# Poor Wolves Being Slaughtered



## Fritz (Mar 1, 2011)

I found this article both interesting and entertaining. It is nice to see something finally being done and even better to see the other side in such a panic. :mrgreen: Is it true that they have already killed 400 wolves in Idaho?

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/p..._shoot_wolves_to_boost_elk_herds_in_idaho.php


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I am not sure if 400 is the correct number or not but I do know that Idaho (backed by the governor) has a very aggressive stance toward wolves. They even threatened to not enforce the poaching of wolves.

Funny how they are willing to defend wolves and a natural balance of an ecosystem at a huge economic expense and the livelihood of humans.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Having hunted in the area for bear on several occasions, most recently in 2010, I can honestly say that we have seen more wolves there than we have elk. There was sign of wolves everywhere and the occasional elk track. We had wolves run through camp and past our blinds more than once. The few elk hunters that we would run into said it was the biggest travesty they had ever seen. The area used to be covered with elk, not to mention deer and moose. Hopefully they will return soon. A pack of wolves has no equal. 

In Idaho elk and deer tags can also be used to harvest a wolf, cougar or black bear.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Here is some more good information that isn't hanging off the far left as that other site feels. I'm currently doing a research paper on this right now. This all frustrates me very much. It's hard to get the real story these days. It's best to look at both sides of the argument to truly understand what is happening. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2461630/posts


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The thing about wolves and any other predator is that they are programmed genetically to kill. If they--like any other animal--are left unchecked, they will wreak havoc not only on their prey species but also on the ecosystem. I have no real problem with the reintroduction of wolves into yellowstone, Montana, Idaho, and some of those areas up North. But, I have a major problem with the state governments inability in the past to manage the animals and control their numbers...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How do we know that wolf predation is additive and not compensatory? Are there any studies on this?

Define unchecked?

Do you consider predators in Utah in check? Could there be more predator than we already have? A lot more?

*If Utah gets the opportunity to manage wolf as they wish. Will they manage to keep them in check like other predators in Utah?* I foresee LE trophy wolf hunting in our futures. -)O(-


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> How do we know that wolf predation is additive and not compensatory? Are there any studies on this?


In some areas it is additive and some compensatory....yep...lots and lots of studies done on it!


Iron Bear said:


> Define unchecked?


Don't know how to use a dictionary yourself? Lack a dictionary? Don't know how to google a word? Look it up yourself....



Iron Bear said:


> Do you consider predators in Utah in check? Could there be more predator than we already have? A lot more?


Yup...sure do. We could have a lot more predators in Utah...and a lot less prey.


Iron Bear said:


> *If Utah gets the opportunity to manage wolf as they wish. Will they manage to keep them in check like other predators in Utah?* I foresee LE trophy wolf hunting in our futures. -)O(-


If Utah gets the opportunity to manage wolves as they wish, I would imagine that the politicians in this state will resolve to keep their numbers as low as possible or non-existent....it won't ever be a decision made by biologists. IF the FEDS maintain control...things will be much different.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

You mean the bios wont circle the wagons. Conduct studies that show wolf predation to have a minimal impact. Show that weather, poor habitat, roadkill and winter range loss as the real culprits to game reductions. Then understate or quit publishing figures altogether of how many wolves are in Utah. 

It wont happen overnight. A good misinformation campaign takes decades to conduct.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> You mean the bios wont circle the wagons. Conduct studies that show wolf predation to have a minimal impact. Show that weather, poor habitat, roadkill and winter range loss as the real culprits to game reductions. Then understate or quit publishing figures altogether of how many wolves are in Utah.
> 
> It wont happen overnight. A good misinformation campaign takes decades to conduct.


Are you an avid reader of The National Enquirer? Honestly, Iron Bear....get off the conspiracy theory BS! Do you realize that most Utah bios have the jobs they do because they love hunting, mule deer, and elk? Do you honestly think these guys who love these animals are out there trying manipulate their studies to prove that the predators don't have an effect so that they can have more of the animals that decrease the population of animals they love? Quit smoking that nonsense....


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

> "It's wrong to ask American taxpayers to subsidize the pointless killing of wolves in order to boost game populations.......... There's no scientific evidence that the ecosystem is out of balance due to the return of wolves and thus no justification for having Wildlife Services kill more wolves to boost elk numbers.


Hmmmmm.....


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

WY2 I'd wager you love to hunt deer and elk also. But you still support the re intro of wolf and protect cougar steadfast. You used to argue with me about the quality of the deer herd on Monroe a few yrs back. You claimed to see several 4 pt bucks during an afternoon ride on an ATV with you girlfriend on back in that unit. Maybe you can compete with predators because you are such a great hunter. Maybe you are really an anti hunter and just want to stir the pot here. In the past I have tried to figure you out but its evident to me that will never happen. You have already admitted you read a few studies on a subject and you quit free thinking. So what more can I say besides Bahhhh since that's obviously the language you speak.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> WY2 I'd wager you love to hunt deer and elk also. But you still support the re intro of wolf and protect cougar steadfast.


Not true....I don't have any problems with wolves being introduced to Yellowstone. Outside of that...and in Utah, I am against wolf reintroductions. Also, I don't advocate the protection of cougars...I just don't see any point in knocking the crap out of their numbers to increase deer numbers when evidence exists that it won't do any good. I call that pissing in the wind!



Iron Bear said:


> You used to argue with me about the quality of the deer herd on Monroe a few yrs back. You claimed to see several 4 pt bucks during an afternoon ride on an ATV with you girlfriend on back in that unit.


Well, you remember the gyst, but your facts are a bit skewed. I argued that I could help my then girlfriend and now wife find a decent buck on every hunt with her...and, in fact, she has shot some decent bucks with me and missed a couple others. When I say decent, I am talking about 20-inch 3 and 4 points. I have found this sized deer with her off our ATV with little effort...I still contend this.



Iron Bear said:


> Maybe you can compete with predators because you are such a great hunter. Maybe you are really an anti hunter and just want to stir the pot here.


I am by no means a great hunter...in fact, I would consider myself a very average hunter who has improved over the years through effort and trial by fire. I am definitely not an anti-hunter as the pics of my hunting exploits that I have posted should prove.



Iron Bear said:


> In the past I have tried to figure you out but its evident to me that will never happen.


Maybe not...on the flip side, though, you are easy to figure out--you will always contend that the predators (especially lions) are the reason our deer are declining. You will not change this stance regardless of what evidence is out there and you refuse to believe that predators are important for our ecosystems and can actually have a positive effect on ungulates. You also will always contend that the professionals don't know anything and have an agenda that is out to get sportsmen and is attempting to rob the hunter of the opportunity to kill ungulates but will stop short of nothing to increase predator numbers.



Iron Bear said:


> You have already admitted you read a few studies on a subject and you quit free thinking.


Again, not true, what I have admitted and will so again is that when I read study after study from state after state and when I see professional groups continue to say the same things over and over, that I tend to listen. I claim that I am educated enough and smart enough to respect the evidence and make opinions based on facts not heresay. I am one who is willing to change my opinion on something when ample evidence is provided that disproves my original thinking...



Iron Bear said:


> So what more can I say besides Bahhhh since that's obviously the language you speak.


Say what you want and call it what you want....but maintaining your stance despite all the available evidence is not only foolish, but ignorant and dumb.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Iron -- before you ask, let me help you out: http://bit.ly/xJ22jC


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > You have already admitted you read a few studies on a subject and you quit free thinking.
> ...


I agree, I have seen you change your views on issues when the evidence has been presented. I too have changed....I contend DRASTICALLY.....on issues after becoming better educated on issues.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> Iron -- before you ask, let me help you out: http://bit.ly/xJ22jC


 -^|^- :mrgreen:


----------



## Huntin_Fever (Feb 27, 2012)

> There's no scientific evidence that the ecosystem is out of balance due to the return of wolves and thus no justification for having Wildlife Services kill more wolves to boost elk numbers.


No scientific evidence? How about the almost complete disappearance of elk?


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Huntin_Fever said:


> > There's no scientific evidence that the ecosystem is out of balance due to the return of wolves and thus no justification for having Wildlife Services kill more wolves to boost elk numbers.
> 
> 
> No scientific evidence? How about the almost complete disappearance of elk?


Yea did you not read the article I posted?

"...the Lolo herd had 9,729 elk before wolves were reintroduced, that number is now down to 1,473."

Seems like some scientific evidence to me :shock:


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The question has to be asked; was the ecosystem in balance when the Lolo herd was at 9,729 elk? Or is it closer to being balanced with only 1,473 elk? I'm not a proponent of wolves. I think we were better off without the reintroduction of the **** things. But I'm not sure the ecosystem would be better off with another 8,300 elk in that area. One of the areas that I hunt gets a ton of cattle turned loose almost every summer. They don't do the ecosystem a bit of good. I would imagine that 9,729 elk could put the hurt on their range as well.


----------

