Did you know they cache their food for later? Much like you and I. Winter time is a natural refrigerator for them. If they do not come back for it immediately, or at all, (maybe they were shot or poisoned or dispersed) other animals will feed on the hunted, like ravens, eagles etc.
I am sure, FWP/LEO are confident that the moose was killed by a bullet, so it really has nothing to do with wolves or surplus killing of prey species…it is another case of poaching..and I have never heard of wolves poaching with rifles…
Please tell me you are joking about the “kill and leave to waste” comment. I have heard such claims made by various misinformed individuals, quite often ranchers who can’t be bothered to actually protect their domestic livestock from the natural predators present in wilderness grazing area.
The very few instances of surplus killing that happen have to do with young animals with accompanying adults learning how to hunt wild prey but coming upon domestic prey. The difference in defensive options between wild prey and domestic is key to these situations.
But even in such a surplus killing of, say, the 120 sheep in Dillon, it is wrong to consider it “waste”. It may be far more than a pack can eat in the initial feeding, but if no-one had disturbed that site, I can guarantee you that many wild predators, including the members of the pack that killed the sheep, would have continued to feed on those carcasses until only bones were left. Bears, wolves,, coyotes, raptors, weasels, corvids, etc. would have been happy to recycle those nutrients as nature always does. They will eat carrion as readily as fresh meat.
When I hear a claim such as “we were snowmobiling along a trail and saw an elk carcass with wolf tracks all around it. Those wolves just left it to rot” I smack my forehead in frustration, wondering why it doesn’t occur to such “”wilderness savvy” folk that wolves will often leave a carcass when they are disturbed (by a determined grizzly, another wolf pack, a bunch of bison or a noisy snowmobile) only to return to it later. I have seen wild
wolves return again and again and again to a carcass. To suggest that any wild creature who survives by its own feet and teeth is wasteful of ANYTHING is an utter contradiction to logic and the facts of life in nature.
And it further boggles my mind that these sorts of statements are most often made by folk who have lived closer to the land and to wildlife their whole lives than I ever have. And yet, they seem unable to grasp such simple truths and hold fast to their preferred biases and unfounded fears.
Wendy – glad to hear you agree that “surplus killing” does occur – a big breakthrough. You agree that the human hunter is part of nature too? Many on this site consider the human hunter wasteful and find it inappropriate for us to leave even trace bones/gutpiles for the other animals to use and recycle.
Gline – wolves have been known to cache food – they will use dirt, snow or other materials to cover the food to protect from scavengers – in the dillon sheep case no such behavior was noted in any correspondence that I have read. No caching, no eating, just killing.
TWB–do you consider sheep “natural” prey for wolves? Do you think there might be some behavioral differences that might make sheep more susceptible than, say, elk or deer? Have you ever heard of bears or lions doing the same thing (multiple sheep being killed)?
Jay – natural prey for wolves would be anything they felt they could eat that did not pose a signifigant danger to them in the killing process. Sheep – I assume wolves would prey on Big Horns or domestic sheep given the opportunity. Have no knowledge of sheep behavior other than the Big Horns spend much time (Spring,Summer,Fall) in terrain that would be exremely challenging for wolf predation. I have no knowledge of bears or lions involved in mass killings.
I do think wolves surplus kill domestic sheep. So do other carnivoires.
There is something about sheep that sometimes triggers mass killing by predatory animals.
As I have commented before (no one has followed up on it), whenever a canid (dogs, wolves, coyotes) encounters sheep they seem to know they are supposed to do something. With dogs like border collies, it is to gather them and push them; but to most canids it is to at least bark and chase them.
A friend’s Pomeranian dog (5-6 pounds?) chased a herd of sheep over the hill.
Domestics have had their sense bred out of them so they are herdable, thus they get slaughtered by any predator in their midst–surplus killing in “natural” prey (animals not domesticated) is so rare that it’s noteworthy when it does actually happen. Elk and deer know not to hang around a pack of wolves trying to kill them.
Barry Lopez writes about the predator-prey relationships in “Of Wolves and Men”—it seems the normal prey response to predation has been bred out of cattle and sheep and this might contribute to surplus killing of domestic stock.
I wouldn’t say routinely–its not even routine with wolves if you read the wildlife services reports (a small handful is the norm, the 20-30 sheep killed is not very common). However, I’ve heard of bears and lions going in and knocking over 50-100 sheep, so it’s not just a wolf thing.
It was not “supposed” gline, it was a fact…there was 120 sheep killed by wolves…if I remember correctly 87 were 100% confirmed and the balance were over 50% probable. Not that it is common at all, but when it does happen, it would be prudent to accept the findings of the investigators..
When it comes to predators, killing prey no matter what the species kill, I don’t think anything is actually routine, every single kill is a unique situation, trying to classify killing or predation incidents is simply imposing human ideals on wild animals, which is impossible!
gline, there is no way to equate wild animals to human consumption, we can’t cross species here and expect to have an accurate correlation, I condemn humans that kill to kill and understand wild animals, each species kills for its own reasons, but accept that sometimes wild predators do killed for just the reason of killing, it does happen although not common…when we get off the human correlation to wild animals, perhaps it will be easier to have a conversation about things, no matter which side of an issue you are on!
I’m not expecting a correlation, it is something to think about if one is making the argument that predators, ie wolf, cougar, or griz bear are mass killing or not mass killing, and how bad it is. that argument is a judgement, and being so one would have to have look at their own species, and what/how you eat.
this blog is not about being easy Save Bears. it is about expressing thought.
I find it distressing that the poached animal is called a “trophy,” as if that somehow makes the poaching of his life even worse…like some sorry schmuck got cheated out of a nice big ego-enhancing mount for his (or her) wall. This was a spectacular animal–possibly with valuable genetics–he was more than a trophy. Just my two cents.
Sorry, I think. I sometimes have a hard time following your posts.
As long as we are talking surplus sheep kills, don’t forget the 22, or was it 40+, sheep killed by two wolves outside Baker, OR in April this year. The legislature convened emergency hearings for the purpose of heading off what it thought might be more to come. Over-reaction? Yes.
A bit off point, but a historical fact: The reason for creating an Oregon territorial provisional government in 1843 was a direct result of not having a governmental entity to deal with wolves killing livestock in the Willamette Valley (See: http://www.oregon.gov/SOLL/OJD_History/HistoryOJDPart1.shtml).
One thing to remember about the early days of wolf killing is the enormous changes in the species on the landscape.
At first there was the mass killing of bison and a lot of market hunting deer and elk. There were sufficient carcasses out there to greatly increase the wolf population over the base level.
This was quickly followed by a huge replacement of the wild ungulates by cattle and sheep. The range was stocked much more heavily today. It is not surprising that wolves and other predators turned on the new prey at a very high rate. They had no other option.
So the anti-wolf, anti-predator mentality of today was set. With the disappearance of moose, elk, and even deer, the feeling that these are rare animals, need protection from predators, and there can never be enough of them, was also set.
It has been very hard to shake both of these notions, and those who hold to the first conception — wolves are incredible killers of livestock, have had over 100 years to establish political connections that prevent any change in policy they don’t approve of.
TWB – acknowledging the infrequent occurence of surplus killing of sheep by wild predators (including wolves) is no big breakthrough for me. I would ask you to pay closer attention to what each individual is posting here and not to lump me into some “category of belief” you think I fall into.
As for your question about the human hunter, well, the human hunter began as part of nature and I know many hunters who I would defend as still part of nature, but because of this blog I have learned of the existence of quite a number of other hunters who I feel have lost their interest in learning what nature can teach, or perhaps never learned it at all or simply consider it irrelevant. Then again, a lot of hunters respect the species they hunt but feel quite differently about predators. I don’t get that at all. I think humans ought to behave as stewards of nature, not as lords above nature.
Many human hunters ARE wasteful, I don’t think you can dispute that. But I also know that “the hard part” of hunting is the dressing and butchering and cleaning up and hauling out, and I respect hard work.
As far as leaving bones or gutpiles, I find many arguments in favor of doing so, as indeed it would be recycled, but I believe doing so is currently contrary to many hunting regulations, no? And since predators will soon learn where easy food can be found, if human hunters leave gutpiles it has the disadvantage of encouraging predators to hang around mankind, which can backfire in many ways.
Hunting animals for “Trophy” seems as shallow as the men (or women):) who marry stupid, but good looking “trophy” wives and buy or build those grotesquely huge McMansions that look like they’re on steroids and too large for the area.
It is amazing that this thread almost instantly turned from the original subject of the news item, the poaching, to surplus and mass killings by wolves. Was this turn initiated deliberately to distract from a new discussion about hunting ethics, trophy hunting and poaching? Interesting, because normally on this blog some are quite fast to turn a thread into kind of a “hunting blog” to discuss hunting opportunities and more hunting opportunities and better hunting opportunities and spoiled hunting opportunities and the hunting opportunities going worse every year. The carcass was complete with antlers and left to rot? Ok, it was not a poacher because a poacher would have “harvested” the antlers to bolt them onto a wall to proof his heroism. Leads automatically to the wolves that kill everything in excess and leave it to rot! First I thought you are joking – obviously you are not! Any more options left? What about one of those trigger happy weapon fetishists that only desire to shoot at something, be it a traffic sign, an animal or a human?
You are right Peter, it is pretty ridiculous to say that wolves killed this moose, especially since it was proven that the moose was shot. Nobody to blame for reduced hunting opportunities but the poacher here.
Thanks SB – I think I was mixing up two situations – is there a prohibition against taking just the head and leaving the rest? That’s what I was thinking regarding predators learning to “follow” hunters.
Wendy – I meant no disrespect – that dirty 4 letter word got in the way – work.
Wendy – “many human hunters are wasteful” – how so? The truck hunters drive to the kill site and load the entire animal less entrails into the vehicle and drive home. The back country horse hunters have their stock to pack out most of the animal. The back country foot hunter like myself debones the animal and packs out. So, if nothing is wasted if left in the woods – natural recycling -how are many hunters wasteful?
“. . . So, if nothing is wasted if left in the woods – natural recycling -how are many hunters wasteful?”
– – – – – –
I want to add my belief that what is left behind by deer and elk hunters is an important reason why wolf recovery has been so successful in Idaho and western Montana.
The gut piles and more come at the very time of year wolves’ prey are at their strongest and wolves at their low point, with large pups to feed, but which can’t hunt.
Yellowstone wolves don’t get this “free” food from September through November or December. Because the days have turned cold, the remains of the hunt decay slowly too. In addition, there are wounded deer and elk that are easy for wolves to take down. The hunt remains also benefit bears, coyotes and other scavengers.
I wonder why so few who have written about wolves have failed to comment on this obvious benefit of hunting for these animals?
++In addition, there are wounded deer and elk that are easy for wolves to take down. The hunt remains also benefit bears, coyotes and other scavengers.++
About the poached moose. Moose season is cuurently open for those lucky one who have drawn a tag. Maybe, just maybe someone wounded a moose and was not able to find it’s tracts or blood trail. Maybe they thought that they missed it completly. Sometime later it dies. Archery hunters wound may elk which die some time later and are founded days and weeks later.
I am not proud of it, but in 1978 I wounded and lost a moose in the Yukon between Whitehorse and Carcross. The people I was with never believed that I hit the animal, but I saw the front leg finch and heard the bullet hit. I was raining hard, no blood trail and those that were in charge were convinced that it was miss and off we went.
” Archery hunters wound may elk which die some time later and are founded days and weeks later.”
Two things here: First, if anyone hunts, with any weapon, there are going to be wounding losses — usually not near as high as the antis would like you to think. Second, any wounding studies that I am aware of don’t come to the conclusion that one group of hunters wounds more than the other.
The biggest difference here is often that, since most archery hunts occur earlier in the fall, the animal is found and the reason for it’s death is sometimes pretty obvious. Rifle hunts OTOH occur later and the animal is decomposed when it’s found in the spring — a bullet hole isn’t that obvious.
Rifle hunters hunting late are hunting in snow and archery hunters are hunting without snow. It is easier to track an animal in snow than without, unless you are a Sans Bushman. I have had Bushman track and they can track on the hard pan.
++ Maybe, just maybe someone wounded a moose and was not able to find it’s tracts or blood trail. Maybe they thought that they missed it completly. Sometime later it dies. Archery hunters wound may elk which die some time later and are founded days and weeks later. ++
At some point, society will find this outcome unnaceptable.
“At some point, society will find this outcome unnaceptable.”
Exactly what did you mean by the statement? If you meant it was not acceptable to leave a wounded animal – you are absolutely right and most hunters I know will go to great lengths to try to find it.
I will tell you from personal experience this year, that the presence of wolves makes it less likely an elk (or deer) hunter will get a shot at a standing animal. That possibly means more hunters will take bad shots at (fast) moving animals or with less than a clear view, which could result in more wounded and unfound animals.
The result can have two outcomes. The animal suffers for a long period then dies OR the animal is easier for wolves to kill. Either way the animal likely dies and is recycled in nature. Or, if the wound is not severe and does not slow or weakend it, a third, the animal recovers.
Since my business depends on moose populations, I look at each deceased moose as lost revenue. http://moosecense.com/
The fewer number of tags drawn, the better for me.
Otherwise, I’d be joining the “welfare moosepoop” crowd and applying for government subsidies.
I actually worry more about poaching than the legal hunting. I know it goes on and there are specific “cultures” that are unaware of the hunting laws, hence are seldom prosecuted. There are also certain individuals that poach elk, deer, fish etc that are considered “hands off” by enforcement because they don’t want another “Ruby Ridge” confrontation.
Now I know SB will disagree with me on this, but there’s a hell of a lot of poaching that is never investigated. Maybe they’ll investigate the “trophy bull”, but not the yearling or calf.
SB…..back a few thousand comments ago, we had a discussion on poaching and from what I can remember, we disagreed on the enforcement issue. I’ve found it lacking (I’ve reported poaching, and got nowhere) and you defended their response. So I “assumed” we’d have another difference of opinion here.
I do apologize for “jumping the gun” and I certainly wasn’t attempting to discredit you in any way.
My sincere apologies.
You’re probably aware of the “cultures” that seem immune from our laws concerning poaching. I have mixed emotions about that issue.
++Exactly what did you mean by the statement? If you meant it was not acceptable to leave a wounded animal – you are absolutely right and most hunters I know will go to great lengths to try to find it. ++
That’s exactly what I meant. If you can’t finish the job, stay home.
I will tell you from personal experience this year, that the presence of wolves makes it less likely an elk (or deer) hunter will get a shot at a standing animal. That possibly means more hunters will take bad shots at (fast) moving animals or with less than a clear view, which could result in more wounded and unfound animals. ++
So bad shots aren’t caused by guys with guns and bows, but rather wolves, which have no firearms?
The State of Montana issues approximately 600 moose tags a year through their drawing. All applicants must have their applications postmarked by May 1st. For every year that one does not draw they are entitled to a bonus point. The total number of applicants is approximately 20,000 and one’s chance of drawing is approximately 5%. It takes twenty years to draw a moose tag. A hunter may be lucky to draw two tags in the lifetime with today’s odds.
A number of years ago, I read someplace that if they could stop the illegal kill of moose that the FWP could double the number of permits issue through the draw. “My way of thinking” if they could stop the illegal kill of moose and double the permits then there must be approximately 600 moose killed illegally every year. That is almost 2 illegal moose a day shot in Montana. Illegal hunting steals from the honest hunter, photographer, wildlife viewer and the people of The State of Montana or another state.
I think that there is 3 types of illegal moose kills: shooting for meat, can’t tell a moose from an elk (one should not be hunting in that case) and thrill killing.
In November of 1975, I had returned from Alaska and stop into Missoula saw old friends and went to the Stockman’s Bar. I had been a fixture there for 4 years during college and did not want to be forgotten. Several days later, I drove down the Bitterroot and went elk hunting in area 270 or the East Fork the Bitterroot. One afternoon driving down a logging road I looked down and saw 2 dead moose, a cow and calf. Someone was driving down the road probably though they were elk , bang, bang then walked down to them and saw that they were moose and left. I found them a day later. Several miles down the road I found a forest ranger and reported it and they went to investigate the illegal kill. I hunted another day and returned home to our ranch.
My father lives in Red Lodge, Montana and several times during the week he has coffee with friends and one of them is the FWP big game biologist for the area. Christmas Eve morning I was with him and the biologist came in late. He had been investigating a illegal moose kill. The killers had gutted and removed the back straps and rear hind quarter and left the rest. The biologist after investigating said that the poachers had probably been scared off before they could load the front quarters. This was a meat poaching incident. I do not know if the poachers were ever caught.
I do not know anything about thrill killing moose. It sounds like this moose was shot stupidly. If one makes a mistake in Montana, then one should cut the ears off of the animal immediately and field dress it, call the warden and wait for instructions. The consequences are far less than leaving an animal.
JerryB, I would be interested in the specifics of what you said “I actually worry more about poaching than the legal hunting. I know it goes on and there are specific “cultures” that are unaware of the hunting laws, hence are seldom prosecuted. There are also certain individuals that poach elk, deer, fish etc that are considered “hands off” by enforcement because they don’t want another “Ruby Ridge” confrontation. Who are these specific cultures — Hmong.
I think there is some misconception here about whether this moose is a “trophy” bull. There may have been some poetic license when the article was posted (no reference to to “trophy” in the article itself), or it may have been a reference to the scarcity of the tags one may apply for to hunt a moose. Ralph will likely have the answer.
The article said the antler spread was 30 inches. So that means this bull was just a little fellow, maybe two or three years old. In fact it is possible the antlers had not even begun to “palm.” A mature bull will usually be in the 50 to 60+ inch range.
Regardless of the cause of death, it is a tragedy for many reasons.
WM, I do not have the general big game regulations in front of me. But if a moose’s antler’s exceed 30 inches then the state considers it a trophy and there is a restitution of $6,000 plus your find and loose of hunting privileges for a period of time.
We sure measure “trophies” differently down here as compared to AK and Canada, eh?
I don’t know what the “cultures” are that jerry B alludes to in Montana, but I do know many forest products workers, who live in the woods or communities close to the forests in ID and WA are from south of the border.
At the risk of being politically correct, but brutally honest, I know for a fact that a number of elk and deer are poached (as well as steelhead cuaght) by illegals on the Olympic Peninsula. Forks, of “Twilight” fame is one of those communities, as well as Aberdeen way to the south. Also true for the Yakima Valley and elk/deer in the Cascades, ducks and upland birds, too. Even if caught, the wildlife officers haven’t written up as many recently because the cases get tossed based on a language/can’t read the regs issue. If caught and cited, most don’t show for court or can’t pay the fines anyway. The magistrates/judges don’t like the cases crowding the dockets and wasting court resources. Hence, no enforcement against these folks. If there is no legal deterrent the conduct continues. This stuff did not happen fifteen years ago, and it irritates law abiding folks, and even encourages others to behave illegally.
Elk275…….Having spent time in their homeland, I truly believe the Hmong don’t understand, or in some cases are even aware of the our game laws or environmental protections. There’s another group that understand but just plead ignorance and suddenly lose their ability to speak english.
And then there’s the “home growns” that are the Ruby Ridge” type.
When we have the wild game kegger that “talk with bears” is advocating, and I hope we do sometime in the spring, it will be a good topic. I don’t want to get into it any further on this blog.
It’s pretty obvious that the wolves did not cut his horns off and they don’t shoot guns either…we know that wolves kill game, but don’t give the poachers the benifit of the doubt on situations like this
“It is amazing that this thread almost instantly turned from the original subject of the news item, the poaching, to surplus and mass killings by wolves. Was this turn initiated deliberately to distract from a new discussion about hunting ethics, trophy hunting..”
good observation Peter, this blog is being taaken over by the hunting crowd and other various red-necks. It’s like going to your doctors office and all there is to read in the magazine rack is Field & Stream.
Jim, it’s like I said, if the wolves shot this moose than we really should be afraid of them because they have figured how to use and obtain guns. Alaska is going to be screwed if word gets to those ones. 🙂
Timz… hunters and rednecks… lol.. there is like 3-4 of us that you could consider “rednecks”.. its just with poaching and the wolf hunt going on alot of the post are focused around that. Also with all the hunting experts (mike, gline and cat etc) us rednecks are feeling a little bit more pressure to defend I guess… 🙂
This blog is being contributed to by the people that the owner feels is appropriate, not you, not me and not anyone else, it is up to Ralph to decide who is a valid contributor and I think he does a hell of a job allowing both sides to contribute to very politically and emotionally charged issues…
The Blog is titiled, Wildlife News, not hunting stories/opportunities,killing wolves, IDF&G proaganda site. and other spreading of anti-wolf crap. It wasn’t that way until the Layton’s, etc. started showing up. Where’s Robert Hoskins, Brian ertz and those types who used to post valuble info here. Posters like Bob Jackson, Larry Thorngren, Lynn Stone are constanly bashed here. I agree, It’s up to Ralph if this is to become another saveelk type website.
Save Elk, now that is funny, even pro hunters don’t like those guys! I would worry more about extremism that I would pro hunting…and whether you like it or not “Widlife News” does include both sides of issues as they are both very important,if it just allowed the non hunting news it might as well be called “Wildlife Fantasy” but ethical hunting is part of wildlife management now a days and has been for a hell of a long time…
By the way, I actually correspond every once in a while with Robert, and enjoy those conversations immensely..as far as Larry, and Bob, they have their view, and I am sure Bob will be back real soon, he said he was sucking rum and cokes on some Caribbean island for a while, Larry still comes back, no matter how much someone disagrees with him, including Ralph!
You know, I found out a long time ago, if you have an opinion, there is always going to be a slew of people who disagree with you and are more than willing to let you know..that is called freedom…
timz who tells hunting stories on here? Take your tin foil hat off. You think those guys are bashed?? Have you read ANY of the posts directed at the posters on the blog who are not rabidly pro-wolf? Sorry I dont feel that wolves should be worshipped on Sunday and never killed…. Dont know what to tell you. If you dont want to hear pro-hunting stuff, then maybe all the anti-hunters should stop posting their anti stuff and I will stop debating it. Problem solved.
Ralph, I’m not really against it either (except for techno, baiting, etc.) Like Peter said, too many of the conversations here are turning into “hunting/hunter”. I just don’t care to hear about it constantly. They have plenty of their own websites for that stuff.
As an ex employee of a game dept, no I don’t consider it extremism, I consider it a damn hard job to try and weigh both sides, and both sides are extreme, on one hand, you have the group that says “Kill them all” we will SSS any of them we see and then you have the other side that says, don’t hunt them, don’t kill them, coddle them and let them be, both sides are wrong in this day and age!
Wolves are a needed part of the landscape, but they can’t just be let alone, the landscape has changed to much since they roamed all corners of North America.
And the worst part of it all, is the media, that only reports and gets both of the extreme sides all fired up! Like Cat’s message, she saw these red neck dirty hunter group with a dike woman on a TV special the other day! Wow…and you wonder why the regular ethical hunters come out, it is because we have this type of stuff being posted! and reported by the media, of course the media is only worried about selling ad’s and paper space, and it does a darn good job of it..to bad many people can’t see through the extreme side of the issue and work to come together, which we are going to have to, if there is every going to be any peace!
Save Bears your not paying attention. Their isn’t a soul on the IDF&G commision that would not approve of killing every wolf in the state if they could get away with it. The argument that they are caught in the middle of two extremes is pure bullshit. They are as extreme on their side as others are on theirs.
by the way, your statement about all of them approving getting rid of all the of the wolves is pure bullshit! I know several that work for IDFG that don’t want to get rid of all of the wolves and I do know some that want them all gone, but on the converse I know many on the other side of the issue, that don’t want a hair on the back of a wolf harmed and advocate that anyone that does, be thrown in jail, with no hope of getting out, I have even run into wolf advocates that have stated they would KILL a legal hunter and let them lay, and pull their pistol to prove their point, so the extremism is quite rampant on BOTH sides!
Like I said your not paying attention, you didn’t even read my post before you shot your mouth off. I didn’t say everyone that worked at IDF&G I said the IDF&G commision. They make the decisions, not some poor clerk at IDF&G that may happen to appreciate wolves.
I read ever single word you wrote, I guess I could accuse you of the same thing, your not reading what I wrote! Before you shot your mouth off..it simply comes down to the fact, we are partially on the same page, but have different views on how it can be achieved..believe me, I read every single word, before I post a comment, just leaning from working with an agency, that many of you hate! its called cover your ass!
Things are again getting to heated, I will drop back in tomorrow, have a great evening…
You are one of the biggest “baiters” out there. You offer more than your share of acid-tongue, thoughtless jabs, that go more to attacking individuals, rather than formulating your own views backed with facts, thoughtful reasoning, and articulately presented.
For as loing as I have posted here, these threads tend to get off topic from time to time, but usually wander back. Nobody in particular makes it happen. Heck, even Ralph does it. And, in reality this phenomenon happens in conversation in the living room, office or at the bar. So, smartass, it’s no big deal. If you don’t like the topic, don’t comment or bring it back on point with some decorum.
And, if you think I am a redneck, because I offer a comment about hunting – which, by the way, has been infrequent, and only in the context of how hunting has changed in the presence of wolves – you are very badly mistaken. Some of the folks you accuse of being “redneck” are alot more worldly and better educated than you think.
I am one of those folks Ralph speaks of, who he would like to see in “a valuable hunter/non-hunter coalition to reclaim the public lands from livestock interests.”
And, as for elk, since each wolf consumes 8-23/ year, not all of which are sick, weak or old, that is a valid discussion topic, and it is one of two or three issues at the very core of wolf management policy for ID, MT, WY, and eventually WA, OR, UT and CO.
timmy, go to your room for 30 minutes and quit sucking your thumb.
“good observation Peter, this blog is being taken over by the hunting crowd and other various red-necks. It’s like going to your doctors office and all there is to read in the magazine rack is Field & Stream”
I would say that the doctor’s office in question would be the optometrist? Were you there to get your blinders removed?
Actually Timmy, I feel kind of sorry for you — with a neck as green as yours is and tunnel vision. You talk about Saveelk and you are his equivalent on the other side — poor guy.
“And, as for elk, since each wolf consumes 8-23/ year, not all of which are sick, weak or old, that is a valid discussion topic, and it is one of two or three issues at the very core of wolf management policy for ID, MT, WY, and eventually WA, OR, UT and CO. ”
That is complete BS, Wilderness Muse.
ID, especially as we know, does not rely on science to make their wildlife management decisions with wolves. We have hours upon hours of good wolf research that is not being used. One example negative ramifications of hunt on packs – and their reproduction, dispersal etc. This would be proactive for the wolf, not hunters of Elk. Idaho is definitely biased for hunters NOT the health of wolves.
Let me add my 2 cents. All voices, pro and con are good. There is a lof of passion for wolves and against wolves. Hunters and non-hunter should meet somewhere in the sand box and solve their differences. Hunting is good for food. Hunting for fun like Idaho Derby is barbarian. Some people posting before stopped because they felt like their word was not heard. Sometimes, I feel like there is more voices here pro killing everything and everywhere. Instead of finding solutions how to protect certain predators from being killed off just because, we are not so friendly to each other. Red necks, green necks…tell me what can I do to help to save wolves, coyotes and at the same time have nice venison steak. Solutions..instead of bickering.
Gline–there’s a ton of examples in the literature of wolves being hunted/trapped/exploited WITHOUT being eliminated, so why do you refuse to acknowledge that there is scientific evidence that wolf populations can sustain regulated harvest?
Gline–there’s a ton of examples in the literature of wolves being hunted/trapped/exploited WITHOUT being eliminated, so why do you refuse to acknowledge that there is scientific evidence that wolf populations can sustain regulated harvest?
That would take emotion out of the mix, without emotions running high and rampant chicken little thinking then what fun is the debate.
When it comes to such violence though, how do you meet in the sandbox? There is no “meeting of the minds”. The violent one is set on having their way. Like the bullys in school… same thing.
Pot meet kettle, what the person who gets punched in the sandbox usually fails to mention is that they instigated the incident. In the liberal world, the thought of physical conduct is repulsive. Where as in the conservative world, a fist to cuffs is just part of growing up.
W.M. and Layton talking facts to you to imbeciles is like pissing in the wind. I got some advice for you, go get out your crayolas, pick your favorite color (probably pink) and scribble this down on your coloring book next to your computer. TimZ could care less what you think of him so don’t bother addressing him here.
“so why do you refuse to acknowledge that there is scientific evidence that wolf populations can sustain regulated harvest?”
What if the scientific evidence suggests that ecosystems could support larger populations of wolves and if left alone (or more selectively harvested) populations of ungulates and predators would naturally stabilize, and say this also resulted in smaller populations of ungulates and thus, reduced harvest opportunities….if this scenario resulted in more healthy ecosystems overall, could you acknowledge this science and live with the possibility of fewer hunting opportunities?
Some may accept the harvest, its the quotas, the methodology and the lack of reliance on science as a basis for all.
BTW, as far as calling me timmy, if you think that bothers me it doesn’t, that’s the only name my blessed grandmother used to address me. At least most of us here use are names rather than try to pass ourselves off as intellects with some cornball handle like “wilderness muse”.
Cutt, I am sure if hunting was limited that eventually things would stabilize, and of course if you limit hunting greatly then predator populations would rise quickly, (that scenario is a HUGE reason you dont see hunting groups and hunters getting on the bandwagon for wolves) you would obviously have the ups and downs etc. Also I would imagine you would have more predator/human contacts since wolves would migrate to the winter range alot more as their populations grew, which in alot of states would mean peoples backyards, which I dont think would go over well having a pack of wolves kill an elk in your yard. The one downfall I would point out is hunting dollars and man hours on the ground is what got habitat/populations where they are now. Significantly better than where they were years ago. Where would the millions and millions of dollars come from to replace the lost revenue from hunting? Alot of that money is used to purchase and maintain valuable habitat. I know alot of people will say eco tourism would fill that gap, but wolves have been in ID for almost 15 years and I dont see people making money hand over fist because of wolves. I think outside of YNP eco tourism is pretty small. Those would be just some of my initial remarks. Hell I wish they would cut tags in almost every deer unit in UT. We have no deer, either does ID hence no NR hunting up there this year.
The fact is, in these Western states, hunting is big business and a way of life for a lot of folks…as much as you would like to disagree with it. It doesn’t mean that they all have to be anti-wolf either. Josh is just giving you some reasons. I have heard hunter participation is as high as 25% in Montana-one of the highest in the country. So believe it or not, decisions made need to include or at least here from hunters, outfitters, general public etc. I know how much this dissapoints you gline. But for the last almost 15 years you’ve had your way, one year of hunts and you are up in arms. And this is coming from an elk hunter who for the last 10 years was involved in a wolf watching business. All i’m saying is you have to give a little, as much as you dont like meeting in the “sandbox”
Obviously there are many that disagree with “the way of life” as you see it, like you have more right to be here than I do. Think again how arrogant that sounds. meet in the sandbox? what would you do to meet in the sandbox? Did we meet in the sandbox with native Americans a long time ago? Not really.
I think I’m really in the middle. Wolf watching has provided me with a way of life for the last 10 years. I am also an elk hunter. I personally do not hunt any predators, it seems silly to me. But I do see why some folks are either ok with the hunt or participating in it. I will never buy a wolf tag or have any interest in doing so. However I’ve run into wolves all over the state of Montana, and elk all over the state as well. I feel there are good numbers of both. And I also believe the wolf population will do just fine. It even sounds like some of the cottonwoods have shown back up in the park possibly, which made me very happy.
When you say “you’ve had your way for 15 year, now its our turn” ?? that makes no sense to me. Wolves have been here for millions of years, they deserve to be here in healthy numbers. We being stewards, as humans with intelligence means keeping them healthy- not eradicating species, reintroducing , then killing for sport.
So its not about having my way, but doing what is right.
Thanks for your “history” post way back up there. I think your reasoning and explaination is spot on. I wish more people had seen what you wrote and commented on it instead of prolonging the petty fighting that goes on here sometimes.
Talks With Bears
If you are still here – I could not stay with the thread today but wanted to offer this clarification to my “many human hunters are wasteful” post way up there. I am talking about
the subset of “human hunters” which include deliberate poachers, game-farm shooters, thrill killers, derby participants and/or those who disregard hunting rules out of ignorance or apathy.” They are the “many hunters” whom I believe can be considered wasteful.
I could have used “some”, and perhaps using “many” is an exaggeration, but I was NOT referring to ethical, fair chase hunters.
I hope that helps clarify my point.
I wonder, though, if you would mind letting me know if you still believe wolves are “wasteful” and if so, based on what?
Gline, wolves are present and are in healthy populations. If you would of told any wolfie that in 2009 there would be 1000 wolves in ID they would of laughed you out of the room.. The reintroduction HAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A HUGE SUCCESS . Bolded to empahsis a point. You are posting like wolves are on the verge of extinction. That is not the case at all. And also I have no idea what your questions are about wolves hunting, arial hunting poisons etc. It makes no sense.. Clarify maybe?
But Gline seriously, wolves are not going anywhere.. They are here to stay and thats a good thing, I dont mind wolves being around.
“any wounding studies that I am aware of don’t come to the conclusion that one group of hunters wounds more than the other.”
It all depends on how you look at the statistics, Here is how an archery lobbying group (Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization) worded one study:
“Mortality of radio-collared elk in the Montana Elkhorn Mountains showed 3.4% resulting from legal bowhunting and 2.6% from “wounding loss” attributed to bowhunting, as compared to 66.7% mortality from legal gun hunting and 3.4% from gun-related wound- ing loss.”
Here’s the real study (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3809273):
“Sixty-nine deaths recorded during this period included: 43 recovered rifle kills, 8 rifle wounding losses, 4 archery wounding losses, 2 recovered archery kills, 3 poaching kills, and 9 other mortalities.”
So, in this study, admittedly with a small sample size, 67% of elk killed by archers escaped and died of their wounds vs. 33% retrieved. Gun hunters, on the other hand, retrieved 84% of the elk they killed and lost 16%. That’s a big difference.
One study, “Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment” (http://www.marylandqdma.com/files/Download/Pedersen-31-34.pdf)found that 50% of deer hit by archers were never recovered, and that many of these deer died. Sometimes they took days to die from peritonitis caused by abdominal wouds, I know of at least another dozen studies that all show rates of between 40-60% wounding rates for ungulates.
Another study, “Hunter-Inflicted Wounding of White-Tailed Deer” (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3781397) found that “the per capita wounding rate by archers was 1.5 times that by gun hunters.”
Most of the gun-hunt deer wounding studies I’ve seen find wounding loss rates of 10-20%.
So I think it’s pretty clear that, proportionally, archery hunters are more likely to wound deer than gun hunters. There are a lot more gun hunters, so they may wound more deer overall, but the wounding rates themselves are different.
That’s great info Chris, thanks for posting. The wounding loss thing was the reason my bow (one of those cable guns which I wish I’d never dumped the money on) sits in the closet. I understand and appreciate the idea of leveling the playing field by using a bow, but on the other hand, I find it unethical to use a method that has often proved to be an inefficient (and inhumane) means of killing. And for all you bowhunters that want to jump on me for saying this, before you do, ask yourself how many of your fellow bowhunters you know that have put an arrow in an animal and not found it, or found it a day or two later when it was unsalvageable. It happens more than you want to admit–just about every bowhunter I know has lost an animal.
Jay I agree that bowhunters lose animals, I lost an elk 2 years ago. Gun shooters lose their fair share also, shooting across canyons and then if the animal does not drop they dont walk over to see if it was hit. Bowhunting is only unethical as you put it if you dont practice and become proficient. Just like shooting a gun at 200 yards, if your not proficient its unethical. Same with a bow, a bowhunting in general is not unethical, it becomes that if its user is not capable of killing an animal with it.
Yes, you need to practice with either one, but all things being equal, a gun blows away (no pun intended) bows for killing efficiency. There are just way more things that can go wrong with a projectile that travels 275 feet per second vs. 3000. And I agree with you–there are a lot of dispshits out there that think that just because their bullet will travel 6-700 yards (and further), that they should take those shots. In my opinion, hunting ethics are in serious decline, and blame in part these damn “horn porn” hunting shows that glorify that kind of crap.
I think your somewhat right about the horn porn. It was a lot more serious hunt when hunting was the way to feed the family through the winter. A missed shot could mean a long and hungry winter. I ‘ve heard some brag about hitting a big animal and losing it and saying well at least I hit it. Pisses me off that people can’t or won’t show more respect for the animals. Anyone that has hunted for any period of time with a bow or a gun will probably at sometime lose an animal. I lost an elk once a few years ago and it still bothers me to this day, wondering if maybe I should of done this or done that or did I really try hard enough etc.etc.etc. The only thing I could of done different was to come home and get my dog to find it and I almost did, the only reason I didn’t is because from what I’ve heard it was illigal. I know a couple guys that have done the same thing during archery season and as soon as they showed the dog the trail the dog led them right to their animals. One was a Daschund named Rocky and according to his owner he’s found more than one lost animal.
I have lost one animal in my 40 years of hunting and that was 35 years ago, it still bothers me, when I hit an animal, my hunting season is over, and the gun or bow goes back in the case, and I search until I find it, period, end of story, as I said, I have lost one, I have found three after a week of searching, unfortunately, they had spoiled, but I found them, but once I make a hit, the hunt is over, I won’t go after another one…
There are alot of hunters that bug me when I hear them telling stories about crap like that… Especially when a dad is teaching his son its acceptable to do that type of stuff, taking shots WAY beyond his effective range.
I googled upon this blog, and found that Cris Waller’s 20 Nov post distorted my research paper on bowhunter wounding:
“One study, “Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment” (http://www.marylandqdma.com/files/Download/Pedersen-31-34.pdf)found that 50% of deer hit by archers were never recovered, and that many of these deer died. Sometimes they took days to die from peritonitis caused by abdominal wouds, I know of at least another dozen studies that all show rates of between 40-60% wounding rates for ungulates.”
My paper was titled “Wounding rates of white-tailed deer with modern archery equipment”; I determined a wounding rate of 82%. But this figure does not account for the fact that most deer survive archery wounding – I estimated that 13 deer were recovered to every deer killed and not recovered – far from the 50% statistic Waller cites!
My paper discusses why those “numerous studies” (all pre- 1989, with wounding rates of around 50%) should be considered obsolete. My study results were consistent with three other studies where hunters used modern compound bows.