. This fairy tale about wolves only killing the sick and injured is nothing but nonsense. Wolves would starve to death if they only ate the sick and injured.

Cattle and sheep are more important that wolves. I dont know about you, but I would rather eat a good beef steak then a wolf steak any day


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

I never said anywhere that wolves only kill sick or injured game. That is often the case but they are opportunistic and will chase and kill a healthy animal if that is what is available. Another clarification if I may, I believe that ranchers should have the right to protect their property from predation and that should be written into any local management plan for wolves. Wolves DO keep the herds more healthy and wild by keeping them on the move and thinning out the weaker and slower animals. Yes, there would be an impact on the herds and on hunters, but the DWR's job is NOT to run a ranching outfit for big game hunters-- it is to manage the wildlands of Utah for the people of Utah. And like it or not, the wolves are on the way. Shoot, shovel, and shut up will only get you fined so you might as well accept the inevitable.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

> and we have *mindless people* who think wolves wont have an impact on deer and elk. ScottyP claims that wolves will make deer and elk MORE healthy and wild. People say that wolves only kill the sick and injured. How *stupid* can people really be. ScottyP even compares Utah to Alaska where habitat is totally different.


 :shock: :roll: :roll:

I don't think ScottyP should be associated with any words like "mindless" or "stupid". Maybe you were not specifically trying to say that about him, but I would shy away from associating those terms with him, because he has proven to be a useful asset to this forum and many others. JMO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

scottyP, since Im not suppose to associate mindless or stupid with you and for the record I wasnt. Anyways Scottp the wise, how do you think the DWR should manage their deer and elk herds? I do mind wolves coming here but I want to shoot a wolf and get him stuffed. I think that would be awesome. There have been study after study done that wolves kill for fun and they kill deer and leave them lay when they are training their pups. Coyotes do the same thing with sheep. In Jackson hole the calf elk population has been greatly reduced and not many calves are growing to adulthood to replace the older elk in the herd. I guess in your eyes this is a great thing. I think that any wolf outside of Yellowstone should be fair game. You mention that wolves help keep the elk wild because right now the mountains are a petting zoo :lol: I think we should hunt the wolves to keep them wild and healthy too. 

Maybe we could have one pack in the Bookcliffs and everything else is fair game. We will limit the pack only to a certain number. 

Lastly, scottyP, the wise, how will the people of Utah benefit from wolves? Because they will get to hear them howl??? Who will pay the ranchers for the cows they loose to wolves. I hope you are writing out a check right now. :lol: People were mad that a bear killed a little boy in AF canyon. I wonder how crazy they will get when a wolf kills someone.


----------



## catman (Sep 19, 2007)

I have a friend that is a Government trapper in B.C. Canada. He and I have went over the wolf issue. His main job is trapping wolves. And he has told me time and time again that if we like our deer and elk. We better shoot every dang wolf we see. It took some pretty nasty poison to get rid of them the first time. It won't be possible again. He says they move into an area......eat everything, and move to a new area. NO I don't want to see wolves reintroduced. We've lived without them for years and I can't see any point in needing them back


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

So coyoteslayer, you seem to be wavering in your position a bit. You don't want wolves in Utah but you DO want to be able to hunt them, and maybe we should put a pack in the book cliffs but they are a terrible creature that doesn't desterve to exist and once they finish eating the cattle, sheep, deer, and elk, they will start in on the children. But you would like to shoot one and have it mounted, right? I'm having trouble keeping up with your position on the issue.

I don't want them back just to hear them howl. The main reason I support the wolves return to Utah is a simple, yet deep rooted conviction that it is not and never will be our duty to eradicate ANY native creature out of an ecosystem. We can never bring balance with our actions of picking and choosing what creatures to introduce and which ones to decimate. Currently, we have no true in-tact wildlands in this state. One must drive several hours to the north to experience a complete and wild ecosystem like the greater Yellowstone area. I look foreward to the day when Utah will have true wilderness areas and that is the closest I can come to expressing my view on the matter. Your condesending sarcasm and doomsday predictions will not change my mind, as I'm sure I won't change yours. Time to let it be until next time.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

ScottyP I dont want to have wolves in Utah to hunt, but it looks like they will be coming on there own. If they did decide to put wolves in a place like the Bookcliffs then I hope they keep the size of wolves down very low because the wolf isnt a useful predator. I would rather hunt them somewhere up north because they will greatly affect our elk and deer herds here in Utah when they become better established.

I


> I look foreward to the day when Utah will have true wilderness areas and that is the closest I can come to expressing my view on the matter. Your condesending sarcasm and doomsday predictions will not change my mind, as I'm sure I won't change yours. Time to let it be until next time.


The only way to have these so called wilderness areas again is to get rid of 90% of the people in utah, the cities and roads and then maybe turn things back to the way they were 100 plus years ago and you will have your true wilderness and you can wear a breech cloth and be one with nature. Like people have said times have changed. Habitat as changed and there isnt hundreds of square miles avaliable to roam freely without having conflicts with humans.


----------



## duck jerky (Sep 8, 2007)

fatbass said:


> Suitable habitat for wolves can be found at Hogle Zoo. 8)


my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Wolves are wonderful animals, as long as they are in someone else' backyard. There isn't enough suitable habitat left in Utah to support them without major conflicts with the top predator in the ecosystem. To quote a favorite movie of mine, "There can be only one". There can be only one top predator, and that is now the human. As sad as it may seem, There is no room for the wolf, or the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states. There may be pockets where these animals can survive, such as Yellowstone, and a few other National Parks. But turning them loose in areas such as the Uintas, is only asking for trouble. How far can you go in Utah without finding civilization? Not far enough to keep a pack of wolves out of trouble. Unless you close the Uintas and surrounding areas (Summit, Uinta, Duchesne, Dagget, Rich, and Wasatch counties, I may have missed one or two others) to all human activity, there will be conflicts. The best option would be to have a management plan in effect before they become established here. Personally I believe they should be managed like the big coyotes that they are. They have a safe haven in Yellowstone. Everywhere else they should become a rug.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

Here is some light reading for anyone who actually wants to know what Utah's wolf management plan consists of: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolf_ ... t_plan.pdf


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

scotty p wrote


> You don't want wolves in Utah but you DO want to be able to hunt them, and maybe we should put a pack in the book cliffs but they are a terrible creature that doesn't desterve to exist and once they finish eating the cattle, sheep, deer, and elk, they will start in on the children.


scottyp i love you man but this DOES happen when they outgrow their food source. take a look at Michigan and Canada. i know its the timberwolf and not the gray wolf but they are of the same family and dont have that different of habits.

as for them being here i dont want them here. they killed one of my dogs on a camping trip before i was able to make it out of the tent. i have also been stalked by them in utah and think the same thing of them in utah as i do cougars in pine valley...get them out of here.

unforunately humans cant be somewhere and have nature control itself. we disrupt everything so the only way to make this whole restore wolves to their natural status possible is to get rid of the humans. or maybe we could put them where they were originally including SLC :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: .


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

Wolves are not coyotes. Their numbers are much easier to control and they regulate their own numbers depending on the available food source. Members of rival packs will kill eachother to compete for available food sources and their numbers generally stabalize in porportion to the available habitat and food sources. They are not the prolific maggots that some of you make them out to be. They also avoid human populated areas much more than coyotes do. Here is another interesting link that debunks much of what Don Peay has to say about wolves: http://www.utahwolf.net/utwolforum/PEAYrebuttal.htm

No one is advocating the return of wolves to every field, pasture, and vacant lot in the state-- least of all the DWR and the Utah Wolf Working group. One number I have seen is 20 wolves in Northern Utah.


----------



## DBL (Sep 11, 2007)

*A*



ScottyP said:


> No one is advocating the return of wolves to every field, pasture, and vacant lot in the state-- least of all the DWR and the Utah Wolf Working group. *One number I have seen is 20 wolves in Northern Utah*.


HA,HA,HA
The number of wolves in Wyoming and Idaho already greatly exceeds the number that the Government told us they wanted, and the population continues to grow. You seriously believe that the numbers you have seen are the truth? You need to do a little research on the crap that is going on in Wyoming. I for one will never again believe anything that the government(any government agency, whether state of federal) has to say about wolves again.
Wolves don't belong here any more, plain and simple. Humans have populated the west to a degree that makes wolves a problem. There used to be Grizzly bears in California, why don't we see the USFWS pushing to re-introduce them there?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

ScottyP, what action will take place once the wolves start attacking bighorn or desert sheep. The elk in this state are worth a lot more than the wolves. We have spend a lot of money for bighorn sheep, moose, elk and deer. Every year millions of dollars are spent on habitat and the majority of this money comes from hunters. Why dont you ever see animal activists doing habitat projects for deer or elk. They must not care to much about the deer and elk. They worry about the wolf WHY? Not because they care about the wolf, but they will use the wolf as a tool to stop hunting see the quote below.



> Wolves have driven some game herds into population pits. The wolves reproduce quickly. A large source of the wolf's diet are the young of the year and the pregnant, thus prey populations steadily drop to lower levels.
> 
> Diseased animals are eaten when there is no other prey.
> 
> ...


Wolves kill for the fun of it because its in their nature and game managers are forced to reduce the number of permits issued when wolves lower the deer or elk population thus making less hunters able to hunt which is the goal of many animal lover/wolf lovers.

ScottyP, these wolf lovers have a hidden agenda which is to eliminate hunting by using the wolf. Wyoming has reduced permits on late season elk hunts because of the impact that wolves have had on the elk. Like I said before every since the wolves were introduced back to yellowstone the Wyoming DWR has seen a decline in the calf elk surviving to adulthood

Here is the link where I found the quote above
http://www.libertymatters.org/wolfreintro-facts.htm


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

> They also avoid human populated areas much more than coyotes do.


wolves dont always stay away from humans/human populated areas. that is whats so bad about michigan, they come into town.

the wolves ive seen arent afraid of humans or gunshots which is very scary to think about, especially since they travel in packs.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

Wolves creep me out! _O\


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

wolves arent creepy.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

> Wolves kill for the fun of it because its in their nature and game managers are forced to reduce the number of permits issued when wolves lower the deer or elk population


You know, If you took out the word "wolves" and put "humans" in there, it would be just as true. We have the power to control what happens to other creatures, not the other way around. Selfishness has been a great contibutor to the demise and/or success of many animals and face it, the only reasons for this hatred towards nature (wolves) are fear and selfishness. I am very open to there being other reasons, but right now, I just don't see them.


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

why is fear bad? i value my life. and between the two (humans and animals) WE are the ones who can control things and actually think, not them


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

chuckmiester said:


> why is fear bad? i value my life. and between the two (humans and animals) WE are the ones who can control things and actually think, not them


Fear is not necessarily bad, but unfounded fear is, in my opinion.

Do a web search on how many wolf caused human deaths have occured in the last few century's.

You don't see mobs of people outraged at the existence of automobiles, lightning, killer bees, bicycles, Highschool football, slippery kitchen floors, improperly installed garage doors, power lines, farm implements, etc....

Why? Because they aren't competing with hunters percieved "right" to hunt or have higher game #'s.

So what is the fear? Getting eaten by a wolf or having a few less animals to hunt??


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You know, If you took out the word "wolves" and put "humans" in there, it would be just as true. We have the power to control what happens to other creatures, not the other way around. Selfishness has been a great contibutor to the demise and/or success of many animals and face it, the only reasons for this hatred towards nature (wolves) are fear and selfishness. I am very open to there being other reasons, but right now, I just don't see them.


Treehugger, you are probably just as guilty as all the other evil humans. I guess in your world you would like the animals to be incharge, but humans have the stewardship over this land and the animals. The early settlers werent being selfish when they killed the wolves in the first place. They were simply protecting their livelihood (LIVESTOCK). So consistently a good wolf is a dead wolf because wolves make a living killing animals and they eat red meat. What a shame, those evil humans were protecting their livelihood. They should have turned the other cheek and said, "Oh well its just nature and the wolves need to eat too." Well treehugger what happens when you run out of cheeks to turn?????



> I am very open to there being other reasons, but right now, I just don't see them


Treehugger, maybe you could teach the wolves to be vegetarians and then humans and wolves would live in peace and harmony. Actually because of the wolves and other wild dogs we can enjoy the companionship of the domisticated dogs that we have today.

During the early days deer were hardly ever seen because the habitat wasnt suitable for deer until these so call evil "humans" that you refer to brought their sheep and cattle which opened up the habitat to other species of plants like bitter brush, sage and other browse plants. So those evil humans killed the wolves that were eating their livestock and it helped another animal survive and florish called the mule deer. Now we speed ahead many years later and the habitat has changed more and we have cities all over the map. We have freeways, roads, a lot more evil humans and now people think that its a good idea to bring wolves back into an enviroment that isnt suitable for wolves. If the early settlers had problems with wolves back then, what kind of problems with evil humans and wolves face today?



> Do a web search on how many wolf caused human deaths have occured in the last few century's


This is also funny because not many humans have been attacked by wolves after they were exterminated in most of the lower 48 states right? How well did they document things back in the early days??? Its also hard for some wolf attacks to be reported if the people who got attacked didnt live to tell about it.

I dont fear the wolf. I just know there will be conflicts and hunting will be affected by wolves. Ranchers are already having problems with them in Idaho and Wyoming. Yellowstone is the place where a wolf can be a wolf. If the wolf leaves the park then the wolf faces the consequences of becoming a rug on someone's wall. Humans are also a part of nature


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

treehugger first and foremost the ONLY thing i hunt is upland game. wolves DO NOT fit into this category so i have no interest in hunting them, and i have not seen them in areas i hunt upland game so their is absolutely no connection between the two. the other things you mentioned are human caused and humans can be both careless and stupid at time but we are the ones doing it to ourselves. and the main reason wolves dont have that many kills on humans is because the humans kill them first IMO. this is sure the case with me and yes i have been attacked by wolves in utah. these wolves were not afraid of our car (any part of it), us, gunshots, or anything else we threw at them. and you ask why im scared of them. lets see they dont run away as do most other animals, they attack humans (at least ive been attacked twice by them), and they are relatively fearless. i think i have really good reasoning to be afraid of them.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

You were really attacked by wolves? Where? Glad you're okay!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

JAT83 said:


> You were really attacked by wolves? Where? Glad you're okay!


Not only did he survive one wolf attack, but two! Wow! You should be on Dateline.  Just razzin ya. My point was that if we coward and destroyed everything that instigated fear in us, we would have a pretty miserable existence and that to me, there are bigger things to worry about.

Justin, I've argued about this with you before. Not tapping that dry keg again. :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Justin, I've argued about this with you before. Not tapping that dry keg again.


Tree, after I get back from wyoming we will get a fresh full keg and we will have a few shots. I know your uncle billy bob makes some good moonshine


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for the offer, but I'll be in Canada picking up a case of Billy Bob's white lightning. Maybe after that. :wink:


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

JAT83 said:


> You were really attacked by wolves? Where? Glad you're okay!


both times in the same place. red creek reservoir near paragonah.

tree that is true. if we did destroy everything we were afraid of we would have nothing left. i just dont like to introduce things that will be a problem to create more problems, thats all.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

chuckmiester said:


> JAT83 said:
> 
> 
> > You were really attacked by wolves? Where? Glad you're okay!
> ...


+1

(where is paragonah?)


----------



## Shummy (Sep 24, 2007)

It's in southern utah.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

In all honesty.....there are wolves in Utah?


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

Yes, I've seen one for myself. At the mouth of emigration canyon. Boy did he look mean, just kept pacing back and forth staring into my eyes. :evil:


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

i wasnt joking or lying when i said i had been attacked twice in utah, but ive only seen them in that one place. that doesnt mean that they arent in other places in utah though.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

Oh, I believe they are around, they're just elusive! We'll know when their numbers in utah start rising when the coyotes start dissappearing


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> Yes, I've seen one for myself. At the mouth of emigration canyon. Boy did he look mean, just kept pacing back and forth staring into my eyes. :evil:


I'm pretty sure I've seen the same one. The fence looked pretty secure though and the zoo keeper looked like a tough lady so I wasn't skeeerd!

Chuckmeister; I have to just come out and say that I am sceptical of your claim that you were attacked twice by wolves near Paragohna. You sure they weren't mean old sheepdogs chasing you away from the sheep? And just what were you doing approaching the sheep in the first place? Maybe they were just really curious about your velcro gloves and were charging in to get a closer look?

Okay, I'll stop now.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I too would have probably been scepitcal about the wolf story near Paragonah but.....when I was working in Cedar City in the late 70's rumor's were going around about wolves in the Red Creek area....
It seems somebody in Enoch was raising them, at the time, and they escaped from the impoundment that was holding them....
I never did see one, but a friend and resident of Cedar City and co-worker claimed he did ! He also claimed the area was full of bob-cats. That's the story as I heard it..


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

that might exclaim why they werent afraid of humans, but that was quite a few years ago.

scottyp no they werent dogs especially not sheep dogs these were wolves. if you are joking you have a very dry sense of humor (one thats almost not humorous), and if you are being serious, dont discredit someone because you havent seen things. you arent omniscient...yet.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

Well darn. I guess my sheep jokes didn't fall on an appreciative audience. Maybe I need to insert a bunch of smilie faces and dancing bannanas to wet down my dry sense of humor. Then again, maybe not.


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

sorry scotty maybe i need to lighten up a bit. its just when people start telling me i didnt see what i saw that i lose sight of the humor in some post on the same topic. my bad.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

No sweat brother. It's only on the computer that I am a witty character and talented fisherman anyway. In real life I struggle with acne and can't tell a joke, catch a fish, or get laid to save my life.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

> No sweat brother. It's only on the computer that I am a witty character and talented fisherman anyway. In real life I struggle with acne and can't tell a joke, catch a fish, or get laid to save my life.


Like Brad Paisley Said, "I'm much cooler online."

ScottyP, I'm sure if you go to Vegas you can fix that last one with a little bit of money, hey you might even catch something as well, Though it won't be a fish! :lol:  _/O


----------



## Kraizee (Sep 17, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> ScottyP, I'm sure if you go to Vegas you can fix that last one with a little bit of money, hey you might even catch something as well, Though it won't be a fish!


 :shock: Could be crabs though... -)O(- _/O  _/O


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

I went to Vegas last June and came home a married man. A sporting gal would've been cheaper, doh!




P.S. I still think wolves belong in Utah......


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

man scotty why resurrect a once dead issue. 

P.S. whether wolves belong here or not, they are here.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

If you really want to know about the nature of wolves, at least the ones reintroduced into Yellowstone, then I suggest getting a copy of the book "Decade of the Wolf", Lyons Press, by Douglas W. Smith and Gary Ferguson.
Dr. Smith is the Wildlife Biologist in charge of monitoring the greater Yellowstone wolf packs. He also spoke recently @ Weber State University. While reading his book I discovered there is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides of the issue. In his book Dr. Smith does address many of the issues raised in the discussions on wolves in this forum, such as; wolves killing for fun, wolves effect on prey populations (particularly elk), wolf depradations with livestock, wolves and their existence with other predators in their territory, wolves and their relationship with other wolf packs, and wolf encounters with humans.
I think anyone really concerned with the issue should take a good look at this book. It has all the latest scientific data, well documented, and pretty easy reading.
You might be interested to note that while Dr. Smith is an advocate for wolves, he also believes that they could now be delisted in Idaho, Montana, and possibly Wyoming. The individual states could soon start control measures such as issuing hunting permits.
Personally I don't think it is a good reflection on mankind when we eliminate entire populations of any species whether its the wolf, passenger pigeon, dodo bird, and almost nearly the bison, and elk. Unfortunately we now live in a world because of our actions of the past, and our sheer numbers of humans, that we have to manage all wildlife for those that hunt/fish, as well as for those that just like to observe/photograph. I believe in the human spirit and that we can do just that - even with the wolf.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/s ... mals/wolf/

Go over to the right column and look at the "weekly report" sections.

How do you get to be one of the guys that eliminates the ones that step out of bounds ?


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

As I see it we have a two choices:
1) Maintain our role as dominant preditor and continue to allow hunting.
2) Relinquish that role.

If we choose to relinquish our role as dominant predator, I am all for allowing wolves in national parks. Let them regulate the numbers of ungulates and other hebivores in those areas. (Yellowstone used to be awesome, you could see high numbers of bison, elk, moose and mule deer. Now it is much differant. Interesting deal yellowstone adn the park system, the were set up and managed by hunters. Hunting used to be allowed to control herd #s). But as soon as they step off of the parks OPEN SEASON on wolves.

Bare with me on this one. If we were allowed to hunt wolves 24/7 365 provided that we had a permit in pocket. Then set the permit cost at $35 each. How many hunters would purchase a permit? Most if not all. 

Would we ever beable to eliminate the wolf? No, the only reason we got rid of them before was through poisoning. 
This would put $ in state coffers, and possibly help other animals come back (ie: mulies and pheasants.).

Reintroduce them put have a real plan for containment.

Sorry for my shortsightedness...


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

+1 firstarrow

i just don't know about the 365 day hunting season on anything including wolves. however that is not saying have a long season for them just not an entire year IMO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

In September, my daughter and I camped for a few days near Norris in YNP. We woke each morning to the songs of the wolves. What an experience for a 5 year old. I made sure I told her that if they wandered out of the park, coyoteslayer, chuckmeister, Hogan, and JAT83 would kill them. I don't think she likes you guys very much. She then asked if maybe we could get a few sheep, I told her yes, but that we couldn't take them camping near Paragonah, because chuckmeister said there was wolves there, and if there weren't, we would have to keep an eye on chuck and his deviant ways.

I then told her about the story of coyoteslayer being attacked by a wolf and that he was brave and withstood the varacious attack on himself and his very beautiful 74 5/8 inch antelope. She was very concerned and asked if the cape on the antelope had been damaged. I didn't have an answer.  

She then inquired why wolves had to be re-introduced in the first place. I told her that humans had deemed themselves more important than all creation, but had realized that they were ok in certain places, but not near any populated areas. and that one day she will understand that when she goes out to get the morning paper and is attacked by a liberal, gun controlling, gay loving, fornicating, god hating, Bill Maher watching, vicious wolf.

Amen.

:rotfl: My tongue is in my cheek and that Canadian white lightning SHO AM GOOD!.


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

:rotfl: oh tree. are you the wolf your daughter will see on her porch?


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

:lol: :lol: :lol: 8)


----------

