Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Will someone please stop the madness WOLVES

World Class Peach





Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2010 at 06:34 PM

We used to have one of the best elk herds in this country now we are having trouble having a hunt able population if something is not done soon it will be too late more %$#&*^%#@ing politics..

Molloy’s Wolf Ruling: Just Another Chapter in the Neverending Story
No wonder the wolf debate has become the story that just keeps going, great for journalists but nobody else.
By Bill Schneider, 8-11-10




If anybody is surprised U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy put the gray wolf back on the endangered species list and stopped wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana, he or she hasn’t been following the debate. I’m sure not surprised, but his decision, released Aug. 5, puts the spotlight back on a lot interesting issues.
Here are my thoughts on the next chapter of the biggest outdoor story of the century.
Wolves Don’t Recognize State Lines. I have a hard time blaming the judge or those evil eastern wolf-lovers for the endless mess we’re mired in. Instead, I tend to blame the wildlife agencies, state and federal, for even thinking the Endangered Species Act (ESA) allowed delisting based on state lines--artificial, nonscientific, political boundaries meaning nothing to wolves.
It’s true that the ESA doesn’t say anything about “state line delisting”: It doesn’t say agencies can’t delist based on state lines, but I have to believe most judges would take the safe route when the law is so vague on such a key point.
Delisting should be based on science, not state lines. Even the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) said so in the past, but later retracted it when the political winds changed.
So, please don’t be angry or dismayed at Judge Molloy’s ruling. The die was cast two or three years ago when agencies made a political decision to leave Wyoming behind and abandon their original plan calling for recovery in three official recovery zones (Greater Yellowstone, Central Idaho and Northern Montana) and go for piecemeal delisting based on political boundaries.
To be fair, I suppose the agencies had little choice. It was more like an act of desperation. Politicians were breathing down their necks to move ahead with delisting, and the numbers supported it. Using even conservative figures, the wolf population recovered years ago.

But Wyoming was clearly not going to be a team player and yield to pressure to write an acceptable management plan. This more or less forced agencies down this ill-fated path, so let’s not pretend we’re shocked by the outcome.
Nor should we be surprised when Wyoming stays the course. The politicos down in the Cowboy State won’t bow to pressure from other states or the feds. Instead, Wyoming will remain focused on its lawsuit against the FWS, choosing to believe the state will eventually prevail and get approval for its current plan where wolves can be shot on sight everywhere except in and near the national parks, but that seems like more dreaming.
So get used to it. For at least a year, if not years, the wolf will remain on the endangered species list...unless, of course, Idaho and Montana convince the plaintiffs (12 conservation groups) to drop their lawsuit. More on that later.
Wyoming, the Best Friend a Wolf Lover Ever Had. Thanks to those immovable cowboys down in Wyoming, wolf lovers might realize their pipe dream--the gray wolf restored to much of its historic range, not just in the three recovery zones as originally planned.
We already have wolf populations in Oregon and Washington, and perhaps Utah, with the big prize--Colorado and Rocky Mountain National Park, with its massive elk population--coming soon.
On tap--eastern Montana’s Missouri Breaks, South Dakota’s Black Hills and North Dakota’s Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and a lot of newly established wolf habitat in between.
All thanks to Wyoming.
Don’t Worry, Lots of Wolves Will Continue to Die. People tend to think that with the wolf back under ESA protection, the population could grow exponentially and wipe out big game and domestic livestock operations. Not.
Federal and state agencies will continue to kill a lot of wolves, just as they did before the first-ever hunting seasons in 2009. Since reintroduction, in fact, 1,258 wolves have been “removed from the population” by agency “control actions.” That figure doesn’t include legal hunting. You can see the zone-by-zone, year-by-year numbers here.
In 2009, for example, Idaho and Montana hunters bagged 260 wolves, but “control actions” claimed 270 more. This approximate, if not increased, level of mortality will continue in 2010 and beyond until the issue is resolved.
Both hunting and control actions result in dead wolves, but there’s one big difference. Hunters pay agencies to kill wolves; all of us pay agencies (with federal tax dollars) to kill wolves.
Greens, Don’t Push Too Hard. Right now, wolf-loving conservationists obviously have the momentum, but they should tread softly. Their continued success has a big downside.
Sooner or later, the frustration with the endless litigation could cause Congress to gut the most powerful environmental law of the land, the Endangered Species Act.
Witness this statement in the press release sent out last week by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:
“When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles--and possibly even compromise human safety--then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We have already begun contacting the Congressional delegations of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to ask for an immediate review of this travesty--and reform of the legislation that enabled it.”
Plus, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has already announced that he wants Congress to “intervene.” I’m not sure what he means, but do we want find out?
These shots over the bow should give pro-wolfers a wake-up call. All those who loathe the ESA have been salivating for decades for a chance to open it up and “improve” it. Let’s hope pro-wolf groups don’t hand them the opportunity on a golden platter. Stringing out the wolf controversy for much longer will do exactly that.
We Can Work This Out. In the past, I’ve offered up a plan (click here) that could end the wolf debate, and now, albeit years late, it appears as if something like it might happen. Finally, people have actually been talking about talking. “Settlement talks” were scheduled for Aug. 18, but were abruptly canceled after Molloy’s decision came out.
I tried to find out more about these talks, mainly trying to confirm if they’ve been re-scheduled and who would be at the table. After making a half-dozen calls, it’s obvious nobody wants to give out much detail.
Here’s what I did find out. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) has taken the lead and invited key stakeholders to the table--and deserves kudos for doing it, in my opinion. Representatives from the FWS, FWP, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and at least one representative for the plaintiffs, probably an attorney for Earthjustice, were due to meet Aug. 18 in Helena. After Molloy’s ruling hit the Internet, Idaho wildlife officials were so angry they canceled the meeting, which seems quite strange. You’d think Idaho would be even more anxious to settle this after the defendants lost big in District Court. Right now, FWP is trying to reschedule the meeting.
Notably, representatives from Wyoming were not planning on attending the meeting, so even if all other stakeholders came to agreement, they’d still have to overcome Wyoming’s refusal to write an acceptable management plan.
With the exception of the Wyoming roadblock, achieving a “settlement” seems fairly easy. Anti-wolfers need to accept the fact that there will be more wolves than they’d like to see running around, dining on a few elk backstraps and top sirloins and making a few dogs disappear. Pro-wolfers have to accept the fact that hundreds of wolves will be killed every year and that the big dog’s range will be limited to roughly what we have today, not extended into California and Kansas. The point is, there’s plenty of room in the middle for agreement.
Like managers and union reps resolving a labor dispute, stakeholders, preferably including Wyoming, need to lock themselves in a room and not come out without an agreement. I bet they wouldn’t lose a single night’s sleep.
Interestingly, though, there’s also the possibility of an agreement without Wyoming in the game. If Idaho, Montana and the FWS could alter their management plans to make them acceptable to the plaintiffs, which would likely involve maintaining higher population levels than currently called for, the plaintiffs could withdraw the litigation and allow delisting to proceed in Idaho and Montana. Since Molloy’s decision is being appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, such an agreement would probably have to happen as part of that process and would put extreme pressure on Wyoming. Those cowboys would be looking at many years of federal management while Idaho and Montana took back state control. They’d hate that, believe me.
Everybody wants the wolf off the endangered species list, so everybody can claim it as a big victory. So, let’s do it, soon, and get the wolf issue out of the courts, at least in Idaho and Montana.

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the
Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 
Visit User's Homepage
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19459
(19473 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2010 at 10:32 PM
Good article. He makes some sense. There's got to be a middle ground. I want the wolf populations to be restored.. and it seems they have been, to the point where if the 'nature lovers' side of the pro-wolf equation don't understand that a compromise is in their favor an over-populated wolf scenario will make more folks angry for a whole lot of reasons. I'd be amazed if the boneheads on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturn it, but anything is possible. What we need is some 'wolves ripping out the throats of cute baby elk' videos. Or, what has worked with the yuppy suburbanites, their precious small dogs get wacked. That scenario has got them up in arms about the too-big coyote population in these parts. Maybe ya'll can take some small poodles and stake them to some posts out in the field where the wolves could get used to eating them up, and then when they seek them out in yuppy land- bingo.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/30/2010 at 11:05 PM
Ryde, why didn't the wolves wipe out the elk population before man began killing them? That's a serious question. I don't see how there could be enough wolves now to put a serious dent in the elk population if they didn't before man was a factor.

I live in the Santa Cruz Mountains, where there are an estimated 35-50 mountain lions. There are deer everywhere. The two little fawns in my neighborhood still have their spots, and this morning when I went to my bedroom window one of them was standing just 5 feet away, looking right at me. I know that has nothing to do with this, but I just wanted to tell it. That's the coolest little deer. I call him Tail Feathers because he's always dragging up the rear of the little herd, and he was today as usual. He stood and looked at me while I talked to him for awhile til his mother came back and got him. She never saw me, but he was still looking at me when he wandered off. Anyway, there is no deer hunting here, so the mountain lions could never kill so many deer it became a problem. I wonder how many elk are killed by hunters and how many are killed by wolves. Any stats?

 

____________________


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6985
(6985 all sites)
Registered: 6/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 09:05 AM
I always wonder where the cattlemen are standing when these rulings are handed out. IMO Small packs of wolves don't do the the damage to the Elk population that hunters, developers and cattle ranchers can.

 

____________________
Hey Yankees, you can take your crappy trophy's and shove them right up your asses!

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 09:13 AM
I live about 100 miles west of lolo pass that is the pass lewis and clark almost starved to death at the reason was no game in this country the nez perce lived off of fish and went east over the mountains to hunt buffalo and that is where the Elk lived then as well on the plains.. now the wolves that were there were like 65 lb prarrie wolves NOT these 150lb monsters from Canada.

So as man moved west so did the elk but they were never here in numbers till logging created habitat for them and we had no wolves they were factored out in the 40's we have tons of lions and bears who both feed off of elk calves in the spring.. we (man ) spent 100 years of elk management to get a balance between predators and us we were the tool that balanced the elk herds and we prospered at it .

now i am all for restoring the wolves that lived here except they never did they lived on the plains but i would still be for re introducing the prarrie wolf but folks don't understand these canada wolves are spreading like a virus and have been over populated for 5 years they have huge feet and can run on top of the snow and run the elk till they are exausted, the people who reintroduced them should be in jail for introducing a invasive specie not of this region.

we have outfitters who have no clients because there is nothing to hunt our jobless rate is over 10 % we need this insanity stopped people rely on elk as a major staple of food and all this is going to do is turn folks into law breakers killing wolves. this judge has no clue none.

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the

Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 09:18 AM
quote:
I always wonder where the cattlemen are standing when these rulings are handed out. IMO Small packs of wolves don't do the the damage to the Elk population that hunters, developers and cattle ranchers can.




LMAO you have no clue what you are talking about small packs? try packs of 20 try 80 wolves in one drainage that used to have 20,000 elk and now has 3 thousand elk beside we have NO cattle around here this is the mountains not Montana... they kill elk eat a small portion and kill another the next day they waste and kill for fun... hunters do hardly any damage to the elk herds due to limits and boundries that the wolves do not have why do you think man eradicated them once before ? I am all for the wolves having a place to live but it must be balanced with everything else not like it is today it is a slaughter.

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the

Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46487
(46488 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 09:27 AM
Reading more on the case, the reason for the judge's ruling, snip from the WSJ...

quote:
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy concluded that the government's decision to remove, or "delist" gray wolves in Montana and Idaho from protection violated the ESA because the law requires such decisions to be made about an entire species, not a subset of a species.

In April 2009, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service removed ESA protection for northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves in Montana and Idaho, but not Wyoming.

"The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a [species] into a smaller taxonomy," the judge ruled.




The ESA needs to be reviewed and possibly changed. What a mess of state and Federal politics.

The "save the wolves" movement is one of the more powerful, has been for years. Something needs to be done here..."save" one species by wiping out another? WTF? People need to eat...

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 09:28 AM
Similar but on a much smaller scale situation here in Wis. In 1995 the Wi DNR established a small Elk herd of about 25 up in the Chequamegon National forest in the NW part of the state. The herd had grown up to almost 200 until the wolf packs roamed over from Minnesota have now found the Elk herd. The herd is now down to 164 with 25 confirmed wolf kills this year alone. Now the Wi DNR is taking about relocating the herd altogether although my guess is the wolves will eventually find them anyway.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67366
(67883 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 11:39 AM
Let the wolf protectine pita clowns go play with a couple of those cute little 150 lbers and see if they get out alive.

They don't seem to understand that wolves are an invasive species to that area.

Classic lack of common sense.

 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19459
(19473 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 12:45 PM
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
I always wonder where the cattlemen are standing when these rulings are handed out. IMO Small packs of wolves don't do the the damage to the Elk population that hunters, developers and cattle ranchers can.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



LMAO you have no clue what you are talking about small packs? try packs of 20 try 80 wolves in one drainage that used to have 20,000 elk and now has 3 thousand elk beside we have NO cattle around here this is the mountains not Montana... they kill elk eat a small portion and kill another the next day they waste and kill for fun... hunters do hardly any damage to the elk herds due to limits and boundries that the wolves do not have why do you think man eradicated them once before ? I am all for the wolves having a place to live but it must be balanced with everything else not like it is today it is a slaughter.


Yeah, I agree. That statement doesn't hold up. Here in Ohio we have one of the healthiest and best whitetail deer herds in America. Check the Boone and Crocket and Pope and Young record books, much bigger deer here in a lot of cases than the South, Texas (in the wild, not the daily fed ranch zoos), California, and even right across the Ohio River in Kentucky. Deer management is the key, despite tons of farmers, tons of hunters, tons of developers, etc, we have healthier deer with some of the largest racks in history.

Here is the famous "Amish Buck' taken about an hour from me in Adams County;



Regulated deer hunting equals healthier herds as opposed to no deer hunting, which of course is a perfect example of 'nature lovers' having little real knowledge about nature. Like, whoa, dude!

We have small pockets of very rare 'unofficial' mountain lions as well as bear, bobcat and coyote but no wolf as of yet. Male mountain lions can't stand each other, and each mountain lion has a range of up to 100 square miles. Plus they can eat a deer a week and not eat for days. When ole Mr. Puma jumps on the adorable lagging behind little Tail Feathers and rips its cute little throat out, he might not eat for ten days afterwards. Wolves stick together once a heirarchy is established and work together in packs full of multiple animals including multiple males that can have a range of 100 to 200 square miles. They tend not to go ten days without eating if they can avoid it. Plus, elk can't adapt to different habitat they way that whitetails, and their dumber cousins the Mulies, can do.

Just north of us, both Wisconsin and Minnesota are asking that the wolf be taken off the endangered list because they are getting out of hand. As for the Canadian wolf that Ryde speaks of - way bigger. One of my best friends legally bought two wolf pelts from the Yukon in northern Canada and brought them back and it was shocking to see up close how long and big they were. Every bit of ten foot long and paws that were HUGE, as Ryde describes. We were all taken aback by their size, and this was just the pelts.

DH

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 01:02 PM
Thanks for your post, Ryde. I'm not familiar with the situation there, but what you say makes perfect sense. There's no doubt well-meaning people have made poor decisions regarding wildlife, and this appears to be one of them.

Fletch, do they allow deer hunting in Winton Woods, or on your street? Is your home surrounded by state parks and wilderness reserves? Like, whoa, dude! The deer population is well managed and healthy here, and no, they don't allow deer hunting in the redwood forests where people live. If a mountain lion gets Tail Feathers, I hope I'm around to see it. I've never seen a mountain lion. They tend to stay in the higher country where there are fewer people.

 

____________________


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 01:02 PM
That is amazing. I remember driving across the country in 1993. I went through Yellowstone, and it was right at the time they were re-introducing the wolf. They were not sure how things would go for them. Apparently, it has gone swimmingly. I can't believe how they have flourished.
 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 01:03 PM
Please go read this and sign the petition look at the pictures alot of the info here if from the Idaho fish and game ..

http://thegreatwhitehunter.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/big-game-forever-sign-t he-petition/

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the

Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 01:06 PM
I signed it.

 

____________________


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11675
(12118 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 01:16 PM
quote:
Let the wolf protectine pita clowns go play with a couple of those cute little 150 lbers and see if they get out alive.

They don't seem to understand that wolves are an invasive species to that area.

Classic lack of common sense.


"wolf protectine pita clowns"...Are those people who like to eat wolf meat on flat bread?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19459
(19473 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 01:18 PM
quote:
http://ohiogameandfish.com/hunting/whitetail-deer-hunting/OH_0905_02/

Ohio's five Urban Deer Units allow hunters, after they have purchased a regular hunting license and at least one Special Deer Permit, to obtain up to four Urban Deer Permits. An additional antlerless deer may be taken for each Urban Deer Permit. Only one antlered deer can be taken per season, regardless of where it's taken or how many permits a hunter has.

Hunters in Zone A may take only one deer; in Zone B, no more than two deer may be taken, and in Zone C hunters may bag up to three deer. Special Deer and Urban Deer permits allow additional whitetails to be taken in each of these zones.

Urban Deer Units have the same deer-hunting seasons and regulations that are in place in other areas of Ohio. Hunters may use any legally allowed bow or gun on Urban Deer Units.

State hunting laws do not supersede local city, village or township prohibitions on hunting. Written permission must be obtained from private landowners on whose property you hunt.

Urban Deer Units not only represent the ODOW's newest attempt at controlling runaway whitetail populations but also offer the added benefit of providing metro-area deer hunters some of the best opportunities in the state. Hunters getting permission for the right property can reveal deer herds that haven't been hunted in years.

"The largest typical entered recently at the Buckeye Big Buck Club Banquet was a bow kill from Franklin County, and I believe it was taken inside Interstate 270," said Mike Rex, secretary/treasurer of the Ohio Big Bucks Club and member of the BBBC Hall of Fame. "The buck scored 185 4/8, and was taken by Mark Scheel."

CINCINNATI-DAYTON URBAN DEER UNIT
"What we're doing is trying to encourage hunters to use the Urban Deer Unit area," said Lynn Holtzman, private lands biologist with District Five. "There are a lot of car-deer accidents in Hamilton County, and that's the reason we have established the unit. Deer are also a nuisance for private landowners, because they come in and eat valuable nursery stock and shrubbery."

According to Holtzman, the situation is so bad that some of the county parks within the unit have hired sharpshooters to deal with excess numbers of deer -- while prohibiting private hunting. "I don't know of a lot of big bucks being taken, but these hunters don't have a problem shooting does," he said.

The terrain throughout the unit ranges from flat to rolling. And that terrain comes furnished with lots of people. Hunters need to be aware of property lines and "line-of-fire" responsibilities when hunting with shotgun or bow.

The southernmost part of the unit provides excellent prospects for hunters from Dayton and the Queen City. The unit includes all of Hamilton County and sections of the counties of Clermont (the area west of state Route 132 and south of state Route 48), Warren and Butler (those parts bounded on the west by the Great Miami River and on the east by state Route 48), and Montgomery (everything east of I-75 north and state Route 48 north to the county lines).

For more information on hunting Ohio's Urban Deer Units contact the ODOW at 1-800-945-3543, or try them online at www.dnr.ohio.gov/wildlife.


 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 01:30 PM
quote:
That is amazing. I remember driving across the country in 1993. I went through Yellowstone, and it was right at the time they were re-introducing the wolf. They were not sure how things would go for them. Apparently, it has gone swimmingly. I can't believe how they have flourished.



The fact they are one of the best predators to have evolved really works against them.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6985
(6985 all sites)
Registered: 6/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 02:58 PM
Seeing as work is driving me nuts today, I will wade into the fray for a bit of downtime from my cellphone.

So let me get this straight there were no "Cdn Wolves" in the US before 1940???

Was it a passport issue?


Did the US feds build a security fence between Waterton and Glacier National park?


From what you say the Elks are as invasive a species as the bigfooted wolves from the Great White North.

Who belongs there is up for debate. I assume the wolves were there first. as you point out it wasn't until logging of the west commenced that the Elk moved west into the wolves territory.

Its not the Wolves fault they are good hunters. Why do you think there were no Elk there in the first place?

Westerners shouldn't be pointing fingers at the wolves for being gluttons, wasteful and hunting for sport.

We do a pretty good job ourselves of f-ing things up.















 

____________________
Hey Yankees, you can take your crappy trophy's and shove them right up your asses!

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 03:00 PM
quote:
quote:
That is amazing. I remember driving across the country in 1993. I went through Yellowstone, and it was right at the time they were re-introducing the wolf. They were not sure how things would go for them. Apparently, it has gone swimmingly. I can't believe how they have flourished.



The fact they are one of the best predators to have evolved really works against them.


Have to agree with this post.. the thought was that they (the wolves) would help in the overpopulation of elk and bison in Yellowstone and surrounding areas but i do not believe anyone thought they would spread like they have you have to remember when they were introduced they were feeding on elk herd that had never seen a wolf like shooting deer in the headlights!

It is so bad i know 2 different hunters who hunt lions and bobcats and bears with hounds and we have tons of all three and their dog packs were all killed by wolves who do not tolerate any other canine in their territory. many many cattle and sheep are killed each year around here and even horse's... the wolves awesome hunting does indeed work against them.

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the

Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19459
(19473 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 03:29 PM
quote:
Westerners shouldn't be pointing fingers at the wolves for being gluttons, wasteful and hunting for sport.

We do a pretty good job ourselves of f-ing things up.




Wow. No stereotyping there. Ryde, are you and your buddies wasteful, gluttonous hunters or do you hunt to eat wonderful free range, hormone and anti-biotic free meat within the guidelines of good management brought about by those that actually understand nature??

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 03:34 PM
quote:
Have to agree with this post.. the thought was that they (the wolves) would help in the overpopulation of elk and bison in Yellowstone and surrounding areas but i do not believe anyone thought they would spread like they have you have to remember when they were introduced they were feeding on elk herd that had never seen a wolf like shooting deer in the headlights!

It is so bad i know 2 different hunters who hunt lions and bobcats and bears with hounds and we have tons of all three and their dog packs were all killed by wolves who do not tolerate any other canine in their territory. many many cattle and sheep are killed each year around here and even horse's... the wolves awesome hunting does indeed work against them.


When you say hunt with hounds, do you mean actually using packs to hunt them, sort of the way they hunt wild boar sometimes. Not sure if you have seen this done, but it’s pretty crazy. Apparently, there is a huge wild boar population in New Orleans, to the point where it’s even causing a problem for planes taking off and landing at the NOLA airport. They are also all over upscale neighborhoods. I was watching a show the other night on it and they use packs of dogs to hunt the boar. They actually fit the lead dog with a Kevlar vest because the boar are nasty, particularly when surrounded. They showed one lead dog with a nasty gash from a tusk. I couldn’t believe they use dogs for it. They don’t use them all the time, sometimes they just trap the boar. I just couldn’t believe they use them at all against a beast like a wild boar, but they seem to work very well.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 03:42 PM
quote:
quote:
I always wonder where the cattlemen are standing when these rulings are handed out. IMO Small packs of wolves don't do the the damage to the Elk population that hunters, developers and cattle ranchers can.




LMAO you have no clue what you are talking about small packs? try packs of 20 try 80 wolves in one drainage that used to have 20,000 elk and now has 3 thousand elk beside we have NO cattle around here this is the mountains not Montana... they kill elk eat a small portion and kill another the next day they waste and kill for fun... hunters do hardly any damage to the elk herds due to limits and boundries that the wolves do not have why do you think man eradicated them once before ? I am all for the wolves having a place to live but it must be balanced with everything else not like it is today it is a slaughter.


the only way wolves would Kill and waste meat would be if there was an overabundance. If there were not
more than enough elk the wolves would not be wasting food.

So it sounds to me like there is plenty of elk for everyone.

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6985
(6985 all sites)
Registered: 6/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 05:01 PM
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Westerners shouldn't be pointing fingers at the wolves for being gluttons, wasteful and hunting for sport.

We do a pretty good job ourselves of f-ing things up.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Wow. No stereotyping there. Ryde, are you and your buddies wasteful, gluttonous hunters or do you hunt to eat wonderful free range, hormone and anti-biotic free meat within the guidelines of good management brought about by those that actually understand nature??


Who understands nature more then wild animals???? Oh I guess cause you live off the land 12 months out of the year you can wade in on this??? Aren't you the guy that lives in your mom's basement in Southern Ohio???

DFC did I state Ryde or did I state our western culture should not be pointing fingers at the wolves when we are just as guilty of over indulgence and wasting our precious resources.

You crack me up DFC.

 

____________________
Hey Yankees, you can take your crappy trophy's and shove them right up your asses!

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 06:31 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
I always wonder where the cattlemen are standing when these rulings are handed out. IMO Small packs of wolves don't do the the damage to the Elk population that hunters, developers and cattle ranchers can.




LMAO you have no clue what you are talking about small packs? try packs of 20 try 80 wolves in one drainage that used to have 20,000 elk and now has 3 thousand elk beside we have NO cattle around here this is the mountains not Montana... they kill elk eat a small portion and kill another the next day they waste and kill for fun... hunters do hardly any damage to the elk herds due to limits and boundries that the wolves do not have why do you think man eradicated them once before ? I am all for the wolves having a place to live but it must be balanced with everything else not like it is today it is a slaughter.


the only way wolves would Kill and waste meat would be if there was an overabundance. If there were not
more than enough elk the wolves would not be wasting food.

So it sounds to me like there is plenty of elk for everyone.




I believe this is not entirely true. While I don't believe there has ever been a study that indicated wolves will kill for fun and waste meat, there have been plenty of studies that indicate if left unchecked wolves will decimate a deer or elk herd.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67366
(67883 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/31/2010 at 09:07 PM
quote:
quote:
Let the wolf protectine pita clowns go play with a couple of those cute little 150 lbers and see if they get out alive.

They don't seem to understand that wolves are an invasive species to that area.

Classic lack of common sense.


"wolf protectine pita clowns"...Are those people who like to eat wolf meat on flat bread?


Two spelling errors in one post.

Ya got me.

Heh heh.


I do enjoy marinated venison strips wrapped in a tortilla.

Nothing like venison fajitas.

 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com