# Another wolf angle.



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

http://www.utahwolf.net/utwolforum/WUFposition.htm

http://www.utahwolf.net/utwolforum/PEAYrebuttal.htm


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

First imprssions:
In their position statement(s) they SEEM rather benign and make some more reasonable concessions than most wolf advocacy groups. They do, however seem somewhat uninformed and behind the times. Doesn't The UDWR allready have at least a state wide wolf management plan ready to impliment upon (state wide) delisting? 

The rebutal to Don Pae sounded way too argumentative than constructive to me. These inconsistancies lead me to be somewhat skeptical and suspicious of their position statements.
Like I said..... FIRST IMPRESSIONS.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

When they introduced the wolves the plan was only 300 wolves in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Today we have over 1,500 wolves and the wolf lovers are filing lawsuits so that wolves can't be managed or in other words (hunted). We made a compromised and agreed on 300 wolves, but yet once the wolf lovers get their way they want more and more and more. Im glad the State of Idaho is issuing wolf permits and wolf lovers are going nuts over it.


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

> 2) Assertion:
> 
> "Idaho has 51 documented packs; the recovery goal is 15 packs."
> 
> ...


Close enough


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

huntingbuddy said:


> > 2) Assertion:
> >
> > "Idaho has 51 documented packs; the recovery goal is 15 packs."
> >
> ...


Who wants to bet that in the last three years they made 8 more packs?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> huntingbuddy wrote:
> 2) Assertion:
> 
> "Idaho has 51 documented packs; the recovery goal is 15 packs."
> ...


Even 43 wolf packs is to many.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Thanks Tree, I lost track of the number of brain cells killed from reading that POS. That was so dang dumb, I can't commit to the time required to reply to it, not to mention the most obvious one already cited, we are only 287% above the goal not 340% *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\* *\-\*


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Earthjustice, which represents 12 local and national environmental groups, plans to sue the federal government next month to continue wolf protections.
> 
> All three state plans to manage the wolves call for a reduction in their numbers, which will eventually lead to weaker breeding, Honnold said in a telephone interview from Bozeman, Mont.
> 
> ...


What does Honnold know about weaker breeding. Some wolves dont carry strong breeding genes while others carry weak breeding genes :lol:

Treehuggers article it states in 2004 there is 43 packs, but now in 2008 there is 72 packs.



> But Doug Honnold, a managing attorney for the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, disagrees. Honnold said the wolf populations won't be fully recovered in Idaho and the northern Rockies until the animals number between 2,000 and 3,000.


Where did he pull this number out of? His Grand Canyon?

I hope the wolf lovers are losing sleep over this and have nightmares that wolves are actually going to be hunted. Wolf lovers reintroduced the wolves so hunters have just more animal to hunt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23856723


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Some random thoughts on wolf management. In the article in the paper on the confirmation of wolves in northern Utah the UDWR was quoted as saying the they did not see sport hunting wolves in the forseeable future. I have been thinking about this and it makes sense. First of all as the DWR was also quoted, their wolf managemnet plan was written in the anticipation of a state wide delisting but wolves have been delisted in only a small part of the state and the plan may have to be "reworked". Secondly, it makes sense to manage wolves from the beginning to reasonable and sensable numbers. And I don't think that zero will be considered a reasonable and sensable number. Niether should the population be allowed to grow to numbers far in excess of "target populations" and to populations that will make wolves a "big problem" before they are controlled. I think this is importent both for those who are worried about the impact wolves will have and also for those who are worried that wolves won't have a chance to "recover". If wolves become a big problem before they are controlled thier recovery will also be threatened. But the problem with wolf controle through sport hunting is the unpredictable nature of sport hunting. Hypothetically let's say Wolves "become a problem" in a particular area either with liestock, human interaction or excessive wildlife predation and it is determined that 4 wolves need to be removed. That is 4, not 2 or 10. So how many sport hunting permits would the DWR issue to achieve that number. With elk and deer the numbers are large enough for avarage harvest success percentages to be meaningful to achieve population objectives. But if wolves are "controlled" and "managed" to small enough numbers so as to be effective management, avereages may not be reliable, resulting in either under or over harvest. Another problem I see with sport hunting is that it is not very selective. Niether is trapping. So I am left to make the conclusion that the most effective way to control wolf numbers will be by airial hunting. And I doubt that that would ever be done by anyone besides professional biologists. Just some of my random thoughts. Take a shot at them.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

campfire said:


> Some random thoughts on wolf management. In the article in the paper on the confirmation of wolves in northern Utah the UDWR was quoted as saying the they did not see sport hunting wolves in the forseeable future. I have been thinking about this and it makes sense. First of all as the DWR was also quoted, their wolf managemnet plan was written in the anticipation of a state wide delisting but wolves have been delisted in only a small part of the state and the plan may have to be "reworked". Secondly, it makes sense to manage wolves from the beginning to reasonable and sensable numbers. And I don't think that zero will be considered a reasonable and sensable number. Niether should the population be allowed to grow to numbers far in excess of "target populations" and to populations that will make wolves a "big problem" before they are controlled. I think this is importent both for those who are worried about the impact wolves will have and also for those who are worried that wolves won't have a chance to "recover". If wolves become a big problem before they are controlled thier recovery will also be threatened. But the problem with wolf controle through sport hunting is the unpredictable nature of sport hunting. Hypothetically let's say Wolves "become a problem" in a particular area either with liestock, human interaction or excessive wildlife predation and it is determined tht 4 wolves need to be removed. That is 4, not 2 or 10. So how many sport hunting permits would the DWR issue to achieve that number. With elk and deer the numbers are large enough for avarage harvest success percentages to be meaningful to achieve population objevtives. But if wolves are "controlled" and "managed" to small enough numbers so as to be effective management, avereages may not be reliable, resulting in either under or over harvest. Another problem I see with sport hunting is that it is not very selective. Niether is trapping. So I am left to make the conclusion that the most effective way to control wolf numbers is by airial hunting. And I doubt that that would ever be done by anyone besides professional biologists. Just some of my random thoughts. Take a shot at them.


They could issue quota tags, just like Utah does for cougar and Montana for Big horn sheep, in some areas.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> They could issue quota tags, just like Utah does for cougar and Montana for Big horn sheep, in some areas


My point is " how successful will sport hunting for wolves be?" and " Will it be successful enough to accuately predict controle objective numbers?" If you need to remove 4 wolves, do you issue 4 quota tags hoping that 100% of the tags will be filled then only 2 of the 4 are actually filled. Or do you issue 10 tags anticipating that only a small percentage of the tags will be successfully filled risking the possibility that all 10 tags could be filled. Maybe I am worring that the controle objective numbers might need to be too precise but there will be a lot of players in the game and history has proved that a lot of emotion will also be involved. It seems that the DWR would be concerned that precise and selective ( subordinate pack members vs breeding pairs) numbers be maintained in wolf controle.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Elkhuntingfool said:


> Campfire - that is one big paragraph


Sorry. it is a rather slow day at work to day.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

campfire said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > They could issue quota tags, just like Utah does for cougar and Montana for Big horn sheep, in some areas
> ...


It could be very successful. With quota tags, the Division issues as many tags as the public will buy. Under the parameters they set for the tags, the individual must call in and find out if the quota has been met. It has been a very good program to accurately harvest animals where a management objective has been determined. I would imagine once established, there would be some king of 'region' or 'unit for objective harvest.

I don't think 6-8 wolves on the North slope is going to devour all wildlife, but 30 or 40 would be very detrimental to anyone wishing to have good, hunt-able populations of deer elk and moose, not to mention that the N. slope is one of the best trophy moose units in the state. Wolves could definitely change that.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I think a lot of it is fear of the unknown. Which is understandable.

Instead of worrying about wolves coming into our state, why not just go to church? Isn't that the answer to the riddle? (Did I just say that? :wink: )


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

The problem I foresee is that by the time we get enought wolf numbers that allow us to be able to hunt them, the damage is already done to the herds, just like up in Idaho and Wyoming.

I much rather be able to hunt the deer, elk, and moose herds as they are now, than have a chance to hunt wolves here in Utah after they have ruined the quality of the herds. If I want to hunt Wolves, I'd go up to Idaho or Wyoming, they have a good surplus of them, since they are coming down here now.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Elkhuntingfool said:


> Good points, Tye. Now please answer the PM I sent


I talked with him yesterday. Nothing yet. Bummer on the wreck. You ok?

T


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> The problem I foresee is that by the time we get enought wolf numbers that allow us to be able to hunt them, the damage is already done to the herds, just like up in Idaho and Wyoming.
> 
> I much rather be able to hunt the deer, elk, and moose herds as they are now, than have a chance to hunt wolves here in Utah after they have ruined the quality of the herds. If I want to hunt Wolves, I'd go up to Idaho or Wyoming, they have a good surplus of them, since they are coming down here now.


Exactly! I think I would rather the DWR keep the wolf numbers "managable" protecting the rest of our big game hunting opportunities before the numbers grow to the point that they could "politically" allow sport hunting of wolves.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

EHF, glad to hear you are okay. Getting hit really blows, but it could always have been worse, could be your bow or guns that are stuck in the trunk.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

campfire said:


> Exactly! I think I would rather the DWR keep the wolf numbers "managable" protecting the rest of our big game hunting opportunities before the numbers grow to the point that they could "politically" allow sport hunting of wolves.


Personally I would rather that we be allowed to just hunt them at this time to retard their populations spread to Utah, but that will never be allowed to happen.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

I'll up the ante, and say that personally, I'd like to see a state-sponsored extermination program. A $300 per head bounty ought to do it, but that's not going to happen either. :evil:


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> I'll up the ante, and say that personally, I'd like to see a state-sponsored extermination program. A $300 per head bounty ought to do it, but that's not going to happen either. :evil:


I'd kill them for free if given the chance.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

....oh but they're so pretty :roll:

anyone see the program about this whole muddy subject on _VS's_ yesterday?

glad to hear youre healin up EHF....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longgun said:


> anyone see the program about this whole muddy subject on _VS's_ yesterday?


I did, thought it was pretty interesting. 'Experts' on both sides coming to completely different conclusions using the same data.

One point a cattleman raised that I never thought about was that their cattle come of the public land many times in WORSE shape than they were when put on the public land. He said this is due to the wolves running the cattle on a daily occurrence. Add up the lost calves/yearlings to death and the poor health of the cattle that survive and then tell me the cattlemen get compensated for their loses. :? I recall the resident 'expert' here saying the livestock owners get compensated for ALL their loses. Another cattleman said instead of his ranch hands working the land, they are riding looking for dead calves so they can get compensated for SOME of their loses. Then to hear the nut bags saying there should be MORE wolves, and to use 'non-violent' means of dealing with wolves that kill livestock. They are trying to say by putting a few guard dogs with the livestock the livestock will be safe, what utter BS!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> One point a cattleman raised that I never thought about was that their cattle come of the public land many times in WORSE shape than they were when put on the public land. He said this is due to the wolves running the cattle on a daily occurrence.


The same thing happens when wolves run moose, deer and elk. These animals have less body fat in the winter because they use a lot of body fat for energy when they run from the wolves which makes these animals weaker.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

-#&#*!- :rotfl: ...oh boy "guard dogs"....more easy pickings _(O)_

insane...

when has 300 EVER RESEMBLED 1500??


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

We also need to make sure that every wolf coming into the state is given a DWR wolf sitter who's main job is to heel-and-toe around at a high rate of speed and warn every human being within a 20 mile radius that there is a pack in the area. Failure to warn someone could cause someone to get hurt, resulting in a lawsuit from not knowing a pack was in the area.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

threshershark said:


> We also need to make sure that every wolf coming into the state is given a DWR wolf sitter who's main job is to heel-and-toe around at a high rate of speed and warn every human being within a 20 mile radius that there is a pack in the area. Failure to warn someone could cause someone to get hurt, resulting in a lawsuit from not knowing a pack was in the area


That was a good one Shark! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I think that was from 3 point range. But shouldn't the wolf advocacy groups that prevent wolf controle through litigation be liable? The law works both ways right?


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

campfire said:


> Sorry. it is a rather slow day at work to day.


No it's not. Get to work! :wink:


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

scott_rn said:


> No it's not. Get to work!


Hey, don't give me a bad time. And where were you yesterday? If you had been here I probably wouldn't have wasted so much time waiting for NURSES to get their act together so I could do something useful. And you didn't even go fishing. :wink:


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

campfire said:


> Hey, don't give me a bad time.


Get an avatar already!

I vote for a wolf. Maybe even with a babysitter like threshershark suggested.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

wolf sitters are fine...make em' a Connibear or Bridger :wink:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

*So a couple questions*

Ok, so i was fishing with a couple buddies this weekend and they told me something that I wanted to verify with those who are "in the know" i.e. my fellow forum members.

Anyway they told me that with the delisting that happened on the 28th, you can legally shoot a wolf in most of Wyoming until April 30th when they anticipate the lawsuits to happen. Any truth to this rumor?

Second question: So legally speaking, if they can sue tobacco companies for cancer victims, gun makers for firearm related crimes, why couldn't in theory a person sue wolf advocacy groups and government agencies should there be a wolf related incident. Or for that matter why couldn't another ecologically based group sue the prementioned groups over wasting or damaging a public resource (the deer, elk, and nongame wildlife being consumed by the reintoduced wolves)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

For the next four weeks wolves are considered the same as yotes, and are legal to shoot on site. The wolf lovers will get this held up in court for quite a while by the end of April.

I think you are on to something on lawsuits against the groups that take away from us. Maybe we should start playing the game like they do. :idea:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Well that's my thought exactly. As a taxpaying citizen and a hunter who has contributed literally thousands of dollars into the managment of these public resources, don't I have a right to cry foul over the fact that wolf reintroduction goes directly against the policies set forth by the very agencies that manage the resource. Call me nuts, but I don't see how wolf reintroduction fits the big game management objectives set forth by any of the states involved. And as a financial investor into these systems don't I have a right to hold these agencies to the plans they set forth at the time of investment? that being the case, aren't the wolf advocacy groups directy responsible to the changes?

And should there be a wolf related incident that leads to any type of personal injury, property damage etc, wouldn't these groups be able to be at least hogtied in court for a long time the way they've done to wildlfe agencies?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

In some areas the DWR has been forced to cut back on tags or eliminate hunts because wolves have reduced deer and elk numbers. The wolf lovers should have to pay for tag sells that the DWR loses instead of the DWR having to raise the price of tags to make up for the money they have lost.

Special Interest groups should file lawsuits because of the money they have spent on wildlife and that is eaten by wolves. The plan was 300 wolves not 1500 wolves so they need to issue 1200 wolf tags just to start.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> that being the case, aren't the wolf advocacy groups directy responsible to the changes?


Not legally. This strategy has been thought of before. As I understand it, you don't have a case against the private organizations or individuals. They just used the legally mandated processes, (that hunters didn't bother to get involved in, for the most part). You could establish tort liability against the DNR or it's state agencies, but that would just be shooting ourselves in the foot.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> obviously the plan backfired. Not sure what numbnut thought they could stop the pack at 300. That's like asking people not to breed - just isn't going to happen. Pretty naive thinking and I'm also guessing that the 1500 number is just that - a number - nothing scientific.


No one said the wolves couldnt breed LOL :lol: :lol: , but if the number rises above 300 then hunters should take out the surplus wolves. Or better yet any wolf seen outside of Yellowstone is fair game. Same with the Grizzly bears.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/env ... wolf_N.htm

is that better?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 3/28/2008 6:00:00 AM
> Wyoming wolf hunt begins
> Species removed from federal endangered list
> 
> ...


 :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2008-03-29-gray-wolf_N.htm
> 
> is that better?


You still fail to see the REAL possibility of the wolf lovers getting this stopped by a 'activist' judge. The wolf lovers have be VERY open about their belief that NO wolf should ever be, in their words, "MURDERED". Doesn't that speak volumes about the constant battle sportsmen will have on keeping wolf numbers 'under control'? They don't believe there is EVER a 'justified' killing of a wolf. Expecting rational actions from irrational people is irrational.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2008-03-29-gray-wolf_N.htm
> 
> is that better?


Doesn't bother me I was just covering your ass! 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/
A lot of good information can be found from the site above.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You still fail to see the REAL possibility of the wolf lovers getting this stopped by a 'activist' judge. The wolf lovers have be VERY open about their belief that NO wolf should ever be, in their words, "MURDERED". Doesn't that speak volumes about the constant battle sportsmen will have on keeping wolf numbers 'under control'? They don't believe there is EVER a 'justified' killing of a wolf. Expecting rational actions from irrational people is irrational.


A couple things: 1) I don't know when wolf hunting will begin happening, but it will happen 2) The inverse of what you are saying is also true--wolf haters have also been VERY open about their belief that ALL wolves should be, in their words, "KILLED". Doesn't this speak volumes about the constant battle conservationists/hunters will have on keeping wolf numbers 'under control'? They don't believe there is EVER a 'justified' living of a wolf. Expecting rational actions from irrational people is irrational 3) Cars kill more big game species in Utah than hunters and probably wolves ever will...shouldn't we worry about things besides wolves in Utah?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> A couple things: 1) I don't know when wolf hunting will begin happening, but it will happen 2) The inverse of what you are saying is also true--wolf haters have also been VERY open about their belief that ALL wolves should be, in their words, "KILLED". Doesn't this speak volumes about the constant battle conservationists/hunters will have on keeping wolf numbers 'under control'? They don't believe there is EVER a 'justified' living of a wolf. Expecting rational actions from irrational people is irrational 3) Cars kill more big game species in Utah than hunters and probably wolves ever will...shouldn't we worry about things besides wolves in Utah?


1)I hope you are right, but I have less faith in the judicial system than you suppose. 2)I agree, how about a compromise? Do you ever think that is possible? 3)Sounds like wildlife have enough obstacles to deal with without INTENTIONALLY placing another HUGE obstacle to hurdle to survive/thrive. :idea:


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

who ever said anything about being _irrational_...i knew exactly what i meant when i said it. save for the poaching.... now theyre delisted and or other wise LEGAL... time to go put a few skulls on the wall...hopefully :wink:

...and please save the "this is exactly the kind of talk/actions that got wyoming in the heat they are now" by that i meen the woofie numbers getting where they are now before delisting. the white fang lovin' among us would have found another way to tie it up and thus build the population anyhow...


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

Hopefully you can keep these dogs from getting back on the north slope.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

"keep em off the north slope"....sorry too late.


----------



## Surfer Coyote (Jan 14, 2008)

How about we transplant some of these excess wolves to strategic points along our southern border? It would be a lot cheaper than building a wall, and they would have a pretty substantial food source. :wink:


----------



## Crash (Mar 20, 2008)

I got the chance to voice my ideas of hunting wolves at work today. I forgot that I was the only so-called *******. They did bring up some valid points. The wolf was here first and that they are part of the eco system. I will give them that. I then told them about how our deer, elk, moose, and other huntable game are doing ok, but could be doing better. And that wolves would hinder their survival at this point in time. It only continued with you only want to kill wolves so that you can hunt bambi. That is sort of true. I then asked them why they are building their cabins in prime habitat for deer and elk? They were there first weren't they? I got no response. I do believe if we could come up with a plan to conrtol the wolves before they got to be problem, it could work. It would be very hard though. For now, I want to see the wolves out of this state until our other animals are where they should be in herd size.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Crash said:


> ..... For now, I want to see the wolves out of this state until our other animals are where they should be in herd size.


Crash - no argument with you - just curious about this part of your post about herd size.


----------

