# Wolf Alert--Make a call and save our big game



## littlebighorn (Feb 14, 2009)

The Anti's are calling in and complaining about the delisting of wolves, trying to get Secretary Salazar to reverse his decision.
The Out-of-State Defenders of Wolves at the Expense of all Other Wildlife Organization is urging a call-in campaign to the F&W Service against the delisting of Wolves. 

Make your voice heard. Call the US Fish and Wildlife Service at 1-800-344-9453 (between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM Eastern Time, Monday-Friday), select option “3” (for endangered species) and hit “0” to speak with the operator. Once you are connected, just deliver this simple message:

My name is ****** and I am calling from ****** to express my appreciation for Interior Secretary Salazar’s decision to implement the plan to eliminate Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana.

Now is the time to allow the affected States to manage their Wolf population as they do with all other species. I strongly urge Secretary Salazar to continue the implementation of this important decision.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Done!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

See, the deal-ee-o is this though - it is not a popularity contest. By their own management plan, USFWS is forced into delisting. The population has reached and exceeded all objectives outlined. They HAVE to de-list. The only way around it is to amend the plan, which will require an EIS to be completed. That is at minimum, a 13 month process. And in the public participation process - it is not about the numbers of comments that is considered. One comment submitted 10,000 times is one comment. 

One thing that mass-mailings does to agencies is cost money to process. One project I worked on, it cost about $2 to process every form-post card that was sent in. So defenders of whatever sent in around 90,000 post cards. Just dealing with it cost the tax-payers nearly $200,000. To say nothing to the fact that then those 90,000 people got on a mailing list, and then each got a copy of future documents - again, cost the taxpayer another $2-5 everytime another notice got mailed. And the real part that sucks - it only counted as one comment - because once something is said, saying it again and again doesn't add any more content.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

If they show up here and are not de-listed and they start eating all our elk and deer I'm sure we'll come up with a management plan of our own. I know I will be implementing my own management plan effective immediately if I ever run into one in the field. :twisted:


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

If they come here> just think we could auction off the tags for say, hundred thousand or so,Sorry. Iam just being a smart or dumb A-- Serious we will have some real problems.. BIG TIME


----------



## Theekillerbee (Jan 8, 2009)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> If they show up here and are not de-listed and they start eating all our elk and deer I'm sure we'll come up with a management plan of our own. I know I will be implementing my own management plan effective immediately if I ever run into one in the field. :twisted:


I think we have the same management plan in mind!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

IF? IF? IF they come here? They already have come here! And, we already have our own wolf management plan...
http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolf_management_plan.pdf


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> IF? IF? IF they come here? They already have come here! And, we already have our own wolf management plan...
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolf_management_plan.pdf


Yes, it's true they are already here, but not in the numbers they are in other states. Thank GOD!

My buddy in northern Idaho says they are overrun with them up there. He's a logger and he sees more wolves than elk and deer. In the Lolo Pass region there will not be an elk season this year because the wolves have cleaned them out. Over around Chalis they have decimated the herds so much that all the outfitters are going out of business because there are no elk to hunt anymore. It might be too late for some areas even with a wolf hunting management plan. They have eaten themselves right out of house and home and are now turning to farm animals and pets.

Just think how Piszed Ol' Don Pay will be if they establish here in the same numbers and eat all his big bulls he's worked so hard to grow over the last 20 years. :evil:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Swift!


22-250!


.223 WSSM

I am sure there are some other great management plans we can implement into our state...These are just a few that came to mind :twisted: 8)


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I'll dial in with my trigger finger! :twisted: 

S.S.S


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

I will make the call. I don't like wolves!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Do NOT do the three S's! Just do two, the first and the last. 'Big coyotes' are legal as long as you have a valid hunting license on your person. I called this morning, and I hope those that want to avoid having happen here what has happened in Idaho/Montana/Wyoming call as well! The animal haters, AKA Wolf Lovers, are motivated and calling like crazy. If we sit back and stay apathetic we will get what we get. Contrary to what W2U says, wolves in mass in Utah WILL reduce hunting opportunity, if not end it all together. :evil:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Make a phone call to support delisting.

Then make a public declaration of intent to poach, which squarely supports federal protection. :roll: 

That's some savvy politics. Which side are you guys on?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

See, here is the difficulty to me. Population numbers are TRIPLE what was outlined in the management plan. That is 3 Times what the wolf lovers said would be adequate numbers. And now, they are STILL fighting against de-listing. So I'm torn. The wolfers won't play by their own rules. If they won't play, why should others? I'm not one to endorse criminal behavior in any way. That isn't my style. I've just seen widsom in the concept of "don't bring a knife to a gun fight."


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Theekillerbee said:


> TEX-O-BOB said:
> 
> 
> > If they show up here and are not de-listed and they start eating all our elk and deer I'm sure we'll come up with a management plan of our own. I know I will be implementing my own management plan effective immediately if I ever run into one in the field. :twisted:
> ...


Targets of opportunity. I can't tell the difference as my eyes are getting pretty bad. They all look the same at 300 yards. I like what Braz said "Smoke a pack a day". :lol:


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Got 'er done.



> I am sure there are some other great management plans we can implement into our state...These are just a few that came to mind


Winchester 30-06. 8)


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

"Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact (casus non faederis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors ME 17:387

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:380 

Federal "laws" protecting the wolf are..."unauthoritative, void, and of no force." 
A little rebellion would do US good. I'll be rebelling with a .270!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Make a phone call to support delisting.
> 
> Then make a public declaration of intent to poach, which squarely supports federal protection. :roll:
> 
> That's some savvy politics. Which side are you guys on?


Hello McFly!! Shooting coyotes is NOT poaching. Pay attention! :roll: I'm on the side of fighting to keep what I love and enjoy, not rolling over for no **** anti-hunting/anti-gun POS's. If you want to trust these dirtbags go ahead, I will NOT! I only shot coyotes,nothing illegal there.


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

The wolf law should be treated like prohibition.. Thats all I have to say.


----------



## MN transplant (Jan 4, 2009)

Weren't wolves natural in utah at one point before over hunting/trapping? 

I know we have A LOT of wolves in MN and we have record white tail and about 10 years ago they re-introduced elk, not the big boys that are out here but a smaller variety. they are growing in #'s (nothing close to the amount out here but we only started with 30) , and the moose. 

Not to mention wolves tend prey on the weak (CWD) (TB) making the herd stronger. I'm no biologist but I don't see how this is going to 'decimate' Big game numbers. 

Isle royale in lake superior: wolves were introduced 46 years ago...still moose there.....still deer there. its an island 30 some miles from mainland shores....the deer/moose aren't swimming out every year to repopulate the island.

My prediction is they have as big an affect on big game as coyotes do on jack rabbits. 

just my two Lincoln's (the little brassy colored ones) 8)


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I'm on the side of fighting to keep what I love and enjoy, not rolling over for no **** anti-hunting/anti-gun POS's. If you want to trust these dirtbags go ahead, I will NOT! I only shot coyotes,nothing illegal there.


Typical...

But WTH, the only mention of "rolling over" came from your post, not mine. Meantime, your chest-thumping may be melodramatic, but it doesn't mean squat. You can't win a fight if you're not on the mat.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Two posts in a row from wolf lovers! :roll:


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> Weren't wolves natural in utah at one point before over hunting/trapping?


NOT the hybrid Canadian Grey wolf they re-introduced into Jellystone. The timber wolf USED to be the one we had around here. They are smaller, more shy, and do far less damage that those Canadian outfits. In fact, the Canadian wolves have forced the *native* timber wolves out of much of their habitat and have taken over in many places where they used to thrive. The Canadian Grey wolf is an *introduced* non-native, invasive species. There Is NO place for them in the lower 48.

They are the perfect anti hunting tool and the antis are using them to their fullest advantage. Why do you think they are so hell bent on keeping them listed even though they are three times more populated than originally planed. Give these maggots an inch and they'll take a mile. Let the government take away your right to have an assault weapon, and watch what's next.

And Finn, It's not poaching if what your shooting is worthless, non native, invasive, vermin.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

MN transplant said:


> My prediction is they have as big an affect on big game as coyotes do on jack rabbits.


that would wash.... IF ungulates dropped i litters. :idea:


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8459&hilit=+wolves


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Hell i tried reporting wolf activity right here in Utah on one of the famous LE units and the F&G never even batted an eye.....why would i think a federal agency would react any differently?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Make a phone call to support delisting.
> 
> Then make a public declaration of intent to poach, which squarely supports federal protection. :roll:
> 
> That's some savvy politics. Which side are you guys on?


I am no saint, and I have never claimed to be. I try to do what I think is right, as opposed to doing what others think is right. You don't ever see me professing to what is "ethical" as I am far from perfect. You can read me like a book and I won't try to hide anything. I will not hide my feelings about wolves just because the "ethics police" don't like to read my real intentions. Call it what you want, it is what it is. :roll:


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

Over around Chalis they have decimated the herds so much that all the outfitters are going out of business because there are no elk to hunt anymore. Tex o bob, hit the nail on the head i hunt this area all the time. 2008 saw with my own eyes the havoc the packs bring. we never saw a wolf, heard them,saw tracks,saw carcasses some barley even touched. they are killing for killing sake, not for food. (good sport.) The antis will post on there forums about how they saw two hundred elk in a certain area, so why are the the ******* hunters complaining so much just go hunt those elk??? Make no mistake once the wolves take hold utahs good elk herds will sufer and i would bet in dramatic fashion. On the antis forum if you post opposing points of view they will not allow the post! Only their point of view will be posted. The word they use in a majority of their post is ignorance (meaning hunters) yet they display more ingnorance than i have ever witnessed. Spend alot of cash each year to spend quality time in the hills and do some hunting, the only thing the wolves didnt kill were trees and rocks.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I'm on the side of fighting to keep what I love and enjoy, not rolling over for no **** anti-hunting/anti-gun POS's. If you want to trust these dirtbags go ahead, I will NOT! I only shot coyotes,nothing illegal there.
> ...


...ironic...


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, 
DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP, DIRTNAP,


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

You should have added that the lousey buggars need to be delisted in Wyoming. They are the only state that has an adequate wolf management plan in mind, the only plan besides SSS that will work in the long run.

I think there are too many people and not enough wild open space for wolves to ever prosper in Utah, but I could be wrong. One of my biggest goals is to bag one someday.


----------



## MN transplant (Jan 4, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Two posts in a row from wolf lovers! :roll:


I consider myself a nature lover and wolves fall under that. but I am assuming that most of you are. I love how nature looks, smells, feels and most off all how it TASTES  . I am just speaking of what I have SEEN. and there is NO big game decimation. Its just facts thats all.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> They are the perfect anti hunting tool and the antis are using them to their fullest advantage. Why do you think they are so hell bent on keeping them listed even though they are three times more populated than originally planed.


Why? Because they're melodramatic chest-thumpers who have been fighting for so long that their egos and emotions have taken over and they've forgotten what they're fighting for. They no longer care about purpose - they only care that they win the fight. Quoting a Sierra Club rep who I heard with my own ears, "If we stop fighting, we have no purpose!" So they will not stop as long as they have the ability to litigate. The good news is that they've just about done that since federal regulations pretty much prohibit frivolous suits (unless they want to foot all the bills themselves). I think they passed "frivolous" long ago, but there you go.

I know this "anti-hunter agenda" conspiracy theory is popular, but there's dang little evidence of it outside of wild statements by a couple of extremist fruitcakes. If there's any truth to it, it's a **** stupid strategy.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> I will not hide my feelings about wolves just because the "ethics police" don't like to read my real intentions. Call it what you want, it is what it is. :roll:


You misunderstand me. It isn't a matter of ethics. It's a matter of politics. I'm four-square in favor of state regulation. Always have been. But like it or not, wolves are here to stay - that decision was made long ago and cannot be unmade. Given that fact of life in our "multiple use" world which gives non-consumptive citizens as much voice in wildlife matters as hunters have, (for better or worse), Utah is in an excellent position. We benefit from Idaho and Wyoming's struggles, largely because there aren't enough wolves here to establish grounds for litigation.

But Utah wolf numbers will increase. It's likely that they won't increase very much or very fast, but nobody knows for sure. Utah's big game management plan is already in place, *before* wolf population becomes a problem. That's a huge advantage because that plan secures the state's right to control the wolf population as necessary to protect our big game objectives.

Obviously, anything can go wrong. But what the pro-wolf crowd needs in order to raise hell with us is some sort of evidence that Utah's management plan is insufficient in some way. They'll be looking specifically at enforcement, that's a fact. They hope that they can show evidence that Utah cannot manage wolves according to our plan, i.e., there is a poaching problem or local judges are unable or unwilling to impose penalties for poaching. So am I being silly thinking that providing readily accessible affirmations, (23 instances of SSS just on this forum), is playing right into the pro-wolfer's hands?

Because I care about big game in Utah, I want our money to go to wildlife, not to lawyers. I want DNR and DWR personnel focused on wildlife management, not wolf litigation. I want wolves to be adequately controlled and that can't happen if they're on the ESL.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

So...what you are saying is we shouldn't publically announce our intentions?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

MN transplant said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Two posts in a row from wolf lovers! :roll:
> ...


How about the FACTS on the elk/moose being decimated in Montana/Idaho/Wyoming? They issue ONE THIRD the number of moose tags in many areas now compared to pre-wolf days. Don't come on here saying wolves don't impact big game populations, because that is a LIE! The wolves roaming Idaho are NOT natural for the area, and not having their numbers kept in check is NOT natural!

Finnegan, if you truly don't believe the wolf lovers had an agenda to curtail/stop hunting with the introduction of wolves you are extremely naive. The groups behind it only became 'nature lovers' when the wolf idea was formed, where the hell were they when deer/elk/moose numbers were hurting? But, you at least admit they are not interested in compromise, and what their stance is is NO WOLVES BE KILLED for any reason. Yet you still think some of us are making a mistake by saying we will NOT sit back and let that happen in Utah? TRUE nature lovers, HUNTERS, have been way too nice and been way too giving IMHO. It is time we started really fighting for what we love and what we have worked so hard to obtain. I put way too much time/money/sweat/blood working to make our wilds as good as they are to just sit back and let a WEAK 'wolf plan' decimate/undo it all because we want to be 'nice'! Call me a fruitcake, I take that as a compliment. I would rather be a fruitcake in your eyes than a non-hunter because we have nothing left to hunt thanks to passive non-actions from the supposed wildlife lovers that want to 'compromise' with those who have repeatedly stated they are not interested in 'compromise'.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> How about the FACTS on the elk/moose being decimated in Montana/Idaho/Wyoming? They issue ONE THIRD the number of moose tags in many areas now compared to pre-wolf days. Don't come on here saying wolves don't impact big game populations, because that is a LIE! The wolves roaming Idaho are NOT natural for the area, and not having their numbers kept in check is NOT natural!


Ok...so how about some facts? You haven't given any FACTS that substantiate your claim that elk/moose are being decimated by wolves. So, let's look at some of the facts:

1) The impact wolves are having on elk, moose, and other big game populations varies greatly according to numerous factors and according to the different regions.
2) Elk numbers have decreased in some areas due to loss of elk calves killed by wolves and bears, but have increased in other areas without any noticeable impacts by wolves.
3) In Northwestern Montana, elk and moose populations are stabilizing and in some areas even increasing despite wolves.
4) Declines of some big game species has been impacted by other factors moreso than by wolves. For example, deer in the Northwestern Montana area have declined because of poor fawn survival linked to severe winters and to antlerless harvests by hunters.
5) Wolves have an impact on "elk distribution, movements, group sizes, and habitat selection" but to a degree less than the impact seen by hunters.

For more FACTS, I suggest reading this very detailed report by Montana:
http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/game.html

Or, if you don't think the above listed FACTS don't apply to Idaho as well, read the following summary of a detailed study completed in Idaho:
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/relea ... ewsID=3156


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

See, my deal with the wolves insn't personal against the wolves. They are what they are. And truth be known, I really want to go to Alaska or Canada to see them where the ranges and habitat conditions haven't changed like they have in the lower 48. But ranching, development, range conditions, other prey basis (mostly bison) have all changed so significantly, that introduction of wolves I find to be irresponsible. I think it works in Yellowstone - but that is a different set of rules and wildlife there. Completely different. In ranges where bison do not roam free, where grazing has to co-exist with wildlife, where complete ecosystems have been transformed (from grasses to sagebrush steppe which is now dying off), it does not lead towards a more balanced and harmoneously functioning ecosystem. 

I grew up in Challis, Idaho in the pre-wolf days. I spent my summers exploring dozens of drainages and mountain ranges where the wolves now live. I spent my falls hunting deer, elk, pronghorn and grouse, as well as chasing fish up and down hundreds of miles of stream. I know what that place was. I also know what it is now, 13 years after the native wolf population was augmented. (Yes, I said native wolf population - there were ALWAYS wolves in the Sawtooths, White Clouds, and back in the Middle Fork.) I know from first had experience what ranges were raped by cattle and sheep, far above their capacity to support any kind of grazers, and the impact that had on wildlife populations/habitat capacity. When the wolf population was augmented, the habitat conditions couldn't have been worse in many of those areas (the Lost River Range alotments were the poster children of over grazing for decades) due to irresponsible grazing practices that obliterated winter ranges. 

But I've also seen IFG issue 10 times the number of elk tags in certain units - 37 and 37-1 and as such, totally wipe out the elk population - similar to the elk slaughter on the Fish Lake 6-7 years ago. That is one of those dirty little secrets that gets ignored. But that is a different issue. Its a complicated web that created a perfect storm to crash the elk and deer populations. They were on the brink due to very bad range conditions as well as bad wildlife/hunter management and the wolves and IFG pushed things over the edge. 

Personally, I'd like to see wolves removed from Central Idaho, as they have thrown thing even more out of whack then they were before. But just as much, I'd like to see grazing practices COMPLETELY overhauled at the same time. Unless that is done, wolf management is a blip in the world of restoring game populations in that part of the world. Both must occur.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> we have learned that elk populations tend to become limited by predators when high ratios of predators to elk are reached, and this typically has occurred when multiple predator
> species are numerous within the range of one elk population. This limitation of elk
> populations in areas with numerous predators appears to become manifest through direct
> impacts on elk calf survival and recruitment





> Elk are the primary prey species for wolves in southwest Montana and the GYA,
> though there is limited evidence that the portion of elk in wolf diets may decline
> during summer months. Most data indicate that wolves preferentially select for elk
> calves and against adult female elk. Some data indicate that wolves preferentially
> ...


How can this NOT result in lost hunter opportunity? Fewer elk and fewer bulls:cows MUST result in less hunting.


> Winter elk kill rates of wolves have varied widely across southwest Montana and the
> GYA, from approximately 7 to 23 elk killed per wolf during November through
> April.


 3000 wolves, do the math! That is just during the winter, not during calving when calves are most vulnerable. The high loss of claves is resulting in an older aged elk herd, which is NOT natural.



> Declines in calf per 100 cow ratios have occurred in the Northern Yellowstone, Gallatin- Madison, and Madison- Firehole elk herds, where both wolf and grizzly bear densities have been high. In the Northern Yellowstone and Gallatin- Madison elk herds, calf per 100 cow ratios have recently been approximately half or less than levels recorded prior to wolf
> restoration.





> *In the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, we estimate that since 2004 wolves have killed more elk than hunters, since 2005 wolves have killed more adult female elk than
> hunters, and in all but one year since 2002 wolves have killed more bull elk than
> hunters.*


Thanks for the links. :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Since 2006, and beginning as early as 2004 in some areas of Region 1, white-tailed
> deer population sizes, indexed by buck harvest, have been decreasing. The decrease
> has coincided with record high antlerless deer harvests in most hunting districts.


Whitetails flourish EVERYWHERE, yet in areas where they are the main food source for wolves they are decreasing. Sorry Gary, things don't add up. Wolves kill THOUSANDS of elk/moose/deer every year, how that can NOT result in lost hunter opportunity is beyond reason.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Add in the HUGE costs passed to ALL citizens due to livestock loses and costs to keep the livestock alive passed on to the consumer. The economic damage the wolf 'movement' has caused is bigger than the wolf lovers care to admit. Livestock operators barely making it before have gone under, others have had to lay-off help. Outfitters/guide services have been devastated. The state wildlife departments have spent MILLIONS on the wolves and the damage they do. The federal government has spent MILLIONS on the wolves. Tell the hunters in wolf zones how the wolves haven't hurt their ability to hunt deer/elk/moose.


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

> The wolves roaming Idaho are NOT natural for the area


 How about a white guy roaming around the area with a bunch of sheep? Stupid argument. What is natural is a subjective view. Nothing will ever be how it was and management will always need changes and adaptive measures to try and find a balance, which is meager at best with what is wild and unpredictable. One question, how do anti-wolf management groups view hunters? Some think we are greedy and want the big game animals for our own profit and use. We aren't protectors of wildlife in their eyes. Now ask yourself what your view is of anti-wolf management groups. I bet that most of us think they are all tree hugging, anti hunters that will stop at nothing to take away hunting. We know that these are opinions in both cases, but not all. It is true you can't reason with some individuals, but I have more trust in the system. The individuals that make the laws I believe are reasonable and listen to both sides. Which is why it is important to be informed and tactful when letting your voice be heard. I know management of wolves has been delayed and changed and state control is the measure that needs to be finalized. I think that is what we should be pushing for as a group.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

In my opinion the only good wolf is a dead wolf. They are pretty to look at especially through a nice 6.5x20 leupold mounted on a browning medallion. I have bunches of wolf pictures in my house but a wolf pelt or a few would be a nice addition to my decorating theme.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Levy said:


> > The wolves roaming Idaho are NOT natural for the area
> 
> 
> How about a white guy roaming around the area with a bunch of sheep? Stupid argument. Who ever claimed "a white guy roaming around with a bunch of sheep" was natural? Talk about a stupid argument, the wolf lovers claim this wolf is part of the 'needed' ecosystem when that is NOT true. Also, the white man moved into the area 'naturally' not through forced transplants, and man IS part of nature. What is natural is a subjective view. Nothing will ever be how it was and management will always need changes and adaptive measures to try and find a balance, which is meager at best with what is wild and unpredictable. One question, how do anti-wolf management groups view hunters? Some think we are greedy and want the big game animals for our own profit and use. We aren't protectors of wildlife in their eyes. Go to their web sites and read what they think of hunters. They do NOT hide their views, WTF should we? I will gladly debate ANY of these wolf lovers on who has done more for ALL wildlife, hunters or wolf lovers? It isn't even close, hunters kick their arses every which way! I WON'T apologize for that! Now ask yourself what your view is of anti-wolf management groups. I bet that most of us think they are all tree hugging, anti hunters that will stop at nothing to take away hunting. We know that these are opinions in both cases, but not all. It is true you can't reason with some individuals, but I have more trust in the system. The individuals that make the laws I believe are reasonable and listen to both sides. Really? You mean the judge in Wyoming who ignored the science and the data and put the wolves back under protection used reason and listened to both sides? Talk about being duped! Which is why it is important to be informed and tactful when letting your voice be heard. I know management of wolves has been delayed and changed and state control is the measure that needs to be finalized. I think that is what we should be pushing for as a group.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> How can this NOT result in lost hunter opportunity? Fewer elk and fewer bulls:cows MUST result in less hunting.


I don't think anyone is arguing that it wouldn't or doesn't....but lost hunter opportunity is a far cry from total populations being "decimated" like you stated!



> Winter elk kill rates of wolves have varied widely across southwest Montana and the
> GYA, from approximately 7 to 23 elk killed per wolf during November through
> April.





proutdoors said:


> 3000 wolves, do the math! That is just during the winter, not during calving when calves are most vulnerable. The high loss of claves is resulting in an older aged elk herd, which is NOT natural.


Natural? We wiped wolves out of the lower 48...that is not natural. But, if you had read more of those findings, you would also have seen that the proportions of what specifically--I.E. cows versus bulls versus calves--wolves feed on, you would have seen that again their prey varies greatly according to region. IN some regions the predation of calves is proportionally higher and in some much lower. Your generalization that the herds are becoming older is simply NOT true in most cases because in most cases, the wolves are disproportionately preying upon the oldest cows and oldest bulls more than on calves.

But, that is not what bugs me about your statement about 3000 wolves and math. You still do NOT understand compensatory predation.



> Declines in calf per 100 cow ratios have occurred in the Northern Yellowstone, Gallatin- Madison, and Madison- Firehole elk herds, where both wolf and grizzly bear densities have been high. In the Northern Yellowstone and Gallatin- Madison elk herds, calf per 100 cow ratios have recently been approximately half or less than levels recorded prior to wolf
> restoration.





> *In the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, we estimate that since 2004 wolves have killed more elk than hunters, since 2005 wolves have killed more adult female elk than
> hunters, and in all but one year since 2002 wolves have killed more bull elk than
> hunters.*


[quote="proutdoors"Thanks for the links. :shock:[/quote]

The shocking thing is that you are incapable of reasonably looking at the data and making any kind of reasonable conclusions....instead, you unwaveringly believe that wolves will automatically "decimate" all big game populations if the establish themselves in Utah. This--shockingly--is 100% totally false. Shockingly, many big game populations have actually INCREASED despite wolf predation. What both of these studies clearly show and prove is that elk populations CAN and DO increase even if wolves exist. The implications of this FACT are huge. What this means is that Utah could have and can have healthy wolf and elk populations....IF (and I know it is a big IF) both are managed properly. That means wolf populations should be controlled just like big game populations...So, when Finnegan states:
Utah wolf numbers will increase. It's likely that they won't increase very much or very fast, but nobody knows for sure. Utah's big game management plan is already in place, *before* wolf population becomes a problem. That's a huge advantage because that plan secures the state's right to control the wolf population as necessary to protect our big game objectives.

Obviously, anything can go wrong. But what the pro-wolf crowd needs in order to raise hell with us is some sort of evidence that Utah's management plan is insufficient in some way. They'll be looking specifically at enforcement, that's a fact. They hope that they can show evidence that Utah cannot manage wolves according to our plan, i.e., there is a poaching problem or local judges are unable or unwilling to impose penalties for poaching. So am I being silly thinking that providing readily accessible affirmations, (23 instances of SSS just on this forum), is playing right into the pro-wolfer's hands?

Because I care about big game in Utah, I want our money to go to wildlife, not to lawyers. I want DNR and DWR personnel focused on wildlife management, not wolf litigation. I want wolves to be adequately controlled and that can't happen if they're on the ESL.[/quote]

I unequivocally agree...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The shocking thing is that you are incapable of reasonably looking at the data and making any kind of reasonable conclusions....I suppose since I disagree with you I am "unreasonable", now that is "reasonable" isn't it? :roll:
> 
> Because I care about big game in Utah, I want our money to go to wildlife, not to lawyers. I want DNR and DWR personnel focused on wildlife management, not wolf litigation. I want wolves to be adequately controlled and that can't happen if they're on the ESL. Ironically, Montana spends 2/3 on wolves compared to what they spend on ALL other wildlife. A thousand wolves costs as much as over 200,000 animals. That is taking AWAY resources from the animals you claim to care about.


Keep the insults coming, it exposes YOUR hypocrisy. You say I should be reasonable, and yet you take an unreasonable stance, which is we must all bow to your views or be called names and insulted. Do you really want to bring people together on the subject? Because your tactics say otherwise! :?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I'm waiting for a letter from Don Peay stating that the wolves have a right to their property. Wolves should be allowed to keep hunters from entering their property and harrassing them. Wolf property rights should be protected. Having someone with a gun going into their areas and disturbing their privacy is wrong and I'm sure Don Peay will rally the troops to make sure wolves maintain their rights to the property they inhabit!

Too bad old Donny didn't stand up for the stream fishermen in Utah; he may have gained 400, 000 friends to help fight the wolves. Oh well.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

:roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

> Who ever claimed "a white guy roaming around with a bunch of sheep" was natural? Talk about a stupid argument, the wolf lovers claim this wolf is part of the 'needed' ecosystem when that is NOT true. Also, the white man moved into the area 'naturally' not through forced transplants, and man IS part of nature.


My point was to state what is "natural" is subjective. I think that was pretty clear. 


> Go to their web sites and read what they think of hunters. They do NOT hide their views, WTF should we? I will gladly debate ANY of these wolf lovers on who has done more for ALL wildlife, hunters or wolf lovers? It isn't even close, hunters kick their arses every which way! I WON'T apologize for that!


Easy self-appointed protector of the Hunting Opportunity Committee, I don't think anyone asked you to apologize. To think that individuals who like wolves have never done anything good for wildlife compared with yourself is not correct. I agree that hunters and sportmen do more for wildlife than is recogonized, but there are others. Yeah the smart thing to do is go to a few websites and state that as the opinion of all people who may or may not care about wolves. I would go somewhere else if I wanted to fight and debate with the extreme wolf, anti hunters. I am pretty sure that those individuals do not frequent this site. 


> You mean the judge in Wyoming who ignored the science and the data and put the wolves back under protection used reason and listened to both sides? Talk about being duped! like wolves. Good thinking.


Yeah one judge out of how many? You honestly think that one judge is going to stop what the voice of the majority want. Seriously we live in America not Red China.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Levy said:


> > Go to their web sites and read what they think of hunters. They do NOT hide their views, WTF should we? I will gladly debate ANY of these wolf lovers on who has done more for ALL wildlife, hunters or wolf lovers? It isn't even close, hunters kick their arses every which way! I WON'T apologize for that!
> 
> 
> Easy self-appointed protector of the Hunting Opportunity Committee, I don't think anyone asked you to apologize. To think that individuals who like wolves have never done anything good for wildlife compared with yourself is not correct. I agree that hunters and sportmen do more for wildlife than is recogonized, but there are others. Yeah the smart thing to do is go to a few websites and state that as the opinion of all people who may or may not care about wolves. I would go somewhere else if I wanted to fight and debate with the extreme wolf, anti hunters. I am pretty sure that those individuals do not frequent this site. Sportsmen, not wolf lovers, brought back elk/moose/bighorns/goats/turkeys. Like I said, I will gladly compare the numbers anytime.
> [quote:mo1or4o4]You mean the judge in Wyoming who ignored the science and the data and put the wolves back under protection used reason and listened to both sides? Talk about being duped! like wolves. Good thinking.


Yeah one judge out of how many? You honestly think that one judge is going to stop what the voice of the majority want. Seriously we live in America not Red China. You may want to pay attention a little more. ONE judge did in fact put wolves back on the ESA. :? :roll: [/quote:mo1or4o4]


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

Don't tell me to pay attention, one judge made that decision for the time being. The law is now being reproposed by the state wildlife officials and biologists and a new ruling will take place. Unfortunately, that is how the system works, whether you like it or not. Wolf Lover, what the hell does that mean anyway?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Levy said:


> Don't tell me to pay attention, one judge made that decision for the time being. The law is now being reproposed by the state wildlife officials and biologists and a new ruling will take place. Unfortunately, that is how the system works, whether you like it or not. Wolf Lover, what the hell does that mean anyway?


YOU said one judge couldn't do anything, I showed you were one judge DID! Wyoming is nowhere near being de-listed thanks to this ONE judge. Meanwhile, how many elk/moose/deer are being slaughtered? Once this one judge is over-turned, the damage will take 20+ years if ever to recover. The wolf lovers call themselves that, so ask them what it means. They say ANY wolf killed is murder, that is who YOU are defending. Go figure.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I had the pleasure of spending a week with a wildlife biologist with 35 year's
of experience from Alaska. To make a long story short, He told me introducing 
Canadian wolves in the lower 48 was the "WORST" wildlife management decision he had
witnessed in his entire career.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Did he say why? We have a DWR that won't even fight for fishermen...that has to be the dumbest wildlife decision I've ever seen!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

You're in the wrong state if you like to fish...I would suggest Florida...maybe Wisconsin if you don't like hurricanes.

+1...wolves were a terrible idea...they would've made it down on their own, but lending them a helping hand was a serious misuse of government time and resources...


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

> YOU said one judge couldn't do anything, I showed you were one judge DID! Wyoming is nowhere near being de-listed thanks to this ONE judge. Meanwhile, how many elk/moose/deer are being slaughtered? Once this one judge is over-turned, the damage will take 20+ years if ever to recover. The wolf lovers call themselves that, so ask them what it means. They say ANY wolf killed is murder, that is who YOU are defending. Go figure.


I am not defending anyone, nor did I say one judge couldn't do anything. You are so far the other way that you can't see past your elk tag. Kind a like the "wolf lovers" who are so far the other way that they can't see past their no management proposals. You don't know what time frame or any other factors in the future that will effect moose/deer/elk numbers. I know you are passionate about hunting (7400 posts, although pyschotic does show where your interests lie). I do respect your opinion and we probably agree on more than we disagree on about hunting.


----------



## MN transplant (Jan 4, 2009)

I say we kill ALL wolves, ALL bears, and ALL cougars, bobcats,coyotes, and even otters. they all eat what I seek....for the same reason. KILL them ALL!!!!! :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

MN transplant said:


> I say we kill ALL wolves, ALL bears, and ALL cougars, bobcats,coyotes, and even otters. they all eat what I seek....for the same reason. KILL them ALL!!!!! :wink:


There you go. Good logic because we put "ALL wolves, ALL bears, and ALL cougars, bobcats, coyotes, and even otters" in places they weren't before and then allowed their numbers to grow to more than TRIPLE the stated objectives and still weren't willing to manage them like we do EVERY other species on North America, right? :roll: :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Levy said:
> 
> 
> > > The wolves roaming Idaho are NOT natural for the area
> ...


Soooo, Wouldn't the results produced by man be under the umbrella of "nature" as you described?

State _management_ sounds great to me. We either need to to manage all creatures or none at all, caveats create problems in this realm. IMO, The "the only good wolf is a dead one" mentality stems from greed and those posturing extreme fanaticism.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

done


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Well Tree, you and I must have different definitions of "greed".


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm fine with that. You aint all bad. :wink: :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Soooo, Wouldn't the results produced by man be under the umbrella of "nature" as you described? Yes, but the tree huggers don't want to do what comes natural for predators, which is to KILL the competition. :shock: :wink:
> 
> State _management_ sounds great to me. We either need to to manage all creatures or none at all, caveats create problems in this realm. IMO, The "the only good wolf is a dead one" mentality stems from greed and those posturing extreme fanaticism. We should also let 'evolution' happen in today's world. I believe you mentioned that a while back. Let the wolves survive on their own like the coyotes, if they are evolved enough to prosper so be it. If they aren't so be it.


This hillbilly will try to give every coyote he sees a dirt nap, even the really big coyotes. :shock:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Soooo, Wouldn't the results produced by man be under the umbrella of "nature" as you described? Yes, but the tree huggers don't want to do what comes natural for predators, which is to KILL the competition. :shock: :wink:
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You say we should treat all critters equally, I disagree. We don't treat jack rabbits the same as moose do we? Humans may have all been created equal, but I do NOT think all critters were created equal. I won't treat a dog the same as I do a grasshopper.

As for referring to Finn's post, I say refer to my response to his post. I am sick and tired of caving into those who desire to take away my greatest passion, hunting, and I will NOT sit back and play nice with people not interested in coming up with a reasonable plan. I liken it to Obama's STUPID new policy to no longer call terrorists enemy combatants and it's no longer the war on terror. All in the effort to appease those who wish to KILL us. Nonsensical, as is trying to appease those who look at us with hate/contempt regardless of what tone/words we use. It is hunting they hate, and playing nice in the sand box with them won't change that.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Every time I go to Wyoming or Idaho I try to decrease their wolf population...... I drop meatballs out the window leaving a trail right to Utah.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Fanatics battling fanatics. There _is_ entertainment value. :wink:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> Every time I go to Wyoming or Idaho I try to decrease their wolf population...... I drop meatballs out the window leaving a trail right to Utah.


 :lol:


----------



## MN transplant (Jan 4, 2009)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> > Weren't wolves natural in utah at one point before over hunting/trapping?
> 
> 
> NOT the hybrid Canadian Grey wolf they re-introduced into Jellystone. The timber wolf USED to be the one we had around here. They are smaller, more shy, and do far less damage that those Canadian outfits. In fact, the Canadian wolves have forced the *native* timber wolves out of much of their habitat and have taken over in many places where they used to thrive. The Canadian Grey wolf is an *introduced* non-native, invasive species. There Is NO place for them in the lower 48.


so....the dnr/dwr in many states have been mistaken that grey wolves/timber wolves are one in the same just as cougar/puma/mountain lion all apply to the same animal. What were the wolves hybridizd with?


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I think the Canadians were/are hybrids with the French???


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> I think the Canadians were/are hybrids with the French???


I wish, then we wouldn't have anything to worry about. French wolves would be vegetarians.

MN transplant, true or false: the gray wolves from Canada are bigger and more aggressive than the timber wolves that were in Wyoming/Montana/Idaho before they planted these wolves here?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I think we all can agree that the big, bad wolf, the 3 little pigs wolf, and the wolves off of beauty and the beast were the same wolves that were introduced into Yellowstone.

On a serious note...there are different types of wolves...just as the mule deer in Sonora are easily recognizable in build and proportion and behavior from a mule deer in Wyoming. If you can't grasp that fact then you really don't know a whole lot about animals...


----------



## MN transplant (Jan 4, 2009)

[/quote]Whitetails flourish EVERYWHERE, yet in areas where they are the main food source for wolves they are decreasing. [/quote]

In MN we still have a TON of whitetail...just on my family and neighbors propery where I hunt we harvested 4 bucks and 7 does no problem with plenty passed up. This was a typical year as far back as I can remember.....oh and there is also an active wolf pack in the area. (I say area because they roam quite a bit and obviously aren't restricted to our land only). and there were fresh wolf prints and scat that we found not 50 yards from one of our stands. so we know they were in there. lots o wolves, lots o deer. The 'flourishing whitetail' sounds right seen as how we havent noticed a drop in #'s. we only noticed a drop in 96-98 that was due to extremely harsh winters.

I don't think I made this statement yet. I DO believe in population control....just not complete removal of the species. just to clarify a bit


----------



## MN transplant (Jan 4, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Greenhead 2 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the Canadians were/are hybrids with the French???
> ...


As far as I know they are the same species. I looked it up and double checked and thats what I found on a couple different DNR websites. I know the wolves In MN go about 100lbs, give or take. I'm sure they vary in size just as moose do around the U.S. I've only seen them back in MN from a distance with the exception of them running in front of my car once. I see LOTS of sign (scat prints carcasses/prints around. and yes I can tell coyote from wolf) , which leads me to believe they try to avoid people.


----------



## MN transplant (Jan 4, 2009)

stablebuck said:


> On a serious note...there are different types of wolves...just as the mule deer in Sonora are easily recognizable in build and proportion and behavior from a mule deer in Wyoming. If you can't grasp that fact then you really don't know a whole lot about animals...


They may be a different 'sub' species, but grey wolves and timberwolves are one in the same. thats like saying that a moose in utah is drastically different than one in MN. I've ran into cows with calves in both MN(3X) and Utah(X1), though their size differs, their behaviors were indistinguishabe. In addition the areas that they are found are similar.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

maybe you can do up your own report based on the happenings around the "MN transplant homestead" and try to apply it to the rest of North America! :roll: Oh wait...that's what you are doing!

So you are saying that a white-tailed deer in Alberta is the same as one in Texas is the same as one in South Carolina???


----------



## coolgunnings (Sep 8, 2007)

MN transplant said:


> stablebuck said:
> 
> 
> > On a serious note...there are different types of wolves...just as the mule deer in Sonora are easily recognizable in build and proportion and behavior from a mule deer in Wyoming. If you can't grasp that fact then you really don't know a whole lot about animals...
> ...


So what you are saying is a wolf is a wolf, a moose is a moose, a deer is a deer ect, etc, etc. Dood get a clue. It is a fact that the farther north you go, the animals get bigger. Now to transplant these bigger wolves from up there to down here is just rediculous. And they will breed based on food supply. The more food the more breeding. This is why the wolves have spread like wild fire. And are decimating the heards down here. They are going to hunt themselves out of food. And will end up starving to death or getting shot chasing sheep and cattle. They have put the food chain all out of whack. IMO the grey wolf should have never been transplanted here, and they should be decimated from most of the lower 48.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

MN transplant said:


> They may be a different 'sub' species, but grey wolves and timberwolves are one in the same. thats like saying that a moose in utah is drastically different than one in MN. I've ran into cows with calves in both MN(3X) and Utah(X1), though their size differs, their behaviors were indistinguishabe. In addition the areas that they are found are similar.


Their behaviors were "indistinguishable"? WOW, you were able to make that judgment from four brief encounters with cow moose and their calves. I'm impressed. Were you able to in detail observe all of their diet, their breeding habits, the size of the area they confine themselves in, all in a few minutes worth of observations. Now, back to reality. The moose in Utah ARE different than the moose in MN, but moose do NOT eat other animals. You said the wolves in MN are around 100#, they would be an appetizer for gray wolves roaming Montana that weight in excess of 150#. Thanks for verifying what many of us already knew, that they ARE different. :?


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Easy now, the wolves are not going to eat themselves out of house and food. What they might do is make it difficult for guides to take old fat guys up a road to shoot a trophy animal a 1/4 mile from the truck! They might do what the DNR won't, get herd ratios back into a natural ratio.

They might also give the state another source of revenue by selling a permit to hunt them? They might eat a few cows and sheep, but I would think that would make the guides and SFW happy? I mean if their eating livestock off the mountain isn't that a bonus for them? Less livestock decimating land for wildlife and the wolves eating livestock means less wildlife becoming prey. Sounds like those groups would call that a "win win" situation?

Watchout the sky is falling!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> They might also give the state another source of revenue by selling a permit to hunt them? They might eat a few cows and sheep, but I would think that would make the guides and SFW happy? I mean if their eating livestock off the mountain isn't that a bonus for them? Less livestock decimating land for wildlife and the wolves eating livestock means less wildlife becoming prey. Sounds like those groups would call that a "win win" situation? I'm guessing math was not a strong subject for you in school. A wolf eats between 30-60 elk a year, so to 'break even' a wolf tag would have to cost $12,600.00. That is just for the lost revenue from elk being killed. Now add in the costs to the tax payer/consumer for lost livestock. I don't recall SFW advocating getting rid of livestock of public lands, can you enlighten me on this? :?


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

They didn't buy up grazing permits? They haven't pushed for less grazing permits? They haven't fought against livestock in anyway? 

SFW would recover those cost by auctioning off those coveted wolf permits I'd think? I'm sure if they can sell a elk hunt for a few hundred thousand, they could get 10 or so percent of that for a wolf permit? Ya gotta look at the big picture.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> They didn't buy up grazing permits? They haven't pushed for less grazing permits? They haven't fought against livestock in anyway? They buy up grazing permits to increase big game numbers, which would NOT happen with wolves 'managing' big game numbers.
> 
> SFW would recover those cost by auctioning off those coveted wolf permits I'd think? I'm sure if they can sell a elk hunt for a few hundred thousand, they could get 10 or so percent of that for a wolf permit? Ya gotta look at the big picture. There you go again struggling with math. They lose a couple hundred thousand and get a few thousand in return, great ROI there! NOT!  :roll:


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

It would look like a loss the first few years while the wolves had a feeding frenzy just like Yellowstone, but as the herds reduced to a more natural ratio and size it would equal out. 

There are still plenty of elk in Idaho and Montana, the wolves are spreading out because a more natural balance has been made. When they get here the same will happen. It will just affect outfitters and guides more, I'll still have animals to hunt. Heck they may even get those dreaded mustangs in check?

I think when I go to Sheridan next week I'll post signs and drop steaks instead of meatballs leading them here, the meatballs aren't getting them here fast enough! Do you think writing them in french would help?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I am I actually dumber for reading your last post Chris!


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Then you are getting it buddy. Theses arguments are just stupid. When the wolves show up in the numbers that will affect our herds Wyoming will already have this mess figured out with the government and the "wolf lovers". This will make our management of them simple. It'll just make guided hunters actually hunt, what a concept, hunt!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

All I want to know is, do you want to go "coyote" hunting?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> All I want to know is, do you want to go "coyote" hunting?


You mean "big" coyote hunting! :twisted: :wink:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes, that is exactly what I mean! :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Yes, that is exactly what I mean! :mrgreen:


Then, +1 1/8


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

No, I think they are pretty!!!!!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

That is soooo gay!


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Should have I said beautiful? I'll go as soon as the state issues permits for them. Between now and then I'll be looking for those that want to practice the sss management system. I might be able to get a elk permit for being a tattle tale?

Ain't it funny how any other animal that chows on a elks habitat needs to be terminated whether its legal or not, yet a guy takes a bull elk without a permit and he is scum and should be hung. Commercialization of one animal makes killing others okay? I'm missing something?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

No SSS for this guy, just one; SHOOT! Why would I waste my time with a shovel over a large coyote? :? Follow me around all you want cowboy. 8)


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Just so I'm clear. Poaching and killing and then letting a proteceted animal rot away is okay with you.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> Just so I'm clear. Poaching and killing and then letting a proteceted animal rot away is okay with you.


Nope, but killing coyotes IS. I have had several DWR employees tell me there are no wolves in Utah, so I am just shooting large coyotes. Notice how even though they have wolves in New Mexico and Arizona their numbers struggle. Ask the ranchers how many large coyotes they let the air of each year. They will tell you, every one they can!

Oh yeah, birds and small coyotes need food to eat also, I'm just looking out for their welfare. 8)


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Pro,

Have you had your vehicle checked for a GPS surveillance device recently?
I am not sure but I think I had mine installed today…….Big


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Pro,
> 
> Have you had your vehicle checked for a GPS surveillance device recently?
> I am not sure but I think I had mine installed today&#8230;&#8230;.Big


 :mrgreen:


----------



## DBL (Sep 11, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Natural? We wiped wolves out of the lower 48...that is not natural.


This is what bugs the hell out of me. *Yes* it is natural. Human being are in fact predators and it is natural for a superior predator to try and remove competition. We did a good job and now some asshats are undoing something that was necessary part of nature.


----------

