# Save the wolves



## campfire

You guys need to stop being so **** dramatic. Wolves are part of the ecosystem. They are natural predators and the elk population needs to be thinned in a natural way. I'm glad there are wolves in Utah again, although I am not entirely convinced they were ever completely erradicated.

Science is behind this boys. They belong here and will stay, whether you like it or not! 

Thanks to:
savewolves.org
defenders.org


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

what did you just do???? You're not thinking right campfire was 4am when you posted this. I think your a little delirious.

o-||


----------



## OKEE

campfire said:


> You guys need to stop being so **** dramatic. Wolves are part of the ecosystem. They are natural predators and the elk population needs to be thinned in a natural way. I'm glad there are wolves in Utah again, although I am not entirely convinced they were ever completely erradicated.
> 
> Science is behind this boys. They belong here and will stay, whether you like it or not!
> 
> Thanks to:
> savewolves.org
> defenders.org


 :shock: :? :lol: :rotfl: -oOo- -#&#*!- _/O


----------



## goofy elk

Wondering if thay had been "completly erricadicted" or eliminated?
From Utah and the western U.S.?



Your kidding right?


----------



## inbowrange

I can see being okay with wolfs but hey there NOT the same ones that where here in the first place its a different breed. There bigger and faster, they need to kill alot more to stay big. These wolfs are made for the millions of caribou in Canada and Alaska not the thousands of elk and deer down here. Shoot on sight!!!!!!


----------



## proutdoors

campfire said:


> You guys need to stop being so **** dramatic. Wolves are part of the ecosystem. They are natural predators and the elk population needs to be thinned in a natural way. I'm glad there are wolves in Utah again, although I am not entirely convinced they were ever completely erradicated.
> 
> Science is behind this boys. They belong here and will stay, whether you like it or not!
> 
> Thanks to:
> savewolves.org
> defenders.org


I am not convinced Saber tigers have ever been completely eradicated either. Maybe we should get the "Defenders of Wildlife" to "re-introduce" them as well. :roll:

I don't get the "natural way" mentality. Are not humans part of "nature"? Are you saying wolves are "more natural" than humans? Whatever happened to the belief in evolution and survival of the strongest? Do you believe in "nature" or not? What "science" is behind this? Is it the science that insisted from the get go that the wolf population would 'self-regulate' itself and never get to the numbers we now see? The so-called 'science' has missed the projections by 1200+ animals, that equates into an F on the report card for these so-called 'scientists'. That is akin to me saying it is only 300 miles from SLC to NYC. The 'road map' used by 'science' has been using faulty GPS data, and they have led us into the abyss instead of the promised Utopia.


----------



## redleg

Anthrax, Smallpox and Lepracy are part ov nature and should be re-introduced. particularly among the environmentalists.


----------



## proutdoors

redleg said:


> Anthrax, Smallpox and Lepracy are part ov nature and should be re-introduced. particularly among the environmentalists.


Good points. A nuke is as 'natural' as the wolf "re-introduced" into Jellystone. :roll:

I can't wait to become less 'ignorant' and have it explained why these wolves are deemed "natural" as opposed to the "unnatural" humans. :?


----------



## GaryFish

I personally saved an elk this year. In doing it, I have two preferred methods. First is cut, wrapped and frozen. The other is ground, seasoned, and made into jerky. Both are very good methods of saving an animal.


----------



## jahan

Wow, he sure got a few of you guys! Where is the hook, line, and sinker symbol? I thought you were all smarter than this? Look over some of his past posts, it looks like to me he was just trying to be funny and get everyone riled up. :shock: :lol:  

It seems like almost everyone on this website hates wolves and Pitt Bulls, so I say you take the Pitt Bulls and train them to fight wolves, then people on this site won't have anything to whine about.  :shock: :wink: :lol:


----------



## Mojo1

redleg said:


> Anthrax, Smallpox and Lepracy are part ov nature and should be re-introduced. particularly among the environmentalists.


 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


----------



## Mojo1

YES, SAVE THE WOLVES............................................USE THEM FOR MAKING RUGS!!!! _(O)_ :idea:


----------



## GaryFish

> Wow, he sure got a few of you guys!


I'm not sure he got any of us. None of the responses lacked in sarcasm and humor. When a post doesn't get a serious response, it usually means it wasn't taken seriously. 8)


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

ya shut up jahan. :twisted:


----------



## Al Hansen

o-|| o-|| o-||


----------



## Surfer Coyote

redleg said:


> Anthrax, Smallpox and Lepracy are part ov nature and should be re-introduced. particularly among the environmentalists.


 -()/- -()/- -()/- -()/- -()/-

Too bad it won't work. They drive the Prius and pay $20 for a cup of coffee, so they have an aura that they are better than everyone else. Not even microbes can stand to occupy the same space as their undeserved smugness. :lol:


----------



## Hound Inc.

Wow, save the wolves huh? Well the elk and deer herds in certain parts of utah are thinned down plenty by the lions, I have seen tons of dead deer and elk. The thing that kills/thins out the most is........ that big, steel, thing that drives you around. If the wolves move in we as hunters a screwed, they hunt in packs and will wipe alot of the big game hunting out. Look at the big picture camp fire.. I think you should take a look at what they really do, kind of like the whole global warming thing. I spent the winter in the uintah basin, and believe me the globe was frozen out there for a good 2-3 months. Kill everyone of those mangy, rotten things you see. Just keep your mouth shut when you do it.


----------



## jahan

GaryFish said:


> Wow, he sure got a few of you guys!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure he got any of us. None of the responses lacked in sarcasm and humor. When a post doesn't get a serious response, it usually means it wasn't taken seriously. 8)
Click to expand...

I agree, but there were several serious responses. I am not saying it was necessarily you, but there are a few getting all wired up. Oh yeah, shut up fixed blade. 8)  I just had to say it because I am usually the one to respond to something like this.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors

> Too bad it won't work. They drive the Prius and pay $20 for a cup of coffee, so they have an aura that they are better than everyone else. Not even microbes can stand to occupy the same space as their undeserved smugness


There is not an ounce of truth to this statement! These people tend to be the most sickly, pasty, and unhealthy looking ones in the office! And trust me, they are usually the first ones to use all their sick leave each year.


----------



## JAT83

proutdoors said:


> campfire said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys need to stop being so **** dramatic. Wolves are part of the ecosystem. They are natural predators and the elk population needs to be thinned in a natural way. I'm glad there are wolves in Utah again, although I am not entirely convinced they were ever completely erradicated.
> 
> Science is behind this boys. They belong here and will stay, whether you like it or not!
> 
> Thanks to:
> savewolves.org
> defenders.org
> 
> 
> 
> I am not convinced Saber tigers have ever been completely eradicated either. Maybe we should get the "Defenders of Wildlife" to "re-introduce" them as well. :roll:
> 
> I don't get the "natural way" mentality. Are not humans part of "nature"? Are you saying wolves are "more natural" than humans? Whatever happened to the belief in evolution and survival of the strongest? Do you believe in "nature" or not? What "science" is behind this? Is it the science that insisted from the get go that the wolf population would 'self-regulate' itself and never get to the numbers we now see? The so-called 'science' has missed the projections by 1200+ animals, that equates into an F on the report card for these so-called 'scientists'. That is akin to me saying it is only 300 miles from SLC to NYC. The 'road map' used by 'science' has been using faulty GPS data, and they have led us into the abyss instead of the promised Utopia.
Click to expand...

+1 Yeah, can we bring back the Dinosaurs and let 'em run a muck! :lol:


----------



## Surfer Coyote

WasatchOutdoors said:


> Too bad it won't work. They drive the Prius and pay $20 for a cup of coffee, so they have an aura that they are better than everyone else. Not even microbes can stand to occupy the same space as their undeserved smugness
> 
> 
> 
> There is not an ounce of truth to this statement! These people tend to be the most sickly, pasty, and unhealthy looking ones in the office! And trust me, they are usually the first ones to use all their sick leave each year.
Click to expand...

You do realize that was a joke don't you??? Sounds like it got you all hot under the collar.


----------



## campfire

OK guys here is the skinny. So I am at work yesterday and in my down time making VERY INTELLEGENT posts in the general fishing forum and I mmmmmm forgot to log out. So my GOOD FRIEND and co-worker scott-rn grabs the opportunity to jack all of us around.  " A host of friends, I have a host of friends" (James Cann/"Mississippi" in "Eldorado"). :lol: April fool everybody! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Obviously they need more to do on the night shift. :wink: But.............. in all honesty there is an element of truth to what Scott posted. For what it is worth, myself, my father and my brother all experienced outdoorsmen, on separate occassions all saw what we all think to be wolves in the same area of the Uintas back in the 1960s and 1970s. An old friend of mine claimed that there was a "family of timber wolves" in that same area when he timbered it out in the late 40s and 50s. All of this long before any reintroduction efforts were made. Like I said, "for what it's worth". Sorry guys, and BTW I owe Scott one and I don't get even, I get ahead. :wink:


----------



## scott_rn

:rotfl: :rotfl: *(u)* *(u)* *(u)*



campfire said:


> BTW I owe Scott one and I don't get even, I get ahead. :wink:


 :shock:


----------



## duck jerky

wolves do not belong here. I think there are enough of us hunters to thin out the elk. so to heck with the wolfs just another stray dog that needs to be shot :twisted:


----------



## L.S.

duck jerky said:


> wolves do not belong here. I think there are enough of us hunters to thin out the elk. so to heck with the wolfs just another stray dog that needs to be shot :twisted:


I find this wildly Ironic since the wolves were here LONG before the white man.

The idea that the wolf is harmful is nothing but lies and propaganda put out the cattlemen and ranchers to protect their bottom line. We've done to all the other "threats" to live stock like the buffalo and parrie dogs.

As government welfare for the rancher dries up, growing cows and sheep becomes less profitable and many of these same folks now subsidize their income by turning their ranches in to big game hunting ranches charging folks with DEEP pockets exorbitant amounts each fall for the western hunting experience.

Seems like some folks cannot stand ANY kind of competition, even if it benefits the whole ecosystem.

Big game hunters in the west have been sold a bill of good with regards to the wolf to protect the profits of ranchers. *REAL* hunters that understood ecology (like the Native Americans that lived with the wolf for thousands of years), would WELCOME the wolf....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Them's some pretty fine points I reckon.


----------



## Loke

L.S. said:


> [quote="duck jerky":5fwz15u5]wolves do not belong here. I think there are enough of us hunters to thin out the elk. so to heck with the wolfs just another stray dog that needs to be shot :twisted:


I find this wildly Ironic since the wolves were here LONG before the white man.

The idea that the wolf is harmful is nothing but lies and propaganda put out the cattlemen and ranchers to protect their bottom line. We've done to all the other "threats" to live stock like the buffalo and parrie dogs.

As government welfare for the rancher dries up, growing cows and sheep becomes less profitable and many of these same folks now subsidize their income by turning their ranches in to big game hunting ranches charging folks with DEEP pockets exorbitant amounts each fall for the western hunting experience.

Seems like some folks cannot stand ANY kind of competition, even if it benefits the whole ecosystem.

Big game hunters in the west have been sold a bill of good with regards to the wolf to protect the profits of ranchers. *REAL* hunters that understood ecology (like the Native Americans that lived with the wolf for thousands of years), would WELCOME the wolf....[/quote:5fwz15u5]
Here's a great idea. Lets all leave and give the planet back to the animals. L.S., Where do you suggest we put the six or seven billion people that inhabit this earth? And will you volunteer to be the first to go?


----------



## GaryFish

> Where do you suggest we put the six or seven billion people that inhabit this earth?


The lions, tigers and bears oh my would eat those who don't fit on the space ark. The wolves won't eat them though, because we all know that wolves don't attack people.


----------



## HighNDry

Loke said:


> L.S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="duck jerky":1b042w36]wolves do not belong here. I think there are enough of us hunters to thin out the elk. so to heck with the wolfs just another stray dog that needs to be shot :twisted:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this wildly Ironic since the wolves were here LONG before the white man.
> 
> The idea that the wolf is harmful is nothing but lies and propaganda put out the cattlemen and ranchers to protect their bottom line. We've done to all the other "threats" to live stock like the buffalo and parrie dogs.
> 
> As government welfare for the rancher dries up, growing cows and sheep becomes less profitable and many of these same folks now subsidize their income by turning their ranches in to big game hunting ranches charging folks with DEEP pockets exorbitant amounts each fall for the western hunting experience.
> 
> Seems like some folks cannot stand ANY kind of competition, even if it benefits the whole ecosystem.
> 
> Big game hunters in the west have been sold a bill of good with regards to the wolf to protect the profits of ranchers. *REAL* hunters that understood ecology (like the Native Americans that lived with the wolf for thousands of years), would WELCOME the wolf....
Click to expand...

Here's a great idea. Lets all leave and give the planet back to the animals. L.S., Where do you suggest we put the six or seven billion people that inhabit this earth? And will you volunteer to be the first to go?[/quote:1b042w36]
There's a dog food plant in Ogden. Maybe grind them up and feed them to the dogs, but then the dog population would increase and we'd have to shoot all the dogs to keep a balance. Oh boy, it never ends.


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> Here's a great idea. Lets all leave and give the planet back to the animals. L.S., Where do you suggest we put the six or seven billion people that inhabit this earth? And will you volunteer to be the first to go?


Or we could learn to live WITH the other creatures of this planet, not simply kill them because we can. There is a difference in stewardship and domination.

Animals simply do what they do. The wolves were here long before the sheep and cows. They don't recognize political boundaries. They can't tell teh difference between a wild deer or elk and a tame sheep. The federal government compensates ranchers that lose stock to wolves, so to say that ranchers are killing wolves to protect their stock is a bunch of hooey. In fact everyone knows that ranchers outside Yellowstone have blamed wolves for many natural deaths among their stock to receive compensation from the feds. These are the same folks that when asked say "Keep the government out of my business, except when it comes to subsidies and compensation."

The deer, elk and bison of this nation lived with wolves for tens on thousands of years. The wolves didn't cause the extinction of these species. If anything is to blame for the demise of our big game populations in this state it's habitat destruction by MAN. And oh, By the way, that is EXACTLY what all of you "hunters" that claim to be friends of our wildlife are calling for when you start taking about letting man do as he pleases, grazing cattle on our public lands, chaining and burning range lands, and any number of practices that are associated with land management in the western US.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Loke said:


> L.S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quote="duck jerky":39ushweu]wolves do not belong here. I think there are enough of us hunters to thin out the elk. so to heck with the wolfs just another stray dog that needs to be shot :twisted:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this wildly Ironic since the wolves were here LONG before the white man.
> 
> The idea that the wolf is harmful is nothing but lies and propaganda put out the cattlemen and ranchers to protect their bottom line. We've done to all the other "threats" to live stock like the buffalo and parrie dogs.
> 
> As government welfare for the rancher dries up, growing cows and sheep becomes less profitable and many of these same folks now subsidize their income by turning their ranches in to big game hunting ranches charging folks with DEEP pockets exorbitant amounts each fall for the western hunting experience.
> 
> Seems like some folks cannot stand ANY kind of competition, even if it benefits the whole ecosystem.
> 
> Big game hunters in the west have been sold a bill of good with regards to the wolf to protect the profits of ranchers. *REAL* hunters that understood ecology (like the Native Americans that lived with the wolf for thousands of years), would WELCOME the wolf....
Click to expand...

Here's a great idea. Lets all leave and give the planet back to the animals. L.S., Where do you suggest we put the six or seven billion people that inhabit this earth? And will you volunteer to be the first to go?[/quote:39ushweu]

Human's would probably benefit from some kind of predator to kill off the sick and the week. Instead we have socialism and empathy and the walking dead remain.


----------



## Loke

This is why *man* has the responsibility to keep the populations of *all* species at a level where they can co-exist. Wolves have a place in nature. But it is not in close proximity to man. Their numbers also cannot exceed the carrying capacity of their ecosystem. When their predation exceeds the ability of their prey to reproduce, they will soon eat their way to starvation. Since man has limited they areas that the prey species have to live and roam, we have the responsibility to keep the predator numbers low enough, so that this does not happen. I, for one, do not feel like becoming a prey species, so I will support the management of all other species. I'm sorry if intelligent game management does not fit in to your fantasy world. Nature does not work the way Walt Disney would have you believe.


----------



## L.S.

"This is why man, has the responsibility to keep the populations of all species at a level where they can co-exist."

Ummm, because we were the ones that screwed the balance up in the first place?

Loke

Can you tell me what the carrying capacity for sheep and cows were in Utah be fore the white man arrived?

How about the carrying capacity vs population sizes for Deer and Elk after wolves were removed?

Why should the wolves be punished for MAN's mistakes?

And by the way, I have two biology degrees, including 1 in ecology, so I think I have a pretty good idea of how nature works. Does







mean anything to you? It does to me.

Nature doesn't need "management". It did just fine for millions, even BILLIONS of years without our help. Human activites need management. If you knew anything about carrying capacity, you'd know that wolf populations would NATURALLY dip their carrying capacity if they exceeded it without us having to do anything.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Loke said:


> This is why *man* has the responsibility to keep the populations of *all* species at a level where they can co-exist. Wolves have a place in nature. But it is not in close proximity to man. Their numbers also cannot exceed the carrying capacity of their ecosystem. When their predation exceeds the ability of their prey to reproduce, they will soon eat their way to starvation. Since man has limited they areas that the prey species have to live and roam, we have the responsibility to keep the predator numbers low enough, so that this does not happen. I, for one, do not feel like becoming a prey species, so I will support the management of all other species. I'm sorry if intelligent game management does not fit in to your fantasy world. Nature does not work the way Walt Disney would have you believe.


I won't argue any of the above, I agree. We can't manage 99.5%, it needs to be all or none.

Ok, I lied. One thing I will disagree with is the _necessity_ to manage to certain numbers. We make a choice to manage predators to lower levels, so we can kill their prey instead. I'm not arguing the validity of this, just pointing it out.


----------



## Loke

OK, lets manage the human population. Who do we kill off first? I think it should be the ones who think more of an animal than themselves. L.S., do you want to volunteer your children? You do make a great point with your cute mathematical equation. Book learning does not equal common sense. There is no balance in nature, no matter what you may think, only cycles of lots of prey/low predator numbers, or high predator numbers/low prey. Do you think that the game animal numbers could support the human population of today? So that brings us back to my original comment to you. Where do we put the 5 or 6 billion excess humans that are on this planet? Aren't we part of nature as well?
Management of wildlife is part of what we do. Killing is part of that management. If you would rather limit human numbers, rather than animal numbers, perhaps we could start with the Jews. Oh, that's been tried before. Or maybe the intellectuals. They did that in Russia, and Cambodia. Oh, we could do the Christians like they tried in Rome. Where do you suggest we start?


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> OK, lets manage the human population. Who do we kill off first? I think it should be the ones who think more of an animal than themselves. L.S., do you want to volunteer your children? You do make a great point with your cute mathematical equation. Book learning does not equal common sense. There is no balance in nature, no matter what you may think, only cycles of lots of prey/low predator numbers, or high predator numbers/low prey. Do you think that the game animal numbers could support the human population of today? So that brings us back to my original comment to you. Where do we put the 5 or 6 billion excess humans that are on this planet? Aren't we part of nature as well?
> Management of wildlife is part of what we do. Killing is part of that management. If you would rather limit human numbers, rather that animal numbers, perhaps we could start with the Jews. Oh, that's been tried before. Or maybe the intellectuals. They did that in Russia, and Cambodia. Oh, we could do the Christians like they tried in Rome. Where do you suggest we start?


How about this. I'm 39 and I've made the decison not to have kids. So I can honeslty say, you can start with me. Now what are you going to do for your part?

And your wrong about balance in nature. It's there. It simply plots as a dampened oscillating equation. If you understood the equation above, you'd know that. And contrary to popular belief, most educated scientists DO have common sense. If they didn't they would have never gotten their advanced degrees like I did. The "Common Sense" argument is simply one rolled out by folks that are intellectually outgunned in attempt to undermine true scientific arguments that are supported by pesky things like "Facts".


----------



## Loke

Manage the animal population.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

I vote Rome. :mrgreen:


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> Manage the animal population.


In a world with preadtors, "_Leaving it alone_" *IS* a management strategy (and one that worked for thousands of years.....)

But, oh wait, nobody can make money of that one.....


----------



## Loke

But not a very smart one.


By the way, do you use money?


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> But not a very smart one.


Why? Beucase you can't get your rocks off shooting them?

To take this back to the wolf discussion. *WHY* is control of our deer and elk populations thorough hunting so important?????


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

L.S. said:


> Loke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Manage the animal population.
> 
> 
> 
> In a world with preadtors, "_Leaving it alone_" *IS* a management strategy (and one that worked for thousands of years.....)
> 
> But, oh wait, nobody can make money of that one.....
Click to expand...

That would be fine _if_ we left _everything_ alone. The problem is, we manage all of the prey, but not the predator. Bad scenario for balance and harmony.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

L.S. said:


> Loke said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not a very smart one.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Beucase you can't get your rocks off shooting them?
Click to expand...

Did you really say that? Loke is the last guy that would be labeled as killhappy. Do you really think that hunting is all about getting one's "rocks" off?

Now you just sound silly.


----------



## L.S.

Treehugnhuntr said:


> L.S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loke said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not a very smart one.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Beucase you can't get your rocks off shooting them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you really say that? Loke is the last guy that would be labeled as killhappy. Do you really think that hunting is all about getting one's "rocks" off?
> 
> Now you just sound silly.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of hyperbole?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Yes, I was just unclear of your intentions until now. Hyperbole away. :wink:


----------



## Loke

I enjoy all aspects of nature. I like to photograph all types of wildlife, including predators. But I also realize that as the dominant species on this planet, human needs will come before the needs of other species. We need to be able to coexist with the rest of nature. to *co*exist means that we humans get to exist as well. We raise the numbers of cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys and whatever to fulfill our needs. The domestic varieties we have now take up a lot less space than their wild counterparts. That is why we grow cows and sheep and pigs and whatever, and don't kill off all of the wild ones to subsist on. Now if we let the woofies run rampant, and eat all of the wild animals, what will they get to eat next? And after they eat all of my food, then do we let them eat the people? that would ruin the whole Coexist thing, if the *co* is all gone.


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> But I also realize that as the dominant species on this planet, human needs will come before the needs of other species.


Really Didn't you say this earlier?



Loke said:


> I, for one, do not feel like becoming a prey species...


Are we dominant or not?



Loke said:


> We need to be able to coexist with the rest of nature. to *co*exist means that we humans get to exist as well. We raise the numbers of cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys and whatever to fulfill our needs. The domestic varieties we have now take up a lot less space than their wild counterparts. That is why we grow cows and sheep and pigs and whatever, and don't kill off all of the wild ones to subsist on. Now if we let the woofies run rampant, and eat all of the wild animals, what will they get to eat next? And after they eat all of my food, then do we let them eat the people? that would ruin the whole Coexist thing, if the *co* is all gone.


Ok, I don't disagree there. But I will ask you the question, are we rasing those domestic animals in the "right" places and in ways where those domestic animals don't destroy habitat that wild animals can use? Could we? Should we?


----------



## Loke

I believe that farmers and ranchers are doing a great job feeding the world's population. There is room for improvement, and I'm sure that they are finding ways to improve. Wild game populations are higher throughout the United States than they have been in the past 100 years. Does this mean it is time to introduce the second most efficient predator into the equation? I don't think so. Should we allow a single species to destroy it all? I don't think that, either. This is why we need to *manage* wolf populations. This is why we manage habitat for the benefit of game populations. This is why sportsmen's groups (like the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, and many others), spend millions of dollars to protect habitat for wild game. This is why there have been limits placed on grazing permits on our public lands. The chaining of public lands that you brought up earlier, is to enhance the habitat for wildlife as well. It is an attempt to re-establish the grasslands that disappeared when all of the wildfires were suppressed. It is all part of the balance you wish to maintain.


----------



## L.S.

Ok, I understand MANAGING wolf populations. Indiscriminate killing of wolves ISN't Management.....


----------



## Loke

I never advocated killing all of them. I just said they have no place in close proximity to man. Where there is enough wilderness to support an unlimited prey population, there is space for unlimited wolves. But since that does not exist, then the wolf population needs to be managed. The re-introduction goal for wolves in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem was 30 packs or 300 individual wolves. The last estimate by the biologists was that there were over 1500 wolves. The prey populations cannot sustain that many wolves. The wolf population needs to be reduced. That is not indiscriminate killing. That is managing.


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> That is not indiscriminate killing. That is managing.


Loke,

WY's shoot on site plan isn't managing. That's my point. Managing them is limits, tags, seasons. This isn't what WY is doing and why I'm against it.


----------



## Loke

Wyoming has an area that is off limits to hunting wolves. They have an area where they don't want the wolves to be. That is managing.


----------



## BERG

L.S. said:


> Loke said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not a very smart one.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Beucase you can't get your rocks off shooting them?
> 
> To take this back to the wolf discussion. *WHY* is control of our deer and elk populations thorough hunting so important?????
Click to expand...

Dear LS,

First, I've read this entire thread, and you are way out of your element. In fact, have you ever actually had the opportunity to get your rocks off in some regard, do you actually have any rocks, or have you always just been a pompous asnine (spelled wrong on purpose) Celibate Democrat?

Second, you don't spell very well for being such a well educated guy with three degrees of whatever...please learn to use your spell checker, as you lose a tremendous amount of credibility for not knowing how to use one.

Third, I give it as my humble opinion that you are a legend in your own mind; furthermore, your arrogance is carried over into your uninformed responses to some highly intelligent individuals. No, I'm not suggesting that you're not a likeable fellow, yet you should learn more about your audience. They are far more educated, regarding the issues in this thread, than you currently have the capacity to understand. Moreover, they simply know WTF they are talking about when it comes to management of wildlife and public resources; therefore, however smart you think you are in your world; you are not King of the Hill in this World by a very, very, long shot.

A college degree does not automatically make you smarter than everyone else. For example, just because one knows how to solve an algebraic equation, does not mean that they will have the ability to solve a story problem using algebra. In other words, being book smart without having common sense is useless fodder. Dude, get a clue&#8230;there are many people on this forum, without college degrees, who have a much higher intellect than you in real world application.

Last, I'll bet you are a very nice person, but please show some humility. There's no need for you to display such obvious ignorance regarding wildlife issues...I'm just saying. Now, it will be interesting to see if this post incites rage in your heart. /**|**\

Thank you, just another DAHB from Youtah&#8230;that was spelled wrong on purpose.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

Work the body, work the body, jab, left cross, upper cut, Knockout. We have a winner, standing in the blue corner at 5'6" tall, 262 lbs. BEEEEEEERRRRRRG!  

There's a spell checker?


----------



## BERG

Thank you Blade, but now I'm actually a little over 5'6" tall and my weight is now closer to 
about 258lbs. That whole power 90 thing is really working for me these days. 

Signed, your blood brother from the other mother, HillbillyBERG :wink:


----------



## cacherinthewry

How is LS uninformed? How is it he has no humility? How is your post related to the topic and not a pointless attack on someone who is taking part in a converstation? It's the internet, not newsprint or a novel...who cares about an occasional typo. You get the gist of what he said, don't you? A typo doesn't reduce the value of the opinion. Does "smarter" mean following the opinion of the herd, or does it mean thinking for yourself? 

Weak post Berg. Try to contribute to the topic instead of attacking someone who expressed their opinion, educated or not (but I see LS's info as rather well informed and educated).



I say there should be a permit system outside of wilderness areas, with focused control of problem animals/packs that are targeting livestock. Wolves taking wild game are not problem animals.


----------



## L.S.

Berg,

Other than attacking me, how did you advance the argument that WY is right in their policies?

If you and your cronies are so much smarter than me, what relevant scientific arguments have you brought to counter what I've said? None. You guys can't attack the arguments I've made, because you don't have the facts on your side. As a result, you have to attack the character of the person writing them and saying things like, "you misspelled a word, you must not know what your talking about" (FYI, I type really fast and sometime my fingers and my brain get out of sync). It's just like the "common sense" argument made earlier in the tread. Well, don't you think that "book learning" helps one come to an educated conclusion or solution to a problem? How is coming to an educated conclusion NOT common sense?

And that algebra equation that I posted is the Lotka-Volterra equation for inter-specific competition, and while not the primary predator/prey equation, it can be used to represent predator/prey interactions. I wasn't asking anyone to _SOLVE_ the equation, I was simply asking them to _IDENTIFY_ the equation. The simple fact that nobody else here knew that and knew that equation represents, mathematically, one way wildlife biologists determine what carrying capacity is for both predator and prey really speaks to the point that peoples fear of the wolf is based not on fact, but on politics and fairy tales. So if fear mongering counts as real world application, then consider yourselves smarter than me.

So as long as we're talking "common sense", I'm sorry to tell you guys, but I don't put much stock in sources like Field and Stream or Don Peay as compared to scientific journals (which are reviewed and checked for correctness by other scientists). Whenever a group stands to make money of a management decision, then their judgement becomes clouded. Ask yourself this question. What to the scientists arguing for the wolf have to gain by supporting their position? No much really. Most (all) are government employees on a "fixed" salary. If not studying wolves in Yellowstone, they'd be counting prairie dogs in South Dakota or pine siskins in Fla or what ever. What do the Cattlemen, ranchers, and hunting guides potentially have to lose with wolves around? That's what I call "common cents...."

There is a harmony in nature. I gave up hunting long ago. I'd still likely go bird hunting if invited, but I gave up deer hunting long ago. I'm mainly a fishermen. To me one of the most amazing things about the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone is that park biologists found an improvement in both riparian habitat and the spawning success of native cutthroat trout becuase the wolves ran the elk out of the stream side meadows. Without the wolf, the Elk, deer and moose had been hanging out in these areas, destroying stream banks, eating stream side vegetation (that helps shade and cool these streams) and silting up the creeks by walking in them. The wolf drove these species back in to the forests. Nobody expected a top level predator like the wolf to have an impact on the park fisheries. They did, and I can think of no finer argument of why a top level predator is "needed" in all ecosystems than that.

My only real point of contention here is that the shoot on site policy in WY is NOT the way to manage this situation or species. cacherinthewry had it right when they said need a limit/season something in place, not shoot on site for fun or fear. But it's OK, as soon as Obama wins the white house and changes the head of the Fish and Wildlife service, the wolf is going to be re-listed (mainly becuase of this fiasco). Deal with it.

L

PS, Thanks cacherinthewry.


----------



## Loke

Have you read Wyoming's wolf management plan? It is not a simple "shoot on sight" plan as you assert. After an animal is taken, the hunter is required to report his take to Wyoming's game and fish department, with the age, and sex of the animal. This is so that the animal population can be managed. Idaho has a different system. They are issuing tags, and will close the season when a set number of animals have been taken by hunters. Utah will issue licenses when we have a viable breeding population here. These are all different management practices. I'm not going to argue which is the best for the ecology of each region. I'll let the game departments decided which is best for their respective areas. They know what their management goals (for all species) are, and have all of the information available to them to best make that decision. I have never claimed that wolves do not have a place in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. But I don't believe that wolves belong everywhere. Have you had any personal interactions with the wolves? Personally, I have not. But quite a few acquaintances of mine have. Their experiences are that the wolves do not have a fear of man. They have come to know that for the most part, man is not a threat to them. And if we are not a threat, they will soon realise that we could be an easy meal for them. You have made the claim that the American Indian lived in harmony with the wolf. I disagree with this. I believe that the American Indian was just as afraid of the wolf as our European ancestors were. If they had possessed the technology, they would have tried to eradicate the wolf, as the early Europeans tried to do where they lived.
Bringing politics into wildlife management is the worst possible scenario for every species involved. What you are advocating is to let uninformed emotions dictate what should be educated scientific decision. Do emotions factor in to your algebraic equation? It is puzzling to me that those who are the most vocal about protecting the environment, forget that the human population is part of the environment, and part of nature. The human factor is always left out of the carrying capacity equation. If we are to eliminate the human factor, there could be no human contact with the environment. That includes the fishermen, wildlife watchers, hikers, farmers, ranchers, and everyone else. Do you honestly believe that man is not part of nature? If you believe in the theory of evolution, then you must believe that man has risen to the top of the evolutionary chain because we belong there, and until something bigger, smarter, and better comes along, we'll stay there. If you believe in creation, then you know that this Earth, and all that is in it, was made for our benefit, and that we are to use it as we see fit. So we are either part of it, or it is ours to use.


----------



## Loke

As far as personal attacks go, I have gone out of my way to avoid them. And I believe they started with the "get your rocks off" comment. Bragging of your college degrees and implying that I am uneducated could be taken as a personal attack as well. I have read the management plans published by the states in question, do they fall into your "Field and Stream" category as well? (Just for the record, I don't read _Field and Stream_.) Or would they qualify as being a scientific journal? Politics do not and never have produced sound wildlife management practices. You will never convince me that politics are not money driven, and you have implied that money is the driving force behind the practices you argue against. You are advocating that we must leave nature alone, as if we are not a part of nature. I say that we are part of nature, and our impacts, and the impacts to our population, must be part of the management plans.


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> If you believe in creation, then you know that this Earth, and all that is in it, was made for our benefit, and that we are to use it as we see fit. So we are either part of it, or it is ours to use.


Yes. I believe in creation. Darwins version. So no, I don't believe that the earth is here for us to use as we see fit.


----------



## Loke

L.S. said:


> Yes. I believe in creation. Darwins version.


 Then you must believe that since we have evolved to become the dominant species on the planet, the others are not fit to survive. It is survival of the fittest after all.



> So no, I don't believe that the earth is here for us to use as we see fit.


If life is simply an accident, then who does the earth belong to? And to whom do we answer for misusing it?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Something I'd like to point out is the URGENT need that Wyoming and the various ranching and hunting sects are using in management, because of inevitable lawsuits and injunctions from overboard pro wolf advocates.

I agree with management, but moderates won't win in this scenario. It is one or the other, so they will push as hard as they need to win.


----------



## BERG

cacherinthewry said:


> How is LS uninformed? How is it he has no humility? How is your post related to the topic and not a pointless attack on someone who is taking part in a converstation? It's the internet, not newsprint or a novel...who cares about an occasional typo. You get the gist of what he said, don't you? A typo doesn't reduce the value of the opinion. Does "smarter" mean following the opinion of the herd, or does it mean thinking for yourself?
> 
> Weak post Berg. Try to contribute to the topic instead of attacking someone who expressed their opinion, educated or not (but I see LS's info as rather well informed and educated).
> 
> I say there should be a permit system outside of wilderness areas, with focused control of problem animals/packs that are targeting livestock. Wolves taking wild game are not problem animals.


Right back at you Catcher...very week post on your part, and I couldn't disagree more with what you had to say. Apparently, you didn't get the gist of what I was trying to say. Nevertheless, we are both entitled to our opinions. In fact, I do see my post as a contribution in this thread. You accuse me of making personal attacks, but why do the likes of LS, and you, feel this to be unfair?
Does your crap not stink? _/O Let me get this straight. You can take cheap shots, but the rest of us can't? Please take the personal attacks like men, be accountable for your own words, and have some rocks. Don't cry so much.

[attachment=0:3by5zbfc]1cry.gif[/attachment:3by5zbfc]

Thank you very much.

Your friend, believe it or not, BERG


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> L.S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I believe in creation. Darwins version.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must believe that since we have evolved to become the dominant species on the planet, the others are not fit to survive. It is survival of the fittest after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no, I don't believe that the earth is here for us to use as we see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If life is simply an accident, then who does the earth belong to? And to whom do we answer for misusing it?
Click to expand...

Who said we were the dominant species? If you asked me, I'd say it was some sort of bacteria. Ask the dinosaurs about being the dominant life form on the planet. They ruled for 65 MILLION years. Humans have been around for about 1 million.

The earth belongs to nobody. When we screw it up, we'll have nobody to answer to but ourselves.


----------



## Loke

So when we're gone it won't matter. So why should we bother? Your motivation puzzles me.

We can travel around the earth in a matter of moments. We have sent objects to other planets. We can communicate on a world wide basis, to billions of people instantly. We have developed the capability to destroy our planet. I don't believe that the dinosaurs had that ability. And according to your time line we have accomplished these feats in a short 1 million years. I would say that is dominant. 

By the way, have you taken the time to read Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan?


----------



## Huge29

BERG said:


> Second, you don't spell very well for being such a well educated guy with three degrees of whatever...please learn to use your spell checker, as you lose a tremendous amount of credibility for not knowing how to use one.





BERG said:


> Right back at you Catcher...very *week* post on your part, and I couldn't disagree more with what you had to say.


 :lol:


----------



## jhunter

L.S. I am wondering if you have read that wolf management plan?? Because it would be fairly self defeating, to post your war cry here if you havent read the plan. 
This is just too emotional now on both sides and I admit that I get worked up over the situation. But knowing that there *MIGHT *be a chance with *PROPER *management the wolf *COULD *be used as a tool to better our wildlife situation. Well then I guess I will find a way to deal with that.(But just because the wolfs are here to stay)

And why would Obama want to relist the wolf? We already know that as far as the reintroduction they have surpassed their objective.

As far as your Darwin thought if the earth is not here for us and it does not belong to anyone species and we will only answer to ourselves. Let Wyoming shoot those dogs and answer to themselves because you and I are obviously not the judges. Right?
I suppose that I am having a real hard time understanding why you (L.S. not a biologist in wyoming) would know better than they, who are there, and have all the facts and information in front of them?
Maybe I need some more "enlightenment" but I strongly disagree with you at this point. I am seeing no validation to your point as far as Wyoming is concerned!

Another question (or two), that equation that you posted, have you used it to identify the number of supportable wolfs vs. prey for the state of Wyoming?
Just wondering if your sustainable population calculations would be different from that of the states? Does it also factor a variable for prey removed from hunting activities? These hunting activities are where we are fearing the lose. There doesnt seem to be much to gain if the wolf is consuming the animals we want to hunt. So if there is something to gain from the wolf, as a hunter, please fill me in.

Have a good one!


----------



## L.S.

jhunter said:


> L.S. I am wondering if you have read that wolf management plan?? Because it would be fairly self defeating, to post your war cry here if you havent read the plan.


Yes, I've read it and here's my problem with it...



> Unregulated Public Take: *In areas of Wyoming where the wolf is classified as a predatory animal, take will not be regulated*.





> Legal Wolf Mortality: Upon delisting, legal wolf mortality will result from such things as agency removals, public take (i.e., hunting and trapping), or in defense of life or private property. The Department or its authorized agent may lethally remove wolves, when deemed necessary, to mitigate wolf conflicts with wildlife, livestock, or humans (see "Nuisance Wolf Management" section of this plan). *Taking wolves in areas where they are designated as predatory animal will also be legal*.


Ok, Cool. But where are wolves listed as predatory animals? Pretty much every where except federal lands in NW Wyoming. That means it's legal to take a wolf at any time in these areas, or shoot on site. I'm sorry but that just doesn't sit right with me, and I don't think it's pratical management of the species.

And no, I haven't done any of the calculations I listed above. You haven't either. My point is that the decision to shoot wolves in WY is motivated primarily by politics, not by science. If it's science, then why don't Montana and Idaho have similar plans? Both ID and MT have wolf mangement plans that call for seasons and bag limits in addition to shooting of wolves harassing/threating livestock. I think it's also important to note that almost half of the wild wolf population in the lower 48 lives in ID. If 700 wolves in ID aren't a problem, then way fewer than that in WY (approx 100) shouldn't be a problem either. That leaves me with one conclusion, politics.

I guess my point in all of this is that I, and many, many others in this nation saw no problem with the existing wolf management plan of protection under the ESA and control of nuisance wolves.

Here's another question for you guys. Do you think that wolves belong in the high uintas?


----------



## Loke

Another point that hasn't been brought up, is that in order for the wolves to have been de-listed, the states where it was to be delisted needed to have management plans in place that were approved by the feds. In hindsight, it would have (in my opinion) been better to have these plans in place before the wolves were introduced in the first place. The wolves established themselves faster than anyone anticipated. They expanded their range further than anticipated. No one expected them to be in Morgan, Utah as soon as they were. This is where the problems occurred. Had these plans been in effect earlier, giving the states the ability to limit the wolf numbers to the 30 packs and 300 wolves that were the reintroduction goals, the impact to the elk, deer, and livestock wouldn't have been so drastic. The wolves would have (again, in my opinion) been more welcome in more areas. And the plan in Wyoming that disturbs you so much, would have most likely been different. Wyoming's fish and game department is managing the wolf, with the interests of all species involved in mind. Their biologists have determined that the wolves are to be protected in a portion of their state. They have determined that the wolves would have to great an impact it the rest of the state. They have the data and research to back up that decision. You must also realize that not all of Wyoming looks like Yellowstone and Teton National Park. Wyoming (and their biologists) have determined that the areas outside the protected areas is not suitable habitat for the wolves. That is their decision. They have the data to support that decision, or the feds would not have approved their management plan.

No, I do not believe that there is enough wilderness area in the High Uintas to support a wolf population. But if a wolf population were to establish itself, it should be allowed to stay,*as long as its numbers are limited to minimize the impact on game populations, and human activities in the region.* hunting the wolves will also teach the wolves to avoid humans. In Idaho, the wolves do not fear man. This is not good for either the wolf or man. The wolves need to know that man is dangerous, not the source of as easy meal. This is why it is illegal to feed the bears in Yellowstone. The wolves need to know (and they will learn quickly) to stay away from man and our population centers. The only way to teach them this, is to make each encounter as unpleasant for them as possible. Shooting on sight (like Wyoming's management plan) will teach them this. Was it you that said that we couldn't kill them all unless we resorted to poison? That shooting them would only make them avoid man and they wouldn't let us get close enough to shoot them? So why get so upset about a plan that won't kill them all anyway.
The wolves in Idaho are a problem. A big problem. Have you read Idaho's plan? They will sell tags over the counter, and the season will be open until 300 animals (per year) have been taken. That is almost 1/2 (using your numbers) of the population. If that doesn't indicate a problem, I don't know what would. Wyoming's plan will accomplish the same thing. Except they aren't selling tags. Now which sounds more like politics? I would say the one that makes more money for the state. (There's that money motivation again.)


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> Had these plans been in effect earlier, giving the states the ability to limit the wolf numbers to the 30 packs and 300 wolves that were the reintroduction goals, the impact to the elk, deer, and livestock wouldn't have been so drastic.


Your argument falls flat.

All quotes from the Wy Wolf management plan....



> However, to date, there are no definitive data showing decreased hunter harvest or opportunity due to wolf predation on elk or moose in Wyoming.





> At recovery, livestock losses to wolves in the GYA were estimated to range from 1-32 cattle and 17-110 sheep/year (USFWS 1994:4-16). This depredation rate would result in an annual loss of approximately $1,900-30,500.


Those numbers are hardly "drastic".



Loke said:


> The only way to teach them this, is to make each encounter as unpleasant for them as possible. Shooting on sight (like Wyoming's management plan) will teach them this.


It will teach them nothing. You can't learn anything when you are dead.


----------



## Loke

Have you researched the elk herd numbers in Idaho lately? Calf mortality is over 80% in the areas impacted by the wolves. That means that the elk herd can no longer sustain itself. Are elk less valuable to the ecosystem than the wolf? 
Why does my argument fall flat? Because you don't agree with it? 
Hunting a game population teaches the other members of the population what is dangerous. That is why deer, elk, and other animals keep a distance from man whenever possible. It is that same education (that the young receive from other members of the pack, herd, flock or whatever) that teach them to avoid wolves. It is called "collective memory". The herd learns and passes this knowledge on to the other members.


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> Have you researched the elk herd numbers in Idaho lately? Calf mortality is over 80% in the areas impacted by the wolves. That means that the elk herd can no longer sustain itself. Are elk less valuable to the ecosystem than the wolf?


Is that rumor or fact? Is it due to wolves or other factors (drought, fires, harsh/mild winters, etc)? (I don't know, if you have the papers/articles to support your position, could you please post them.)

See these?
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/ ... this-year/

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/di ... tery_x.htm



> In the Yellowstone Science journal, U.S. Geological Survey *ecologist Dave Mech and his colleagues concluded this summer that "grizzly and black bears, rather than wolves, are having a greater impact on neonatal elk calf mortality than any other predator*."
> 
> Zigzagging through fields where young elk lie, bears kill roughly six times more calves than wolves do, the ecologists found. Elk calves are uniquely vulnerable: They tend to stay in place near danger instead of running. In May and June, bears hunt through Northern Range calving areas for them, looking for an easy meal.


----------



## proutdoors

L.S.
I guess it is just a 'scientific' coincidence that elk were plentiful *BEFORE * the wolves were injected into the park, and the calf survival rates were MUCH higher* BEFORE* as well, right? :roll:

I also challenge the notion that livestock owners are compensated for their loses. Maybe you can 'educate' me on when they started figuring out how to compensate the cattlemen for the loss of weight gain on cattle and the calf loses that are not as easily 'proven' to be wolf caused!? Your lovely little wolf experiment has PROVEN the 'experts', AKA biologists have missed the boat on several fronts on this issue. Not one of your 'educated' feel goods predicted the wolf population would get as high as it is now. Nor did any of you project the HUGE economic loses to local areas, but I am supposed to believe all the nonsensical reports put out by those with open/hidden agendas on calf mortality causes? Not likely. I have family/friends affected first hand by this lab test gone wrong.

You bring up the food chain and where wolves/humans are in that chain. Are we above or below the wolf? If we are below them, how so? If we are above them why should we treat them any different than they treat coyotes and other competion for food?


----------



## jhunter

L.S. your articles are interesting but I am not convinced that Wyoming is going about their wolf manaement plan all wrong. It was federally approved! They must have some idea of what is going on. Right? 
The problem is then the solution! I can not give it to you, I am not a wolf advocate.

POLITICS!

POLITICS!

POLITICS!


----------



## Loke

Here's a link describing the economic impacts the wolves are having in Idaho. There are a couple more that I've read before, I'm still looking for them.
http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2008/02 ... l-coverup/

You might find this as credible as I find the reports from the wolf recovery foundation. Please take the time to view the slide show. 
http://wolf.rliv.com/
Here is another one.
http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/elkgone.htm

Getting back to your original issue. The bottom line is this. Wyoming has a plan to manage its wolf population. Idaho has a plan to manage its wolf population. Montana has a plan to manage its wolf population. Utah has a plan to manage its wolf population. You agree with Idaho's plan, and Montana's plan. You don't agree with Wyoming's, because it doesn't charge hunters a fee to hunt wolves. Each of these plans have precisely the same goal: to reduce and limit the number of wolves. To lower the impact that they are having on the deer, elk, and livestock. And to reduce the impact on other economic factors that are directly and indirectly related to the wolf numbers in those states.


----------



## proutdoors

L.S.
Are you trying to say the propaganda is only coming from the hunter/rancher side? Is that an 'educated' statement, or is that propaganda? When are you and your fellow 'educated' friends going to bring back the saber tooth? I think it would help keep wolf populations in check 'naturally'. How about it? :?


----------



## L.S.

proutdoors said:


> L.S.
> I guess it is just a 'scientific' coincidence that elk were plentiful *BEFORE * the wolves were injected into the park, and the calf survival rates were MUCH higher* BEFORE* as well, right? :roll:


Maybe, but were Elk populations at or above their carry capacity before the wolf reintroduction?

(Hint:Above!)

Wolves just returned the populations to NORMAL levels (which was one reason for the reintroduction...


----------



## L.S.

Here's a little story for you guys....

http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/594254.html


----------



## proutdoors

L.S. said:


> Maybe, but were Elk populations at or above their carry capacity before the wolf reintroduction?
> 
> (Hint:Above!)
> 
> Wolves just returned the populations to NORMAL levels (which was one reason for the reintroduction...


Elk populations INSIDE the park were high, but not the elk populations OUTSIDE the park. So, I am fine with wolves INSIDE the park, but not OUTSIDE the park. And no, I am NOT fine with wolves in the Uintas, as the elk population is NOT at or above carrying capacity there. To put the spin on it that you wolf lovers are merely trying to 'help' the elk herd is comical. The SAME folks who have for years opposed 'managing' elk herd to be at/above carrying capacity is evidence of that. Where have the "Defenders of Wildlife" been when deer herds have struggled during harsh winters and droughts, transplants for animals like bighorns/goats/turkeys, habitat restoration projects, land easement purchases that have keep land undeveloped? Are they "defenders of wildlife", or just defenders of wolves and anti-hunting?


----------



## L.S.

> Elk populations INSIDE the park were high, but not the elk populations OUTSIDE the park. So, I am fine with wolves INSIDE the park, but not OUTSIDE the park. And no, I am NOT fine with wolves in the Uintas, as the elk population is NOT at or above carrying capacity there.


Ok, if that's the case, then why should HUMANS still be able to hunt them (elk)?


----------



## proutdoors

L.S. said:


> Elk populations INSIDE the park were high, but not the elk populations OUTSIDE the park. So, I am fine with wolves INSIDE the park, but not OUTSIDE the park. And no, I am NOT fine with wolves in the Uintas, as the elk population is NOT at or above carrying capacity there.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, if that's the case, then why should HUMANS still be able to hunt them?
Click to expand...

Because we are here and we are STEWARDS over all things. To be on this planet and not 'manage' the resources around us would be inhumane. Strange on the 'animal lovers' do NOTHING/little to actually help wildlife except feel good nonsense that does little to benefit the animals they claim to care so much about. There 63,000+ elk in Utah today, what role you and your ilk played in this?


----------



## L.S.

proutdoors said:


> Because we are here and we are STEWARDS over all things. To be on this planet and not 'manage' the resources around us would be inhumane. Strange on the 'animal lovers' do NOTHING/little to actually help wildlife except feel good nonsense that does little to benefit the animals they claim to care so much about. There 63,000+ elk in Utah today, what role you and your ilk played in this?


Ok, then you're in favor of MANAGING things. Aren't wolves yet another tool to do this? Wolves were the tool that was ORIGINALLY used by mother nature. I think this is the argument that the animals lovers would make. So to say that they are doing NOTHING is a bit di-ingenious.

You yourself said we should be stewards over all things. This includes wolves doesn't it?

Is it too much to ask to put a season, limits and tags for taking of wolves in WY (minus shoot on site for wolves harassing livestock)?


----------



## proutdoors

L.S. said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, then you're in favor of MANAGING things. Aren't wolves yet another tool to do this? Wolves were the tool that was ORIGINALLY used by mother nature. I think this is the argument that the animals lovers would make. So to say that they are doing NOTHING is a bit di-ingenious.
> 
> You yourself said we should be stewards over all things. This includes wolves doesn't it?
> 
> Is it too much to ask to put a season, limits and tags for taking of wolves in WY (minus shoot on site for wolves harassing livestock)?
Click to expand...

Yes I am in favor of managing things. As I said, I am fine with wolves INSIDE the park, but not OUTSIDE the park. "Wolves were the tool that was ORIGINALLY used by mother nature." Really, I thought it was the dinos, then the sabars, then wolves and  man. If you believe in evolution as you claim, the BEST suited rise to the top and the others go to the way side. Did wolves ever step up and 're-introduce' sabar tooths? You claim to be all about 'nature', yet you insist on playing 'God'. :?

Wolves, now that they were FORCED on many who did NOT want them (me included), we should be steward over them. Where is your 'moral' outrage over the open season on coyotes/jack rabbits/gophers?

Why put a season on an animal that is way OVER-populated in areas they have no business being? What 'benefit' is there to wolves OUTSIDE the park that man can't provide? Why does your wishes/morals trump those of others?


----------



## Loke

L.S. said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are here and we are STEWARDS over all things. To be on this planet and not 'manage' the resources around us would be inhumane. Strange on the 'animal lovers' do NOTHING/little to actually help wildlife except feel good nonsense that does little to benefit the animals they claim to care so much about. There 63,000+ elk in Utah today, what role you and your ilk played in this?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, then you're in favor of MANAGING things. Aren't wolves yet another tool to do this? Wolves were the tool that was ORIGINALLY used by mother nature. I think this is the argument that the animals lovers would make. So to say that they are doing NOTHING is a bit di-ingenious.
> 
> You yourself said we should be stewards over all things. This includes wolves doesn't it?
> 
> Is it too much to ask to put a season, limits and tags for taking of wolves in WY (minus shoot on site for wolves harassing livestock)?
Click to expand...

So your only complaint is that Wyoming hasn't set a season (they have, it's year round), limits (there is a limit. If there are less than 7 breeding pairs outside the protected area the wolf will be relisted), and tags. So you would be satisfied if Wyoming began to sell tags.


----------



## Loke

L.S. said:


> *Environmental and animal rights groups plan to file a lawsuit Monday seeking an emergency injunction to block the killings and trying to put wolves back on the endangered list.*


This is the best management plan of them all. Take the decisions out of the hands of the wildlife biologists and game departments, and let the trial lawyers manage it. That ought to get it done right. :shock:


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> L.S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Environmental and animal rights groups plan to file a lawsuit Monday seeking an emergency injunction to block the killings and trying to put wolves back on the endangered list.*
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best management plan of them all. Take the decisions out of the hands of the wildlife biologists and game departments, and let the trial lawyers manage it. That ought to get it done right. :shock:
Click to expand...

Actually, I think we agree here. Going to the courts accomplishes nothing, with the exception of making the two side more polarized. However, by taking such a hard-line stance on this issue, the state forced the hand of the environmental groups who I'm sure feel they have no other options. So, I put a good portion of the blame on Wy. Again, why haven't ID and MT been sued?

As for "selling" tags, I don't know. I think what I would personally like would be a few tighter restrictions on who can do the killing and when, just to get a little more control of the situation.


----------



## Loke

Because none of the wolves shot in Montana or Idaho have made the evening news.


----------



## L.S.

proutdoors said:


> Yes I am in favor of managing things. As I said, I am fine with wolves INSIDE the park, but not OUTSIDE the park.


Can you explain to me scientifically, why if wolves are an effective tool for control inside the park then why the same basic concepts wouldn't apply outside the park as well?



proutdoors said:


> Really, I thought it was the dinos, then the sabars, then wolves and  man. If you believe in evolution as you claim, the BEST suited rise to the top and the others go to the way side. Did wolves ever step up and 're-introduce' sabar tooths? You claim to be all about 'nature', yet you insist on playing 'God'. :?


You really have no concept of how evolution works do you?

I'm not playing god at all. You guys are. I'm saying leave things alone an where ever things fall out, they fall out. Personally, I'm not arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers. If left alone things will naturally balance (or oscillate as we stated earlier). It might not be pretty, but things will work themselves out. How is that concept playing god (as opposed to using a rifle as the finger of god)?



proutdoors said:


> Wolves, now that they were FORCED on many who did NOT want them (me included), we should be steward over them. Where is your 'moral' outrage over the open season on coyotes/jack rabbits/gophers?
> 
> Why put a season on an animal that is way OVER-populated in areas they have no business being? What 'benefit' is there to wolves OUTSIDE the park that man can't provide? Why does your wishes/morals trump those of others?


Wolves were here for thousands of years before we extirpated them. The reintroduction was simply undoing the wrong of a previous society that was ignorant to the ways of ecology. We cannot fault them for doing something they had no understanding of. But I CAN and WILL fault modern man for NOT undoing the wrongs of the past. Many of the same people who had wolves "Forced" upon them were folks who's ancestors took part in that extirpation. Now, it's hard for folks to say "My great-great granddaddy was wrong" and I understand that, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to restore the ecosystems of the inter-mountain west to what the way they naturally evolved. 100+ years of fire suppression is another excellent example of this concept.

And you still haven't convinced me that an animal that WE killed out of an area doesn't belong in that area. (If it was native to that area to begin with. I would feel differently about introduced species that were removed from an area examples Burbot in Flaming Gorge or Snakeheads on the east coast).

As for why I don't show outrage when folks shoot bunnies and gophers, they are R selected organisms, wolves are K selected. If you wonder what that means, then you have a homework assignment....


----------



## L.S.

Lawsuit = Filed.


----------



## Loke

You still don't get it, do you. Inside the park, man has removed himself from the apex predator position. Outside the park man is still the apex predator. There is not room for two at the top. In the park they can be a management tool. Outside the park, if their numbers are too great (and they are), there will be too many conflicts with man. Why is this so difficult for you to understand. Here is a simple comparison that may help.
A limited number of wolves = good
Too many wolves = bad
A couple of beers = good
Too many beers = bad


----------



## L.S.

Loke said:


> There is not room for two at the top.


This is the basis of our disagreement. I don't and won't ever think this is the case.



Loke said:


> In the park they can be a management tool. Outside the park, if their numbers are too great (and they are), there will be too many conflicts with man.


There usefulness as a management tool is the same weather they are in the park or out of the park. Ecologically, the same rules apply in both places. That is undeniable. So say other wise is fantasy.

So it's isn't really about that. It's about that second park, conflicts with man, and I just want you guys to admit that. To me and many others in the nation (I dare say a majority), it's unacceptable that the ego's of a few get in the way of restoring things to the way they used to be and should be again. It's the arrogance of a few that think that man can do it better than mother nature. Well mother nature has had WAY more practice that us. I could name any number of ecological disasters created by man to illustrate what a good job we've done "managing" nature...


----------



## proutdoors

L.S. said:


> *There* usefulness as a management tool is the same *weather *they are in the park or out of the park. Ecologically, the same rules apply in both places. That is undeniable. So say other wise is fantasy.
> 
> So it's isn't really about that. It's about that second park, conflicts with man, and I just want you guys to admit that. To me and many others in the nation (I dare say a majority), it's unacceptable that the ego's of a few get in the way of restoring things to the way they used to be and should be again. It's the arrogance of a few that think that man can do it better than mother nature. Well mother nature has had WAY more practice that us. I could name any number of ecological disasters created by man to illustrate what a good job we've done "managing" nature...


The same rules do NOT apply in both places. INSIDE the park hunting by humans is not permitted, while OUTSIDE the park it is. Hunters have the ability to manage game populations of elk/deer/moose etc, BETTER than wolves can. Why you ask, because wolves kill based on the moment, ONLY humans have the ability to manage what/where/when/how they kill, wolves act solely on instinct.

I dare say the 'majority' of people in America have NEVER seen a wolf/elk/deer/moose in the wild, so their views are formed from Disney movies and nonsensical dribble from the wolf lovers who have the idiotic media aiding and abetting in the 'cause'. It's the arrogance and ignorance of a few that think wolves are acceptable predators but humans are not. Mother Nature, which man IS part of, has said, "survival of the fittest rules the day", and the wolves are not the "fittest" we are!


----------



## L.S.

proutdoors said:


> Mother Nature, which man IS part of, has said, "survival of the fittest rules the day", and the wolves are not the "fittest" we are!


Can you tell me what survival of the fittest means? Because based on this post it shows a _*SERIOUS*_ lack of understanding of that one basic underlying concept in ecology and evolution.

(Here is a hint: 1 species cannot be more fit than another species....)


----------



## proutdoors

Here is my hint for you Professor Wolfe, nature is cruel and cold, and if a species is unable to survive it is pushed to the way side like THOUSANDS of species have done for millions of years. It has only been recently when man has displaced God and misplaced the roles of animals. 

Wolves have their place, just not all across the western states, and not at the expense of our way of life. Wolves are NOT better at 'controlling' wildlife numbers than humans, so why should we just roll over and let a bunch of oat eaters dictate what happens on our 'turf'?


----------



## L.S.

You didn't answer the question. What does survival of the fittest mean?

(I don't think you know the answer!!!)


----------



## L.S.

proutdoors said:


> Wolves have their place, just not all across the western states, _*and not at the expense of our way of life*_.


What?

Dude, you live in Stansbury Park. How are wolves going to mess up your way of life? Are they going to chew through your comcast cable? Hi-jack the grocery store? I'd really like to know...


----------



## cacherinthewry

Loke said:


> You still don't get it, do you. Inside the park, man has removed himself from the apex predator position. Outside the park man is still the apex predator. There is not room for two at the top. In the park they can be a management tool. Outside the park, if their numbers are too great (and they are), there will be too many conflicts with man. Why is this so difficult for you to understand. Here is a simple comparison that may help.
> A limited number of wolves = good
> Too many wolves = bad
> A couple of beers = good
> Too many beers = bad


Don't you think man has removed himself from the apex position outside wilderness areas as well? The vast majority of Americans don't eat wild game. Hunters make up what, 20% of the population or so? Wouldn't the apex predator be the supermarket butcher?

Actually, I take that back. Man *is* the apex predator, but instead of bow or rifle, he uses automobiles and encroachment on wintering range to cull the herds. The hunter is still responsible for just a small margin on the predatory count.


----------



## L.S.

cacherinthewry said:


> Don't you think man has removed himself from the apex position outside wilderness areas as well? The vast majority of Americans don't eat wild game. Hunters make up what, 20% of the population or so? Wouldn't the apex predator be the supermarket butcher?
> 
> Actually, I take that back. Man *is* the apex predator, but instead of bow or rifle, he uses automobiles and encroachment on wintering range to cull the herds. The hunter is still responsible for just a small margin on the predatory count.


Excellent points! (I wish I would have thought of that!)


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

L.S. said:


> Are they going to chew through your comcast cable?


 -BaHa!- Oh boy now you going to get it.



L.S. said:


> Hi-jack the grocery store


I thought you knew everything L.S. Stansbury Park is way to small for a grocery store. _(O)_


----------



## Packfish

It's about that second park, *conflicts with man, and I just want you guys to admit that*. 
I don't have any problem with admitting to the point that it's conflicts with man.
That's just a fact and Wyoming is dealing with it. Idaho and Montana sure had a lot more wolves taken out by the Feds than this deal in Wy has , just not on the front page .


----------



## L.E.Tist

This is some entertaining stuff. Survival of the fittest, ect. Why do so many of you fear the wolf? you sound like a bunch of scared little girls. Sure, some form the "city" may get their view of wildlife from disney movies, but ya'll seenm to get your wolf facts from Little Red Riding Hood. :roll: 

Be the outdoorsman you aspire to be and relish nature in a complete (or as near as complete can get it( system. To say humans are the top dog, and wolfs gotta go expresses a fear that I find ironic in a hunter. Be men, not cowards. Or is that you want moose elk and deer to continue to overpopulate so you can hunt from the convenience of your ORV?

To manage wolfs as varmits is plain wrong. They should be managed like any other big game animal, their role in the wild accentuated, and have a season and tag limits, when and if populations allow.

I think Aldo Leopold should be required reading before a hunting license can be bought, as too many of you yokels seeem to get your "facts" solely from Don Peay.

Shame on ya'll.


----------



## proutdoors

L.E.Tist said:


> Be the outdoorsman you aspire to be and relish nature in a complete (or as near as complete can get it( system. To say humans are the top dog, and wolfs gotta go expresses a fear that I find ironic in a hunter. Be men, not cowards. Or is that you want moose elk and deer to continue to overpopulate so you can hunt from the convenience of your ORV?


I realize you 'animal lovers' are to busy figuring out how to give BM's to wolves and your grammar is lacking despite all your alleged education, so I'll type slower for you ladies. I am NOT in favor of wolves being extinct, but I also am NOT in favor of them being in places where conflicts with humans is high. Please tell me where in the west outside National Parks where moose/elk/deer are anywhere near being overpopulated. Just another of the myths passed as 'scientific reasoning' for wolves to part of the 'eco-system'. Your original wish was 300 wolves, now they number well over 1500 and yet you believe they are somehow at risk of being 'over-harvested'. Why is it so terrible to have alleged overpopulations of deer/elk, but it is 'good' to have overpopulations of wolves? Where is your concern for the majestic coyote? It has no tag limit yet has managed to ADAPT to 'nature' and has continued to thrive. If wolves are such a key element of a healthy/balanced eco-system, one would think they would adapt or become extinct due to THEIR lack of adaptability.

Put your cuddly wolves in places like Yellowstone, but they have no place in areas that there presence has direct negative impacts on local economies and livelihoods. There are NO overpopulations of elk/deer in Utah, so there is no 'need' for wolves here.



> Dude, you live in Stansbury Park. How are wolves going to mess up your way of life? Are they going to chew through your comcast cable? Hi-jack the grocery store? I'd really like to know...


Dude, are you serious? Have you ever heard of roads/highways? :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

L.E.Tist said:


> This is some entertaining stuff. Survival of the fittest, ect. Why do so many of you fear the wolf? you sound like a bunch of scared little girls. Sure, some form the "city" may get their view of wildlife from disney movies, but ya'll seenm to get your wolf facts from Little Red Riding Hood. :roll:
> 
> Be the outdoorsman you aspire to be and relish nature in a complete (or as near as complete can get it( system. To say humans are the top dog, and wolfs gotta go expresses a fear that I find ironic in a hunter. Be men, not cowards. Or is that you want moose elk and deer to continue to overpopulate so you can hunt from the convenience of your ORV?
> 
> To manage wolfs as varmits is plain wrong. They should be managed like any other big game animal, their role in the wild accentuated, and have a season and tag limits, when and if populations allow.
> 
> I think Aldo Leopold should be required reading before a hunting license can be bought, as too many of you yokels seeem to get your "facts" solely from Don Peay.
> 
> Shame on ya'll.


Dude, To think they will be managed this way in Wyoming for any extended period of time is ridiculous.

It's just a way to reduce the population before the feds get sued by the likes of you. (That was a joke, so take it easy.) But it is true. They don't plan to manage this way. If hunters went out and killed 40 wolves in a couple of weeks, they would surely go to a more strict management plan.

It is the threat of the antis that has spawned this type of management (Not placing blame, but without the stigma they wouldn't have done it that way). So with that in mind and the mandatory reporting that is in place, it is a very thought out management plan.

I personally am not afraid of having wolves around. I think they need to be managed just like all other animals. All or none.


----------



## bwhntr

L.E.Tist said:


> ...you sound like a bunch of scared little girls. ... a fear that I find ironic in a hunter. Be men, not cowards. ....


Says the little Treehugger hiding behind a keyboard and screen! :roll:

BTW, there is plenty of wilderness for the wolf without man in Alaska and Canada!


----------



## L.S.

proutdoors said:


> Please tell me where in the west outside National Parks where moose/elk/deer are anywhere near being overpopulated.


Everywhere the DWR has to issue antlerless deer/elk tags.


----------



## proutdoors

L.S. said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me where in the west outside National Parks where moose/elk/deer are anywhere near being overpopulated.
> 
> 
> 
> Everywhere the DWR has to issue antlerless deer/elk tags.
Click to expand...

Complete falsehood! Using that logic would mean every time a cattleman ships yearling's to the feedlots it is because of overpopulation. Have you ever heard of population management? It is where when a herd of deer/elk are at/close to population objective and/or capacity, animals are harvested in order to PREVENT overpopulation. If doe/cow tags were not issued, then there would be a risk of overpopulation. But, since man IS a part of the ecosystem, they are able to keep populations in check and at optimal numbers. This shows your ignorance of hunting and why hunting by man WORKS just fine when done right.


----------



## jahan

I just have to make a few comments. 

1. L.S. you must realize like many have said this is a temporary predator status. Once they are to the objective population they will be put on a similar system as many other animals.

2. To say hunting wolves won't have an affect on human wolf encounters is asinine. Look at the mountain lions in California vs. Utah. There are rarely attacks on humans by mountain lions in Utah because they have a fear of humans because houndsmen are chasing them around. The same can't be said for the ones in California. Also look at the bears, last summer there were some serious issues with bears encountering humans. Could it be a coincident that the season to chase bears was cut drastically? I don't think so.

3. I personally think there is a small place for wolves everywhere as long as they are regulated properly not what has happened with this whole ordeal of 300 turning into 1500 wolves. :roll: The problem is there will also be the wolf lovers to sue and keep things out of whack. 

4. Nowhere is the environment at a "natural" condition, not even Yellowstone. So the argument of let nature do its thing is long past it's time. Like many have said humans are part of nature, so why can't they manage?

P.S. I feel left out, can I post some of my formulas I use? :mrgreen:

P.S.S. I love MichelleUK and I don't care what any of you think about it. :lol:


----------



## proutdoors

jahan said:


> P.S. I feel left out, can I post some of my formulas I use? :mrgreen:
> 
> P.S.S. I love MichelleUK and I don't care what any of you think about it. :lol:


Your/my formulas are as relevant as the ones used by L.S. I assure you.

I believe L.S. is a good friend of MichelleUK's. :?


----------



## BERG

L.E.Tist said:


> This is some entertaining stuff. Survival of the fittest, ect. Why do so many of you fear the wolf? you sound like a bunch of scared little girls. Sure, some form the "city" may get their view of wildlife from disney movies, but ya'll seenm to get your wolf facts from Little Red Riding Hood. :roll:
> 
> Be the outdoorsman you aspire to be and relish nature in a complete (or as near as complete can get it( system. To say humans are the top dog, and wolfs gotta go expresses a fear that I find ironic in a hunter. Be men, not cowards. Or is that you want moose elk and deer to continue to overpopulate so you can hunt from the convenience of your ORV?
> 
> To manage wolfs as varmits is plain wrong. They should be managed like any other big game animal, their role in the wild accentuated, and have a season and tag limits, when and if populations allow.
> 
> I think Aldo Leopold should be required reading before a hunting license can be bought, as too many of you yokels seeem to get your "facts" solely from Don Peay.
> 
> Shame on ya'll.


That's just more irrelevant hyperbole.
-BaHa!-


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Wolves were here for thousands of years before we extirpated them. The reintroduction was simply undoing the wrong of a previous society that was ignorant to the ways of ecology. We cannot fault them for doing something they had no understanding of. But I CAN and WILL fault modern man for NOT undoing the wrongs of the past. Many of the same people who had wolves "Forced" upon them were folks who's ancestors took part in that extirpation. Now, it's hard for folks to say "My great-great granddaddy was wrong" and I understand that, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to restore the ecosystems of the inter-mountain west to what the way they naturally evolved. 100+ years of fire suppression is another excellent example of this concept.


The Wolf was selected to be extinct because the wolf couldn't adapt to the changing world. The coyote adapted, but the wolf didn't. The landscaped has changed to where there isnt as much habitat suitable for wolves because of the conflicts with man. Alaska and Canada is where Wolves do just fine because the human population is less and there is more territory for the wolf to roam without having many conflicts with man.

*The funny part is the wolf lovers didnt reintroduce the same species of wolf that use to roam in the west states. They introduced the Canadian Wolf which isnt a native to Utah, Wyoming, Colorado or Idaho. What other non-native animals should we introduce??? The Canadian wolf has killed many of the native wolves that were living in the Montana and Northern Wyoming so that is also funny because the wolf lover extirpated the so called endangered species because of introducing the Canadian Wolf, but that was ok right?*

L.S you crack me up and thanks for the entertainment. You were under my radar and just where have you been all this time? I think you need to become educated on animal management and when the objective is 300 wolves and the population is 1500 then 1200 wolves need to be taken out either by hunting or trapping. Hunting is the most effective method.

When is the last time you or anyone in your gay group done any habitat projects for deer or elk?


----------



## Loke

Let's go back to the beginning. When wolves were introduced into Yellowstone, the management goal was 30 packs, 300 wolves. I would hope that these numbers were reached by biologists who took into account all of the factors involved. This would include human activity as well. The wolf advocates agreed to these numbers. But now that there are five times as many, there need to be more?
L.S. , do you live any where near where the wolves are? If not, should your opinion on this matter count more than the people who have to deal with them on a daily basis? The state should manage the wildlife in their respective states, not the courts, not one extremist group or the other.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> This is some entertaining stuff. Survival of the fittest, ect. Why do so many of you fear the wolf? you sound like a bunch of scared little girls. Sure, some form the "city" may get their view of wildlife from disney movies, but ya'll seenm to get your wolf facts from Little Red Riding Hood.


No anyone said they feared the wolf. What you missed was the fact that wolves need to be managed and that is why wolves are being hunted and killed. There are to many wolves because there 5 times over objective like stated earlier so the surplus animals need to be hunted. Maybe you can train the wolves to stay in Yellowstone where they are safe from harm. :lol: :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer

History will repeat itself again and wolves will be removed again from places that they exist now because of the reintroduction project. Wyoming is doing a good job at managing wolves because they have a no wolf zone and a wolf zone. The no wolf zone was created because wolves can't exist in this area because man and wolves would have to many conflicts and man always wins because we are the top predator or top of the food chain and until another species knocks us off the top of the food chain then we will remain there. The DWR in Wyoming and IDaho have been killing wolves ever since the the wolves have been introduced because wolves cause problems and the only solution is to kill the wolf in those areas.

Wolves arent a good management tool because they kill for pleasure and many healthy animals are killed and wasted. They kill pregnant cow elk and eat the calves and move on without even eating the mother. My friend in Idaho had 18 deer killed in one night by wolves and the wolves didnt eat one deer. Wolves waste game because when animals are plentiful then wolves will kill for pleasure. Hunters have better ways to control game. We dont kill 18 deer and leave them lay or kill for only pleasure, but we use the animals that we kill unlike the wonderful wolf which is only a waster and destroyer. 

The wolf doesnt have a place in the ecosystem outside of Yellowstone and the sooner you learn that L.S. the better off you will be. 

Why is it so hard for you to understand this concept of wolf management. Well I need to head out to shoot a wolf or 10 since there over objective and need to be thinned out a little. I mean we are doing the wolf a favor by killing many of them outside of yellowstone. Its not the wolves fault they are being hunted, but the people who brought them back in the first place.

L.S. basically the wolf lovers have brought many wolves to their death. They would have been better off born in Canada where they belong.


----------



## L.E.Tist

Coyote, seems obvious if 18 deer were killed by wolves, thre are too many deer. The problem with your mindset is that you were/are likely brought up hunting during a period when game herds have to be artificially sustained over the winter. Too many.

As I said, many hunters are crying foul because of a little competition. Man up young man, hone your skilz, its a new game and the wolf is here to stay.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Coyote, seems obvious if 18 deer were killed by wolves, thre are too many deer. The problem with your mindset is that you were/are likely brought up hunting during a period when game herds have to be artificially sustained over the winter. Too many.
> 
> As I said, many hunters are crying foul because of a little competition. Man up young man, hone your skilz, its a new game and the wolf is here to stay.


No the problem that you fail to miss by a mile is the we had a lot of snow this year in many places and the deer were bunched up a lot more than previous years. Its very easy for wolves to kill deer in deep snow.

I have already honed my wolf shooting skills because their not protected anymore and its perfectly legal to shoot them.

Hey L.E.Tist what other non-native animals should we introduce from Canada???? :lol: :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer

And Why is your feeble little mind do you think its great that 18 deer were killed by wolves and left to rot??? Why is that such a great thing?


----------



## proutdoors

L.E.Tist said:


> Coyote, seems obvious if 18 deer were killed by wolves, thre are too many deer. The problem with your mindset is that you were/are likely brought up hunting during a period when game herds have to be artificially sustained over the winter. Too many.
> 
> As I said, many hunters are crying foul because of a little competition. Man up young man, hone your skilz, its a new game and the wolf is here to stay.


So, if a human kills 18 deer and leaves them to waste, is that simply evidence there are too many deer? :?

What many hunters are "crying foul" over is the FACT the wolf 'invasion' has gotten out if hand, and now that the state of Wyoming is MANAGING the wolf numbers, yet you wolf lovers are threatening lawsuits to PREVENT managing the wolf populations. And do NOT come back and say you want seasons/tags, because the primary groups filing lawsuits have openly/repeatedly stated that ANY wolf killed is unacceptable and "murder". That does NOT sound like 'management' to me. That sounds like 'special interest' groups pushing their agenda through, sound biology be damned!


----------



## L.E.Tist

proutdoors said:


> What many hunters are "crying foul" over is the FACT the wolf 'invasion' has gotten out if hand, and now that the state of Wyoming is MANAGING the wolf numbers, yet you wolf lovers are threatening lawsuits to PREVENT managing the wolf populations. And do NOT come back and say you want seasons/tags, because the primary groups filing lawsuits have openly/repeatedly stated that ANY wolf killed is unacceptable and "murder". That does NOT sound like 'management' to me. That sounds like 'special interest' groups pushing their agenda through, sound biology be damned!


I understand that many orginzations, individuals, and groups are opposed to any kind of wolf kill. I'm am not one of them, and I understand the hunter's frustration with these groups. I would condone a tag/trophy hunt on wolves.

I do not support a bunch of yahoos on snow mobiles indescriminitely killing wolves in "predator-free" zones. I do not think WY is "Managing" anything, I think WY would think it perfectly fine if the wolves althogether vanished. This is not acceptable to folks with my point of view. Face it, many of those out there are killing wolfs with vengeance in mind. Epitome of ignorance, that. I think that WY is flipping the finger to the feds with their wolf plan, and ultimately it will hurt the objecteve of keeping wolfs to a manageble number, whatever that number is. The Country is really pissed at WY over this, and there is a good liklihood some of these lawsuits recently field will be successful. Consider the outcome if WY establised a tag/trophy program, theire plan would be much easier to defend agianst these lawsuits.

Regarding wolf "sport" killing, nature works in ways that we fully don't understand. Carrion not consumed by the wolves is not wasted from nature's point of view. something is going to consume it, be it bears emerging from hibernation, raptors, ...or maggots.

In all liklihood, more dead ungulates were wasted on I-80 between SLC and Parleys Summit, than all the wolf "sport" killings combined.

Coyote, Lynx. We should introduce lynx from Canada.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Coyote, Lynx. We should introduce lynx from Canada.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: Lynx are native to Wyoming, Montana, etc. I said non-native animals. The Canadian Gray Wolf isnt native to Utah, wyoming, Idaho ect, but they introduced a wolf which is non-native and it has destroyed the timber wolf population which is the REAL endangered species NOT the Canadian Wolf, but this is ok right?

Wolf lovers are messing up the ecosystem by introducing animals that don't belong in areas that they were introduced. They have no natural predators to control the wolf population. Therefore man controls the wolf population and Wyoming is doing a good job because they have a no wolf zone and a wolf zone.


----------



## cacherinthewry

Elk were re-introduced to Utah in the early 1900's. Was that the same native strain?

Elk were recently re-introduced in KY, and they are NOT the same strain as what was originally native. 

I don't see anybody here raising a stink about those. While the Canada wolf may not have been the best option overall, it was the best option at the time.



So how does coyote taste anyway?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

A bit like wolf. Best roasted over an open fire with a fine boxed red wine, something not too dry.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Elk were re-introduced to Utah in the early 1900's. Was that the same native strain?
> 
> Elk were recently re-introduced in KY, and they are NOT the same strain as what was originally native.
> 
> I don't see anybody here raising a stink about those. While the Canada wolf may not have been the best option overall, it was the best option at the time.


Comparing elk to wolves is like comparing apples to oranges. Elk don't eat other animals. The Canadian Gray wolf killed off the native species of wolves in the area. Elk eat grass.

The Rocky Mountain elk is the same elk in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, ID, Montana, AZ and New Mexico. There is no such thing as a native Utah elk or a native Colorado elk.

Coyotes are a fine meal. Wolf tacos are even better. I like them better with green salsa instead of red sauces.


----------



## BERG

:rotfl: 

This thread just gets more entertaining with each passing day.  I think coyote always tastes better with a nice hoppy pale ale. On the other hand, I too like a nice red with wolf tenderloin. 

o-||


----------



## girlsfishtoo

Very entertaining to say the least. Hey thanks guys for making my day here at work not so boring!


----------



## L.E.Tist

coyoteslayer said:


> The Canadian Gray wolf killed off the native species of wolves in the area.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you kool-aid driking SFW types repeat this, it won't become fact.

There is very little, perhaps no evidence that this is the case, or that there were any gray wolves in yellowstone in the latter years before the re-intorduction. there were sporadic reports of gray wolves in eastern Montana, but again, no evidence that the reintroduction wiped out any native species. In fact the contrary is true, but if you are a hater of predators, facts are secondary to your emotions.


----------



## duck jerky

what the heck is so cool about a wolves? there is no need for them just another worthless predator. we've been this long with out them don't need them back :evil:


----------



## coyoteslayer

> No matter how many times you kool-aid driking SFW types repeat this, it won't become fact.
> 
> There is very little, perhaps no evidence that this is the case, or that there were any gray wolves in yellowstone in the latter years before the re-intorduction. there were sporadic reports of gray wolves in eastern Montana, but again, no evidence that the reintroduction wiped out any native species. In fact the contrary is true, but if you are a hater of predators, facts are secondary to your emotions.


You are saying that SFW is wrong about that and their is no evidence so please post facts where SFW is wrong. Please enlighten us hahaha.

Hey while you are bringing back animals then can you pretty please bring back the Plains Grizzlies. Oh wait you will introduce the Polar bear instead. :rotfl: :rotfl:


----------



## proutdoors

L.E.Tist said:


> No matter how many times you kool-aid driking SFW types repeat this, it won't become fact.
> 
> There is very little, perhaps no evidence that this is the case, or that there were any gray wolves in yellowstone in the latter years before the re-intorduction. there were sporadic reports of gray wolves in eastern Montana, but again, no evidence that the reintroduction wiped out any native species. In fact the contrary is true, but if you are a hater of predators, facts are secondary to your emotions.


Who is drinking the kool-aid? I say it is you and others thinking wolves are 'needed' for 'proper' balance in the ecosystem, and that when a wolf kills it is solely for food or because of overpopulation of the critter killed.

The wolf lovers are the ones using emotion, cramming their mystic nonsense on the west, while most of the wolf lovers have never set foot in the hills themselves, but are busy sipping on a frozen latte at a Starbucks in Frisco patting themselves for "defending wildlife" trying to pass themselves off as "conservationists" which could NOT be further from the truth. In fact the contrary is true, but if you are a hunter/cattleman hater, facts/reason are secondary to your emotions and supposed education.


----------



## L.E.Tist

oh yeah, well, you drink MORE kool aid!

Good God.

I take comfort by the fact the wolf is here to stay. And with them, CWD should be on the decline, and animal herds should improve in quality over the coming years. Even though, by its actions, SFW is doing what it can to spread desiease and reduce the quality of ungulates in the rocky mountian west, the fact that the wolf is here will bring some of that annoying namby-pamby balance to our (whoa, "OUR". now there's a concept) wildlife.

(insert tiring argument about hunting tag sales, and guzzlers [ here ])


----------



## coyoteslayer

> oh yeah, well, you drink MORE kool aid!
> 
> Good God.
> 
> I take comfort by the fact the wolf is here to stay. And with them, CWD should be on the decline, and animal herds should improve in quality over the coming years. Even though, by its actions, SFW is doing what it can to spread desiease and reduce the quality of ungulates in the rocky mountian west, the fact that the wolf is here will bring some of that annoying namby-pamby balance to our (whoa, "OUR". now there's a concept) wildlife.
> 
> (insert tiring argument about hunting tag sales, and guzzlers [ here ])


This is one of the funniest posts and you actually believe this WOW. YES you better lay off the Kool aid and come back to the real world.


----------



## proutdoors

L.E.Tist said:


> I take comfort by the fact the wolf is here to stay. And with them, CWD should be on the decline, and animal herds should improve in quality over the coming years. Even though, by its actions, SFW is doing what it can to spread desiease and reduce the quality of ungulates in the rocky mountian west, the fact that the wolf is here will bring some of that annoying namby-pamby balance to our (whoa, "OUR". now there's a concept) wildlife.
> 
> (insert tiring argument about hunting tag sales, and guzzlers [ here ])


For someone who claims to be so 'educated' you are clueless. How many cases of CWD have been found in Yellowstone BEFORE the wolves were introduced? How about in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana BEFORE the wolves came in? Ironically Wisconsin, which has had wolves for years, has by far MORE cases of CWD that ALL the western states combined. Pray tell what diseases has SFW "spread"? What "reduction in 'quality' of ungulates" are you talking about? Stop re spewing granola sound bites and use your noggin for a switch BEFORE you pipe off.


----------



## cacherinthewry

There's no proven or theorized correlation between increased wolf populations and the spread of CWD. The majority of recorded CWD cases come from farm raised animals. In theory though, predators killing weak/infected animals would improve the overall health of a herd. According to this map, your statement that WI has more CWD cases would seem inaccurate:

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.map


----------



## BERG

Where is Blade? Will someone please call L.E. Tist (elitist democrat) and Got caught in the rye patch drinking coolaid laced with LSD, a bad name? Then maybe this can get sent to the gut pile once and for all. :lol: :lol: I was thinking of something along the lines of moron, idiot or maybe even just plain old dumb **S. Oh, and what did the likes of SFW ever do to you? Sounds like you have personal issues...many of them. :roll: _(O)_


----------



## L.E.Tist

BERG said:


> Where is Blade? Will someone please call L.E. Tist (elitist democrat) and Got caught in the rye patch drinking coolaid laced with LSD, a bad name?


Is that what you do when confronted with an opposing point of view, call someone a bad name?

Its no wonder folks like you are on the losing end of this predator thing. Actually, the winning end, in spite of yourself. In the loing run, you'll have better deer & elk to shoot. You can thank us later. Pesonally, I'd take a sixer of Fat Tire.


----------



## BERG

Once again, it's ok for your likes to take cheap shots, but I can't? I see a double standard. Furthermore, you do error is making the assumption that I have anything to do with the good men who've been smacking you down with their well educated and highly intelligent posts. I'm my own person with my own opinions...you might even call me a good old boy or hillbilly. Obviously, you just can't take a dose of your own crap. Again, please grow some nads. :lol:


----------



## BERG

Oh, and if those are bad names in your world, then you have led a very sheltered life.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Uuuuh, I took 99% of BERG's post to be tongue in cheek. Lighten up chief.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Its no wonder folks like you are on the losing end of this predator thing. Actually, the winning end, in spite of yourself. In the loing run, you'll have better deer & elk to shoot. You can thank us later. Pesonally, I'd take a sixer of Fat Tire.


I dont believe we are on the losing end because wolves are being harvested (killed) right now as we sit and argue. Wyoming just gave a reality check to all the Wolf lovers of the world that wolves will be managed like coyotes. The wolves arent anymore special or more important than the coyotes.


----------



## BERG

Yeah, it was just a joke.   I'm actually quite happy today.


----------



## itchytriggerfinger

I think that the wolves should all be managed in one way shape or form. There are complaints about wyomings plan. *So far* (it's inevitable) no one is complaining about idaho's and montana's. From my understanding Idaho is giving out 300 tags or 1/5 of the population (quota driven) I haven't looked at Montanas but i would presume that it is roughly the same. From what i understand 37 wolves have been taken in wyoming in a little over a month which wyoming would be on pace for *about *360 in a year. Being on pace for 360 does *not *mean they will hit 360 cuz it should tail off in the summer and then pick up again in winter months. So roughly each state has a tag "limit" of 300 wolves per each state. its just that wyoming has it worded differently as wolves being predators not as big game animals.
I don't see the problem here. 
I think wolves won't ever leave/be exterminated, but should be managed by bioligists and not politicians. But politicians have $$$$ and money talks. I think these plans are good and should be evaluated on a yearly basis to sustain the original 300 _(O)_ _(O)_ _(O)_ planned wolves.


----------



## L.E.Tist

Itchy brings up some good points. Lets say that in 3 years, the number of wolves is sustained at 300 to 500. (as I understand it, the feds can jump back in at 300, so 300 represents an absolute low)

Will those on this forum that promote shooting wolves be satisfied with that number? What about Utahs plan for two packs? can that be sustained? 

Or, will "a good wolf is a dead wolf" mantra still apply.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

I think your last question was fairly rhetorical.

I personally would be fine with 2 packs in Utah and 300 wolves sustained region wide as originally planned.

There is plenty of room, but under strict guidelines, keeping emotion out of management practices.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Will those on this forum that promote shooting wolves be satisfied with that number? What about Utahs plan for two packs? can that be sustained?
> 
> Or, will "a good wolf is a dead wolf" mantra still apply.


The question is really will the wolf lovers be happy or are they just back stabbers and go against their words all the time. Everyone agreed on 300 wolves and now there is an article bashing SFW and they want 3,000 wolves. The wolf lovers will never quit at 300 wolves because they are already filing lawsuits.

The wolf lovers are just using the wolf to stop hunting period. That is why you think its wonderful that 18 deer were killed in one night by wolves.


----------



## itchytriggerfinger

I think that utahs plan of 2 packs can be sustained but i don't think it will ever happen because the majority of wolves would be "pushed" back into the yellowstone area and not venture out of that vecinity. . I would think that someone would end up shooting, trapping, killing; wheather it be accidental or on purpose, some or parts of Utahs packs so that would eliminate the possibility of 2 packs from forming and being sustained.
I would be happy with those numbers of 300-500


----------



## proutdoors

cacherinthewry said:


> There's no proven or theorized correlation between increased wolf populations and the spread of CWD. The majority of recorded CWD cases come from farm raised animals. In theory though, predators killing weak/infected animals would improve the overall health of a herd. According to this map, your statement that WI has more CWD cases would seem inaccurate:
> 
> http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/about.map


You folks are cheap entertainment. It was your blood brother/sister L.E.Tist that said wolves would reduce CWD, until then there was NO mention of CWD. You are correct that the majority of CWD cases comes from farm raised animals, and last I checked wolves can't climb 10' high fences, so how in the hell are they going to get rid of CWD in wild animals? I am going of info given to me by someone who actually lives in Wisconsin, but I am sure your 'scientific' study is more accurate than a high fence operator, right? :roll:


----------



## Huge29

Pro,
Did FB whiz in your canteen again? You are on one today?


----------



## proutdoors

Huge29 said:


> Pro,
> Did FB whiz in your canteen again? You are on one today?


Not sure why I feel so froggy today, after getting the good news I will be helping the overpopulation problem on the Dutton I should be nicer, but I am NOT. :twisted: Back it off or your next! :wink:


----------



## jahan

I am going to get blasted for this, but oh well. I am all for the regulation of wolves, but I do get an uneasy filling in my stomach when I read that someone has chased down a wolf over 35 miles on his snowmobile to kill it. First of all, this is not hunting, we would be furious if this was done hunting elk. Second of all that is an in your face type action. What about fair chase? These are my questions, so blast away, but come with a strong argument, some of the name calling lately is weak. :lol:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

True, But at this point it's predator control, not hunting. I would scoff at hunting elk out of a chopper, but welcome coyote control when done this way. It's no different.


----------



## proutdoors

Treehugnhuntr said:


> True, But at this point it's predator control, not hunting. I would scoff at hunting elk out of a chopper, but welcome coyote control when done this way. It's no different.


Well said. These are wolves, also known as varmints, not elk/deer. Different rules apply in hunting/controlling populations from specie to specie. We don't hunt turkeys/elk/potguts/wolves/bighorns/coyotes/grouse the same.


----------



## BERG

jahan said:


> I am going to get blasted for this, but oh well. I am all for the regulation of wolves, but I do get an uneasy filling in my stomach when I read that someone has chased down a wolf over 35 miles on his snowmobile to kill it. First of all, this is not hunting, we would be furious if this was done hunting elk. Second of all that is an in your face type action. What about fair chase? These are my questions, so blast away, but come with a strong argument, some of the name calling lately is weak. :lol:


There's noting weak about that argument. As far as name calling...I have no idea what you are talking about.  However, I do support federal funding, and protection, for coyotes.
They too have every right to exist without humans chasing them down a killing them for no good reason.


----------



## L.E.Tist

coyoteslayer said:


> The question is really will the wolf lovers be happy or are they just back stabbers and go against their words all the time. Everyone agreed on 300 wolves and now there is an article bashing SFW and they want 3,000 wolves. The wolf lovers will never quit at 300 wolves because they are already filing lawsuits.
> 
> The wolf lovers are just using the wolf to stop hunting period. That is why you think its wonderful that 18 deer were killed in one night by wolves.


Coyote, I don't think its wonderful that 18 deer were killed on one night by wolves. Although I don't think it a tragedy, either. And no, those weren't my questions.

I think if we had a viable cooridor where wolf and bear could access available habitat in the rocky mountians, including the Wyo range, bighorns, uintahs, book cliffs, san juans, our wildlife would be far better off. Wouldnt you agree? Hunts would be better quality, there would be more wild in wildlands, and the experience would be far richer for hunters, and non-consumpive users alike. Turning Sublette County into a predator gauntlet does us no good. Vindictive killing of wolves doenst do anyone any good, and its poor publicity for the hunters cause.

How would we secure such a cooridor? Not sure, but the ESA is probably the best tool. I would think you hunters would be all over that. Wildlife cooridors or trophy homes? I guess thats for another thread. Or agian, is it the convenience of shooting at overpopulated herds the overiding objective?


----------



## proutdoors

L.E.Tist said:


> I think if we had a viable cooridor where wolf and bear could access available habitat in the rocky mountians, including the Wyo range, bighorns, uintahs, book cliffs, san juans, our wildlife would be far better off. Wouldnt you agree? Hunts would be better quality, there would be more wild in wildlands, and the experience would be far richer for hunters, and non-consumpive users alike. Turning Sublette County into a predator gauntlet does us no good. Vindictive killing of wolves doenst do anyone any good, and its poor publicity for the hunters cause.
> 
> How would we secure such a cooridor? Not sure, but the ESA is probably the best tool. I would think you hunters would be all over that. Wildlife cooridors or trophy homes? I guess thats for another thread. Or agian, is it the convenience of shooting at overpopulated herds the overiding objective?


First, invest in spell check, it will help your credibility as an intelligent person. _(O)_

Second, the Uintahs, Book Cliffs, and San Juan are NOT overpopulated, in fact they are UNDER objectives. So, I am missing how wolves in these areas would 'help' wildlife such as deer and elk. How would wolves killing them enhance their 'quality' (whatever that means), and increase the "wild in wild lands"?

While I am in favor of keeping 'trophy homes' out of vital wildlife areas, I do NOT think wolves are needed to ensure that. SFW, the group you love to hate, has helped in this department 10X over what groups like "Defenders of Wildlife" have ever done. That is fact, not hyperbole.

I am still at a loss where you folks come up with this overpopulation nonsense. The STATE objective for elk is 80,000+ elk, the actual population is 63,000. The deer herd is more than 100,000 UNDER population objective. Help me out here.

One of the great myths from the wolfie crowd is that wolfies make elk herds healthier because they supposedly prey mainly on weak/old animals. That is 100% false, a pack of wolves can/do hunt down the fittest elk on the range. In fact the cows carrying calves, which are VITAL to the elk herd health, are often targeted because of their vulnerable state of carrying a calf that slows them down. On average wolves kill YOUNGER healthier elk than hunters do. The elk herd in Montana near the park is aging at alarming rates, due to lack of recruitment of new calves into the herd. Blame it on the bears all you want, but the herd had much HIGHER calf survival rates BEFORE the wolf was pushed on the elk herds. Local economies in that region have taken HUGE hits due to reduced elk tags issued and lost cattle revenue.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

Son of a bitch, will someone please tell me how to get a spell checker. Last time pro told me how to do it, I was more confused than when I applied the pathegrian therom in a story problem. And I know pro, I probably spelled pathegrian, and therom wrong, probably a plethera of other words too! :x


----------



## coyoteslayer

> I think if we had a viable cooridor where wolf and bear could access available habitat in the rocky mountians, including the Wyo range, bighorns, uintahs, book cliffs, san juans, our wildlife would be far better off. Wouldnt you agree? Hunts would be better quality, there would be more wild in wildlands, and the experience would be far richer for hunters, and non-consumpive users alike. Turning Sublette County into a predator gauntlet does us no good. Vindictive killing of wolves doenst do anyone any good, and its poor publicity for the hunters cause.


You fail to miss a lot of issues and I will forgive you because of your lack of knowledge on the issue. Wolves wont stay in the Bookcliffs, Uintahs, San Juans etc. They didnt stay in Yellowstone right? We have better ways of control elk and deer that we dont need the wolf in those areas. The Elk and deer herds aren't overpopulated like Yellowstone. There would be no benefit from them and hunting would be lesser quality and less people would be able to hunt because wolves would do the same thing in Wyoming. Many areas the calf elk ratios are much lower due to wolves. Jackson Hole has seen this first hand. Elk and deer would be reduced because wolves kill more animals than what they eat. The experience of hunting is FANTASTIC right now and wolves wont make it better.

There is NO benefit from having wolves in those areas. All you are doing it causing more problems for ranchers and wildlife.

Wolves are leaving Yellowstone because their are less elk so Yellowstone will see a very huge crash in the elk population.

Another thing is the fact that probably 90% of a wolf's diet is from eating healthy animals. They have no problem taking down moose, elk, and even bison. They have been known to kill Grizzly bears because the Canadian Wolf is bigger and more aggressive than the native gray wolf.

In Wyoming many hunting areas have closed because wolves have lowered the elk population so much that hunting is no longer needed because the elk population is very low and doesnt meet the min. objective.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

fixed blade said:


> Son of a ****, will someone please tell me how to get a spell checker. Last time pro told me how to do it, I was more confused than when I applied the pathegrian therom in a story problem. And I know pro, I probably spelled pathegrian, and therom wrong, probably a plethera of other words too! :x


+1 Yeah i'm with fixed blade where do you get one of those spell checker thingys


----------



## BERG

fixed blade said:


> Son of a ****, will someone please tell me how to get a spell checker. Last time pro told me how to do it, I was more confused than when I applied the pathegrian therom in a story problem. And I know pro, I probably spelled pathegrian, and therom wrong, probably a plethera of other words too! :x


It's ok Blade...at least you have common sense and you make us laugh :lol:


----------



## L.E.Tist

Spell checkers are for sissies....

I can spell fine, I just cant type worth a dam.

Coyote, I'll take that as a "No", you wont be happy untill all wolves are gone. Just as extreme as the "wolf lovers" you claim are unreasonable.

Well, its been fun circle jerking with ya'll, gotta run and get some work done.


----------



## proutdoors

fixed blade said:


> Son of a ****, will someone please tell me how to get a spell checker. Last time pro told me how to do it, I was more confused than when I applied the pathegrian therom in a story problem. And I know pro, I probably spelled pathegrian, and therom wrong, probably a plethera of other words too! :x


I give you credit for at least 'attempting' to use big words hillbilly. What a "plethora" of words. :shock: :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Spell checkers are for sissies....


Are you a ******* hillbilly?


----------



## BERG

L.E.Tist said:


> Spell checkers are for sissies....
> 
> I can spell fine, I just cant type worth a dam.
> 
> Coyote, I'll take that as a "No", you wont be happy untill all wolves are gone. Just as extreme as the "wolf lovers" you claim are unreasonable.
> 
> Well, its been fun circle jerking with ya'll, gotta run and get some work done.


Sissies: Personal attack. Please add something worthy of the thread. :shock: 
Dam: I normally fish off of one. :wink: 
Untill: Another spelling issue.
Wont: Needs punctuation...can't type, spell, or punctuate.
Circle Jerk: Not us, apparently you did this to yourself. I'm betting that you didn't even "get your rocks off." I still don't believe that you have any.

Thank you Mr. No Credibility. BERG :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors

BERG said:


> L.E.Tist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spell checkers are for sissies....
> 
> I can spell fine, I just cant type worth a dam.
> 
> Coyote, I'll take that as a "No", you wont be happy untill all wolves are gone. Just as extreme as the "wolf lovers" you claim are unreasonable.
> 
> Well, its been fun circle jerking with ya'll, gotta run and get some work done.
> 
> 
> 
> Sissies: Personal attack. Please add something worthy of the thread. :shock:
> Dam: I normally fish off of one. :wink:
> Wont: Needs punctuation...can't type, spell, or punctuate.
> Circle Jerk: Not us, apparently you did this to yourself. I'm betting that you didn't even "get your rocks off." I still don't believe that you have any.
> 
> Thank you, Mr. no credibility BERG :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Now that's funny! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

proutdoors said:


> What a "plethora" of words


Do you mean what's a, or what is a? :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer

Well please come when you something logical to share with the rest of us instead of the garbage you have been posting. I think you need to become educated and when you come back then I will give you a few reading assignments.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

http://www.animalrights.net/


----------



## L.E.Tist

Good Morning All,

TreeHugger, not sure what your link has to do with wolves...

However, I took coyote's advice to gain further education, and found this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-garyferguson30-2008apr30,0,3510430.story

Looks like your cause is gaining some unpopular publicity. Looks like good fodder for the "wolf-lover's" lawsuits.

'Guess we'll see where it leads....


----------



## proutdoors

fixed blade said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a "plethora" of words
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean what's a, or what is a? :wink:
Click to expand...

No DAHB, it was a compliment not a question. :roll:

Tist, you are funny. An article written in the LA Times by a fellow wolf hugger is your idea of getting 'educated'. :? Classic. That is akin to trying to figure out if Global Warming is man caused by asking Al Gore. Nonsensical, but NOT surprising.


----------



## Packfish

Cary ?????


----------



## jahan

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, But at this point it's predator control, not hunting. I would scoff at hunting elk out of a chopper, but welcome coyote control when done this way. It's no different.
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. These are wolves, also known as varmints, not elk/deer. Different rules apply in hunting/controlling populations from specie to specie. We don't hunt turkeys/elk/potguts/wolves/bighorns/coyotes/grouse the same.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I still don't see wolves as varmints. I still don't like the idea of chasing down a wolf with a snowmobile. Sorry, I think it is chicken ****. I say we hunt they with spears and blow dart guns.  :wink: :lol: But in all seriousness, once the wolves are past the point of predator control and tags are available to HUNT a wolf, will there be fair chase rules then. If not I think there should be.

Now I do not agree with LE and LETist, but they are at least being civil and I like to hear other points of view even if I don't agree with them. Yote you are resorting to the typical name calling, I realize that is how you roll, but it is making your valid arguments (which you have had some great ones) meaningless. I also realize that most of what you say is joking, but I am not sure everyone else understands that. Sorry I am just trying to help a brother out here. 

Berg, you are a bad man. :lol: 8)


----------



## BERG

Thank you. However, not so bad once you get to know me, but I think you've got me figured out.  I read the article in the NYT, and found the perspective very interesting to say the least. Although, my opinions in that regard fall into line with Pro's prior post.

I will agree that chasing down a wolf on a machine is chicken dung. Those guys are not hunters in my book. **LL, I wouldn't even do that to a coyote...and I love Yot. tenderloin more than dark beer.


----------



## Slacker

Well I've been outed like a wolf walking through Star Valley, and in the attempt to change my profile I screwed it up big. 

No, I dont consider an editorial a fact-finding mission. However, it does show where the political winds are blowing, and the hunters have done a very poor job representing themselves.

have fun, I'm going fishing.


----------



## jahan

BERG said:


> Thank you. However, not so bad once you get to know me, but I think you've got me figured out.  I read the article in the NYT, and found the perspective very interesting to say the least. Although, my opinions in that regard fall into line with Pro's prior post.
> 
> I will agree that chasing down a wolf on a machine is chicken dung. Those guys are not hunters in my book. **LL, I wouldn't even do that to a coyote...and I love Yot. tenderloin more than dark beer.


We all love Yote, in a non gay kind of way. :lol: :twisted: You seem like a good guy that likes to shoot arrows with Tree through Trees house, not that there is anything wrong with it.  It does crack me up when someone posts an article from a wolf lover group and considers it fact and unbiased.


----------



## BERG

Slacker said:


> Well I've been outed like a wolf walking through Star Valley, and in the attempt to change my profile I screwed it up big.
> 
> No, I dont consider an editorial a fact-finding mission. However, it does show where the political winds are blowing, and the hunters have done a very poor job representing themselves.
> 
> have fun, I'm going fishing.


Wait just a minute. The guys that killed those wolves are in no way a valid representation of hunters! :!: :!: :!: :!: Sheesh.

And...+1 for Jayhan's post.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

L.E.Tist said:


> Good Morning All,
> 
> TreeHugger, not sure what your link has to do with wolves...
> 
> However, I took coyote's advice to gain further education, and found this:
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-garyferguson30-2008apr30,0,3510430.story
> 
> Looks like your cause is gaining some unpopular publicity. Looks like good fodder for the "wolf-lover's" lawsuits.
> 
> 'Guess we'll see where it leads....


I don't recall saying anything about that. I just threw it up there so those interested could take a look.


----------



## Packfish

Just out of mindless curiosity-- if a wolf killed two of your horses and a mule and got away- how would you deal with that?

And it was Cary


----------



## girlsfishtoo

lol


----------



## BERG

I'm not sure that anyone feels the need to answer a mindless question born of, admitted, mindless curiosity. :roll: -BaHa!-


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

What if your horses and mule killed a wolf? What kind of hole would that leave in your heart?


----------



## BERG

Now that question is not mindless...very, very, valid.


----------



## Packfish

That depends- was there more than one wolf to start with. If it was just one then the horse gets xtra hay and oats . If it was 3 wolves and they only got one then it's just extra hay and no oats.


----------



## Slacker

I'm back from fishing, it was good.

Carry on.

Croz, is that you?


----------



## Packfish

Yes it is and how good was the fishing? Last time I went was 2 weeks ago in Ohio- My name should be Slacker. Figured it was you off the bat but the I can spell but I can't type was the give away. No problem with wolves as long as they don't screw with my pack animals.


----------



## richardjb

The way I see it- Are you a cannibal or useful idiot? I'm sure Pro can help me in describing both. Both think they are helping our cause, but of course they think just like the Jews before they were put on trains. Stop the madness now! Don't let these stupid anti's allow their ideas to sink into your heads. These are the same flipping people that say people who make more money should pay for welfare brats, pimps and Whores!!! What don't you get about these people? Giving your money to good causes= good thing! Having people taking money from you to pay for other peoples bad choices= bad thing!!!!


----------



## richardjb

This is so simple, it's STUPID!!!


----------

