# first wolf killed in utah



## eyecrazy

I was up on monte cristo yesturday stoped to talk to the state traper and guess what he had in his truck the first legaly killed wolf in utah. it was a black female that had not had pups yet. he also said that he thinks that there is another judging from the tracks. so it looks like the time is now to set utahs stance on wolves. kill them before they kill everything else.


----------



## MuleyCrazy

Where is Monti? Do you mean Monte Cristo?


----------



## eyecrazy

monte cristo


----------



## MuleyCrazy

eyecrazy said:


> I was up on monte cristo yesturday stoped to talk to the state traper and guess what he had in his truck the first legaly killed wolf in utah. it was a black female that had not had pups yet. he also said that he thinks that there is another judging from the tracks. so it looks like the time is now to set utahs stance on wolves. kill them before they kill everything else.


No kidding, might as well kill off all the wolves before they kill off everything else


----------



## Bo0YaA

I'm thinking with as many people that will be taking to the hills in the next few months for the hunts, we should be able to wipe a good chunk if not all of them out if we shoot on site. Remember we have no wolves in Utah just big sometimes black yotes.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

They've actually killed quite a few now. You just haven't heard about it. They killed one two years ago just north of Tremonton, and they've killed a few over near Randolph and Bear Lake. The wolves are here. It's just a matter of time before they start whittling away on our elk herd. Don Peay is gonna sh*t his pants!


----------



## Yahtahay

Unrelated but here's more on wolves in our backwoods. Coalville to be exact.

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_15587861
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/0 ... -of-packs/


----------



## Bo0YaA

Here ya go, it gets good at the :40 mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgplF1m6 ... r_embedded


----------



## Farsider322

There's been several killed out near Vernal all ready.


----------



## FishNaked

There was a wolf trapped several years back above Morgan too.


----------



## Vern21

heard that Two Cows were Killed this last week up on Johnsons Ranch above hardware Ranch, By two wolves I feel like driving around for the next week up there to try and shoot me a big coyote


----------



## awbmab

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49989 ... d.html.csp


----------



## Al Hansen

Just made the Channel 5 News at noon.


----------



## GaryFish

Not the first, and certainly not the last.


----------



## hazmat

i heard the summit county wolf was spotted again near the whitney reservoir area. you said it right vern time to take out some oversized coyotes


----------



## tuffluckdriller

There were a couple of wolves killed in the Uintah Basin in 1994. It was on a ranch North of Lapoint. 

Of course, we never had wolves then, and don't now, right?


----------



## perdiz

You cannot stop them. Any eradication law is stupid management. They are great boons for the ecosystem. They will need control, but should be part of our Utah. Some ranch animals will be preyed upon, and some livestock lost, but to eradicate is foolhardy.

They have greatly enhanced Yellowstone. This too is their natural domain and we need to learn to live with them. Hunters that just kill for sport should themselves be hunted by these wolves or themselves shot in the act of eradication.

Proceed with management and wisdom. Poachers should be killed themselves on sight and buried there w/o a headstone !!!


----------



## huntnbum

Sounds like a threat to me :shock:


----------



## NHS

Welcome to the forum perdiz. Why don't you head on over to the introduction thread and introduce yourself to us:

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=62


----------



## Springville Shooter

Why don't you save the introductions and take your inflammatory comments and rhetoric somewhere else. I think that PETA and The Sierra Club all have forums for people like you. IMHO you probably wont have anything constructive to say here anyway.----SS


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Are we that afraid of differing opinions, however strong they might be? 

I've heard plenty on here say they'd like to string poachers up in a tree with no reaction, because they were speaking of animals that we prize for persuit?


----------



## bwhntr

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Are we that afraid of differing opinions, however strong they might be?
> 
> I've heard plenty on here say they'd like to string poachers up in a tree with no reaction, because they were speaking of animals that we prize for persuit?


The irony...


----------



## perdiz

NAH I AM A UTAH HUNTER AND KNOW THE MOUNTAINS, ANIMALS, AND HAVE KILLED MORE OF THEM AND CAUGHT MORE FISH THAN PROBABLY MANY OF YOU EVER WILL. JUST STATING THAT TO KILL WOLVES IS STUPID, HARSH AND NEEDS CONTROL BUT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ROAM WILDLY. THEY ARE GOOD FOR THE ECOSYSTEM.


----------



## perdiz

SPRINGVILLE SHOOTER-WHY DONT YOU GO HUNT DOWN THOSE 4-5 SPRINGVILLE DOGS.?? NEIGHBORHOOD CASTAWAYS.


----------



## GaryFish

Just stepping in here.

First, Welcome to the forum there Perdiz. Glad to have another person here. We welcome a variety of opinions about wolves, wolf management, and everything that goes with the wolf debate. It is refreshing to have a different point of view. 

My request to you, and to all forum members, is to keep discussions respectful and not personal. If you come on wanting to shoot all hunters, you'll get a reaction. And maybe that is what you are trying to do. All I ask is that we discuss issues in a lively and respectful way. 

Thanks.


----------



## pheaz

perdiz said:


> NAH I AM A UTAH HUNTER AND KNOW THE MOUNTAINS, ANIMALS, AND HAVE KILLED MORE OF THEM AND CAUGHT MORE FISH THAN PROBABLY MANY OF YOU EVER WILL. quote]
> 
> Hey hey its Shauns little brother. o-|| o-||


----------



## bwhntr

I never understand people that put animal life over human life?


----------



## perdiz

Do all of you all think that it makes you big and tough to conquer deer with big racks or big fish with a little fly? Or to stalk a Mountain Goat on the highest Peaks of Utah and come down with a trophy? How many of you have deer antler decals or duck stickers on your windows? That is all great and fine, but for the purpose of machoism or to kill because its something you see and you become judge over it's life and needlessly end it all for that animal is not right. In season, legally, and with the thought in mind, "wow, what a great privilege this is", is where your hunting mentality should be at. Otherwise you are not a true conservationist. The greatest hunter should be the greatest conservationist.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3

That was a large amount of capital letters! Congratulations on knowing both the mountains and animals. Oh and killing more than we ever will.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Like I said.....nothing constructive. I embrace differences of opinion, in fact I like nothing more than a spirited, INTELLEGENT conversation, but that's where I take issue with perdiz. Bring some intellegent arguments to the table, or be ready to face the fire when you make idiotic, unfounded statements. Oh, and by the way, the number of animals you have killed or fish you have caught has nothing to so with your statements. Why don't you kindly expalain to us WHY we should embrace wolf expansion into our state using biological and reasonable arguments? -------SS


----------



## hattrick

perdiz said:


> Do all of you all think that it makes you big and tough to conquer deer with big racks or big fish with a little fly? Or to stalk a Mountain Goat on the highest Peaks of Utah and come down with a trophy? How many of you have deer antler decals or duck stickers on your windows? That is all great and fine, but for the purpose of machoism or to kill because its something you see and you become judge over it's life and needlessly end it all for that animal is not right. In season, legally, and with the thought in mind, "wow, what a great privilege this is", is where your hunting mentality should be at. Otherwise you are not a true conservationist. The greatest hunter should be the greatest conservationist.


I do not believe anyone has the privilege to tell people what their motive should be in a decision they make, or that any motive is correct. The organization I work for allows its employees to take half a day off to donate blood. I have coworkers who donate, and would continue to donate if the time off was not given. Others choose to donate because of the time off. I do not think the blood given from the people who are donating out of the goodness of their heart is any better than the blood given out of incentive. If I needed blood would I shun the blood of those giving without a selfless motives? No.

I am not a hunter. I have never chosen to shoot a deer, moose or elk. That has been my decision to not participate to this point in my life. If a hunter is harvesting an animal lawfully, you have no right questioning his motive. You are fully entitled to hunt or fish within the law with whatever motive you want. Some hunt/fish for meat, others for size, others for pleasure/thrill, others for management reasons. No one motive is greater than the other, just different in the viewer's eyes.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Are we that afraid of differing opinions, however strong they might be?
> 
> I've heard plenty on here say they'd like to string poachers up in a tree with no reaction, because they were speaking of animals that we prize for persuit?


Afraid....no, annoyed...you bet. Come on tree, I think you know that my issue is with the statement, not the subject. People who suggest capitol punishment for any type of game violation are off base.....but did I really need to say that?-------SS


----------



## perdiz

I will be succinct. I will make a wrap to this discussion. My point is that wolves are now here and hopefully to stay. Idiotic claims would be to decimmate them. To kill them because they have no place in the wildlife ecology of Utah? How wrong. I know Utah well. I have hunted and been part of Her for 40 years fishing and taking wildlife. Wolves have a part in the ecology of Utah as far as practicable. We will know the limits of that as it naturally happens. But it needs to be left alone and managed properly without illegal activity until those levels are understood and the locations decided.

Ecologically and biologically speaking they have a role. Some profess they serve no purpose. Others say they kill for sport. Both claims are demonstrably false. Wolves never kill for sport. They also serve an incredibly useful purpose ecologically. In Yellowstone, where wolves were reintroduced in the 1990s, the benefit of wolves has been profound. Wolves have kept herds of elk on the move, preventing overgrazing, particularly along streams and rivers. This has increased the stability of the banks and made the water clearer. It has also allowed cottonwood and aspen to grow to maturity which has increased bird and beaver populations. With more beavers damming streams and rivers there is more slow-moving water, which has increased bug populations and further helped birds. Wolves also hunt year-round which means more carrion in the winter to help scavenger populations like eagles and coyotes.

You can only claim that wolves serve no useful purpose if you don't understand science and respect the natural beauty and balance of the Earth.

As for the ranchers, the threat of wolves is overblown. Studies have shown that livestock losses caused by wolves are only a tiny fraction of overall livestock deaths. This simply isn't a big enough problem to justify decimating entire wolf populations.

Wolves in Utah deserve a fair chance.


----------



## bwhntr

perdiz said:


> the benefit of wolves has been profound. Wolves have kept herds of elk on the move, preventing overgrazing, particularly along streams and rivers. This has increased the stability of the banks and made the water clearer. It has also allowed cottonwood and aspen to grow to maturity which has increased bird and beaver populations. With more beavers damming streams and rivers there is more slow-moving water, which has increased bug populations and further helped birds. Wolves also hunt year-round which means more carrion in the winter to help scavenger populations like eagles and coyotes.


Wow, the wolf is quite the Savior. He brings life to the rivers, grasses, elk, cottonwoods, aspen, birds, beavers, bugs, eagles, and coyotes. Incredible! How have these species survivied all these years without the wolf. This is good stuff. _(O)_ :mrgreen:


----------



## GaryFish

I know there have been a few studies about the wolf's impacts on the riparian areas of YNP. Two things worth considering on these studies is first, they were written by pro-wolf biologists, and were direct efforts to support the answer they wanted, not to identify with an open mind, the impacts of the wolf. So while I understand much of what is asserted, it is suspect to me at best, and biostitution at worst.

Second and really more important than any of my opinion, is that the studies ignore that 7 years prior to the augmentation of wolf populations in 1995, the entire YNP ecosystem went through an incredibly drastic and massive transformation with the fire of 1988. 100 years off fire suppression had led to forest stands past their maturity level, with forest floors void of vegetation. This pushed the large grazers to only the meadows and riparian areas. Since the fire, forests were opened up, forage began growing other places, and the animals dispersed to more normal patterns than the concentration along the riparian zones. As much as I'd love to blame the wolves for all sorts of impacts to animals in the park, their impact is spitting in the ocean compared to what impacts resulted from 100 years of fire management, and the catastrophic fires of 1988. One-third of the entire park was completely redefined. ONE-THIRD! The result was conversion to mixed forest types, development of aspen all around the park - not just the riparian areas. Grasses emerging. Brush communities being revitalized. 

Cherry picking wolves as the reason the riparian areas have improved since the '90s is not only wrong, but irresponsible. Be careful what studies you believe. One must look at the much larger picture. 

BTW - I am not a wolf hater. I am a proponent of wolves where humans are not allowed a role as the apex predator - like YNP. But in places where humans play that predatory role, biologically speaking, wolves are in direct competition with me. And like grizzlies will chase a wolf off a kill, I don't want to share either.


----------



## perdiz

wow-everything workd good until white man came didn't it?


----------



## GaryFish

Hard to say what "workd good" means. Hard to say.


----------



## perdiz

so you can easily understand and dont already the following: wolves fit into and had a solid niche in utah territory ecology---need more? lol


----------



## jahan

perdiz said:


> wow-everything workd good until white man came didn't it?


Absolutely and here in lies the problem. Humans are now part of the food chain and ecosystem. I personally don't want to see the wolf eradicated, I think they have a purpose, but HAVE to be managed, like any other game species. I am not even necessarily against wolves in Utah, but once again they have to be managed. You can't have one species running around unchecked when everything around it is being managed. That is poor conservation IMO. Also the wolves being reintroduced were not the native wolves that were in Utah.

I hope you stick around because it is nice to have another point of view around. Welcome to the forum. 8)


----------



## Flyfishn247

Perdiz, You say the claim that wolves kill for sport is false, well I disagree. I read a study (it may have been an anti-wolf study, much like you take your pro-wolf studies as gospel) that provided numerous instances, with photographic and forensic proof, of wolves killing and leaving elk, never to return. The conclusion was that wolves are the only other animal next to humans who hunt for sport. When I get a chance to find it I will post a link since you are obviously passionate about your wolf studies.

And Jahan is right, the wolf that inhabited Utah in the past was a smaller and less aggressive subspecies of the Canadian Gray that was reintroduced into Yellowstone. Sorry, but I don't support a NON-NATIVE species running around unchecked eradicating the very animals that I pay money to manage and conserve in the off chance once a year I may be blessed to harvest and serve up next to some mashed potatoes.


----------



## fish_wisper

Have you seen the movie "THE GREY" ??? The great wolf hunter Liam Neeson couldn't even get em!!! I'm going to have nightmares for a week!!!


----------



## Uni

Flyfishn, sorry but I hate that "wolves kill for sport" argument. Wolves are not the only other predator besides humans that don't eat everything they kill.

I'm all for wolves in Utah, however, their must be a PROPER management plan in place. If the pack size and sheer numbers of wolves are regulated to a small but healthy level, there isn't any reason to "kill them all". If a proper plan cant be put in place, then they should be considered oversized coyotes. 

I know this next statement isn't going to go over very well but it's my honest opinion: I could care less if the wolves kill every cow and sheep that are allowed to feed all summer on public land.

Also, about the non-native species, do you like fishing? Bass, pike, and channel catfish are not native to Utah, yet they are in all of our major lakes/dams. I also doubt cows and sheep are native to our mountains, yet they are allowed there every year.


----------



## Springville Shooter

I must say that this thread took a serious turn for the better> Some very intelligent points have been made. From what I have seen, there is plenty of junk science on both sides of the issue. I believe that it comes down to each individuals feelings on the role of man on earth. Probably a good reason why this issue will never find consensus. My biggest fear is that we will experience the same woes that Idaho is currently. I don't think that any honest person can look at the biological facts and consider the introduction of wolves into Idaho a success. While I respect the Pro stance, it will take a lot more for me to ever support the introduction and allowed expansion of Canadian wolves in western states. I may not be on the kill em all bandwagon, but I support serious and agressive management that will not allow populations to get out of control. I believe wolves, like other predators including man, should not be allowed to send ungulate populations below management objectives. Just my opinion.----------SS


----------



## goofy elk

I'll throw this out ,, Just wait til YOU'VE had personal loss from wolves !!

I lost two hounds last December , Know of another hounds men that lost dogs too ..
Even though we cant positively identify wolves for killing them,, It is HIGHLY suspect ..

As wolf packs grow in Utah, hounds men will be loosing hound dogs ..
This is very common now in Idaho/Wyoming/ Montana.......

Pizzed of hounds men,,, kill wolves ..... Same as cattlemen/sheep men,,,,,Just say'in.


----------



## Uni

Isnt that part of hound hunting though, Goofy?

Sorry, but I am very ignorant when it comes to hound hunting. I have never seen it in person. Don't you always risk losing a dog when you are trying to tree a bear or cougar?

Also, don't grizzlies pose the same threat as wolves? Just wondering, I really have no knowledge of hound hunting.


----------



## goofy elk

Never lost a dog to lions in 20 years of chasing ,, and caught hundreds of cats ..
Had some close calls, but never happened to me ..

And bears can be hard on dogs,, again though I've been lucky . no losses ..

NOTHING LIKE WOLFS!
Wolf packs will seek out and kill hound dogs,, or any dog for that matter ..
If Wolves are in an area you are running hounds ,, All the barking is a wolf magnet !

Wolves will also kill any mountain lions or coyotes that are in a "packs established range" ..


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Ecologically and biologically speaking they have a role. Some profess they serve no purpose. Others say they kill for sport. Both claims are demonstrably false. Wolves never kill for sport. They also serve an incredibly useful purpose ecologically. In Yellowstone, where wolves were reintroduced in the 1990s, the benefit of wolves has been profound. Wolves have kept herds of elk on the move, preventing overgrazing, particularly along streams and rivers. This has increased the stability of the banks and made the water clearer. It has also allowed cottonwood and aspen to grow to maturity which has increased bird and beaver populations. With more beavers damming streams and rivers there is more slow-moving water, which has increased bug populations and further helped birds. Wolves also hunt year-round which means more carrion in the winter to help scavenger populations like eagles and coyotes.
> 
> You can only claim that wolves serve no useful purpose if you don't understand science and respect the natural beauty and balance of the Earth.
> 
> As for the ranchers, the threat of wolves is overblown. Studies have shown that livestock losses caused by wolves are only a tiny fraction of overall livestock deaths. This simply isn't a big enough problem to justify decimating entire wolf populations.


This is nothing but bum fodder. These studies were written by wolf lovers who have an agenda, therefore, using this as an argument is worthless because of the source that it comes from.

Wolves also kill for sport and there was been many reports that show this. My cousin has property in Idaho where a pack of wolves killed 18 deer in one night and not one deer was consumed in the massacre. These deer were left to rot. Currently, you hardly see any deer in this area which use to be loaded with deer even though there is a lot of great mule deer habitat and water. Coyotes also kill for fun especially when training pups.

Wolves require thousands of square miles of habitat so where in Utah would be a good place to re-introduce them where wolves wouldn't have conflicts with man? There was a reason wolves were exterminated in the first place. It wasn't because these people weren't educated.

Wolf lovers agreed to an objective of 300 wolves and now we have over 3000 wolves. In Utah, I hope we don't make the same mistake. Wolves should be managed like coyotes.


----------



## Uni

coyoteslayer said:


> There was a reason wolves were exterminated in the first place. It wasn't because these people weren't educated.


Was that the same reason Elk and Bison were nearly exterminated? Not to mention nearly every Furbearer? How does that make any sense?

Also, wolves will come into contact with man if reintroduced to Utah. I fail to see the issue here. Doesn't this already happen with every other predator? I will never put an animals life over a humans, but it is the wilderness. I have yet to read about a wolf killing a hunter/hiker in the lower 48, yet you can read about a cougar/grizzly killing or maiming one just about every year.

I'm not saying wolves don't attack people, just stating every other predator does the exact same thing.


----------



## goofy elk

OMG Yote :shock: 

The was an EXCELANT post :!: ,,,Very accurate.


----------



## goofy elk

I predict over the next 10 years or so, wolf conflicts will become common in Utah ..

AND , there will be some very serious ones, were human life is threatened, or even taken.

Then people will realize WHY WOLVES WERE ERATACATED by our ancestors in the first place


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> This is nothing but bum fodder.


 -oooo-

-O>>-


----------



## Uni

goofy elk said:


> I predict over the next 10 years or so, wolf conflicts will become common in Utah ..
> 
> AND , there will be some very serious ones, with human life is threatened, or even taken.
> 
> Then people will realize WHY WOLVES WERE ERATACATED by our ancestors in the first place


How is this different than Black Bears? Should they also be ERATACATED? Three people were killed by Black Bears in the lower 48 last year, not one by wolves. I'm not going to even include grizzly and brown bear in there.


----------



## coyoteslayer

Uni said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a reason wolves were exterminated in the first place. It wasn't because these people weren't educated.
> 
> 
> 
> Was that the same reason Elk and Bison were nearly exterminated? Not to mention nearly every Furbearer? How does that make any sense?
> 
> Aren't animals for the use of man? Otherwise they wouldn't be made out of meat. Yes, bison were slaughtered for their hides and meat just like cattle. Humans are the top dogs of the food chain. Can we still have one million bison today roaming the plains? Of course not because the landscaped has changed in the form of cities and highways.
> 
> Also, wolves will come into contact with man if reintroduced to Utah. I fail to see the issue here. Doesn't this already happen with every other predator? I will never put an animals life over a humans, but it is the wilderness. I have yet to read about a wolf killing a hunter/hiker in the lower 48, yet you can read about a cougar/grizzly killing or maiming one just about every year.
> 
> My point is the landscape has changed. Utah is more populated than Wyoming and Montana. We don't live in the 1700s or 1800s anymore. The population of wolves is very low in Utah so the odds are very low that someone would be killed by wolves. BUT if you have two or three packs established along the Wasatch Front then you can bet your ass that there will be human/wolf encounters. I haven't heard bigfoot killing anyone either. Ranchers and houndmen have had close encounters with wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
> 
> I'm not saying wolves don't attack people, just stating every other predator does the exact same thing.
Click to expand...


----------



## coyoteslayer

Uni said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I predict over the next 10 years or so, wolf conflicts will become common in Utah ..
> 
> AND , there will be some very serious ones, with human life is threatened, or even taken.
> 
> Then people will realize WHY WOLVES WERE ERATACATED by our ancestors in the first place
> 
> 
> 
> How is this different than Black Bears? Should they also be ERATACATED? Three people were killed by Black Bears in the lower 48 last year, not one by wolves. I'm not going to even include grizzly and brown bear in there.
Click to expand...

The last wolf seen in Utah was back in the 1930s until the last few years so of course the chances of someone getting killed by wolves was slim to none.


----------



## Uni

Coyote, Im not talking about wolf attacks in Utah. I'm talking about the entire lower 48. I think we can all agree Canada/Alaska is a totally different discussion.

Maybe I'm doing a horrible job at describing my thoughts on wolves. Again, I do not think they should be let back into Utah without a very sound management plan. I do think that small packs can and should be able to come back into Utah if properly managed.


----------



## johnnycake

I am mildly torn on the wolf issue. If we could have the subspecies of wolf that used to be here reestablished, I would be 100% in favor---with proper management at the state level. Seeing that that is not really an option, I would be more in favor of the Mexican Wolf as the introduced species over the Canadian Wolf---if that is they must be introduced for sound ecological reasons. Do we have a serious overpopulation of ungulates and other prey species that would justify the need for another very successful predator? I don't think we do. 
I would be very in favor of reestablishing grizzlies from the YNP area to Utah. Very. Grizzlies need large areas over which to establish a range, meaning there wouldn't be a grizzly behind every tree, let alone on each mountain range. Wolves, are much more difficult to control with much higher rates of reproductivity. 
As for the killing for sport....this is what I was able to drudge up with 2 minutes on google, and I recall multiple other articles throughout the years with similar and worse incidents.
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005142334
34 sheep so far this year....only June? hmmm and none were eaten. Just saying, that is some fairly compelling evidence.
Also interesting story from last year woman in Idaho kills wolf in self-defense....
http://gothunts.com/wolf-attacks/


----------



## coyoteslayer

Uni said:


> Coyote, Im not talking about wolf attacks in Utah. I'm talking about the entire lower 48. I think we can all agree Canada/Alaska is a totally different discussion.


So what your saying is the wolves in Canada and Alaska love the taste of humans whereas the cute fluffy wolves in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming are like man's best friend? BTW not all 48 states have wolves so the chances are slim to none in most states.

Again, there have been close encounters with wolves in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.


----------



## goofy elk

Uni,, Just the issues with elk herds ALONE is enough evidence to strictly
control wolf populations to Yellowstone .......IMHO ..

Here's a link ...
http://www.saveelk.com/


----------



## Uni

I agree that wolves have absolutely decimated the Elk herds in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. I think that is just as much the wildlife managements fault as it is the wolves killing for sport. Their hands were tied until last year, now hopefully they can manage the wolves properly and bring their numbers way down as in hundred not thousands.


----------



## coyoteslayer

The reason you don't hear about a lot of wolf attacks with early settlers is because many didn't live to tell about it. They were just labeled as missing or dying for some unknown reason. Maybe Indians got them. Can you imagine fighting off a pack of wolves with a Muzzle loader? You only have one shot at a time.


----------



## goofy elk

Uni said:


> I agree that wolves have absolutely decimated the Elk herds in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. I think that is just as much the wildlife managements fault as it is the wolves killing for sport. Their hands were tied until last year, now hopefully they can manage the wolves properly and bring their numbers way down as in hundred not thousands.


Study from the University of Montana ..

http://saveelk.com/wolf_112.htm


----------



## Uni

That's exactly my point Goofy. If they cannot be managed then they should be treated like overgrown coyotes. Great article by the way.

My issues were people throwing out things like wolves will kill people and livestock when a lot of predators are already doing the same things. If they could be managed then there is no reason to not reintroduce them, however, most of the evidence points to the contrary. In Utah, we are lucky that other states have already had these issues and we can use what happened to their ecosystems as evidence of what could happen to ours.


----------



## UtahMountainMan

What do wolves bring to the table in terms of positives for humans in Utah as well as other animals in Utah?

From my point of view, my family and I enjoy watching deer and elk graze, we enjoy encountering them in the wild, taking pictures, and we enjoy trying to hunt them in their natural element. 

The deer herd in Utah is really struggling due to the primary factors of loss of habitat, human hunters, coyotes, and road kill. I am not going to start a huge debate by assigning the percentage of deer mortality to the 4 primary factors I just listed, but in my opinion those are the reasons the deer herd is suffering. 

We are having a hard enough time with predator control in Utah without adding wolves to the mix. 

Of all the articles and studying I have done it appears that the wolf has decimated elk herds north of Utah. 

I disagree that wolves should be given the chance to move into Utah. It will hurt the hunting, it will hurt the big game population, it will be one more drain on our wildlife managements resources (both time and money) that would be better spent elsewhere, it adds another predator to the mix, it hurts the ranching industry. 

Additionally, as it hurts the big game herds it will also effect the value that resident and non resident hunters place on the opportunities in Utah which will decrease the revenue badly needed to support Utahs big game and wildlife management/support.

I dont believe it will help the birds and beavers in Utah, and quite frankly if it did I wouldnt really care, I dont see a shortage of magpies flying around.


----------



## Flyfishn247

Your right Uni, they do need to be managed like coyotes. With how elusive wolves can be, sport hunting won't even slow the growth of the population. One estimate is 70% of the population would need to be killed each year just to stabilize the growth. They are not like grizzlies that have one or two cubs every 2-3 years. They are having 6+ pups per litter per year. I think even with loose management, our ungalates will not stand a chance against the storm on our doorstep. 

Look at what Utah is trying to do with coyotes. Even with a year round season and government contracted hunters/trappers, the population continues to explode. This new bounty program may help slightly, maybe, but my opinion is it will take an aggressive hunting, trapping, and poison to start to make a dent. Hindering a hunters ability to shoot a wolf on sight due to strict management policies we will likely see once they are established here is going to bite us in the a$$.

Look at Idaho, they are leaving almost $6 million on the table just in big game tags compared to pre-reintroduction. Most of that is non-resident tags, so think of the overall economic impact when you consider the other things those hunters would have purchased (food, gas, supplies, hotel rooms, guide fees, etc). Is that what we want in Utah? Just so maybe you might catch a glimpse of a wolf or hear one howl at night? That's a great tradeoff. Throughout the history of the world, the animal kingdom has continually changed as species competed, but we humans think because we are intelligent, we can manage it to be the same way always and forever. The way I see it, wolves pose a hazard to the ecosystem I have grown to love, they compete and overindulge for my resources, and threaten the economic stability of the society I live in. So in the name of Darwinism, let us humans evolve and take control of our environment for the betterment of our species and remove the scourge wolf and send it the way of the DoDo and the dinosaurs. It serves no benefit to anyone or anything except for the warm fuzzy you get when you see one in the wild. If I want to see another wolf, I will be content looking at a picture in a book.


----------



## Cody_King

Some fun points have been brought up in this post. It's my opinion that Utah struggles enough with game management as it is. I believe that it's also a fact that the "majority" of hunter do not want wolves introduced into the state (officially, ha). So, the comments I keep seeing from "pro-wolf" or "anti-hunter" is: "we need to bring wolves in to the state, and then ***manage them properly***". Game management includes "hunting" which in Lamen terms means, "killing". So you are telling me that these "pro-wolf" people are going to support killing the wolves, once they are here? I don't see that happening, but that's just me. Nothing like saying one thing, until you get your way, then doing another when it's time to act, huh, that sounds fimiliar (government)? Also, who will fund this "wolf management"? Personally I don't think it's right that hunters should have to fund the management of something that they didn't support in the first place? And are you telling me that "pro-wolf" supporters are willing to fund the killing (management) of wolves? I personally highly doubt that will happen. I go back and say it again, they (pro-wolf supporters aka anti-hunters) may say one thing, then when it's time to act, they will turn a 180 and do another. That doesn't sound like a can of worms I am willing to open.


----------



## goofy elk

UtahMountain M ,, flyfishn247 and Cody_ are SPOT ON!!


----------



## Uni

Calling everyone that's pro-wolf an anti-hunter is like calling all anti-wolf people irrational and ignorant.

How about we try to not paint everyone with the same brush.


----------



## Cody_King

Lol, you are right. Let me take that back. "they, meaning (pro-wolf, anti hunters and the minority group of hunters)". there, now you are not "anti-hunting" you are the "minority" in the hunting community. You are right, it does sound better.


----------



## Uni

Cody_King said:


> Lol, you are right. Let me take that back. "they, meaning (pro-wolf, anti hunters and the minority group of hunters)". there, now you are not "anti-hunting" you are the "minority" in the hunting community. You are right, it does sound better.


Haha, much better!


----------



## Flyfishn247

It's alright Uni, I can respect your feelings, I just hope that you can see the future impact wolves would have in Utah if not dealt with swiftly. I support wolves too, just north of the US/Canada border. The pro-wolf hunters are not the only minority group of hunters in support of something that will negatively impact hunters overall. The minority group that pushed through and supported option 2 will see the unfortunate outcome of that decision in the not too distant future. Instead of reducing the wildlife population, it will reduce hunter opportunity. And with that, the economic benefits, hunter retention, and hunter recruitment will be greatly reduced. Exactly what we need. But hey, at least you'll have a better chance at a mature buck every four or five years (can you tell I am still a little bitter about not drawing my first choice archery permit   ).


----------



## Iron Bear

Don't forget the strive for a 'healthy ecosystem" by introducing and managing *maximum* predator populations that are at or near their capacity. Is the biggest threat to the general hunting we have. A healthy cougar population has done far more to get us to where we are today in terms of deer then any group out there. SFW included. Bottom line is mother nature took thousands of yrs to develop a management plan and we aren't a part of it. So to try and follow her plan and include 100,000 deer hunters is just stupid and irresponsible.

As hunters we serve a very similar biological purpose as natural predators to the game we hunt. Don't look now but we are being replaced.

And you don't have to identify yourself as an anti hunter to support anti hunting policy. You might just be stupid.


----------



## Uni

Iron Bear said:


> Don't forget the strive for a 'healthy ecosystem" by introducing and managing *maximum* predator populations that are at or near their capacity. Is the biggest threat to the general hunting we have. A healthy cougar population has done far more to get us to where we are today in terms of deer then any group out there. SFW included. Bottom line is mother nature took thousands of yrs to develop a management plan and we aren't a part of it. So to try and follow her plan and include 100,000 deer hunters is just stupid and irresponsible.
> 
> As hunters we serve a very similar biological purpose as natural predators to the game we hunt. Don't look now but we are being replaced.
> 
> And you don't have to identify yourself as an anti hunter to support anti hunting policy. You might just be stupid.


And this is exactly why we can't have intelligent discussions on this forum. Great job on adding nothing but personal insults to the thread. Gold Star for you!


----------



## GaryFish

Most ecosystems of any variety, don't usually support more than one apex predator. In a system like Yellowstone where man is not allowed to play that role, wolves work. (though not quite the great savior they are being painted as) Yellowstone has vast herds of prey base for an apex predator between the elk and bison. 

However, in areas outside the park, humans play the role as apex predator. And we humans don't find it acceptable for other predators to take our prey base - cows and sheeps - that occupy the habitats. And as hunters, we don't want them taking our prey base of deer and elk away either. In any ecosystem, too many major predators and the prey base will crash. In nature, the predator base will follow in their crash - usually 3-4 years behind. But for human hunters that aren't going to starve today, we just loose the chance to be hunters. To accept wolves back into the system as a co-apex predator, is to give up that role ourselves. Something that really, hunters do not want to do. 

When prey species crash naturally, the predator population responds and adjusts. Likewise, as humans, we adjust (reduce tags, harvest dates, manipulate male/female ratios, etc....) But any suggestion that nature on will somehow balance into some kind of equilibrium ignores that population dynamics are a constant ebb and flow, peaks and valleys, feast and famine. It is never at any equilibrium. Always has been that way, always will be.


----------



## bullsnot

Uni said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a reason wolves were exterminated in the first place. It wasn't because these people weren't educated.
> 
> 
> 
> Was that the same reason Elk and Bison were nearly exterminated? Not to mention nearly every Furbearer? How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

The reason why bison, elk and the furbearers that you speak of were nearly wiped out was due to commercialization of those species and lead to the birth of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. This has been fixed.

The reasons why wolves were wiped out was due to the reasons Gary mentioned and that is wolves and human activity don't mix well. This has not been fixed necessarily. Certainly open to debate.

I think this thread has a pretty common theme and that is most believe the wolf can live here as long as there is management and that makes sense to me but I have to admit I am really torn at that point. I have seen the goal line move over and over, numerous court cases (million spent) to move that goal line and fight over management, and injunctions stopping hunts. Quite frankly until I see full control given to states to manage wolves as they see fit I have a hard time swallowing the wolf pill.


----------



## Lonetree

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsRe ... gation.htm


----------



## hunting777

I really have enjoyed this post, many good points being brought up. I agree with many including our struggling herds already and where the finical costs are coming from. If I remember right didn’t Utah just take on one of our predator problems, coyotes? Why bring on another one. 
I am not very familiar with wolves species, I have talked with some friends up in Canada and they don't claim these animals. They mention that what we got are way more aggressive and a lot larger than what they have. Can any you educate me on what we truly have introduced to our mountains?


----------



## Lonetree

hunting777 said:


> I really have enjoyed this post, many good points being brought up. I agree with many including our struggling herds already and where the finical costs are coming from. If I remember right didn't Utah just take on one of our predator problems, coyotes? Why bring on another one.
> I am not very familiar with wolves species, I have talked with some friends up in Canada and they don't claim these animals. They mention that what we got are way more aggressive and a lot larger than what they have. Can any you educate me on what we truly have introduced to our mountains?


----------



## MWScott72

GaryFish said:


> Most ecosystems of any variety, don't usually support more than one apex predator. In a system like Yellowstone where man is not allowed to play that role, wolves work. (though not quite the great savior they are being painted as) Yellowstone has vast herds of prey base for an apex predator between the elk and bison.
> 
> However, in areas outside the park, humans play the role as apex predator. And we humans don't find it acceptable for other predators to take our prey base - cows and sheeps - that occupy the habitats. And as hunters, we don't want them taking our prey base of deer and elk away either. In any ecosystem, too many major predators and the prey base will crash. In nature, the predator base will follow in their crash - usually 3-4 years behind. But for human hunters that aren't going to starve today, we just loose the chance to be hunters. To accept wolves back into the system as a co-apex predator, is to give up that role ourselves. Something that really, hunters do not want to do.
> 
> When prey species crash naturally, the predator population responds and adjusts. Likewise, as humans, we adjust (reduce tags, harvest dates, manipulate male/female ratios, etc....) But any suggestion that nature on will somehow balance into some kind of equilibrium ignores that population dynamics are a constant ebb and flow, peaks and valleys, feast and famine. It is never at any equilibrium. Always has been that way, always will be.


Nice post Gary - I think you nailed it

I just came back from a job up in Pinedale, WY. It was a 10,000 acre ranch on the east side of the Wyoming Range. The ranch manager confirmed to me that they have had numerous issues with wolves which included numerous instances of the wolves killing elk, cattle, and sheep, and then leaving them to waste. I was already of the opinion that wolves kill for sport, based on what I've rea. This just cemented the fact.

This manager also confirmed that the wolves introduced to the Yellowstone ecosystem were also a more aggressive sub-species than the native wolves that were extirpated years ago. I did not know this fact at the time, and it's interesting to me that it was being brought up on this forum as well. Learn something new every day.

As to wolves in Utah, I'm completely against their reintroduction at this time. Too much politics and not enough common sense seem to follow wolf reintroduction wherever it occurs. Our big game species have enough competition as is, and I see no need to decimate them like has happened to the central Idaho and North Yellowstone elk and moose herds. If, and when, the courts rule that states can manage wolves like any other big game species, I may support reintroduction, but to reintroduce them in Utah now (or to allow them to thrive as they disperse from parts north) would be a HUGE mistake.


----------



## Lonetree

-_O-


----------



## Hammbone

Hi all just to add my two cents. I have read several firsthand accounts from my great grandparents who settled South Weber a later south eastern Idaho then they settled in Hooper. They have several issues with Wolfs killing animals and harassing early settlers. Such was their concerns they trapped them often and hunted them. They also speak of the large number of Indians in South Weber and north Davis County they arrived in Utah 1854. I think saw a wolf last year out rabbit hunting by the Golden Spike turnoff. Just as we hit the turnoff I had huge black dog run in front of my truck about 50 yards ahead of us. I thought that is the biggest **** coyote I have ever seen other than is was really moving crossed the road and was gone. I know it was no coyote, while it was thrilling to see I was more than alarmed. I question why import other states problems and make them ours. Any way that my two cents. . I love to hunt and fish this great state. Be safe. 8)


----------



## Iron Bear

Uni said:


> And this is exactly why we can't have intelligent discussions on this forum. Great job on adding nothing but personal insults to the thread. Gold Star for you!


Geez Uni do you know what a personal insult is? :lol:

Nothing personal in my post. :roll:

But if you walk like a duck and talk like one. My post may have made you realize your a duck.
Your not alone there are a lot of ducks around here. :O•-:

Personalized for Uni.


----------



## bullsnot

Lonetree said:


> http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsReleases/2012/wolflitigation.htm


I remember reading this but I am not 100% sure what this means for the future of wolf management in Utah. It seems to simplistic to think this means that this non-appeal now simply means states can manage wolves as they choose. Perhaps you can clarify based on your understanding of the issue?


----------



## Lonetree

The readers digest version is that some states can now move forward in managing wolves like any other wildlife, based on sound science, and through the principals of modern wildlife management, founded in the NAMWC. The hunts in MT, ID, and WY can move forward, unhindered, under state management. This sets a precedent for Utah, in future management. Just to clarify, I would add an astrik to "manage wolves as they choose". This does require maintaining wolf sustainability, which falls well within the NAMWC. How that is accomplished is now in state hands, and is being applied by many different means.


----------



## wyogoob

perdiz said:


> wow-everything workd good until white man came didn't it?


No. There were millions of bison tearing up the riparian areas and billions of passenger pigeons pooping all over everything.

eyegottagitbak2wurk


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

:mrgreen:


----------



## perdiz

wyogoob said:


> perdiz said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow-everything workd good until white man came didn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> No. There were millions of bison tearing up the riparian areas and billions of passenger pigeons pooping all over everything.
> 
> eyegottagitbak2wurk
Click to expand...

 :OX/: Like I said everything was good until white man came. He loved poop more than meat.


----------



## perdiz

everywhere white man has gone decimmation has occurred. Synonymous to that was that wolves never wanted for food because white man laid waste. Wolves only had to start worrying when white man ran out of live targets to practice on. Then wolves became the target!!


----------



## Lonetree

Perdiz

Agreed, but..... Native Americans coexisted with wolves so well because there were soo many bison. Aside from bison, other wolves specifically targeted elk, where as Native Americans targeted sheep and deer, so the overlap of prey was almost non existant. In many cases it would have even been beneficial to both. Even today, the debate lays in the percieved "competition" for elk, because that is the natural prey base for wolves. Wolves wanted for food then, just as they want for food now, especially depending on the time of year. You might want to study your cause a little better.


----------



## perdiz

Native Americans reveered the wolf. Clans were made and exist today. My comment is white man disturbed nature's balance. Propagation increases in wolves follows the rodent, games' cycles. Man destroyed the balance by almost obliterating species. Then had problems with the wolf-their own fault. They have a valid place but must be managed. One of those places is Utah. Oh-sorry-white man in Utah disagrees.? Well part of that management process is annual drawing and killing of "x" amount of wolves based on needs. A gold bucket at the end Zion's rainbow. YOU CAN HARVEST THE WOLVE. What more could white men hunters want? lmao


----------



## Lonetree

You obviously dont know me or my heritage.


----------



## perdiz

does it matter?


----------



## Lonetree

perdiz said:


> does it matter?


You seem to think so.


----------



## perdiz

NO---You seem to think that I think so.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Question.......How come it is widely accepted to blame, blaspheme, and defame white-people openly, yet any talk of the shortcomings of other groups is instantly labeled as racism? Like it or not, I call this racism by today's definition and am officialy calling at least three of perdiz's comments racist. Funny how he parallels the activities of wolves and "white-men", then condemns the bad whiteys and endorses the wolves.

"It seems hypocrisy has no bounds." _Doc Holladay_


----------



## perdiz

hahaha--that is almost hysterical. I laughed so hard at your assinine comment I cried. If I'm racist God is green. You better take a look deep inside and decide whether a glas is half full or half empty. You are just mad because my views on wolves doesn't parallel your opinions.


----------



## Springville Shooter

I'm not mad at you at all, I simply am making an observation about the content of some of your comments. I respect your opinion on wolves and think that early in the thread you made some great points. Then came the onslaught of all your 'blame the evil white man' rhetoric. That is where you lost all credibility with me. I too have my personal and religious opinions, however, for this forum, I try to stick to biological, social, and economic points. It's just good form and helps to maintain the integrity of the forum.-----SS


----------



## vosloco

So ignoring perdiz's crazy rants. I think the majority of Utah thinks that these wolfs don't belong here. Does anybody know what Utah is doing about it? Where can we find those resources and how can I get involved?


----------



## perdiz

ignoring your stupid remarks that my rants are crazy you don't need to get involved, because whatever you do will make no difference. These wolves are here to stay.


----------



## cmac

Perdiz shut up you stupid mexican... First of all, i don't know what fantasy land you live in but you cant keep blaming the white man for all your problems. Get real. The only thing you said that makes sence is to harvest the wolves


----------



## Dunkem

:shock:


cmac said:


> Perdiz shut up you stupid mexican... First of all, i don't know what fantasy land you live in but you cant keep blaming the white man for all your problems. Get real. The only thing you said that makes sence is to harvest the wolves


----------



## swbuckmaster

The only thing smart he has said is we wont be able to manage the wolves. This is true! look how well we can manage our coyotes.

I think he or she sounds like they can see through a keyhole with both eyes at the same time.


----------



## Lonetree

cmac said:


> Perdiz shut up you stupid mexican... First of all, i don't know what fantasy land you live in but you cant keep blaming the white man for all your problems. Get real. The only thing you said that makes sence is to harvest the wolves


I see our foundation impaired lodging brethren are representing today.


----------



## Iron Bear

That is what I find so insane about celebrating or even supporting states rights to manage wolf. 

How the heck do you think the the UDWR intends to mange wolf? Like the Cougar? 

LE trophy wolf hunting. And our elk habitat is about to take a turn for the worse. Because wolf predation is gonna be compensatory. 

And all the players at the table are just fine with that.

I wonder if a quality elk hunt in WY or ID is bringing more money post reintroduction?


----------



## Lonetree

"I wonder if a quality elk hunt in WY or ID is bringing more money post reintroduction?"

The prices have not gone down since '95, and now you can hunt wolves too. No thanks to SFW though.


----------



## hoghunter011583

Yep, I knew me and my brother heard some wolves in the Monte a few years back!! I'm pretty sure the wolves are all over the northern area!!


----------



## Lonetree

hoghunter011583 said:


> Yep, I knew me and my brother heard some wolves in the Monte a few years back!! I'm pretty sure the wolves are all over the northern area!!


I saw my first Utah wolf in 2004. There have been several trapped in Utah since 2002. One in Morgan county, one in Rich county, and one in Box Elder county, to name a few with in the realm of public knowledge. There were very reliable sitings from the mid '70s, all the way up to "reintroduction". We will never have large numbers of wolves in Utah, or "all over the northern area!!" for that matter. Dispersing wolves will establish a few small transient packs in Utah, period. Anyone that thinks that Utah is the same as Yellowstone, or the Bitterroot, or the Frank Church, needs to get their head checked.


----------



## Lonetree

"That is what I find so insane about celebrating or even supporting states rights to manage wolf."

Yeah, we should have federal control, right? If only more people had supported the SFW bill, and defeated the Simpson-Tester amendment, then we would have federal control. Then everything would be better, right?

Dude, that has got to be some good ****, hook me up!


----------



## perdiz

cmac said:


> Perdiz shut up you stupid mexican... First of all, i don't know what fantasy land you live in but you cant keep blaming the white man for all your problems. Get real. The only thing you said that makes sence is to harvest the wolves


cmac--If you are white you are an illiterate poor white trash. Learn to spell and oh yeh--I'm white and literate and i won't pick your trash up. I'll leave that to the wolves.


----------



## Iron Bear

Lonetree, Perdez, So did you guys get summer jobs? Don't waste your summer goofing on a computer. Before you know it August will be here and you will be back at the mall school shoppin with mom.

I like how Lonetree responds to his own posts.


----------



## cmac

perdiz said:


> cmac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perdiz shut up you stupid mexican... First of all, i don't know what fantasy land you live in but you cant keep blaming the white man for all your problems. Get real. The only thing you said that makes sence is to harvest the wolves
> 
> 
> 
> cmac--If you are white you are an illiterate poor white trash. Learn to spell and oh yeh--I'm white and literate and i won't pick your trash up. I'll leave that to the wolves.
Click to expand...

Your still talking?


----------



## JERRY

vosloco said:


> So ignoring perdiz's crazy rants. I think the majority of Utah thinks that these wolfs don't belong here. Does anybody know what Utah is doing about it? Where can we find those resources and how can I get involved?


Here is the link to DWR website. You should be able to get the info you are looking for there. I hope it helps you out. 

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Lonetree, Perdez, So did you guys get summer jobs? Don't waste your summer goofing on a computer. Before you know it August will be here and you will be back at the mall school shoppin with mom.
> 
> I like how Lonetree responds to his own posts.


A youth jab, I like it. Just remember who will be around long after your pushing daisies. Potential is a function of oppurtunity, driven by all things kinetic, and I'm squarely in the momentum phase.

I like how you can never support your arguements. Well, unless you count changing the subject, or going for a personal attack. No worries, I like it, thats why I'm here :mrgreen: low road, high road, its all the same to me.


----------



## kchunting

just got on site but lets add to this wolves are at flaming gorge, near a place called elk meadows. saw three two years ago reported it and the response was thanks we known for awhile. thanks fish and game for letting us know.


----------



## weber river man

I have both heard and seen wolves in the North Slopes of the Uinta Mountains.


----------



## weber river man

Oh and bytheway--I heard them as a kid which would make it near 50 years ago. They have always been there off and on. Used to wrangle horses all summer there every summer through school.


----------



## Huge29

Welcome to the forum KC and WRM! 

Perdiz and cmac were both banned in case anyone cared or was still waiting for a reply.


----------



## Dunkem

Huge29 said:


> Perdiz and cmac were both banned in case anyone cared or was still waiting for a reply.


 -*|*-


----------



## soules2007

Moved from MS to MT, after living in Helena for a few years. During that time i have paid close attention to what ranchers, hunters, and campers and many other locals have had to say with regaurds to wolves. They have yet to be managed by anyone! They have lost any control they were under the illusion of having in the first place. In my opinion and some of you may bristle at this, UT struggles with basic game managment. The laws and units in UT are changing like the weather. Hard to keep up with the regs, how are they to mangage wolf packs. States like ID, MT, WY have had little to no control after 12 years! Our elders had it right wolves and humans can not co habitate. With the introdution of a new species that has never before been part of the local ecosystem, How could you expect them to be able to manage the wolves? The people that love the wolves have not seen first hand what they have done to familys, businesses, and towns that rely on hunting and ranching for their living. Horaay YNP looks great, well these people do not live in YNP abnd dont give a crap what it looks like! Hunting with some ranchers in cascade MT while hunting if you saw a wolf and did not shoot it, you were not asked back next season. Its not about hunting its about keeping food on the table, and kids in clothes, and not about ranch hands spending days looking for and documenting wolf kills. the ranch needs to be looked after and the money made from a wolf kill does not nearly compensate for the loss the ranchers sustaines. some of us regular, not rich folks may understand this. sorry for spelling and being long winded, do not let wolves take hold in UT.


----------



## Huge29

Well said Soules, I appreciate how the woofy lovers tend to be the least involved in the areas in which the woof inhabits, yet knows what is best as they read it in a book and it must be true if it is written. To hell with reality and the real effects on ground zero.


----------



## Bax*

Great post Soules2007. You gave some fantastic insight that made sense and wasnt heresay, just personal experience and observation 8)

Huge, you make a good point that really annoys me. Why can someone from another state tell me how my state should manage wildlife? These people are the least involved because they dont live in these areas! They live in cities that have neat little iPad apps that tell them why wolves are good and they dont understand the rammifications of them existing in society today.


----------



## Bax*

Btw- this thread is freaking old


----------



## Huge29

Bax* said:


> Huge, you make a good point that really annoys me. Why can someone from another state tell me how my state should manage wildlife? These people are the least involved because they dont live in these areas! They live in cities that have neat little iPad apps that tell them why wolves are good and they dont understand the rammifications of them existing in society today.


Maybe a reality show Hunger Games style of the woofie lovers and woofs in a 10-acre utopia to provide them with some "reality" training? 
I can appreciate outsiders telling someone going through an issue they have already experienced and counseling others to learn from their mistakes, but a group that is not a stakeholder having zero risk, accountability, skin in the game and zero credibility to be calling all of the shots just rubs me very wrong, not to mention the actual results to their theoretical experiment.


----------



## Iron Bear

A guy from back east telling Utah how to manage wolf is like the DWR laying claim to a deer that was born, lived and died on private land. 

One difference is if the DWR left the private guy alone he would prosper. But when the DWR gets control. "Control" will look really no different than today. (hands off being my point) Then in about 10 yrs you guys will be talking about the LE wolf tag you drew.


----------



## weber river man

Wolves in Yellowstone have no business in Utah.

First they are not the same species that were eradicated long ago. This species of Canadien/Alaskan wolves-(Grey)-have nearly decimmated the elk population in Yellowstone <50% remain. They wantonly kill the young calves and when the old die off there will be few elk left.

Stories of them killing only what they need are bs. They kill to kill. Ask the ranchers.

Secondly to get reimbursed, ranchers must proved their livestock was killed by wolves before compensatory damages are filled from governmental coffers. Pretty much good luck Mr. Rancher.

Feds have hands on and will not let the state handle the wolves in Wyoming.

Stories of them never taking a strong animal are bull sh**. I have personally witnessed them take down a full grown healthy bison.

So you wolf lovers, eat your wheaties and get ready. If they come to Utah I will deccimate them!!!!!


----------



## MountainBro

weber river man said:


> So you wolf lovers, eat your wheaties and get ready. If they come to Utah I will deccimate them!!!!!


Amen Brother!


----------



## mjbarney12

perdiz, we don't life in the 1830's anymore. Your argument that basically white men have virtually destroyed the environment everywhere they have been seems to be saying that we need to go back to the way things were. Well, we can't! Not unless you want to wipe out all the cities and I mean, wipe them out...erase them, make them go away, people, streets, houses, buildings, bus stops, shopping malls, everything! The reality is that none of this will happen and if we try to make thing the way they were we will fail and have an ever increasing level of problems. There is no need for wolves any longer in the ecosystem we have created. Whether we had a right do create this ecosystem or not is a moot point. It has happened already and is not going back. Man will do what man does so that man can continue to do what man does and it is not going to change frankly. Trying to go back to the past and introduce wolves is trying to apply a solution to a problem that does not exist and is asking for a whole new set of problems. I assume that you've heard of the concept of unintended consequences? Well, imo, reintroducing wolves is not needed and would definately lead to a whole mess of unintended negative consequences. Call me prideful and ignorant and greedy. It simply is the way it is and while there is something to be said for certain conservation and reintroduction efforts, wolves in Utah is not one of them...again, imho.


----------



## Bax*

mjbarney12 said:


> perdiz, we don't life in the 1830's anymore. Your argument that basically white men have virtually destroyed the environment everywhere they have been seems to be saying that we need to go back to the way things were. Well, we can't! Not unless you want to wipe out all the cities and I mean, wipe them out...erase them, make them go away, people, streets, houses, buildings, bus stops, shopping malls, everything! The reality is that none of this will happen and if we try to make thing the way they were we will fail and have an ever increasing level of problems. There is no need for wolves any longer in the ecosystem we have created. Whether we had a right do create this ecosystem or not is a moot point. It has happened already and is not going back. Man will do what man does so that man can continue to do what man does and it is not going to change frankly. Trying to go back to the past and introduce wolves is trying to apply a solution to a problem that does not exist and is asking for a whole new set of problems. I assume that you've heard of the concept of unintended consequences? Well, imo, reintroducing wolves is not needed and would definately lead to a whole mess of unintended negative consequences. Call me prideful and ignorant and greedy. It simply is the way it is and while there is something to be said for certain conservation and reintroduction efforts, wolves in Utah is not one of them...again, imho.


That was a great perspective that I think that a lot of people have struggled to put into a coherent string of words. Aside from the argument of how wolves are causing irreparable damage to herds and extreme financial loss to ranchers, your words really speak to the vastness of the pro wolf argument. We cannot go back to the way things are _*unless*_ we as a human species are willing to sacrifice much for a species that a lesser majority care about. Really intriguing way of addressing the issue mjbarney12


----------



## copple2

good video clip, booyaa...we need to try and keep as many of those dirty wolves out of our state as possible!

copple2


----------



## weber river man

Wolves are predators. They have their place in Canada and Alaska but not the states. We have enough trouble with poachers already. Too bad the wolves can't just key in on poachers.

If allowed unchecked in Utah the entire ecosystem will be disrupted. We don't need that headache, but I will enjoy killing all of them.


----------



## wyogoob

Wolves, and all the tourists driving while texting, have decimated the elk in Yellowstone. Both should be strung up.

After the wolves ate all the elk and baby moose in Yellowstone they went south and started on my stomping grounds, the Bridger Teton National Forest, home of 1 million cows and 14 trillion sheep. They ate a few sheep and an elk or two and found neither to their liking. Then they went to the DLL and Morgan Utah. uh.....they have been in the High Uintas for 10,000 years.

5 years later we are 1450 elk over carrying capacity in the southwestern part of the Bridger Teton NF. All of us Wyoming guys have 2 or 3 elk tags. 

I sincerely hope these same wolves find the elk in Utah unpalatable too.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Wyogoob

i guess im slow. Ive read your post a few times and its not making any sense to me.


----------



## wyogoob

swbuckmaster said:


> Wyogoob
> 
> i guess im slow. Ive read your post a few times and its not making any sense to me.


Just being a smart ass.

The wolves moved into western Wyoming and took some elk and moose. The wolves ran the elk out of my favorite hunting drainages for a few years, but at the same time pushed the elk further south increasing the herd closer to where I live. Now it seems everthing is back to normal...actually we have more elk now south of the divide between the Snake River and the Bear/Green River. We still have wolves, but not as many as 5 years ago. I think SSS keeps the numbers down some.

I wish Wyoming would have had a season for wolves back when they were hanging around my spike camps 7 to 5 years ago. I just don't see them any more up there.

In addition, the elk herd has improved on the east side of Yellowstone Park to such a degree that the herd there is over capacity too and extra elk tags have been issued in that "wolf-infested" part of Wyoming.

Are wolves bad for big-game herds? sure

Is the sky falling? no


----------



## swbuckmaster

I get it now thanks


----------



## weber river man

Even if wolves come to Utah---the sky won't fall-lmao. I will enjoy killing them and I will be the one that gets them!


----------



## soules2007

Unfortunatley, one aspect of the non native species that was not considered with regards to the reintroduction. The other states that deal with the wolf fiasco are now finding that the more tags, harvest and longer seasons just create more wolves. Females are producing larger litters, and coming into heat more frequent due to loss. In short the more you kill the more you get. Early settlers new this about the species they dealt with, the same holds true to the new introduction of northern wolf.If the utah DWR lets the wolf take hold, ( and if a dollar can be made, they will) it could be quite devastating to utah elk and deer herds. And from some of the more recent post on this forum, it sounds like the mule deer population in utah is struggling, and does not need another strike against it. When i post if i go to change a sentence it just writes over and does not push the text forward. my post then get messed up. any ideas?


----------



## weber river man

They were eradicated once they will be eradicated again if need be.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Good luck with that now. It will never happen with the ban of 1080


----------



## goofy elk

swbuckmaster said:


> Good luck with that now. It will never happen with the ban of 1080


Your right ..

An Alaska state wolf biologist told me that 5 years ago ..
He was also pretty adamant, hunting alone may not be enough control in the lower 48 .


----------



## Lonetree

soules2007 said:


> Unfortunatley, one aspect of the non native species that was not considered with regards to the reintroduction. The other states that deal with the wolf fiasco are now finding that the more tags, harvest and longer seasons just create more wolves. Females are producing larger litters, and coming into heat more frequent due to loss. In short the more you kill the more you get. Early settlers new this about the species they dealt with, the same holds true to the new introduction of northern wolf.If the utah DWR lets the wolf take hold, ( and if a dollar can be made, they will) it could be quite devastating to utah elk and deer herds. And from some of the more recent post on this forum, it sounds like the mule deer population in utah is struggling, and does not need another strike against it. When i post if i go to change a sentence it just writes over and does not push the text forward. my post then get messed up. any ideas?


"The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan was first approved in 1980, though it was then revised later on in 1987. The plan required a certain population of Northern Rocky Mountains wolves to reside in the area inside and around Yellowstone, which included at least ten breeding pairs, and for the population to remain stable for at least three consecutive years.[11][12] However, the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf was not, at the time of the initial drafting, recognized as a legitimate subspecies, so the wolves involved in the plan were instead the Great Plains Wolf and the Mackenzie Valley Wolf.[13] The overall reason for this was because the stated two subspecies of wolf roamed in the same general area as the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf and because the plan covered the reintroduction of wolves into the area in general. For this reason, the more plentiful subspecies' were chosen to be trans-located, so as to not upset the balance in the areas they would be taken from.[14]"

The wolves that were translocated actually fit very well, with historical representations. These include very accurate descriptions from the early 1800s. When you start seeing larger than normal white wolves, which you wont, then you can make such claims.

_"And from some of the more recent post on this forum, it sounds like the mule deer population in utah is struggling, and does not need another strike against it."_ This tells me all I need to know, to know, what you think you know, about what you type. Wolves can actually be beneficial to mule deer. Mule deer are not primary prey for wolves. If you knew anything about wintering behavior, and habitat preference, this would be self evident.

We will never have very many wolves in Utah, that is the simple fact of the matter. If you look to the closest habitat that holds wolves, that is similar to what Utah supports, in Southern Idaho, there has never been a full blown establishment, and there wont be.

Funny how Montana has more elk than they did before reintro, Wyoming has units, with wolves, that are over quota. and the last time I was in Yellowstone, it was just as good as the '80s. There are two words that come to mind about predator-prey relationships. Ignorance, and counter-intuitive.

If you want to talk about people making money from wolves, your pointing your finger the wrong direction. The folks that are currently using wolves to promote their agenda, have some $hit you would love to be spoon fed.


----------



## GaryFish

Lonetree said:


> Mule deer are not primary prey for wolves. If you knew anything about wintering behavior, and habitat preference, this would be self evident.


Just asking the question - wolves have been introduced/supplemented in places with other charismatic macro fauna such as bison and elk. In YNP, the habitats that had resulted from 100 years of fire suppression and beaver trapping highly favored the grazing animals. So when the wolf populations were bolstered, what did they eat? What was plentiful. Prior the '88 fire, mule deer were never prevalent in the park - mostly because the habitats weren't primed for them.

In Central Idaho, bison were not present, but domestic cattle and sheep are. And while not on the range in the winter, they have provided an easier prey base for the wolves. And in the winter, the wolves have followed the livestock onto the ranches rather than chase deer around because it is much easier.

Areas in Alaska, Canada and Minnesota that support wolves don't have mule deer.

I guess my thought on your statement that "mule deer are not primary prey for wolves" doesn't consider the full picture. I'm not disagreeing here - I am just not sure that is fully accurate. If put in a place with mule deer as the primary ungulate, I'm pretty sure they would be the primary prey for wolves.


----------



## GaryFish

> Funny how Montana has more elk than they did before reintro.


That is the first time I've ever heard that. In fact, all the reports I've read, tracking by Montana GFP and USFWS reports the contrary for ares where wolves have been introduced. The Gardiner (northern Yellowstone herd) and Bitterroot herds, the two herds in primary wolf areas, are about 10% of where they were prior to the introduction, at least that is what I've read. Can you point me to any kind of credible article on that. Please share. I'd be interested in reading that point of view.


----------



## ibfishing

Looks like I missed a lot here – just joined

Without me googling my butt off. Can someone please provide me with link or official statement from the USFG stating that the wolves in Yellowstone and MT, WY, ID and now UT are “ bigger, and more aggressive, then the so-called wolves that were here before in UT” someone out there should have it, it’s only mention 100 times in this post. And what was that subspecies called that lived here?

Also curious what do the wolves eat in Canada that is so much different then these 4 states?


----------



## Lonetree

GaryFish said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mule deer are not primary prey for wolves. If you knew anything about wintering behavior, and habitat preference, this would be self evident.
> 
> 
> 
> Just asking the question - wolves have been introduced/supplemented in places with other charismatic macro fauna such as bison and elk. In YNP, the habitats that had resulted from 100 years of fire suppression and beaver trapping highly favored the grazing animals. So when the wolf populations were bolstered, what did they eat? What was plentiful. Prior the '88 fire, mule deer were never prevalent in the park - mostly because the habitats weren't primed for them.
> 
> In Central Idaho, bison were not present, but domestic cattle and sheep are. And while not on the range in the winter, they have provided an easier prey base for the wolves. And in the winter, the wolves have followed the livestock onto the ranches rather than chase deer around because it is much easier.
> 
> Areas in Alaska, Canada and Minnesota that support wolves don't have mule deer.
> 
> I guess my thought on your statement that "mule deer are not primary prey for wolves" doesn't consider the full picture. I'm not disagreeing here - I am just not sure that is fully accurate. If put in a place with mule deer as the primary ungulate, I'm pretty sure they would be the primary prey for wolves.
Click to expand...

Habitat becomes the bigger issue. White tail are primary prey for wolves in Minnesota for example. Wolves exert allot of influence on their enviroment, not all of it bad, just like your Yellowstone example. Sheep that utilize much of the same habitat in the park as deer, have stayed static for decades. If fire was the impetus for mule deer, bighorns should have seen a bump also, they did not. There was allot more than YNP that burned on a huge scale in the late '80s, and not all of those logde pole ecosystems saw the same increase in mule deer. In fact most followed the same declinres as the rest of the west.


----------



## Lonetree

GaryFish said:


> Funny how Montana has more elk than they did before reintro.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the first time I've ever heard that. In fact, all the reports I've read, tracking by Montana GFP and USFWS reports the contrary for ares where wolves have been introduced. The Gardiner (northern Yellowstone herd) and Bitterroot herds, the two herds in primary wolf areas, are about 10% of where they were prior to the introduction, at least that is what I've read. Can you point me to any kind of credible article on that. Please share. I'd be interested in reading that point of view.
Click to expand...

The Bitterroots already had wolves prior to reintroduction, and the Gardner herd was at historic highs never before seen, that was very unsustainable. You dont issue 1000 cow tags unless you have too many elk. Montana, over all has more elk than they did in '95, and thats when the gardner herd was HUGE. What do you consider to be credible, peer reviewed work takes time. There is plenty of peer reviewed work that says the same thing from 2002-~2005, when both sides made similar claims. So if they were decimated back then, it should be really bad now, right?


----------



## Lonetree

ibfishing said:


> Looks like I missed a lot here - just joined
> 
> Without me googling my butt off. Can someone please provide me with link or official statement from the USFG stating that the wolves in Yellowstone and MT, WY, ID and now UT are " bigger, and more aggressive, then the so-called wolves that were here before in UT" someone out there should have it, it's only mention 100 times in this post. And what was that subspecies called that lived here?
> 
> Also curious what do the wolves eat in Canada that is so much different then these 4 states?


Which time frame of taxonomical use would you like to reference for before reintro, and after? Mackenzie valley wolves from Alberta Canada were used for reintroduction purposes, because Northern rocky mountain wolves were not recognized as a subspecies at the time. Southern rocky mountain wolves (extinct in the 1930s) were the native sub species of Utah. There is considered to be little difference(dna) between northern and southern rocky mountsain wolve subspecies. There is very little difference(dna) between southern Mackenzie wolves, and northern rocky mountain wolves, they inhabit the same areas. If the reintroduced wolves had come from northern Canada or Alaska, then it would indeed be a different scenario. Mackenzie valley wolves are the largest subspecies of gray wolf, Southern rocky mountain wolves were the second largest. Mackenzies range in weight from 100-145 pounds, this includes wolves of far northern habitats also(larger wolves) Southern Rocky mountain wolves ranged from 90-130 pounds, which is very much in line with Mackenzie wolves that occupy southerly ranges.

You know, the "Northern elk" we have here are "reintroduced".


----------



## GaryFish

The Bitterroot and Gardiner herds really are the most relevant, because those are areas where the wolf populations were supplemented. And wolf packs in the Bitterroot went from half a dozen breeding pairs, to more than 50. Montana is a HUGE state. And if statewide numbers are higher now, it is because of herd growth in areas where the wolves have not ventured yet. The units that have wolves have all dropped.


----------



## swbuckmaster

The wolf units that have wolves have desimated the elk, and moose herds. Yellowstone had what the latgest free roaming elk herd on this plannet and it has a fraction of the elk it once had. Some of the wolf areas have killed so many moose you can no longer hunt moose. 

A friend if mine went to yellowstone a few days ago. In the past they have always seen elk and bison. This year nada. He said he could have seen more driving up american fork canyon.


No thanks lonetree despite what you say more predators does not mean more animals.


----------



## Lonetree

GaryFish said:


> The Bitterroot and Gardiner herds really are the most relevant, because those are areas where the wolf populations were supplemented. And wolf packs in the Bitterroot went from half a dozen breeding pairs, to more than 50. Montana is a HUGE state. And if statewide numbers are higher now, it is because of herd growth in areas where the wolves have not ventured yet. The units that have wolves have all dropped.


There is no doubt, that there are specific areas that are being impacted more than others. But grizzly numbers are rising, wolves have been reintroduced, and overall elk numbers have gone up over the last 17 years. Not to mention the increase in YNP mule deer. You would think they would have been eaten all the deer, after they ate all the elk. It could not be that moving the elk around is actually good for their habitat, and in turn them selves?


----------



## Lonetree

swbuckmaster said:


> The wolf units that have wolves have desimated the elk, and moose herds. Yellowstone had what the latgest free roaming elk herd on this plannet and it has a fraction of the elk it once had. Some of the wolf areas have killed so many moose you can no longer hunt moose.
> 
> A friend if mine went to yellowstone a few days ago. In the past they have always seen elk and bison. This year nada. He said he could have seen more driving up american fork canyon.
> 
> No thanks lonetree despite what you say more predators does not mean more animals.


First off, the elk in YNP are doing quite well, along with allot of other animals. As for moose, their numbers are down all over the place, they are just starting to rebound, that includes here. What is the apex predator that has decimated our moose herds here in Utah?

As for your friends account of YNP, did he leave the parking lot? Your going to have to peddle that BS to some one else. I have been going to YNP since I was a child. I have also been contracted to do work for the park, under a couple of their head biologists. I'm a little more informed than "I heard it from a guy", or "I read it on the internet".

My point in all of this, is that those that wave the sky is falling flag, either dont know what they are talking about, or they are promoting something else. The promoters have to go there, because they cant outright sell the tripe they have packaged with it.


----------



## swbuckmaster

"What is the apex predator who has desimated the moose here in utah?"

The dwr has done a good job over harvesting the cows or shipping the cows off for sheep. The bull tags were also out of control.

Then throw in cars. 

The last thing a guy who is invested in utah moose points needs to see is a bunch of fat wolves feeding on moose. Same for elk.

Saying wolves dont affect elk/bison is like saying coyotes/cats dont effect mule deer. Pull your head out of the greenie books you read.


----------



## goofy elk

^^^^^^Yep,, What SW Said^^^^^^^


----------



## wyogoob

For 50 years scientists have closely monitored moose and wolves that live together on Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior.

Here's an interesting brief on how and why predator and prey are where they are today on the island: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153004.htm


----------



## wyogoob

Wyoming's Fall Creek is between Yellowstone N.P. and Idaho, north of the Snake River; wolf country.

According to the Game & Fish the Fall Creek elk herd was over capacity at 5700 three years ago. Now it is at 4650, "reduced through increased hunting." (extra permits)

See the full story here:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-a ... 358c1.html


----------



## wyogoob

Western Wyoming's Afton elk herd, where I hunt, has wolves, and plenty of domestic sheep and cattle. I've seen the wolves there, and have wrote about them on this forum. The wolves came in 7 or 8 years ago, done their thing and don't seem to be a big deal now.

According to the WY Game & Fish the Afton herd has stayed around 2300 for five years. 2,200 elk is the recommended carrying capacity for the unit.


----------



## wyogoob

The Cody elk herd, east of Yellowstone National Park is one of the biggest elk herds in the country and known for it's trophy bulls, and lots of them. It goes without saying that that country is wolf country.

The Game and Fish has the Cody herd at 7500. 5600 is recommended. A liberal and increased number of elk tags, especially cow/calf tags, are out there this year.

see: http://www.outdoornews.com/April-2012/E ... ng-season/


----------



## wyogoob

Wyoming's Bear River/Smith's Fork/Green River elk herd, from around Labarge over to Cokeville down to Evanston is 1450 elk over capacity. I lost the link to the story. If its important to anyone, let me know and I will find it again. It's easy to get two elk tags here; don't even have to draw for them. 

To hear many of my hunting buddies talk there's wolves everywhere in this unit. If so, they are doing a poor job keeping the elk herd trimmed down.


----------



## wyogoob

In 2011 the US Fish & Wildlife Service issued 16 wolf depredation permits to ranchers who were allegedly suffering livestock losses from wolves. Zero wolves were taken by the ranchers.

On the other hand the Feds are doing much better in the wolf depredation department than the ranchers. (according to the fed's numbers) A Fed spokesman said "In 2011, 36 wolves were killed to reduce livestock depredation. Through July 27, 19 wolves have been removed this year....."

See: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-a ... 4d35d.html

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-a ... z22cG3OrgQ


----------



## wyogoob

We all know how the wolves cut the Yellowstone Park elk herd by 40% to 60% (no one knows the number for sure, the elk freely travel in and out of the Park making them hard to count.). And the Jackson Hole herd that uses the big winter feedground is down from 13,500 to 8,000 elk, give or take, depending on which study you would like to follow. And keep in mind many of these are Yellowstone Park elk and may get counted twice.

The big "green-up" after the 1988 fires made the Yellowstone elk herd numbers sky-rocket. So when the wolves came in 1995 (I think) the elk herd was ripe for the picking. The bears took their share and this article says the Wyoming Game & Fish claims bears took more elk than the wolves did.

But in spite of the high 2012 total elk numbers, decreased cow-to-calf ratios are looking bad in some herds close to the Park and in the Wind River Mountains, home to wolves, and grizzlies, and coyotes, and disease:

So see this one, a goodun': http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional ... 82602.html

In the article the WY Game & Fish claim:

"But since wolf reintroduction, many herds' calf-to-cow ratios have dipped well below that level. In 1987, the entire Clark's Fork elk herd unit, which lives between Cody and Yellowstone, had 40 calves for every 100 cows, a Game and Fish survey found. In 2008, that number had dropped to 23 calves per 100 cows."


----------



## ibfishing

Nature does not have a problem with wolves, humans do. In lies the problem, the most polarized issue in the natural community. 
You need to be thinking of wolves not as just and only an apex predator, but a keystone species. And there are many of those. We should be gathering to protect keystone species. All of them. 
Oh and by the way, most keystone species are not apex predators.


----------



## ibfishing

Want to know why the moose population has dropped? Protect the keystone species and the moose will return. Where are the beaver? The clean water? The areas that dont have cabins and roads built into the riparian areas.. and we wonder "why" there disappearing.


----------



## Huge29

wyogoob said:


> For 50 years scientists have closely monitored moose and wolves that live together on Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior.
> 
> Here's an interesting brief on how and why predator and prey are where they are today on the island: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153004.htm


Sounds like global warming or is it now called global cooling or is climate change the latest label for this resulting in more ticks resulting in the moose dieing off.


----------



## Lonetree

:rotfl: 

Only the bumkin proletariat would throw literacy in some ones face. Then again, if you could read the ingredients on those packets, you might not drink it, and we would all be better off as hunters.


----------



## Huge29

Lonetree said:


> :rotfl:
> 
> Only the bumkin proletariat would throw literacy in some ones face. Then again, if you could read the ingredients on those packets, you might not drink it, and we would all be better off as hunters.


What packets? You have me really confused, previous page we are reading about the best beer and I saw several votes for Keystone Light and now you have changed the discussion to packets of mary jane that is supposedly related to woofies; please connect the dots for me.


----------



## GaryFish

GREAT posts Goob. That is the kind of information that is useful - actual numbers from units that have wolves. Not the anecdotal information coming from both sides of the equation. Very informative.


----------



## weber river man

pancakes suck you need to cook waffles--


----------



## Lonetree

Huge29 said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> 
> :rotfl:
> 
> Only the bumkin proletariat would throw literacy in some ones face. Then again, if you could read the ingredients on those packets, you might not drink it, and we would all be better off as hunters.
> 
> 
> 
> What packets? You have me really confused, previous page we are reading about the best beer and I saw several votes for Keystone Light and now you have changed the discussion to packets of mary jane that is supposedly related to woofies; please connect the dots for me.
Click to expand...

Packets: Kool aid, hence the drink reference. It is metaphor, for the sales pitch being offered by the extremes on both sides of the arguement, that profit from all the unfounded rhetoric. I'm personally not a big fan of Keystone, or "mary jane"


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

Here is my anecdote:

I have been going to Jellystone every year or every other year since I was born. It's my mother's favorite place in the world. This year we slipped over to Cody as well. I have never seen more bison in Yellowstone than we saw this year. The buffalo were as thick as flies in YNP. The elk have not been herded up and lounging along the Madison River for several years now. Those traditional calving grounds are kaput. What we have seen with elk is a single elk here or there, always lying quietly in a dark spot. The elk in YNP are afraid for their lives every passing minute. There is no longer security in the herd, sad for a herd animal. The great Yellowstone elk herds are a thing of the past. I saw one single deer in a week's time this year. 
The elk have adapted by moving into the really nasty, steep country between the park and Cody. The park visitors do not get to see them much anymore, but the elk have to go where they stand a chance to get away from the wolves. The elk have chosen to live in grizzly country instead. They live a harder life now, about like the elk on the North Cache.


----------



## Lonetree

:roll:


----------



## wyogoob

BirdDogger said:


> Here is my anecdote:
> 
> I have been going to Jellystone every year or every other year since I was born. It's my mother's favorite place in the world. This year we slipped over to Cody as well. I have never seen more bison in Yellowstone than we saw this year. The buffalo were as thick as flies in YNP. The elk have not been herded up and lounging along the Madison River for several years now. Those traditional calving grounds are kaput. What we have seen with elk is a single elk here or there, always lying quietly in a dark spot. The elk in YNP are afraid for their lives every passing minute. There is no longer security in the herd, sad for a herd animal. The great Yellowstone elk herds are a thing of the past. I saw one single deer in a week's time this year.
> The elk have adapted by moving into the really nasty, steep country between the park and Cody. The park visitors do not get to see them much anymore, but the elk have to go where they stand a chance to get away from the wolves. The elk have chosen to live in grizzly country instead. They live a harder life now, about like the elk on the North Cache.


----------



## wyogoob

wyogoob said:


> BirdDogger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my anecdote:
> 
> I have been going to Jellystone every year or every other year since I was born. It's my mother's favorite place in the world. This year we slipped over to Cody as well. I have never seen more bison in Yellowstone than we saw this year. The buffalo were as thick as flies in YNP. The elk have not been herded up and lounging along the Madison River for several years now. Those traditional calving grounds are kaput. What we have seen with elk is a single elk here or there, always lying quietly in a dark spot. The elk in YNP are afraid for their lives every passing minute. There is no longer security in the herd, sad for a herd animal. The great Yellowstone elk herds are a thing of the past. I saw one single deer in a week's time this year.
> The elk have adapted by moving into the really nasty, steep country between the park and Cody. The park visitors do not get to see them much anymore, but the elk have to go where they stand a chance to get away from the wolves. The elk have chosen to live in grizzly country instead. They live a harder life now, about like the elk on the North Cache.
Click to expand...

My view is the great elk herds in Yellowstone were created by people, traditionally Yellowstone didn't have large herds of elk or bison.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> My view is the great elk herds in Yellowstone were created by people, traditionally Yellowstone didn't have large herds of elk or bison.


Well if you want to go back that far Yellowstone didn't have 3 million tourists passing through each year either. No boardwalks, no gift shops, no buses full of Orientals...
At $25 a pop, the people ought to see some elk!

In fairness, I did roll down the window for my mother to try to reach out and pet a buffalo. We probably got our money's worth in that moment alone.


----------



## wyogoob

Recently a bill was passed to phase out the elk feedgrounds around Yellowstone in Wyoming in 5 years. I think that will have a more negative impact on elk numbers in the Yellowstone Ecosystem than what the wolves have had.

The elk are only in the YNP for 6 months of the year, average. The other six months they're out in some rancher's hayfield or in a feedlot supported by tax dollars and sportsman's liscense fees........uh, not really out there getting run down by packs of wolves.

In 2003 we walked across Yellowstone from northwest to southeast. Most of the elk were close to the roads. Coincidence? More meadows, more feed, along roads? Got me, for one reason or another we found the elk close to people that trip.


----------



## wyogoob

Kinda interesting:

The Wisconsin DNR says Wisconsin's 2012 wolf population, outside the Indian reservations, is estimated at 774 - 838. That's more wolves than either Idaho (746) or Montana (653) has.
see: http://dnr.wi.gov/news/weekly/Article_L ... sp?id=2193

Wyoming's wolf population, outside Yellowstone NP is estimated at 230. At the end of 2011 there were 98 wolves in YNP, for a state total of 328.

Utah's wolf population is unknown, although a week into this year's big game archery season it will be an unconfirmed 14-billion.


----------



## wyogoob

Here's the Yellowstone National Park Executive Summary on wolves in the park for calendar year 2011:
http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wolves.htm

According to the report park "Project staff" confirmed 343 total wolf kills by 98 wolves in the park; 267 were elk, 18 were deer, 15 were bison, 14 coyotes, 7 were wolves, 2 antelope, 2 bighorn sheep, 1 was a moose, 2 badgers, 1 raven, 1 jack rabbit, and 13 unknown prey animals.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

Well sure, Goob...All the elk left the park! Not many left to kill these days.


----------



## wyogoob

BirdDogger said:


> Well sure, Goob...All the elk left the park! Not many left to kill these days.


Ah, ha, ha, hee, hee, ho, ho....y'er killin' me.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

Hee hee hee :O_D:


----------



## weber river man

who cares about all this? the wolves have a place and that's stuffed on my wall or a rug i lay on-----come on greys


----------



## provider

I took an environmental political science class at USU in 1995 (about the time they were introduced into Yellowstone.) I heard the debates in length among a bunch of 20 something know-it-alls. It never occurred to us that the outcome was unknown at the time.

At the time, wolves ate only the weak that were about to die. They didn't eat young calves and everything else in between. The herd would be stronger overall. 

If a rancher lost livestock to a wolf, he could quickly and "easily" submit a form for reimbursement. Ranchers wouldn't miss a beat. 

The wolves would primarily exist in the Park and management laws could easily be set outside of the park with other jurisdictions. 

It was so perfect. None of us ever imagined the benefits of taking out 3/4's of the elk herd. The riparian areas, the frogs, the grass. Perfect just keeps getting better. 

Why would we ever want an elk herd if we can have wolves?!!!


----------



## Old Devils Gate Ranch

Instead of killing them contact
Old Devils Gate Wolf Rescue at 406-201-9666
we will come get them and keep them on our Ranch in Nevada
Or web page is olddevilsgateranch.com


----------



## wyogoob

Old Devils Gate Ranch said:


> Instead of killing them contact
> Old Devils Gate Wolf Rescue at 406-201-9666
> we will come get them and keep them on our Ranch in Nevada
> Or web page is olddevilsgateranch.com


Whoa, welcome to the forum.

uh...you wouldn't happen to have any wolf videos would ya?

.


----------



## Huge29

provider said:


> I took an environmental political science class at USU in 1995 (about the time they were introduced into Yellowstone.) I heard the debates in length among a bunch of 20 something know-it-alls. It never occurred to us that the outcome was unknown at the time.
> 
> At the time, wolves ate only the weak that were about to die. They didn't eat young calves and everything else in between. The herd would be stronger overall.
> 
> If a rancher lost livestock to a wolf, he could quickly and "easily" submit a form for reimbursement. Ranchers wouldn't miss a beat.
> 
> The wolves would primarily exist in the Park and management laws could easily be set outside of the park with other jurisdictions.
> 
> It was so perfect. None of us ever imagined the benefits of taking out 3/4's of the elk herd. The riparian areas, the frogs, the grass. Perfect just keeps getting better.
> 
> Why would we ever want an elk herd if we can have wolves?!!!


I see a lot of parallels between this experiment and many other liberal agendas...


----------



## wyogoob

Huge29 said:


> I see a lot of parallels between this experiment and many other liberal agendas...


Yeah, cool.

.


----------



## riptheirlips

Old Devils Gate Ranch said:


> Instead of killing them contact
> Old Devils Gate Wolf Rescue at 406-201-9666
> we will come get them and keep them on our Ranch in Nevada
> Or web page is olddevilsgateranch.com


Your going to come to Utah and catch them alive? That I have to see. While waiting for them to go in your trap or whatever they could kill a dozen calves. Lead poisoning would be the quickest way to control.


----------



## goofy elk

IMO, wolf's in Utah really dont even have a chance !!!

Utahn's are ANTI-PREDITOR's on steriods...:grin:....

Lead poisoning will be the norm for " big coyote's' that wonder into Utah...

Looks like the, 'wolf' ,'hybred' , What ever the problem was, in Diamond fork?

*GONE...*


----------



## Kevin D

Old Devils Gate Ranch said:


> Instead of killing them contact
> Old Devils Gate Wolf Rescue at 406-201-9666
> we will come get them and keep them on our Ranch in Nevada
> Or web page is olddevilsgateranch.com


Wouldn't capturing and detaining wild animals also be against the law?? I sure wouldn't want to be an accomplice to any of your group's illegal activities!


----------



## LostLouisianian

goofy elk said:


> IMO, wolf's in Utah really dont even have a chance !!!
> 
> Utahn's are ANTI-PREDITOR's on steriods...:grin:....
> 
> Lead poisoning will be the norm for " big coyote's' that wonder into Utah...
> 
> Looks like the, 'wolf' ,'hybred' , What ever the problem was, in Diamond fork?
> 
> *GONE...*


No problem with that. I prefer seeing herds of majestic elk, deer and other game as opposed to ravenous killing machines that devour their prey while they're still alive. Idaho has areas that had majestic herds of trophy elk and deer that are barren now because of wolves. But hey, feel free to go raise a few hundred head of sheep to feed the wolves with.


----------



## wyogoob

I recommend reading post #s 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, and 158 in this thread.


----------



## goofy elk

All you have to do is look at the Yellowstone elk population numbers.:shock:.
There almost shocking! 

Elk Populations in the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd : 
Year Elk Population*

1994 19,045 (year before wolf reintroduction) 
1995 16,791 (reintroduction began) 
1996 no count taken 
1997 no count taken 
1998 11,742 
1999 14,538 (prior to late season elk hunt) 
2000 13, 400 (prior to late season elk hunt) 
2001 11,969 
2002-3 9,215 
2004 8,335 
2005 9,545 
2006 6,588 
2007 6,738 
2008 6,279 
2009 6,070 
2010 4,635 
2011 4,174 
2012 3,915 (*via U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)

Bottom line: 19k+ elk pre wolf's----LESS than 4k today! completely unacceptable IMO !!!


----------



## wyogoob

goofy elk said:


> All you have to do is look at the Yellowstone elk population numbers.:shock:.
> There almost shocking!
> 
> Elk Populations in the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd :
> Year Elk Population*
> 
> 1994 19,045 (year before wolf reintroduction)
> 1995 16,791 (reintroduction began)
> 1996 no count taken
> 1997 no count taken
> 1998 11,742
> 1999 14,538 (prior to late season elk hunt)
> 2000 13, 400 (prior to late season elk hunt)
> 2001 11,969
> 2002-3 9,215
> 2004 8,335
> 2005 9,545
> 2006 6,588
> 2007 6,738
> 2008 6,279
> 2009 6,070
> 2010 4,635
> 2011 4,174
> 2012 3,915 (*via U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
> 
> Bottom line: 19k+ elk pre wolf's----LESS than 4k today! completely unacceptable IMO !!!


Why is that unacceptable? You can't elk in the Park. There's tons of elk outside the Park, I mean we don't need the Yellowstone elk herd to keep herd numbers up outside the Park. Historically Yellowstone wasn't home to a lot of elk. The White man came along and pushed them there. And anyone who spent any time in the Park knows Yellowstone and especially the surrounding winter feed grounds, can not support 19,000 elk.There was a stretch, a time period, after the '88 fires when the Park had elk feed everywhere but as the lodgepole pines recovered, and boy did they ever recover, that new food base slowly disappeared.

The numbers you posted don't lie, but you may also want to look up the U.S Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service's elk mortality studies during the same time frame. Any elk (deer, moose, sheep, and antelope) carcass found by Park employees are documented; date, sex, age, and how the animal died.

One of the reasons wolves were introduced to YNP was as a game management tool. The plan worked a little too well.....I don't think they wanted to reduce the herd by that much; I can't remember what the goal was, 50% sticks in my head.

So anyway in 2012 YNP is down to 4,000 elk and it looks like the reductions are leveling off. IMO we need to build the herd back up some. I think we will. The 2012/2013 Wyoming wolf hunt took out many of Yellowstone's wolves (most of the wolves leave the Park during the winter) My guess is that the elk herd will recover some now that the wolves are being hunted around the perimeter of the Park; again, game management.

Well, it's a great debate, one that I enjoy.


----------



## goofy elk

wyogoob said:


> One of the reasons wolves were introduced to YNP was as a game management tool. The plan worked a little too well.....I don't think they wanted to reduce the herd by that much; I can't remember what the goals were, 50% sticks in my head. .


This is what is "unacceptable" for me--- Useing wolves as a mangment tool..
Hunting elk in the Park--- Now I'll "accecept" that option as a tool..;-).8).


----------



## wyogoob

goofy elk said:


> This is what is "unacceptable" for me--- Useing wolves as a mangment tool..
> Hunting elk in the Park--- Now I'll "accecept" that option as a tool..;-).8).


Yeah, hunting in the Park would be an option. Why not? We can fish there. Doesn't matter, we are out-numbered, the antis would never allow it. Maybe it's good, an island of safety for some animals.

Actually we do hunt Yellowstone National Park's elk. Only a few elk stay in the Park after the snow piles up. They migrate out of the Park, many ending up in feedgrounds administered by state or federal agencies. There are late hunts, during and after the normal elk migration periods, for elk in Wyoming around Jackson Hole. Some real good bulls are taken during those late hunts.


----------



## The Naturalist

wyogoob said:


> Why is that unacceptable? You can't elk in the Park. There's tons of elk outside the Park, I mean we don't need the Yellowstone elk herd to keep herd numbers up outside the Park. Historically Yellowstone wasn't home to a lot of elk. The White man came along and pushed them there. And anyone who spent any time in the Park knows Yellowstone and especially the surrounding winter feed grounds, can not support 19,000 elk.There was a stretch, a time period, after the '88 fires when the Park had elk feed everywhere but as the lodgepole pines recovered, and boy did they ever recover, that new food base slowly disappeared.
> 
> The numbers you posted don't lie, but you may also want to look up the U.S Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service's elk mortality studies during the same time frame. Any elk (deer, moose, sheep, and antelope) carcass found by Park employees are documented; date, sex, age, and how the animal died.
> 
> One of the reasons wolves were introduced to YNP was as a game management tool. The plan worked a little too well.....I don't think they wanted to reduce the herd by that much; I can't remember what the goal was, 50% sticks in my head.
> 
> So anyway in 2012 YNP is down to 4,000 elk and it looks like the reductions are leveling off. IMO we need to build the herd back up some. I think we will. The 2012/2013 Wyoming wolf hunt took out many of Yellowstone's wolves (most of the wolves leave the Park during the winter) My guess is that the elk herd will recover some now that the wolves are being hunted around the perimeter of the Park; again, game management.
> 
> Well, it's a great debate, one that I enjoy.


 Another thing that should be considered here is...are those elk reduction numbers entirely related to wolf kills? Perhaps some elk are adapting/learning to being chased and not wanting to go back in the Park?
I haven't seen any studies on that, but it would be interesting to know.


----------



## The Naturalist

Just a couple of things I have noticed when reading the posts on this topic.
I always get a kick out of the arguments that the reintroduced wolf is larger and more aggressive than the original rocky mountain sub-species.
Being a biologist myself, the statements larger and more aggressive are very relative terms. If you were to compare in a line-up of 10 wolves, lets say 5 were of the Canadian wolves introduced to YNP and 5 were Mexican greys, you could probably see a difference and be able to identify which were Canadians and which were Mexican greys simply by size. 
From what I've read about the original RM wolf one would have a tougher time distinguishing the difference in a line-up with the Canadians based on size alone. 

Being a scientist I do like to see empirical data when making broad statements like the word "aggressive". What is meant by the word "aggressive" when it comes to wolves? does it mean they are faster? Kill quicker? Does it imply the RM wolves were "passive", maybe you could walk up and pet them? Since I am 6'3" and 230 am I more aggressive than my neighbor who is 5'10" and 180?  If anyone has data on what makes one sub-species more aggressive than another I would like to see it.

The other thing that I have noticed is those that refer to studies about the wolves in YNP, or wolves in general, as being done by pro-wolf or anti-wolf scientists. How do you tell? Does a study that shows benefits about the wolf reintro mean the scientist doing the study has to be pro-wolf? Or, does a study that shows negative consequences of the wolf reintro imply that the scientist is anti-wolf? One way to tell is to see who is backing/funding the study. That could imply a bias on the part of the scientist. 

Generally speaking, studies by funded by government agencies are less biased, for the reason that if the scientist doing the research shows bias they probably won't get funded again for other projects, so it behooves the scientists involved to be as accurate as possible. Next would be studies by researchers at major universities. The reputation of the university is at stake if the scientist show distinct bias in their reports (just ask the U of U about cold fusion).

Again, just some things for you to consider when reading through these threads.


----------



## Rspeters

The Naturalist said:


> Generally speaking, studies by funded by government agencies are less biased


Ha!!!! That's hard to believe. I can just hear it....Pres Obama saying "Scientist, I want you to do this study, and I want you to be as unbiased as possible....I'll accept whatever your findings are."

Not an attack on you, as for all I know, what you said may be true....it's just hard to believe.


----------



## wyogoob

The Naturalist said:


> Another thing that should be considered here is...are those elk reduction numbers entirely related to wolf kills? Perhaps some elk are adapting/learning to being chased and not wanting to go back in the Park?
> I haven't seen any studies on that, but it would be interesting to know.


 I've alluded to that point in this thread and many others and I have witnessed this first hand. Annually elk are counted by the Game & Fish Dept. statewide, and then by the USF&WS and the NPS in selected areas.

There's been increased numbers of elk outside of the Park in some areas, especially to the south. There are wolves (No one knows how many, the number is somewhere between 6 and 600, depending who's telling the story and what their agenda is.) in the Bridger-Teton NF from the Snake River down to Kemmerererrrer yet that area is over capacity for elk. Those of us that have hunted the area since before wolf introduction have witnessed the wolves spreading out from the park into the Greys River reducing elk numbers there for awhile. At the same time elk numbers increased on the other side of the mountain from the Greys; the Smiths Fork/Hams Fork. I (we) believe many of the elk just moved to a different drainage to get away from the wolves. I quit hunting elk in the Greys for about 4 years or so and let the wolves have it and now I'm back in the Greys and the elk are back.

There were only like 328 wolves in Wyoming before the start of this year's Trophy Wolf hunt. I don't know how many have been harvested this time around. Last I looked there weren't too many wolves taken this year. Maybe "taken" is the wrong term. I should say "turned in". :? Our wolf hunt gets very little press these days.

All of us cowboys over here in Evanston are still waiting for all those wolves that are supposedly in the DLL to push the elk over to us. So far nothing, and geeze, they're still having cow/calf elk hunts on that wolf-infested ranch to keep elk numbers down. :smile:

Hey, maybe the wolves are eating deer. We don't have any deer.


----------



## wyogoob

The Naturalist said:


> Just a couple of things I have noticed when reading the posts on this topic.
> I always get a kick out of the arguments that the reintroduced wolf is larger and more aggressive than the original rocky mountain sub-species.
> Being a biologist myself, the statements larger and more aggressive are very relative terms. If you were to compare in a line-up of 10 wolves, lets say 5 were of the Canadian wolves introduced to YNP and 5 were Mexican greys, you could probably see a difference and be able to identify which were Canadians and which were Mexican greys simply by size.
> From what I've read about the original RM wolf one would have a tougher time distinguishing the difference in a line-up with the Canadians based on size alone.
> 
> Being a scientist I do like to see empirical data when making broad statements like the word "aggressive". What is meant by the word "aggressive" when it comes to wolves? does it mean they are faster? Kill quicker? Does it imply the RM wolves were "passive", maybe you could walk up and pet them? Since I am 6'3" and 230 am I more aggressive than my neighbor who is 5'10" and 180?  If anyone has data on what makes one sub-species more aggressive than another I would like to see it.
> 
> The other thing that I have noticed is those that refer to studies about the wolves in YNP, or wolves in general, as being done by pro-wolf or anti-wolf scientists. How do you tell? Does a study that shows benefits about the wolf reintro mean the scientist doing the study has to be pro-wolf? Or, does a study that shows negative consequences of the wolf reintro imply that the scientist is anti-wolf? One way to tell is to see who is backing/funding the study. That could imply a bias on the part of the scientist.
> 
> Generally speaking, studies by funded by government agencies are less biased, for the reason that if the scientist doing the research shows bias they probably won't get funded again for other projects, so it behooves the scientists involved to be as accurate as possible. Next would be studies by researchers at major universities. The reputation of the university is at stake if the scientist show distinct bias in their reports (just ask the U of U about cold fusion).
> 
> Again, just some things for you to consider when reading through these threads.


 Yellowstone is teaming with Biologists. Any dead ungulate found in the Park gets an extensive mortality study by these "scientists". I have posted links to this info in the past. If anyone is interested look up "wolf" postings by wyogoob in the search engine and you will find the links.

Then again, you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story.


----------



## wyogoob

The Naturalist said:


> Again, just some things for you to consider when reading through these threads.


No one goes back and reads through a thread, they only read the page that is up. Few click on a link to an informative web story. If it was any other way their would be no outdoor forums.

.


----------



## klbzdad

Wyo....I'm done wrapping my head with duct tape to keep it from popping, you can have the rest of my roll.


----------



## The Naturalist

Rspeters said:


> Ha!!!! That's hard to believe. I can just hear it....Pres Obama saying "Scientist, I want you to do this study, and I want you to be as unbiased as possible....I'll accept whatever your findings are."
> 
> Not an attack on you, as for all I know, what you said may be true....it's just hard to believe.


No problem Rspeters. Maybe the President would like the power to scrutinize/approve/disapprove all government funded studies...He probably doesn't look at any. Truth is many scientists have taken flak/or lost positions for publishing findings that contradicted the standing Administrations political views.
Not meaning to open another can of worms, but a good example would be James Hansen (not the Congressman from Utah) with NOAA and his fight with the Bush Administration.


----------



## wyogoob

klbzdad said:


> Wyo....I'm done wrapping my head with duct tape to keep it from popping, you can have the rest of my roll.


Yeah, yeah, yeah, thanks.......hey, you aint got any Utah wolf videos do ya?


----------



## klbzdad

wyogoob said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah, thanks.......hey, you aint got any Utah wolf videos do ya?


Nope. Sasquatch and chupacabra but no wolves to date. But I just put out a set of cameras over some stinky trapping bait to figure out this trapping thing before I actually start trapping.....I'll be sure to post the woof pics or video the moment I get it!


----------



## Mallardhead12

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4341765


----------

