Skinned corpse of wolf discovered in Washington State

State won’t say from which pack

This is bad news for Washington’s small wolf population but it sounds like the the case of a previous poaching incident from 2009 is still open and progressing. We’ve heard rumors that charges may be filed soon in the poaching of wolves from the Lookout Pack in north central Washington. The Lookout Pack is very important genetically because it came on its own from southwestern British Columbia, far from where the wolves reintroduced to Central Idaho and Yellowstone came from. They are also fully protected under the Endangered Species Act and the sentence for anyone convicted of killing them could be pretty severe.

Skinned corpse of wolf discovered, but state won’t say from which pack.
Conservation Northwest

257 Responses to “Skinned corpse of wolf discovered in Washington State”

  1. jon Says:

    I first found this story on hunting washington. What is troubling is that the hunters over there were calling whoever committed this crime a hero. We need to keep Washington wolves protected. This won’t 100% stop those wolf hating hunters from killing them, but it will stop most of them because they know if they get caught, they will be fined and maybe sent to jail and might lose their hunting privileges.

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      The same individuals that make slanderous statements about Scott Fitkin and claim that the Lookout Wolves have already sprung into 4 or 5 new packs in the Methow.

      • jon Says:

        Are you familiar with the website hunting washington? You should check that website out and see what they are saying about wolves Daniel. Calling law breakers/poachers heroes really shows you how extreme and hateful these people are of wolves. They see wildlife as theirs and no one elses. It’s really disturbing imo.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        Jon,

        I try to read from a lot of different sites. I’m always curious to see different perspectives, even those I disagree with. So much to learn, so little time.

        What people who support poaching for one reason or another don’t realize is how much they give up in return for that belief. In one small way they are contributing to the destruction of something that deep down they hold very dear.

      • Phil Says:

        jon: I think I know what you are talking about in that particular website. If it is not the exact one, I read a similar website posted by a man who basically flaunts his Christianity on the entire website. He has a photo of a male lion, but refers to wolves in almost every link to the site.

    • william huard Says:

      Does anyone think that the attitude of these “hunters” calling the idiots that poached this wolf a hero will help to advance their cause with the majority of Americans that hate this bullshit? Every time they do this is one more nail in the coffin.

  2. Connie Says:

    Could someone please explain to me why charges have not been filed in the Twisp wolf killing? Seems that it would be an open and shut case with the physical evidence and self-incriminating statements.

  3. mikarooni Says:

    Ken writes, “the sentence for anyone convicted of killing them could be pretty severe.” …and jon writes, “if they get caught, they will be fined and maybe sent to jail and might lose their hunting privileges.” …and huard writes, “Every time they do this is one more nail in the coffin.”

    Yeah, right, so why is Rex Rammell still walking around getting treated to free dinners? The situation is out of control; poachers, even poachers of listed species, get a slap on the wrist.

  4. Ann Sydow Says:

    Huard writes, “Every time they do this is one more nail in the coffin.” We can only hope! It IS out of control. The thing is that we are used to this kind of behavior around us, people from most other states are shocked by it; thats why we have to get our cause known better outside of this area.

    • IDhiker Says:

      The more “radical fringe” individuals in the hunting community are painting all hunters, even the ethical ones, as loud, vulgar, hot-tempered, law-breaking rednecks. And yet, the more moderate side of the hunting community stands silent….hunters are their own worst enemy. Individuals like Rex Rammell should be ostracized by the hunting community.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        IDhiker.

        I have argued this point with a nemesis outside of this forum many times. It falls on deaf ears or blind eyes.

      • JB Says:

        This is what bothers me so much about the RMEF’s recent turn. I am a firm supporter of hunting, but the rhetoric being spewed by RMEF and other groups is making all hunters look bad.

    • william huard Says:

      They continue to marginalize themselves. Where are all the ethical- conservation minded hunters. All there seems to be are hunters that are conservation minded when it comes to animals they want to kill. The hunters that i know care about all species- but the west is very different. Calling a poacher a hero will continue to give all hunters a bad name. They will wake up one day as their numbers continue to plummet and will wonder why some of their rights have been taken away

      • Savebears Says:

        William,

        If you would open your eyes, there are several of us Ethical-Conservation minded hunters that actually contribute to this blog..

        I have not seen any of the hunters on this blog condone poaching or even calling poachers hunters…they are simply criminals..

      • william huard Says:

        SaveBears-
        Don’t get defensive. I don’t recall calling people that participate on this blog unethical. One of the main reasons why I stopped hunting was because I think there has been a dramatic deterioration of ethics in the hunting community. The best way for that to change is for it to come from within the hunting community.

      • jon Says:

        William, they sure as hell ain’t on hunting-washington.com. Take a look at that site and specifically the wolf topics.

      • jon Says:

        William, I never knew you hunted. What kind of animals did you hunt?

      • Savebears Says:

        William,

        Really I am not being defensive, but when wide sweeping comments are made, I am going to stand up for the majority, the criminals get far to much press time…

      • william huard Says:

        Jon-
        I really don’t want to bash hunters. I read these posts like on the hunt washington site and I wonder just like I said where are the ethical hunters?

      • jon Says:

        William, hunting has changed dramatically over the decades. Today, you have many more hunters that kill for sport than say a few decades ago. it has turned from putting food on the table to feed your family to a bloodsport for some. Some people just love to show their superiority and dominance over defenseless beings such as animals in the woods.

      • Savebears Says:

        Jon,

        it is not just hunters, I had to drum a few out of the military for the same reason, this is not just a hunting problem, you have people like that in all walks of life..

      • jon Says:

        Well, I do believe there are ethical hunters. I just believe hunting today has turned more into a bloodsport for some who just get off of killing animals.

      • jon Says:

        Well, that’s true. It can happen to any group of people, but even you have to admit sb that there are a lot of hunters out there that hate wolves. As I’m sure you talked to a fair amount of people in MT and you know their feelings on wolves. I do believe there is a small minority of hunters who like wolves, but are afraid to speak up because they will be ridiculed by their hunting friends who don’t like wolves. A hunter who speaks out about how he likes wolves will probably lose all of his hunting friends. That’s how deep and emotional this wolf issue is.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        I’ve said this before, but if you want to hunt for the food, that is great. I’ve enjoyed venison, moose, bison… What I do not understand is the need to pose with what you have killed, the vacant stare, lolling tongue, blood spilling from the nostrils…

        What’s the point?

      • Savebears Says:

        Jon,

        For the most part, the hunters I talk to, don’t talk about wolves at all, that is the problem, most people don’t realize that there are a few vocal people that are preaching at the pulpit, but they are not the majority, they are the few..just as those that are thrill killers.

        I personally know hundreds of hunters and I don’t know one, that just goes out to kill, every single one of those I know, even the ones that hunt for trophies, keep and eat the meat..

        If we really look at numbers of hunters, which is last I heard around 12 million, actually how many are killing wolves? Of course we hear about every single wolf that is killed, but it is not that many in the whole scheme of things..

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I really dislike the people who try and put hunters on some kind of holier than thou pedestal. There are scum bags in every type of special interest group…including hunting AND animal rights/environmental movements. It is silly to pull a bunch of quotes from certain sites. To get a fair assessment of what views a certain group holds ya gotta broaden your scope. If I wanted to make wolf advocates look like morons it wouldn’t be hard at all. Just go to a couple of the wolf sites where, well they are very extreme in there hatred for anyone that doesn’t fall in line w/ there point of view.

        Anywho. I was at work yesterday and was trying to get this guy that is an avid fly fisherman to take me w/ him this weekend. Trying to get into the sport. Well, he started talking about how he was going “hunting” for “whistle pigs” this wknd. I do not really like people blasting away things that they don’t eat (unless for “management” purposes). So, that kinda was unsettling. Then he said he poached all the time. Even lost his “hunting” privelages for 5 years once. I then asked him if he still hunts. He said he has never hunted, “I just go out and shoot stuff”! I almost hauled off and popped him one, but just got hired on and thought it wouldn’t look good. I just kinda mumbled “that’s pretty lame” and walked away. Moral of the story is ppl who just “shoot shit” aren’t hunters. They are murderers or sociopaths.

        Not sure what the problem w/ trophy hunting is, so long as they eat the meat. Nothing wrong w/ being proud of an animal that you kill and pose w/ it either. It’s not easy at all to get a mature buck or bull, so when ya do get one it’s ok to be proud. I shoot the first elk I see, but trophy hunt for deer because I’m not crazy for venison…

      • Immer Treue Says:

        wolf mod,

        The posing is not just with what you will eat, as are those who pose with bears, cougars, and wolves. I suppose it’s just my way of thinking, that the animal had some dignity before it was killed, now it has none.

      • Savebears Says:

        Wolf Mod,

        I have not seen anyone on this website put hunters in a holier than thou position.

        Immer, I actually eat bear and cougar meat and enjoy both of them when I have them, I don’t hunt them, but I do eat them, they are quite good when prepared properly.

        Of course we have had this conversation on this website, many, many times..

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Savebears,

        What does cougar taste like? Please don’t say like chicken.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Yeah Immmer,

        Just different ways of thinking. I have killed a bear (no dogs or bait) and ate the meat. I also “posed” w/ it. Personally, I feel that hunting predators as a “control” measure, so do not mind when they kill wolves, bears etc…I was ready to buy a wolf tag in 10′, but they cancelled the hunt. Wasn’t going to kill a wolf to be macho, but rather to do my part in “managing” the population. I think that the number of wolves are at a good number and could even stand to cull the number by some. I can appreciate others views also, even though I do not agree. Like religion and global warming, wildlife management seems to bring out the extremists. Some want no predators anywhere, some want no human hunting anywhere etc…It’s obvious that neither POV will be seriously entertained by the vast majority of the US population.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Cougar tastes like rabbit or frog then, right SB?

      • Savebears Says:

        Immer,

        Prepared correctly, it is a delicate meat, very lean and has a bit of a sweet taste to it, it needs to be marinated a while before cooking due to the fact it is so lean. It is a meat that lends itself to being injected, such as with the cajun injections systems that are around now a days.

        I am sure I have eat dog somewhere along the lines as well, when I was over seas in the military, we got served a lot of local dishes, that we didn’t ask what it was..

      • Savebears Says:

        Nope Wolf Mod,

        Rabbit and Frog taste a lot like chicken..there is a big difference in the flavors of white and red meats, cougar is a red meat..

      • Savebears Says:

        Depending on what a bear has been feeding on, it tastes similar to pork, garbage bears taste very fatty, and not real appealing at all..

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Wolf Mod,

        I have no problem with proper management of predator/wolf populations. It’s inevitable and necessary. It’s going to take time to get it right. And then there will still be people who are unhappy. I had mixed feelings when Malloy’s ruling came down, and I am staunchly pro-wolf.

        As an aside, you say you Mt. Bike. What sort of rig do you have?
        I picked up a Trek 8000 in late 2001, that was my cycling debut, and was racing all over Wisconsin for the following 5 or 6 years. By the time I got to my late 50’s the ground was beginning to get too hard.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I had a built Specialized rockhopper 29er expert, but I’m 270 pounds and the rims just wouldn’t hold up. Last week I bought a new Specialized rockhopper w/ 26″ rims. I sunk another $600 building it up including; beefier rims, crank, seatpost, pedals, fork, and handlebars. It’s a bit heavier than a stumpjumper but I do not mind. It is quite a bit cheaper too. Yeah, I just turned 30 and the falls sure hurt more than they did when I was 20. I think by 50 it’ll be time to hang it up too!

      • Elk275 Says:

        The biggest deterioration of ethics in the hunting community is long range shooting.

  5. Richard G. Says:

    These people who do such a thing are on the edge, their is a movement in this country to bring us back to the late 1800’s, no child labor law, women rights, and killing of any wildlife just for their pleasure. These people are psychotic , to the point that they must rule. Just look at Wisconsin, this is the first battle ground and it is spreading.

    • IDhiker Says:

      For some reason, there are groups of people that believe that we Americans are oppressed and downtrodden by our government. I have often heard the comment, “We are losing all our freedoms.” My reply is, what freedoms have we lost? We are the most fortunate nation on this Earth as far as a wide range of freedoms. Yet, these same people have visions of armed rebellion etc. Around here we have the “Liberty Bell” people promoting the “Republic of Montana.”

      In my opinion, the poor old wolf is being used as a scapegoat, as a “Federal Agent,” to these folks. Certainly, many of the more rabid anti-wolf people are also adherents to this anti-government philosophy.

      • Salle Says:

        And the more ridiculous the claims, the more inclined these imbeciles are to buy it as gospel truth. Research seems to be against their religion, knowledge is a dangerous thing for them.

      • william huard Says:

        IdHiker
        Don’t you know that trying to stop the FU%^&$ vampires in the private health insurance market from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions is an assault on our freedom? I have never been able to figure out that line of reasoning.

    • william huard Says:

      Jon-
      I used to hunt deer. I have hunted wild boar. I always hunted for meat. I haven’t had any meat for almost twenty years. I like you have no issue with people that hunt for food like Save Bears. I would have hunted elk if there were elk where I live. When i see these trophy hunters that kill cougar with dogs, or kill bears using dogs- I don’t regard that hunting. We have debated these issues a million times so i am not going to entertain this anymore. I was reacting to “hunters” calling an idiot a hero that skins a wolf and leaves the carcass like garbage- that is a piece of sh&^.

      • jon Says:

        I don’t see any problem with that as I eat meat every once in a blue moon, but sport hunting is the type of hunting I am against. There are different types of anti-hunters and it’s not fair to put them all in the same group. You have those anti-hunters who are against all types of hunting. These people sometimes tend to be vegetarians and than you have people like me who are against predator/sport hunting. This type of hunting is what I believe most of the opponents against hunting on here are against.

  6. Phil Says:

    Here is how I see issues like this one. Most countries do not bend over knees to demands of terrorists, right? I do not want to compare terrorists with certain hunting groups, but the similarities are there. If the two groups do not get their ways by law, etc, then they will still act upon their beliefs through actions. Leaders of this country have stated many times “We will not respond to the demands of terrorists…”. I truly hope that actions like these are being strongly looked at by congress, and hopefully the government will not oblige to the demands to delisting wolves. If our government is strong in their tasks at hand, then they should have stricter measurements towards the group of hunters that disregard rules and regulations. They should not satisfy by rewarding these individuals for breaking the law. Just because a ruling was not accepted in their favor they will go ahead and do as they feel anyways. They basically think they are above the laws.

    JB: I am not a hunter, and do not have a strong belief in hunting, but I agree with your statement that individuals like these give the hunter society a bad name. I have not taken part in any survey of non-hunter’s opinions towards hunters, but reading many hunting articles and comments from hunters and non-hunters, it seems like the opinions towards hunters is increasing in a negative perspective. Issues such as this one are probably a big reason for the negativity, and it is a shame, because there are ethically and morally good hunters. A great example was a hunter who was attacked by a Grizzly Bear. The Grizzly bear was never caught and killed, but the part of the article that caught my eye was that the hunter was not angry with the bear and wanted it killed, instead he mentioned in the paper “We should not just kill what we are afraid of…”. Another story I remember reading was 3 hunters who pulled a deer out of a ditch she was trapped in. There are many stories like these two, but they get overlapped by the negative ones from other hunter’s selfish acts.

    • JB Says:

      Phil:
      This New Years’ I was visiting relatives in a part of Michigan where nearly everyone hunts. We were surprised when we saw a fire truck and ambulance rush by and stepped out to see what was happening. It turned out there was a doe down on in the middle of the lake. We had just had a bout of extremely warm weather so nobody was certain if the ice would hold. Nonetheless, the first responders (at least some of whom were hunters) made it to the middle of the lake to rescue the deer. Unfortunately, she had a broken leg and had to be euthanized. Still, I find this to be a moving example of what people will do for animals–even in the face of significant risk to themselves.

      • william huard Says:

        And there are states like IDAHO, where a baby moose was on the side of a frozen lake as the mother was drowning on the lake- Idaho’s stance- let nature take it’s course

      • Phil Says:

        JB: Yes, a majority of the upper portion of the glove and the Upper Peninsula are hunters, but most are good people. Of all the hunters I have been in contact with in the area, most are not the example of some of the hunters that you read about and hear about in the Northern Rocky Mountain area. There are some, but the majority are pretty helpful. I truly believe the acts from a husband and wife (who have their own zoo in Wallace, Michigan) have had a positive influence on the public’s opinions about wildlife in that particular portion of the state.

      • jon Says:

        JB, did you ever catch that show about coyotes on nat geo? it was on last night. I think your coyote expert friend was on it. There will be a repeat of the show next week. I will tape it and watch it for sure.

      • jon Says:

        Phil, I watch that show “my life is a zoo”. It’s a great show and yes, I believe their zoo has maybe changed people’s opinions about animals and wildlife. That zoo recently got a new baby hippo.

      • jon Says:

        The fact is we don’t let nature take it’s course as we have people going into the woods all the time killing animals, so we are hypocrites. The least we can do since we have the power to do it is help wounded or injured animals by getting them help or putting them out of their misery. I love it how some people will say let nature take it’s course, but yet we slaughter thousands if not millions of wildlife every single year.

      • jon Says:

        If I see an injured animal somewhere, I’m not going to just stand there and not do anything. As a compassionate animal lover, I will try to help it as much as I can or atleast call the appropriate people who are able to help the injured animal.

      • JB Says:

        Jon:

        I recorded the show, but haven’t had a chance to watch it yet. My wife has been away at a conference, so I’ve been on toddler duty the past few days.

      • WM Says:

        william,

        ++And there are states like IDAHO, where a baby moose was on the side of a frozen lake as the mother was drowning on the lake- Idaho’s stance- let nature take it’s course++

        I guess there are a couple of schools of thought on this one, william. Not knowing the circumstances of the situation you describe it makes it a bit difficult to opine, but let’s just go with a general idea that a full grown cow moose ventured out on to and went through the ice, is in good enough condition to attempt a rescue. First, a cow moose is HUGE, about 8 – 10 times heavier than a little white tail or black tail doe. That presents alot of problems in itself that one would not have in a deer rescue. An animal that size, in distress, is dangerous because of its size, and very long legs. A couple of humans can’t just pull it into a flat bottom boat or easily slip a noose around neck and torso to drag it ashore. It takes alot of resources. Second, have you ever tried to rescue anything that has slipped through the ice. It is not an easy task, and it puts humans at risk – some of whom perish in the task.

        Third, and most of us twinge at this one, maybe it isn’t a bad idea to let nature take its course. Why would one rescue a moose with a calf at risk in this situation, and not interecede where if the means of death might be wolves or bears? Is it harder to watch an animal succumb by death of drowning than having its guts torn out on the run? The nutrients from the ice fatality goes back into the ecosystem, feeding plants and fish. The calf, a secondary, impact of losing its mother, would be food for other animals – maybe even coyotes, wolves or scavangers.

        Fourth, and this is the Darwinian/survival of the fittest argument and which the behavioral ecologists might give a favorable nod, maybe this was just a dumb moose. Nature is working if this dumb cow (maybe the calf would be dumb in the same way since it carries some of those genes), exits the gene pool at an appropriate time.

        I continue to be amazed at some of these cheap shots you take, without really having the life experience or educational background to know what the hell you are talking about.

        There are good people in the NRM and elsewhere, you just need to actually be on the ground to look for them, not in front of you computer screen.

        And, by the way, william, a “baby moose” is called a calf.

  7. Phil Says:

    jon: Yes, that is the show. The zoo is located in the dead of the middle of hunting country in the upper area of Michigan. The work they have done for more then 2 decades there has been a positive one towards wildlife. The wife even has a no-kill shelter for dogs and cats. The work she has done with wolves is unbelieveable.

    • jon Says:

      Yeah, both her and her husband. They really care for animals unlike other places who just care about making money off of animals. Have you ever been to that zoo and how far is that zoo from where you’re at? I believe you said you’re from MI.

      • Phil Says:

        jon: I have never been to the Family zoo before. I just learned about it and the couple a few months ago. I live further south from Wallace, Michigan, but am not quite sure how far. I definately will travel there soon, hopefully before the summer. I am graduating from college this summer, and before I get into my career I will make a trip there and get a personal eye view of the zoo.

  8. Jerry Black Says:

    Elk says…
    Elk275 Says:
    February 19, 2011 at 10:41 PM
    “The biggest deterioration of ethics in the hunting community is long range shooting.”
    I’d say that it’s lack of proficiency at any range. I spend quite a bit of time shooting at a local gun range and what I see is a guy come out once a year, shoot up half a box, and figure he can go out and cleanly kill something. This last fall I helped a guy with a new .308 who couldn’t even get on the paper at 100 yards. He finally did and announced he was going hunting in 2 days. I see this quite often.
    Shooting is like any sport, you gotta practice. I quit killing things long ago, but taught my son years ago to shoot and hunt. I also made it clear that if he wounded an animal…don’t come home. He’s a damn good shot and practices throughout the year.
    I also think there’s a mentality here in Montana, that it’s no big deal to wound something….there will be another one to shoot at shortly. Also there are lots of people that hunt with an under powered caliber weapon for the particular animal they’re hunting.
    In summary…..there’s a hell of a lot of unethical, lazy ass hunters out there.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Probably difficult to get stats on this, but I wonder how many wounded elk/deer are preyed upon by wolves, and then when someone stumbles upon a partially devoured/scavenged carcass pointed to as proof that wolves go after more than the old/sick/weak.

      That being said, I am fully aware that wolves will kill healthy adult prey.

    • WM Says:

      Jerry,

      Unfortunately, there are a number of hunters who are not proficient, because they lack skill and do not practice marksmanship. Some also think if they can hit a coffee cup size target from a shooting range bench rest at 100 yards, on the level, and no wind, with all the time in the world, that translates into being able to do the same in field conditions.

      The companion issue is one of equipment manufacturers improving their products, from rifles to scopes to cartridge characteristics to increase accuracy. The ideal application is to increase accuracy within shorter ranges. However, the marketing of the manufacturers, and the hype is to increase the “effective range” of the shooter, believing the technnology is the important part. In reality, the biggest variable is the shooter him/herself, and their ability to make good decisions, and knowing the limits of ones’ skills through practice is the most important of them. Sounds like you have a great job with your son. I guess he is/was a WSU Cougar, another good choice – LOL.

      • Jerry Black Says:

        WM…. I guess he is/was a WSU Cougar, another good choice – LOL.
        HA!!! Actually, he had quite a few choices (football), but took the one that didn’t offer a scholarship, but offered financial aid, Harvard. Same colors though (Crimson). Qualified for financial aid because I was considered poor after my divorce…..still am!!!!

      • WM Says:

        My apologies on the mistake, Jerry. For some reason I recalled you had a tie to WSU. It must have been your reference to crimson or another reference.

      • Savebears Says:

        WM…

        I am a Husky..

    • Elk275 Says:

      Jerry, there are some things that you and I agree on. I am pleased that you helped someone get their rifle on paper at 100 yards last season.

      You said “Also there are lots of people that hunt with an under powered caliber weapon for the particular animal they’re hunting.” I think that the opposite it truer than the use of under powered caliber weapons; it is the use of over powered weapons that the shooter is afraid to shoot because of recoil. The expert Alaska hunter, Sarah Palin commented on her TV show while shooting her caribou “does it kick”. If one is afraid of the recoil they can never shoot accurately. There is a trend in the shooting world that bigger is better, the bigger the caliber the farther one can shoot, so that shooter/hunter listens to the Madison Avenue hype and purchases a BIG MAGUMUN. One they can not shoot, one that they will miss with and one that they wound. It is shot placement and the selection the caliber that one can use effectively.

      WM: You are right in that most shooters/hunters go to the rifle range and practice at 100 yards and talk about how there shot there last animal at 400 plus yards. No one has any business shooting beyond 200 to 300 yards unless they practice at longer ranges in different positions off the bench rest, have a range finder and have use a chronograph for their rifle and loads.

      • Savebears Says:

        I have never owned a magnum, I have shot a few over the years, including the big boys, the .458 Winchester and the .460 Weatherby, no way, no how, they are not conducive to shooting good.

        My two favorite calibers is the .270 and the 30-06, they will take down anything that we hunt in the US..With the new premium cartridges out there, there is no reason to even have to learn how to re-load and tune a gun cartridge to your gun..

      • Savebears Says:

        One thing I will add, I would have to say, most adults hunting now a days are more over gunned than they are under gunned…The 30-30 ends up in the kids hands and Dad takes the bazooka!

      • JB Says:

        Well, I’ve listened to people bitch for years about the “Bambi effect”…can we attribute this trend to Dirty Harry:

        “…being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well do ya, punk?”

      • Elk275 Says:

        Dirty Harry is a caveman in this day and age. His weapons are made out of flint. It is the 500 S & W the largest handgun made. Never shot one and never care to.

      • Savebears Says:

        Smart man Elk,

        I shot one, it was not a pleasant experience, talk about a monster..

      • Jerry Black Says:

        Elk…In my opinion, anything less than a .243 should not be used for muleys and elk. I see it all the time; “hunters” going after them with a .223 or 22/250 etc. Why? because they’re so inexpensive to shoot. Unless you’re an expert marksman, and there are very few around, you’ll be wounding alot of animals.
        Also, I still believe that reloading your own ammo is the thing to do for both accuracy and cost. I sold all my reloading gear when I moved and kick myself every time I shoot.
        I grew up hunting in New Mexico and there was a “minimum” cartridge for big game. So long ago, I can’t remember the details, but I do remember that the old 30/30 barely made the cut. My best friend was my modified .257 which I reloaded for.

      • Savebears Says:

        Jerry,

        I have not hunted with a gun for many years now, but my favorite was a .270, with a custom loaded 165 grain Nosler partition, that combination would put down anything I would ever want to hunt, I have never had to shoot an animal more than once and I have never had to track an animal..just a darn good gun, I fully understand why it was a favorite of Jim Carmichael the famous gun editor at Outdoors Life Magazine..

      • Elk275 Says:

        Save Bears: You are wrong

        It was Jack O’Connor; he is the father of the 270 Win

      • Savebears Says:

        Opps, sorry about that Elk, right era, wrong memory..

        Thanks for reminding me I was wrong, dang, that seems to happen more and more often these days!

        LMFAO!

      • Savebears Says:

        But that does not diminish, my passion for the .270…..

  9. Nancy Says:

    Regarding Elk’s comment:
    “The biggest deterioration of ethics in the hunting community is long range shooting.”

    The article (3rd one down from the top) is rather old but interesting, considering who’s the topic of discussion:

    http://nebraskanews.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

  10. william huard Says:

    WM
    If you don’t like my comments then ignore them. You don’t know squat about me and my life experience. I have been all over the world and my educational experience includes two advanced degrees. My IDAHO comment was taken from a news story on TV which accurately depicts the way the state of IDAHO views wildlife-
    A baby moose is called a calf- no shit sherlock

    • Nancy Says:

      I agree with WM that trying to save a full grown moose from an icy lake was probably not something most people would have the means to do nor could attempt to do, although her contribution to the bottom of the lake probably would not out weigh her future contributions to her species.
      The calf atleast, should of been helped.

      Knew a woman in my neck of the woods that fostered a couple of orphaned moose calves and because of her care, they grew up, although they scared the hell out of more than a couple of elk & deer hunters (who had permission to hunt on the ranch’s land) when they were confronted with full grown moose, saying “howdy” in the willows, looking for treats🙂

      We humans expect wildlife to be wild and will save them at every opportunity (and it makes for a heartwarming broadcast on the local or national news) yet we ignore the blatant, obvious fact, that we are the ones that continue to encroach, time and time again, putting them in jeopardy, because of our selfish lifestyles.

      • Phil Says:

        I understand a typical size of an adult moose. If I had the unpleasant experience of seeing a moose and her calf in a frozen lake slumping to get out due to their hoofed statures, or whatever, I would not hesitate to do whatever I can possible to help the moose. I see it in this manner, if I am in trouble in any way shape or form, would I not want someone to help me out? What about the risks of the calf if we help the calf and not the mother if the calf is at the age where he/she can only survive from the protection and experience of its mother. I remember watching a story develop in Michigan where a deer and her calf were stuck on Lake Huron in January when the lake was frozen. The day’s temperature was a little above the freezing point and the ice around them could not handle their weights. They both eventually fell in and the observers called the local fire fighters to help out in any way possible. To make a long story short, the mother was unable to be rescued and dround, but the calf was rescued and brought back to solid land. luckily there was a veterinarian that lived about 15 minutes or so away and was called in to observe the calf. his final conclusion was that the calf was ok, and because she was near the age of leaving the side of her mom that it was not necessary to take her to a sanctuary or such. There are many good stories like this out there, but you rarely ever hear of them.

        Nancy: You are correct that many times wildlife is put in their situations due to human actions.

      • matt Says:

        ” she was near the age of leaving the side of her mom ”🙂

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “she was near the age of leaving the side of her mom ”🙂

      • Savebears Says:

        Things are getting weird, I was taught in school that deer have fawns…guess it is time to go back to school Phil…

  11. william huard Says:

    Nancy
    There are states including mine, that have the necessary equipment to rescue animals in distress. The mindset is the issue. It is obvious that certain rescues are more dangerous than others. Many people view wildlife from a very narrow perspective- wildlife belongs to all citizens, not just hunters, trappers, and outfitters

    • Phil Says:

      william: The funniest quotes I have ever heard is when a hunter says “I don’t want such and such killing off my elk”.

    • WM Says:

      william, Phil,

      Help us understand the need to rescue a moose cow that broke through the ice + dependent calf, and no interference for the same cow + calf being pursued by wolves, bear, lion, etc.

      We still have Nature working as it should – the nutrition available in those dead mammals will not go to waste. How can one justify interfering with nature in one instance and not the other? Is it not correct to let Nature take its course in both instances?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Nature isnt pretty. The moose falling through the ice was just one of those unfortunate tragedies that happen in the real world. Getting eaten alive by wolves IS part of nature, but I would guess that it is worse than falling through the ice for the moose. I do not really like it when “we” interfere w/ nature as much as we do. Like feeding elk and moose and especially radiocollaring (Some is necessary).

      • Phil Says:

        WM: I guess it is the kindness of strangers that I have been brought up upon. If it was myself, I would do whatever possible to help out the moose and her calf. Didn’t say everyone has to be like myself, but that is just me.

        “the nutrition available in those dead mammals will not go to waste.” Really? So, how is a wolf, bear, mountain lion suppose to get at the carcass if it is in the middle of a lake, etc?

        I am with you in letting nature take its course, but what about the belief at giving the calf a chance at adulthood and having a positive fitness?

      • R.N.T. Says:

        That seems a little selfish to assume that the moose can only benefit wolves, bears, and mountain lions. By dying in the lake it provides nutrients to a whole host of species.

  12. Savebears Says:

    William,

    Just a quick question, when was the last time you participated in a rescue of this nature?

    And before you go there, I know…I know..compassion has no bounds..

  13. william huard Says:

    Save Bears-
    I work as a nurse in a hospital so obviously I have never participated in a rescue of that nature, nor am I trained to do that type of rescue. Does it shock you that there are states that don’t just let nature take it’s course? An animal that is chased by a predator is letting nature take it’s course. Helping an animal in distress is not the same thing. My brother is a captain in the largest firefighter station in the second largest city in my state. He has trained for these types of rescues. Not all states allow unlimited killing of animals like coyotes. Some states do not allow hunting with dogs. Some states do not have crazy legislators writing legislation making it a crime or fine for people to cooperate with law enforcement to turn in poachers of wolves or other animals. Get my drift yet?

    • Cobra Says:

      Maybe the moose were chased onto the ice by a predator, what then? The calf will more than likely be old enough to survive without the mother, it depends on the area, the winter, predators and all out luck.

    • Savebears Says:

      William,

      I think you took my question incorrectly, I was not judging you or your opinions, and no, I am not surprised. William, I have been in some pretty tough places in my life and had to make choices that resulted in life or death…when I was in combat, I told my men, to not risk for me..now after close to 20 years I am glad they did, but life is full of hard choices, and we live with them the rest of our life..

      But rest assured, I am not surprised and I am not shocked, I just really like to find out the perspective that others come from, I admire you for being a nurse, my daughter is a nurse and it is a job, I could not do…

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: To show the same respect you have towards william being a nurse, I will do the same to you with your experience in combat.

        William: As a nurse I have much more respect then towards a doctor. Doctors are not communicators with their patients as nurses are. When I made a recent stint in the hospital, not one of the 6 doctors that visited me actually asked me questions or communicated with me in any form other than that of what the problem was and what the solutions are. The nurses, on the other hand, were very polite and cared about me beyond just talking about the medications, etc. They made me feel comfortable being in the hospital with conversations that did not pertain to the situation that put me in there, but more at ease ones. Unlike SaveBears, I do not see being a nurse as a “job”, I see it as being a “career” that is as respectful as a teacher, firefighter, police officer, etc. A job and career are completely different.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      I get your drift. You want to be the judge and jury. Your way or the highway. Everything and everyone that you don’t agree w/ are stupid, insane, or a cruel individual. Interesting perspective. God help us if you ever hold any power in this country. ; )

      • william huard Says:

        No just some people are stupid and insane. I just watched a nat geo special a few weeks ago about a cheetah mother that got injured while hunting to feed for her 4 cubs. She was going to die when the Kenyan Wildlife Service intervened on her behalf. They re- released her back into the wild which saved her life and the life of the one cub that survived- It happens all the time.
        Wolf Moderate- This has nothing to do with my way or the highway. I have legitmately criticized your positions when I feel you do not have the facts- like the Aerial Hunting issue. If i don’t have the facts correct I expect to be challenged.

      • Phil Says:

        william: I have not been on here for long, but it seems like individuals like wolf moderate are not up for challenges. When someone puts them on the spot, they draw back by stating comments like “I get your drift. You want to be the judge and jury. Your way or the highway. Everything and everyone that you don’t agree w/ are stupid, insane, or a cruel individual. Interesting perspective. God help us if you ever hold any power in this country. ; )”

        wolf moderate: Why don’t you look at some of the anti-wolf hunter’s channels on youtube and tell me that is not exactly what you are referring william as being. It seems like anyone who is not a hunter on here gets harsh criticism from you.

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++It seems like anyone who is not a hunter on here gets harsh criticism from you.++

        It just that everyone is raised differently with different genetic codes. No one is right and no one is wrong, just different outlooks.

      • mikarooni Says:

        This wasn’t hunting; this was the poaching of a protected species followed by the taking of a redneck trailer trash trophy …and I appreciate your honesty about your racism with your comment about people having different opinions because of their “different genetic codes.” But, your comment that “no one is wrong” is where you, you filthy slimy racist realtor, are wrong.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “wolf moderate: Why don’t you look at some of the anti-wolf hunter’s channels on youtube and tell me that is not exactly what you are referring like awilliam as being. It seems nyone who is not a hunter on here gets harsh criticism from you.”

        Phil, I don’t have time to research the vast amount of bullchit to rebut you all. Personally I could care less whether ppl hunt or not. Is what I can’t handle are the people that do not have a firm grasp on reality. I try to be respectful of others views on here, but some of it is truly something else.

        If you are too scared to save a drowning animal, what makes you think others aren’t also. OR maybe some prefer to let nature take it’s course. Darwin had it right in many regards. Get out there Phil and become a volunteer firefighter. Then you could save moose. Just don’t get too close to your buddies or ya might end up like Timothy Treadwell! 🙂

      • jon Says:

        Elk, if you think that hunter who killed that wolf is not wrong, I don’t know what to tell ya man.

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++Elk says…”It just that everyone is raised differently with different genetic codes. No one is right and no one is wrong, just different outlooks.”++

        I said it in relation to the comment “”It seems like anyone who is not a hunter on here gets harsh criticism from you.”

        What I meant is that there are some who like to hunt and some who do not like to hunt. This is just he way people are wired. Some people are artistic and musically inclined and others who are not. I have found that there are individuals who come from hunting families who never had any interest in hunting and eventually dislike and disapprove of hunting. Then there are those who have never been exposed to hunting one day, some how discovers hunting and want to be a hunter. This has always interested me where does this interest come from genetics, environment, etc.

        This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

        No one is right and no one is wrong, just different outlooks. Is in reference to whether ONE likes to hunt or not likes to hunt. . This was not in reference to any incident or any person.

        ++This wasn’t hunting; this was the poaching of a protected species followed by the taking of a redneck trailer trash trophy …and I appreciate your honesty about your racism with your comment about people having different opinions because of their “different genetic codes.” But, your comment that “no one is wrong” is where you, you filthy slimy racist realtor, are wrong.++

        Mikarooi, I am not a realtor, I am an appraiser. I am not a filthy slimy racist realtor……………… I would appreciate an APOLOGY, I am not a racist, why do you think that? . Why do you feel that the shooter is “redneck trailer trash” ? The shooter could live in the largest and most expensive home in the area and have several advance degrees. Why would someone automatically be trailer trash if they shot that wolf, they are a poacher not trailer trash. Mikarooi you are making statements without support.
        Jerry Black

        ++NO ONE IS WRONG!!!

        Please tell me you’re joking! If not, let me say first of all….your world is pretty damn narrow, you’re not very intelligent, and I hope the hell you never had kids.
        PATHETIC!++

        Jerry, I really enjoyed your comments on long shooting yesterday and how you loaded for a 257 AI. I agree with your comment that a .243 should be the minimum caliber for hunting elk, but I will take it farther, it should be a quarter caliber or .257. I would appreciate an apology for the comment “your world is pretty damn narrow, you’re not very intelligent, and I hope the hell you never had kids. PATHETIC””

        I have never said a negative comment about anyone on this or any other public forum and never will.

        Jon, there is no right or wrong with you on hunting, all hunters are wrong, you are wrong.

      • Elk275 Says:

        ++Elk275: Correct. Just like in other instances, some people like it and others do not. I do not believe in hunting and do not hunt, but you do and that is your perogative++

        Kudos to you Phil, you are the only one who intrepeted my post right.

  14. Phil Says:

    save bears: “Things are getting weird, I was taught in school that deer have fawns…guess it is time to go back to school Phil…” Ok. Whatever that means. My understanding is that deer have fawns, I guess I mixed up the moose story with deers and posted calves. But, just because you want me to do so, I will go back to school to be as educated as you are Mr. perfect.

    • Savebears Says:

      Phil,

      Sometimes you guys take thing entirely to serious, I said I would go back to school…I didn’t tell you to go back to school..

      I wish I was perfect, but I suffer the same faults that you do, and apparently humor is one of those faults I suffer from.

  15. william huard Says:

    Phil-
    Nurses are compassionate people. I extend that compassion to animals as well. Today when you stick up for animals people call you a tree hugger or an anti- which makes completely no sense. I could tell you stories about animals that I have helped over the years, and when you make a difference with animals or people that is what it is all about.

    • Phil Says:

      william: A couple years ago I found 3 chick Canada Geese on the edge of a busy road. Luckily it was late at night and there were not a lot of cars driving by. A few distances away I found the mother and one of the chicks laying on the ground dead. I am not a private investigator, but there was no doubt that they were run-over. I took in the three remaining chicks and kept them over night. I did not get much sleep that night because I was trying to find a rehab for local wildlife or a sanctuary that could take them in, but eventually I found one that was private owned and was about 35 miles from where I lived. I called the woman that ran the sanctuary and we made a deal that she would pick them up at a animal hospital inbetween where she lived and where I lived that was open 24 hours. To shorten the story, I was 2 hours late the next morning for work, but it was worth it to ensure they were safe and had a chance at adulthood. I have many flaws, but when it comes to life of any living creature, I will do my part in being moral.

      • william huard Says:

        I’m sure that made you feel good that you helped those animals. One of my favorite rescues was of a pregnant snapping turtle. She was trying to cross a road to lay her eggs and was right in the middle of a road when she was hit by a car. I thought at first she was dead because her neck was distended out from her shell and it was at least 100 degress that day (late morning). I pulled over and literally had to stop traffic to get her off the road. She had to be at least 45 almost 50 pound snapper. I took her back to my yard and hosed her off when she started coming back. I had a local vet assistant that worked with turtles come and take her to an animal hospital. They fixed her shell and jaw which were cracked and re-released her far away from people in a rural area. It makes me sick to hear stories about idiots that are so self-centered and care so little about anything but themselves like the fool that skinned the wolf in Washington State.

  16. Phil Says:

    Elk275: Correct. Just like in other instances, some people like it and others do not. I do not believe in hunting and do not hunt, but you do and that is your perogative.

  17. Phil Says:

    william: That is a great story. Glad to see a moral human being. I just do not understand how someone can walk or drive by without even making an attempt in doing something? The skinning of the wolf is absolutely disgusting, but it seems like some are excusing it by using other examples.

    • mikarooni Says:

      It’s not just disgusting; it’s illegal.

    • jon Says:

      Some people believe that hunting and poaching is no different. The only difference to them is that one is done legally and the other isn’t. The outcome is the same, a dead animal. I see nothing wrong with people wanting to help wildlife that is injured in anyway. I believe our species are a bunch of hypocrites. Some will say we must let nature take it’s course. The fact that we humans slaughter many wild animals yearly whether it be for sport or for food really puts a big hole in that argument. I believe William heard about this. There was a situation in Massachusetts I believe where a coyote was stuck in a river close to drowning and it was saved by people. Are we just supposed to sit there and watch it die because we have to let nature take its course? Since we have the power to save animals in dire situations, in some cases we should. All it means is that we are compassionate toward those non-human creatures who can’t help themselves in certain situations.

      • Savebears Says:

        Jon,

        Doing something legally and doing something illegally is a pretty big difference, at least to most people I know…

      • Phil Says:

        jon: I see it the same way as you do. The reason why poaching is illegal is mainly due to the fact that none of that money goes to the government. The government wants to get their share of the green. I also see it that poaching is killing as many animals as possible, while hunting conserve in certain instances.

      • Phil Says:

        If I had to choose which one is more devistating to wildlife and habitats, it would definately be poaching. As much as I disagree with hunting, I strongly dislike poachers. But then again, some hunters are poachers.

      • jon Says:

        Phil, sometimes people poach for different reasons. Poaching is a problem we will never get rid of and we can’t stop it. Look at what is going on in India with the bengal tigers.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        Poachers are criminals, hunters are not, there is not crossing over, you are either a poacher(criminal) or you are a hunter…when we get to the point that we understand and accept there is a difference, then perhaps we will be able to have some movement in the right direction.

  18. Jerry Black Says:

    Elk says…”It just that everyone is raised differently with different genetic codes. No one is right and no one is wrong, just different outlooks.”

    NO ONE IS WRONG!!!

    Please tell me you’re joking! If not, let me say first of all….your world is pretty damn narrow, you’re not very intelligent, and I hope the hell you never had kids.
    PATHETIC!

    • mikarooni Says:

      He thinks his kids would be fine …because they’d have those special “different genetic codes.”

    • william huard Says:

      It is unfortunate that people have this strict consumptive view of wildlife. This view that animals are here for our benefit only. I dated a woman from a nearby state whose father used to trap fox, raccoons and other wildlife. He wouldn’t even take them for their fur, he would just shoot them with a 22 caliber gun and throw them in the garbage can. After a few conversations I think I got through to him that most people do not approve of treating wildlife like that. He had no real explanation of his motivations, but there was a real lack of empathy in his thought patterns. Someone that would skin a wolf and discard the carcass like that is a sick individual

      • Phil Says:

        Speaking of sick, that takes the cake there william.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Really? Well you need to get out more.

      • jon Says:

        William, some people believe that animals are here just so we can kill them and do whatever we want with them. A normal person is compassionate about wildlife.

      • jon Says:

        William, people who kill animals and show no empathy usually go after humans next. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer and HH Holmes just to use 2 examples. Both of these guys killed and tortured animals and showed no empathy and compassion to the animals they killed and then when they got bored with that, they moved onto humans. Most experts agree that serial killers first practice their killing on animals first and than upgrade to humans.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Very good point Jon. I’m going to write a paper on this topic. Could I get some of the citations you used to gather this info? Thanks.

        “William, people who kill animals and show no empathy usually go after humans next. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer and HH Holmes just to use 2 examples.” USUALLY.

        “when they got bored with that, they moved onto humans.”

      • jon Says:

        wolf mod, it’s common knowledge. A good # of serial killers killed animals and tortured them first and than moved onto humans.

      • jon Says:

        http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm400690.html

        “Violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a violent psychopathology that does not confine itself to animals. “Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives,” wrote humanitarian Albert Schweitzer. “Murderers…very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids,” according to Robert K. Resler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Studies have now convinced sociologists, lawmakers, and the courts that acts of cruelty toward animals deserve our attention. They can be the first sign of a violent pathology that includes humans.

        A Long Road of Violence

        Animal abuse is not just the result of a minor personality flaw in the abuser, but a symptom of a deep disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty against animals don’t stop there; many of them move on to their fellow humans.

        The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders. Studies have shown that violent and aggressive criminals are more likely to have abused animals as children than criminals considered non-aggressive. A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a boy. To researchers, a fascination with cruelty to animals is a red flag in the lives of serial rapists and killers.”

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Cool. Thx Jon.

  19. Phil Says:

    wolf moderate: I love how you hunters always use the Timothy Treadwell example to make a ridiculous point. Why don’t you mention that for 12 and a half years not one Grizzly bear attempted an attack on Timothy? Why don’t you mention that the one that eventually did was an older and weaker Grizzly that was tortured by humans? Why don’t you mention that for 5 years that Grizzly did not make an attempt of any attack on Timothy? No, all you can do is use that pointless example for your criteria. Here is what I tell people, if you do not understand bear behaviors, then do not enter their habitats. Treadwell understood their behaviors, but for tragic circumstances the bear acted naturally and sadly killed Timothy and his girfriend.

    Where did I state I am to scared to save a drowning animal? Please point that out. Respectful wolf moderate? Really? You attack anyone who is not a hunter. You criticize anyone who does not share your beliefs, and that is respectful to others? What is your definition of respect wolf moderate? For me, life is valuable. It may not be valuable to you because you are not in the situation to where you may lose your life, but no matter if it is my life or not, it is valuable to that individual. To act upon rescuing a human or animal truly shows respect, not just talking about it.

  20. wolf moderate Says:

    Timothy Treadwell is an idiot. I watched his documentary again last week. He was very selfish bringing his GF into an environment like that. They are 1000 pound WILD animals. Not play toys. Also, wouldn’t he be doing a disservice to the bears in the long run, ya know, getting the bears aclimated to humans n’ all?

    BTW, I got you confused w/ Willima. My bad…
    I didn’t realize nurses couln’t help wildlife in distress. Just letting him know that he could become a volunteer firefighter and help these drowning moose, deer, and whatever else.
    Peace.

    william huard Says:
    February 20, 2011 at 8:42 PM
    Save Bears-
    “I work as a nurse in a hospital so obviously I have never participated in a rescue of that nature, nor am I trained to do that type of rescue. Does it shock you that there are states that don’t just let nature take it’s course?”

    JON: Does your Dad publish a boat magazine? Just curious.

    • Phil Says:

      wolf moderate: Timothy did not force his girlfriend to come with him. Reread the biography and you should find out that she volunteered to go with him. Did you actually ever get a chance to listen to the tape of the attack? He actually at his girlfriend to run, but she refused. I have been with bears, cougars, wolves, coyotes, etc, as long as people their behaviors, attacks will more likely not occur. Look at how many vidoes of Timothy being near the bears, how many attacked him? He understood how to react and respect bear behaviors, therefore; the bears felt no threat from him and did not see attacking him as being a self-defense mechanism. I do not agree with all of what Timothy did, but respect his passion for Grizzly bears and the two foxes that befriended him during his time there.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Fair enough. Agree to disagree. Wildlife is meant to be wild. If ya wanna get close to animals go to zoo imho or YNP. Good luck in school. Are you going to be a social worker by chance?🙂

    • william huard Says:

      Wolf Moderate-
      You don’t make sense. Let’s go over this again slower…….One reason why I live in a progressive state is because we don’t treat wildlife like shit like they do out west. Coyotes are not treated like vermin because people with “special genetic variations” don’t like them. There is no hunting with dogs, there is no canned hunting. Poaching is a very rare occurence. Trappers are required to do mandatory 24 hour trap checks. I could keep going. I do my part to help wildlife whenever I can. What do you think you are clever with the volunteer firefighter comment?

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “do my part to help wildlife whenever I can. What do you think you are clever with the volunteer firefighter comment?”

        No I’m dead serious. Why is it that it’s obvious: “I work as a nurse in a hospital so obviously I have never participated in a rescue”. What? Nurses can’t help wildlife or something. Firefighters are normally the ones that go out on the ice to save animals, so go and volunteer. There is no reason that you can’t “participate in rescues”. That was my point. Anyone can volunteer. It might be good for you.

    • jon Says:

      Aren’t you a strange little troll asking me personal questions.

    • jon Says:

      And what Timothy did was his own doing. He just got lucky all of those years. I doubt any woman would go along with him unless she was ok with what Timothy was doing and supported him.

  21. Phil Says:

    wolf moderate: So, killing and throwing the body in the garbage is not sickening? And I need to get out more?

  22. Phil Says:

    SaveBears: Let me ask you this; what would be the difference from a car salesman who pushes a customer to purchase a car at the highest price level that they can barely afford and someone who flat out steals money? One is legal and one is not, but morally are they not both technocally stealing from someone? The price of the car can go down further, but the salesman wants to make the highest commission possible and will lie to steal as much money from the customer. Hunting is not illegal, but just as poaching is, it is immoral. Living in a technological time hunting is not a sole means of survival. I understand that certain cultures still rely on hunting to feed their families, but the general hunter who has a job and makes a good income does not rely on hunting for survival. It is basically a choice of “want” to hunt and not a “need”. I will not criticize anyone who hunts to feed their families, just ones who do so for a sport, but it is not a need to hunt when you have so many other forms of feeding your family. I work at a middle school, and last hunting season one of the students took his first trip with his dad and uncle to hunt a deer. They did not get anything that first week, but the excitment in the student was no different then someone who would have won the lottery. He loved the hunting trip and stated many times “I can’t wait to kill the next deer I see”. It is not a hunt for life, it is a hunt for entertainment no matter what anyone says.

    jon: I do not think Timothy got lucky for 12 1/2 years. Look at how many biologists, scientists, ecologists, etc that have never been attacked by any powerful species. Dave Mech has been working with wolves since the early 60s and he has not had any significant attacks on him. Why? He understands how to resort with the behaviors of wolves. In most cases, if you don’t show any form of a threat you should be ok. That’s what Timothy did. As for Timothy’s girlfriend, she wanted to support him, but also knew how knowledgeable he was on Grizzlies and knew she would be pretty safe.

    • Savebears Says:

      Phil,

      I hunt to feed my family, plain and simple, over 90% of the meat consumed in my home is wild game and its not for you to decide on how I choose to feed my family. I don’t care that you don’t hunt, and I don’t care that you find it immoral.

      I also grow much of my own vegetables during the season, I don’t hunt when the freezer is still full, as it was this last hunting season..

      Of course, this subject has been discussed to death over the years, and neither your nor I are adding anything new to the conversation..

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Phil,

      There’s alot of difference between a wolf and a Grizzly Bear. I agree with all those who say that Treadwell was lucky, until the end.

      • Savebears Says:

        I met Tim twice, in Jackson hole, when there were meetings going on about bears and the efforts to preserve them and other such subjects.

        Tim, was arrogant and basically told the worlds most recognized bear biologists that he knew more than they did. He was told by the best it was not a matter of if, it was just a matter of when, he laughed them off and told them “His” bears would do nothing to hurt him.

        Well…

      • jon Says:

        Timothy’s bears are my friends attitude and they will never hurt me attitude is what got him killed. I guess he didn’t know that wild animals are UNPREDICTABLE.

      • Phil Says:

        Immer: It may have been luck, but if it was for 3-4 years, then I could understand, but almost 13 years is no luck, it is intelligence of the species. Let’s relate it to sports. I love baseball so I will compare a hitter to this example. Let’s say that you have a player who is dominate at his position for 13 years and then slumps for the following year or two. Would it have been luck for him to be a great player for the 13 years? I would even understand if each trip to Alaska for Timothy was a couple weeks to a month, but he spent 3-4 months in the heaviest portions of Grizzly bear habitats. What about the biologists who have worked in Grizzly bear habitats that have never been attacked? Just look at the many videos of Timothy within 50 yards of one or more of the bears. I would never go abouts and do what he did, instead my conservation and protection of Grizzly bears would come from research and education of the public on them. Was he kind of psycho? Sure, but you cannot doubt his intelligence of the species which is a big reason as to why for almost 13 years he did what he did.

      • jon Says:

        Imho, I don’t think it has much to do with intelligence Phil on Timothy’s part. I just think he was extremely lucky. I mean being around dangerous predators for months/years at a time, something bad is going to happen eventually. Tim may well have thought he was an expert, but I don’t think an expert calls wild animals his friends and claims that they will never ever hurt me. An expert knows a grizzly is a wild and unpredictable animal. Tim believed they were cuddly big animals who would never law a paw or tooth on him.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      I just bring up the Timothy Treadwell illustration because it is a perfect example of how the animal rights folks view wildlife. They are like pets to them. Mom and baby moose etc… They don’t realize that nature is brutal, where only the smartest and strongest survive. It’s a kill or be killed lifestyle. Darwin’s ideas on natural selection is right on.

      The above views have nothing to do w/ hunting Phil. It is a mindset that many animal rights activists share. That is my point…

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Wolf Mod,

        I’m not anti-hunting, so I don’t want it to read that way, but some of the anti-wolf folks use this argument to a fault, that pro-wolf folks have a “Disnified” view of wolves, and then proceed to lambast the pro-wolfer for not knowing how long it takes a wolf to kill, at times, and how cruel it is. In the anti-wolf mind, they have the Disnified view of nature, and fail to understand how brutal nature can be, again as per Darwin.

        Treadwell stepped outside of his species boundary, and entered the world of Darwin, or better said, exited.

      • Phil Says:

        wolf moderate: You brought up the Timothy Treadwell example because that is what a typical hunter points out in persuading the general public and animal advocates as to why hunters SHOULD kill bears and such. How rare is it for a wolf to kill a human? Very in North America, but hunters will directly pin-point the few instances to persuade people that wolves will eventually begin attacking humans on a daily basis. Do you know who Bruce and Rockholm are? Your Timothy Treadwell example is similar to their wolves eventually attacking and killing children examples.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        “persuading the general public and animal advocates as to why hunters SHOULD kill bears and such. How rare is it for a wolf to kill a human?”

        Heh. You have no clue. MOST hunters do not care about bears or any predators including wolves, so long as they are managed. There are a few nuts like rockholm that make hunters look retarded, just like there are nuts like Treadwell that make animal activists look retarded.

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      Phil,

      Your moral superiority is entertaining to a point, then mildly nauseating.

  23. Phil Says:

    jon: And that was why I stated that I wouldn’t go as far as Timothy did in his protection of the Grizzly bears. I have a passion for Grizzly bears, but would not call them my friends, especially when I have an understanding of their power. But it all comes down to the fact that it was a 13 year time period and not 2-3 years. I fully understand just how large Grizzly bears, and is a big reason why I have so much respect for them, but I believe if someone has an understanding on their behaviors (from a distance off course and not up close), then a posed threat to the bears will not come about and a need for a attack in most norm instances will not occur. No they should not be seen as pets, friends, etc. They should be seen as powerful, beautiful and respected animals. That’s just my opinion.

    • Savebears Says:

      There is a series on Animal Planet that has delved into the phenomenon of humans and large dangerous animals..it is called Fatal Attractions, it is probably a good one to watch, many times people spend many years with these animals to only have them turn and kill them.

      There was a very experienced man in San Diego that grew up around bears and he was making a TV spot or a promo spot, he had worked with them from the time they were cubs and he still got killed, and he had over 30 years of experience..His Uncle fully admitted when you are working with large dangerous animals, often times it is luck that gets you through..there are just to many variables involved.

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: Those type of people do more harm for large predators then protection. I would never put a tiger on my kitchen cabinet and pose with him/her as my pet. Tigers are one of my favs, but I would rather enjoy them in their natural habitats then in my kitchen similarly to my dog and cats. What about the couple in New Mexico that have been with Grizzly bears for almost 40 years? They are still around and continuing their conservation efforst of the species. Jennifer Aniston was in a show about them called “Growing up…”. To me caring for a wild animal in your home does not show the realistic knowledge of the species, it more or less shows passion but without the reality of understanding the animal. Trust me; I am not advocating that anyone should do what Timothy did, or what the people on “Animal Attractions” did/do. But, to take it further, look at Casey Anderson, Kevin Richardson with lions and hyenas, Dave Salmoni, etc. There is always the possibility of something tragic that could happen, but I believe understanding the species helps a lot, not all the time, but a lot.

      • jon Says:

        I watch that show often sb. Most of the cases they had on that show ended up with the owner being mauled and killed by their “pet”. I don’t think experience means as much as some think. At the end of the day, large dangerous unpredictable animals will be just that.

      • jon Says:

        sb, I believe you are talking about the animal trainer Randy Miller. His cousin worked with bears since they were small. He wanted to wrestle a bear and he got killed by that bear. Is this the case you are talking about? Look up Randy Miller. He trains big cats and other predators to be in films.

      • jon Says:

        Kevin Richardson is agreat man and an advocate for lions. He even admits that his own lions might one day kill him and he accepts that fact. This guy sleeps with lions and he has raised them since they were cubs, but that still doesn’t change the fact that one day, one of his lions for one reason or another might attack and kill him. I hope it never happens, but I’m certain he realizes this could happen even if he thinks they wouldn’t do it. The difference between Kevin and someone like Timothy is that Kevin realizes that his own lions might one day attack or kill him. Timothy never accepted that bears, his “friends” might one day attack and kill him.

  24. Phil Says:

    jon/sb: If Randy Miller is the one that SaveBears is talking about, then it was just an absolutely stupid action by his cousin. Wrestling a bear? WOW! And, you don’t think the bear saw the cousin as a threat trying to wrestle him? I always say this, predators, or any form of animal, do not share the same vocabulary as we do. Miller’s cousin may have been playing around, but did the bear know that?

    • jon Says:

      I believe that is who sb is talking about, but I could be wrong. I saw that episode and I agree it was stupid what Randy’s cousin did. Wrestling a bear is not something that anyone should be doing in the first place. That bear will kill you. Common sense would tell most people you do not wrestle a bear if even that is something you want to do for whatever reason. It’s just a stupid and careless move for anyone to do.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Just ask Seigfried, or was it Roy?

      • jon Says:

        Believe it was Roy and I’m sure he never thought in a million years his tiger would attack him.

      • Phil Says:

        That is the one jon. Really? Who do you think is more intelligent in that video, the man or alligator? From what I have learned, an alligator or croc will not bite down unless something stimulates its receptors in its mouth, so something must have fallen into the mouth for the alligator to react to biting on the hand, but I am not an alligator or croc expert.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Something must have stimulated the croc to bite down? It looked like the guys hand.

  25. Phil Says:

    wolf moderate: I never stated that Timothy was the brightest man and even went as far as calling him somewhat psycho.

  26. Phil Says:

    jon: The tiger probably would not have bit into his head unless he saw it necessary due to some circumstance. How many times had Roy performed that action? How many times had his tigers hurt him? It is all in the neurons sending actions to the brain. If the tiger felt safe, maybe it would not have occured. I really don’t know, because I am not the tiger and do not understand what exactly occured.

  27. Phil Says:

    Immer: Sorry, I should made myself clearer. When a croc opens its mouth, it is pretty big. I have never put my hand in a croc’s mouth, but you can fit it inthere with plenty of room to spare. From what the reports stated, sweat from the man’s hand dropped on the croc’s mouth that stimulated him to close his mouth. My mistake.

    • Immer Treue Says:

      Phil,

      I guess the question is, would you ever stick your hand in a croc’s mouth, and then be able to answer the question, why did you do it? Wild animals are just that, wild. Doesn’t matter if they are a wolf, bear, croc, tiger, lion or many of the critters with which Steve Irwin played Russian roulette, and ultimately lost on a fluke.

      Leave things wild, wild.

      • jon Says:

        Steve Irwin I thought for sure he would be killed by a saltwater crocodile. He was handling some big ass salties. He has been injured before by salties, but a stingray did him in. I never saw that coming. He got too close to the stingray and the stingray’s stinger hit his heart.

      • Phil Says:

        Would I ever stick my hand in a croc’s mouth? No. That is shear stupidity. I do not condone what Timothy did, I was just saying that he lived almost 13 years spending 3-4 months straight in the heaviest part of a Grizzly habitat and not being attacked because he understood bears and knew what to do and not to do when around them. Do I blame the bear that killed him and his girlfriend even though he did attack them? No, because the bear was acting instinctly for his own survival. Being older and not as agile as younger bears, eating is less abundant, so drastic measures come about, and in this case the easiest meal for the bear was attacking Timothy and his girlfriend. I am sure Timothy knew the consequences, and know how wrong he was to put the bears as his friends, but it is not luck that he spent 1/4 of the year for almost 13 straight years with Grizzly bears and not once being attacked. That shows knowledge on how to act and not act near the animals. Stupidity in how he went about his ways of conservating Grizzly bears, but knowledge on them.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        One of the key things, is, we don’t know what happened while he was there, we simply were told what happened by him, I don’t know if he had been smacked, pushed around by the bears, etc. In conjunction with all of the other half truths he told over the 13 years, I would not be surprised if things happened that he didn’t report.

        Do I blame Tim, not as much as I blame the NPS for allowing it to continue, they were the regulating agency and they knew he was breaking the rules when it comes to wildlife.

        What I do find very telling about Tim, was over the years, he made the statement, he would not be unhappy to end up as bear scat..problem is, it was not only him that got killed, his girl friend got killed, it does not matter that she trusted Tim, he got bears killed, which was the whole reason he started this venture to prevent bears from being killed. Even Though the bears faced no danger from humans in this area..

      • Savebears Says:

        I will add,

        I live in Both Grizz as well as Wolf country 365/24/7 and have for over 15 years now, I am still here and I observe them all the time, I also know, not to push the envelope and don’t purposely approach or let them approach me.

  28. Phil Says:

    SaveBears: You are exactly correct. I stated before that people like him do more harm to species like bears then protect them. I backed up Timothy in that he was knowledgeable on Grizzly bears. I also do know what you are referring to when Timothy mentioned many times that he did not mind being eaten by bears. It is not his fault that his girlfriend was also killed. She volunteered to go with him even though he explained to her the dangers. I believe at the end she ended up having a similar mindset as he did. I respect what he was trying to do, but do not respect in the manner he did it. It is like the hunters and animal advocates who are extremists, you can do something, but do not do it to where it may cause a situation that would end up in altering one another’s lives.

    I know this is kind of silly, but I was watching a rerun of Beverly Hills 90210 the other day. One episode was when they were in college and two of the characters joined a animal rights group. To shorten the story, at the end the group’s mission was falling on death ears so they joined forces with an extremist group that would cause damage to get their ways. Not everyone in the group was accepting with the extremist groups, just a couple were. This is a prime example of how the situation can turn ugly when you have difficult people who will take actions in their own hands if they do not get their way. Kind of like the hunters on the wolf issue.

    • Savebears Says:

      Knowledge and common sense are two different things, also, not all hunters are against wolves, we have a small but very vocal group on the extreme fringe that we hear and read about all of the time, but I know a lot of hunters, I talk with a lot of hunters in the tri-state area and all I ever hear, is they need to be managed, I rarely run into the extremist that says they need to be wiped out.

      Often times people listen to the extreme and make the assumption that is the attitude of all of that group, which is wrong.

      I bet I could hit the majority of the blogs, websites and newspaper comments and it would be less than a hundred that are making all of the comments…

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: The hunters that say they need to be managed and ones that say they need to be wiped are on two different scales, but no matter what scale they are on both are against wolves. Let me know if I am wrong, but weren’t these same hunters from both scales against the wolf reintroduction? Didn’t they cry about the same aspects 8 years ago when the wolf population was no where near what it is now? No, not all hunters are against wolves, but the large majority in the region are.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Phil,

        Some of your assumptions are terribly wrong. Many hunters welcomed wolves, but the impact on ungulate populations in some areas have proved to be a bit much for some. You will always get livestock depredation, which does not help the cause of the wolf. Many hunters are excited about seeing wolves when they hunt, but some are selfish and don’t want to share.

        Management of wolves in some areas is imperative. Livestock and pet depredation demands this, and I’m not just talking about the NRM states. I care about the dogs themselves, but I give a rat’s ass about the people who use them to hunt bear and cougar.

        I would think that even the most fervent pro-wolf folks, and I’m close to the top, hold their breath in terms of wolves and possible interaction with children. Is it likely-no, but is it possible-yes. if and that’s a big if it happens, shit WILL hit the fan. Wolves are wild animals, predators who have evolves to eat meat, and must be treated with respect.

        My take is that most ***ethical*** hunters would not hunt wolves, but those that would are in favor of fair chase hunts and sustainable numbers. There is only so much room. As long as humans don’t manage their own populations, the only hope that wildlife in general, and wolves in particular have is benevolent management, and that means hunting.

        Even David Mech has said as much, as wolf numbers have increased, the the anti-wolf rhetoric has increased. A hunting season on wolves will satisfy the nuts, and perhaps we won’t have to listen to them anymore. I hate to say it, but if we want animals like wolves, the sacrifice of the few will benefit the survival of the many.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        Do you live in this region, do you actually speak to hunters in this region, I talk to hunters virtually every day, I am so damned tired of people that don’t live in this region or interact with the people in this region telling us how those that do feel.. And that has nothing to do with your being able to express your opinion on how they are managed, it has to do with not knowing those that live here.

        I know a lot of hunters in this region that didn’t care that they were re-introduced, myself included, where do you come up with this BS that a large majority are against wolves?

      • Phil Says:

        Fair enough SaveBears.

      • Nancy Says:

        “I rarely run into the extremist that says they need to be wiped out”

        On the other hand SB – every rancher I’ve talked to in my area over the past few years (and you are familiar with my area) seem to think it was a terrible idea to bring wolves back – their mentality is “got rid of them once, why did they have to bring them back?”

      • Savebears Says:

        Nancy,

        We are talking about hunters, I also know ranchers that are not singing to high heaven to get rid of them…its easy to listen to the squeaky wheels, they exist in all parts of life, but take into account I would venture a guess, that less than 15-20% of the people in the tri-state region even comment on the internet…

  29. Phil Says:

    SaveBears: You just proved a perfect example of what others on here have stated before. “I am sick and tired of people who do not live here….”. I do not live there, but have been in the region on 4 different stints. I live in Michigan where the hunting population is virtually larger then in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. We actually have more wolves then two out of the three states in your region. No disrespect SaveBears, but why are you becoming angry? I was actually growing a large respect factor for you until you made that ridiculous comment of being sick of people who do not live in your state as doing such and such. I guess you are correct that the extremists that are against wolves in the region have such a loud voice in issues that it may resemble the entire population of hunters.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Phil,

      You do realize that it was a legal technicality as to why wolves are still listed right? Of course people are getting upset. It’s ridiculous that these sue happy national organizations are doing this stuff. That’s OK, as I posted before, for every action there is an equal reaction. They wannna sue? We’ll sue is the mentality as I understand. Actually, they seem to be the smarter thing by circumventing the courts all together. It’s too bad, because the wolves are the real losers in the deal. I’m “pro” wolf (within reason), but I am beginning to question if it’s in the best interest of myself and the state to continue supporting them.

      • Phil Says:

        wolf moderate: Time will tell if support for wolves should or should not continue. Populations of all species fluctuate all the time. Elk numbers may be down in certain areas and have continued to dip for whatever consecitive number of years, but eventually they will (should) rise again. Here is how I see it. Wolf presence has built in a anti-predator mechanism for the Elk. Predation may not be the factor for the certain areas elk decrease, it may just be that they are leaving the areas for more safer grounds.

      • jon Says:

        It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc are extremely anti wolf. And yes, there are a good # of people in each of these states who want wolves wiped out. If you don’t think so, you are fooling yourself to what is really going on.

      • Savebears Says:

        Jon, you have many times in the past, said the majority of people in Montana are pro wolf! My question is how did you come to that conclusion?

      • jon Says:

        Montana pro wolf? I never ever said that. I think you mean anti-wolf, but yes, I do believe there are a lot of people in Montana that are anti-wolf. How many is anyone’s guess really.

      • Phil Says:

        wolf moderate: It is also an illegal technocality as to why they were delisted in the first place. Molloy stated that it was an illegal process by the Fish and Wildlife to delist them.

      • Savebears Says:

        And therein lies the problem, it was illegal to de-list them, not based on science, but based on political boundary, but yet, we still have a political boundary that is dividing the wolves, so even the Judge is not consistent in his application of the laws!

      • Ken Cole Says:

        Wolf Moderate,
        It was not a technicality that wolves were relisted. It was a clear reading of the law and the simple fact that Wyoming refuses to come up with a plan. The ESA is a very well written law that provides a clear plan to delist a species when it is no longer threatened.

        Just because wolves have reached numbers at which they could be considered recovered by many does not mean that they are not threatened with being exterminated or reduced to unsustainable levels once they lose that protection. That is why the ESA requires adequate regulatory mechanisms for the protection of species once recovery levels are reached. Those mechanisms do not exsist and that is why they are still threatened.

        The recovery plan does not simply call for a certain number of wolves. It requires protections which will keep them from becoming threatened once they are delisted. That is NOT a technicality.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Sorry, I do not buy that wolves are endangered or threatened. There are hundreds of thousands of them throughout Canada, AK, and Russia alone. I personally think wolves are needed throughout the West, because they are great for the ecosystem and they belong here. BUT, they are not endangered or threatened.
        I also do not buy that there are only 1850 +/- wolves in Idaho. I’d say more like a minimum of 3000…But either way they are not endangered or threatened, even w/ the bullchit that WY is pulling…Sorry not buying what you are selling!🙂

      • Ken Cole Says:

        It looks like you are ignorant to what the ESA intends and how it is administered.

        It also appears that you are ignorant about how wolf numbers are estimated and that they are minimum estimates. Even the biologists who make those estimates say they are minimum numbers but every one of them who I have talked to this year have said that they are confident that they are within 10-20% of the actual population.

        We have yet to see this year’s estimates but my guess is that they are stabilizing in Idaho and may even be down.

        BTW, the 2009 estimate for Idaho was not 1850 it was 840. Add 20% to that and you get 1000 or so. I’ll use the estimates of wolf biologists over those of barstool biologists.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        Ken,

        Yet more reasons that the ESA needs serious revisions. Wolves aren’t endangered, that’s all I know. 840 wolves in the entire state? Right…

    • Savebears Says:

      Phil,

      You made a broad reaching comment about the majority of hunters in this area, with no real knowledge of the majority of hunters in this region..

      Problem is, the majority of hunters in this region, think that the pro wolf side is nuts as well..

      As far as angry, see you have again made an assumption because I am not angry at all, I simply don’t understand people who make those types of assumptions based on a couple of visits, most likely on vacation without ever interacting with that many actual residents…

      I rarely make a comment about your area and wolves, because I simply don’t know those people, I have had no interaction with any of them to ascertain how they feel about wolves..

      Phil,

      I don’t post here nor anywhere else to gain anybodies respect, if my posting my opinion on people that make assumptions like you did, makes you loose respect, then I don’t know what to tell you…

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: You mentioned before that you worked with a state agency on wildlife, correct? You were forced to say and do things regarding wolves to put them in a negative notion, correct? But you refused because it was not legitimate in realistic science, correct? That was the first example that showed you deserved respect. You show that you have tons of knowledge in other attributes, but when you make the same statements as to these extremist hunters, then criticize others for pointing something related to it, it shows that you are defending them through a similar character as to them.

        “The majority of hunters in this region think that the pro wolf side are nuts.” Exactly my point. You don’t think that these majority of hunters believe the way they do towards the other side because they are anti-wolf?

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil, yes they do, that does not mean they want wolves wiped out, or gone., it means they are doing the exact same things that you did, they read a few articles on a blog or in the newspaper then go wow…

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: You can use both sides of the spectrum as doing what they did in illegal forms in either delisting or relisting wolves. I was posting a response from wolf moderate. The illegal delisting was based on the non-existing scientific proof to delist them in the first place. Could you use the example that a major reason why it was illegal is because Wyoming wolves were listed as protected while Idaho and Montana were not? Yes, but why would you use false science to delist them in Idaho and Montana in the first place. The Fish and Wildlife were not using the best form of science to determine what the delisting factors should have been. I believe the best criteria as to why they should have been delisted was based on what the plan called for in population numbers, right, which was reached in 2002?

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        I am tired and it is a waste of time to continue to re-hash these points over and over again…time will tell what happens in the future, despite what you or I feel should happened in the past, it has no bearing on what is going to happen in the future..I am looking forward to see how the 10(j) ruling comes out, now that is something that does matter..

    • Savebears Says:

      Phil,

      I never said, you don’t have the right to have your input heard on the wolf issue, what I said, is you have no knowledge of the majority of any particular segment of the population to say the majority feel one way or another, I know I certainly don’t have that kind of knowledge about your population segments were you live and without spending a great amount of time interacting with your population I would never presume to claim anything about your area..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: I did not say that you stated I do not have the right to my opinion. Ok, take away the fact that I have not talked to the majority of hunters face to face, but look at the comments on articles from hunters in the region, look at the hunters from the region that post on youtube, etc. Is each the majority? No. But when you add them all up it sure is pretty close. It does not have to be direct quotes from the hunters in saying they want wolves killed or wiped out. It can be indirect statements against wolves to fully grasp how they feel about wolves. Examples; the wolves are non-native, too large, killing machines, stalking humans, inbreeding, etc.

      • Savebears Says:

        Well Phil,

        You have your opinion, based on what you see on youtube and read in the news, I have mine based on what I see on the ground and by who I talk to..so lets leave it at that..

  30. Phil Says:

    Immer: Good points. If you look at my previous comments, I have also mentioned that there are ethical hunters. What I should have posted is groups of hunters, but did not and it seemed like I was putting ALL hunters in the group. I also did mention that the hunters that SaveBears was talking about were used in my example and not the entire population of hunters.

    • Phil Says:

      No problem SaveBears, but I guess you did not read the portion that I mentioned when I stated that I had been in the region on 4 different stints, and that we in Michigan have as many hunters, if not more, then Idaho, Wyoming or Montana have, as well as more wolves in this region then that of the Rocky Mountains one. So, youtube and articles are not the only sources.

  31. Nancy Says:

    +I would venture a guess, that less than 15-20% of the people in the tri-state region even comment on the internet+

    Meaning what SB?

    • Savebears Says:

      Nancy,

      The majority of people that visit this and other blogs, base their opinions and assumptions on what is posted on the internet, that is not a correct assumption and is not even close to what the region wide feelings are. Anti wolf people based their opinions on what they read in the news as do pro wolf people, problem is 80% of the people that live here are not commenting! So to assume the majority is one way or another is simply inaccurate…

  32. Nancy Says:

    +problem is 80% of the people that live here are not commenting+

    SB – what do you think would happen if I set up a lawn chair in say a town like Jackson, Wisdom, Dillon, Butte, Augusta (to name a few) with a sign propped up against it that read ” I think wolves ought to be on the landscape. Please let me know your thoughts”

    • jon Says:

      Nancy, I’m sure you have hunters where you live. What have they said about wolves? Do they hate them? Anyone you talk to that wanted wolves wiped out all over again?

    • Savebears Says:

      Nancy,

      Jackson, Wisdom and Dillon, I think you are going to find people will think your an extremist, Butte, Bozeman, Missoula, I think you will find a lot of people on your side.

      But using the towns your talking about really is not a fair cross section of the population of Montana, and you know it, hell what was the last census numbers for Jackson, Wisdom and Dillon? I know I can go to the local bar in Lincoln, MT where some of my wife’s relatives live and yell ya wolf and I would be run out of town..but I think there is only about 200 people there.

      Small town Montana has a lot of people that don’t like wolves, and in the population centers you will find more supporters than anti’s You know that Nancy..

      • jon Says:

        sb, my question is do you tell any of your hunting buddies that you are pro-wolf? if so, what do they say?

      • Savebears Says:

        Jon,

        I tell my fellow hunters I am not against wolves and that I believe they have a place in the environment, fi they don’t like that, then we don’t hunt together…

      • Nancy Says:

        What I know SB is that there are still alot of those little towns that make up MUCH of the fabric (and attitudes) of Montana, not to mention Idaho and Wyoming.

        An example of that kind of mentality just today in that sad little rag of a daily paper in Dillon:

        Slavery

        I’m getting a little tired of hearing about all of the abuses of Blacks in slavery. Of course there were abuses, but that was not the general rule.

        The truth about slavery is that the industry was organized and run by the Africans themselves, mostly by muslims and some of the more advanced black tribes. They would go out and capture people from other tribes and sell them to all countries; but, there were also cases where a family, with too many children, would sell some of the kids into slavery. This would help both the family and the child. The family got money and the child went to a better situation, with plentiful food, clothing and housing, which they didn’t have at home.

        Most slave owners took care of their slaves, to protect their rather large investment. At the end of the civil war, many slaves decided to stay on the plantations, as freed slave workers.

        I certainly don’t believe in slavery; but, it’s just not as “black and white” as we hear most often today.

        Signed: Johannes Soyland, Ph.D.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Nancy, you would be safe in the Patagonia store in Dillon with your sign. I was there Saturday even the super deal back rooms with bargain prices and 40% off of the lowest listed price, that store is getting too expensive. I went home without.

  33. Savebears Says:

    Anyway, I am tired, we have beat this dead horse so many times over the last couple of years that it is not even fit for shoe leather anymore…

    • Phil Says:

      I have not been on for the couple of years, but I agree Nancy.

    • Savebears Says:

      Its fine to agree with her Phil, but she knows if you go to the population centers she would find a more balance view of wolves..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: I am agreeing with Nancy in that this topic has been talked about so much that it is like a popular song being played on a radio station time and time again and wears out its popularity. I truly do not believe that you can find a balance view of wolves in the region. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the further that you live from Yellowstone in the region the less percentage of people there are in support of wolves? Are the majority of the people who live further from the park hunters?

      • Nancy Says:

        SB – if that were really the case, I would think there would be a lot more discussion and debate going on regarding wolves and other wildlife like buffalo, and their rightful place in wilderness areas in this state.

  34. Phil Says:

    SaveBears: “I tell my fellow hunters I am not against wolves and that I believe they have a place in the environment, fi they don’t like that, then we don’t hunt together…” That is respected, but when you state that you are tired of people that do not live in your region or state doing and saying such and such, then that is more proof as to why there are black eyes on people who live in your region. It seems like with comments like that that you are segregating yourselves from the rest of the country.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Actually, it seems that the rest of the country is turning to “our way of thinking” wouldn’t you say? Just sayin’

    • Savebears Says:

      Well Phil,

      Then you have a different understanding and definition of things than I do…I said, I am tired of people that don’t live in this region saying what the majority of those that do feel like, when you have no possible way of knowing what the majority of any group that you don’t interact with feels like..that is not a such and such, that is a fact, you have no way of knowing…I am segregating myself, from your area, because I have no way of knowing what the majority of any group in your area feels like..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: You are not segregating yourself from my area. Comments like yours segregate people who state them and give a perspective to others that people in your area are trying to disassemble themselves from the rest of the country, not just my area.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Phil,

        That is not what SB is writing/saying. In the short time I have been participating on The Wildlife News site, I think Savebears, in his way uses as much logic as anyone, backs up what he says, and though difficult to garner from reading electronic posts is very even keeled and sober in expression.

        Not intending to start a hugfest, but reading Sb’s post’s I have the utmost respect for what he writes.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I thought you live in MN or where ever because they are progressive and don’t hunt animals w/ dogs?

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        I will agree, with our nut case legislature this year, it is very easy to say, that Montana is trying to separate from the rest of the country!

        We have some real piss poor representation this year in our state government!

  35. Phil Says:

    Nancy: True. I took an Intro to Africa class last summer, and the one thing that I will never forget is that slavery was actually brought about by Africans in Africa and Muslims who conquered countries in the continent.

    • wolf moderate Says:

      Oh boy. Don’t start on this subject now! I think you misunderstood the post…

    • Nancy Says:

      I know Phil, but who shipped them to this country like they were nothing more than livestock to be traded?

      • Phil Says:

        Actually, wasn’t it the British? There was a three way triangular destination in the trade. Britian recieved money, Africa recieved goods and United States recieved the slaves. True, the people were treated like livestock, and that is terrible in its own sense.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        I put the blame on all involved…not bust the horrible white man. There is a bit more to the story than some in the black community are willing to accept. There is obviously no excuse for what we did as a nation to the blacks, even if there own people sold them.

        Also, I liken the artificial standard of living that we now experience due to modern day slavery. It’s just that we pay others to run the slaves in lands far away.

      • jon Says:

        The white man is responsible for a lot of cruelty throughout history.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        YES. Only the evil white man….Yikes!

  36. Phil Says:

    wolf moderate: Yes, all are to be blamed. The Africans selling people from their tribes, the British conquering certain areas and forcing certain people into slaver, and the white man buying them to do as they say.

  37. Phil Says:

    Immer: I understand that is what SB is not saying because he stated it not to be, but when you read a comment from a hunter, or the one that SB stated in not wanting outsiders saying and doing something within the rhelm of where they live, that gives off a negative attitude of that individual towards the rest of society which creates a belief that they are not wanting to be part of the whole. If I were to tell you that I am sick of you telling us in Michigan to something about the automobile situation to help increase the economic flow of the country, would you not get the impression that I, basically speaking for the rest of the citizens in the state, do not care what you say and want you and others outside of the state to leave us alone? Would you not think that I, again speaking for the rest of us in Michigan, will do what we want and not listen to what all of you say? There is a major problem occuring currently in the state that is seperating individuals living within Detroit and the rest living in the suburbs. Detroiters do not want any part in others living in the suburbs to have a say in what should go on in the city to build it back to a economic positive flow even though individuals living in the suburbs pay taxes on such factors that are distributed from Detroit. Their response “If you do not live here, then you do not have a say in anything!” Do I live in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming? No. But, am I aloud to have a say in certain issues if I were to vacation there, or visit or do research on a yearly basis and contribute to the economy in some form?

    • Savebears Says:

      I never said because you don’t live here, you don’t have a say…I said, you have no possible way of making the judgment of what the majority of any group feels like. You have every right to contribute with input on the issues that concern the public property that is contained in this region, just as I do with the public property that may be contained in your region. But I have no way of knowing how the majority of any group in your region feels.

      Knowing how a group of people feels is a completely different issue than talking about how the natural resources of an area is managed..

      You are trying to muddy waters that have no dirt in them, we are not talking about the same thing..you made a wide reaching statement, that the majority of hunters are against wolves, based on a couple of visits and reading the blogs and news, and that is simply not true..

      • Savebears Says:

        Even in the area that I live, I run into far more people that are either neutral or positive on the wolf issue and I live in an area that there is no provision for shooting wolves that are attacking livestock or pets..the wolves enjoy full ESL protections despite what the Governor said the other day..

        In fact, many I run into, are just tired of hearing about it, they are here, so what…it has not affected me in one way or another, that is actually what I hear most of the time…

      • rtobasco Says:

        This one seems simple to me – I agree that all citizens have the right to have input into how federal lands should be managed, however, I think there is responsibility to attempt to fully understand and appreciate the local issues prior to voicing an opinion. I grew up in Montana and now live in Idaho and I hunt with a passion. I am not particularly in favor of wolves being here – but, in my humble opinion they are here to stay and I’d better learn to deal with it.

        I believe they need to be appropriately managed, not eradicated. I am in conflict because, while I would like to believe in the science put forth, there are widely divergent opinions based on widely divergent “science”. My years have taught to be skeptical of anyone who speaks in absolutes. This is a highly polarized issue and each side is burgeoning with those who see only in black and white.

        While it is easy to be critical of the anti-wolf group because much of their base tends to be made up of those with lower levels of education, they do present valid concerns. As for wolf advocates, I see just as much or more intolerance of those who hold an opinion different from their own. Just because you tend to be better educated and can present your argument in a more learned fashion doesn’t make you any prettier. There seems to be plenty of ugly to go around all sides of this wolf issue.

        Having said that, I don’t feel its safe for me to assume how anyone feels about this wolf issue. And I live in the heart of it. I agree with SB’s observation. I’m tired of it lingering on and on. Lets get on with it. No management plan will be perfect. But wolves, like elk, have proven to be a resilient species. Sooner or later we will arrive at a scheme which will be somehwat satisfactory to all concerned. This bickering in court is proving to be a way to keep lawyers fat and it only serves to feed a festering hate that is growing on both sides.

        I don’t visit here often and when I do its in the interest of “taking the temperature.” And I’m certainly no scientist.

        Back to my original point. You’re out of line if you’re sitting in some other part of the country and making assumptions about what we are thinking. Shows no respect. I guess that pretty well sums up my feelings about folks from other parts of the country. I’m tired of it. We might be open to some change if you first make an effort to understand who we are and why we believe what we do. But if you lead with false assumptions you’re likely to get kicked in the teeth. (metaphorically speaking – maybe)

  38. Rita K.Sharpe Says:

    What is this post about?

  39. Phil Says:

    rtobasco: You are taking the mentality that the hunters in the midwest have taken. We have had wolves for 5+ decades, so the hunters here have lived with wolves and is why there is not to much complaints of wolves here as there are in your region.

    “You’re out of line if you’re sitting in some other part of the country and making assumptions about what we are thinking.” So, how much respect have the anti-wolfers given to wolves or pro-wolf people? How much respect comes to the rest of the country when certain people in Montana will take money from the rest of the country just to say “You people who do not live here do not have a say in what we should do…”? How much respect is the propaganda against anything that does not serve a self agenda from certain people? It is not a false assumption that most hunters in Montana are not for wolves. That is based on facts.

    SaveBears: I do agree with you in that most of the people in your area do not care to much in regards to the wolf issue anymore. I emailed Ralph a couple months back and asked him a question similar to this topic. His response was the majority of the people do not really care to much on the wolf issue, or something like that, and that people basically follow what their neighbors say about wolves. Is everyone in your state against wolves? No. Are all hunters? No, and I stated that before, but I do believe that most hunters are in some way shape or form against wolves in the region.

    • Savebears Says:

      Phil,

      As I said earlier, you and I will have to agree to disagree, I talk to hunters virtually every single day, and I don’t find that sediment with most of them, yes, I have run into haters and we don’t have much to say to each other, but I don’t often run into that type of person.

      My only point as well as my question, is how did you ascertain and come to that conclusion without a lot of time on the ground interacting with the hunters in this region?

      You know I find it quite funny, we have all seen the smoke a pack bumper stickers, they have been highlighted in various articles and blogs over the years, but being out in the woods and on the ground during hunting season, I have only seen maybe 5 over the last 3 years, and I have seen thousands of vehicles coming and going down the back roads, I have been in many hunting camps talking to guys and gals, rarely do I run into the haters, for the most part, at least in NW Montana, most of the guys/gals, simply don’t care..

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: I will have to say that to a certain point I agree with you, but in the overall picture I do not. You are a hunter and live in Montana, right? Off course I would expect you to defend two aspects on the issue, one being a hunter, and the other living in Montana. I would do the same in whatever situation pertained to what I was involved in. I see it not from the insider’s view, but from the outside. A perfect example would be someone seeing themselves in a certain way but others seeing that individual in a different manner. I see you as a dedicated individual to what your cause is. It would actually be nice to have a survey taken from the hunters in the region on their thoughts on wolves. I believe JB researched something similar, and he had pretty clear results.

        You have stated that many hunters do not care, but is that directly related to the issue? Probably not, because if they had to chose one side or the other it would be the anti-wolf side. Most hunters do not want to compete with wolves, most hunters do not want the behavior of ungulate to change due to wolf presence, etc. Not all, but it seems like the majority do. There are good hunters and I have never doubted that, but look at the situation in Sweden (I believe it is there) with their wolves, it is no different then what is going on in the Northern Rocky Mountain region’s hunters and wolves.

        As Nancy stated, if most of the hunters truly did not care about the wolf issue, then the governments would not be in such a dedicated perdicament to delist wolves. Yes there are other reasons why the government wants to delist wolves, but hunters voicing out their anger towards wolves is either the first or second major reason.

      • rtobasco Says:

        Savebears,

        I talk to fellow hunters frequently too and I would have to say that most do care about the issue of wolves, on one level or another. I know of some who are adamantly opposed and I know of some who readily accept their presence. Most, like me, seem to be somewhere in the middle. If I had to generalize, I’d say we are tired of the issue not coming to some meaningful resolution.

        There are parts of both Idaho and Montana where wolf depradation on wildlife has been more than what was anticipated and there should be some reasonable controls employed. There are other areas where we seem to be getting along ok. The hunters I know, if asked, seem to be in unison on there being a need for avenues to manage wolves when and where its necessary. But then, I tend to avoid radicals on either side of the issue.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        Then you completely misunderstand the situation in the NRM the Main and driving force behind the wolf issue here is the Ranching community, you do realize there are ranches here that are privately owned, that comprise over 20 to 30 thousand acres and have upwards of 10 thousand head of cattle right, we are not talking the simple little dairy farms. In addition the Montana Livestock association, makes the Hunting groups look like amateurs, throw in the Montana Dept of Livestock and you have a formidable foe..

        I simply don’t understand how someone can make claims about the mood of a certain group, and have no real working knowledge of that group…the land owner rancher crowd around this state wields far more power than any other group in the state, which is also why we see the Bison being persecuted…what most people don’t understand, the issues that face Montana has far less to do with hunting and far more to do with land control… and it always has, that is the reason why the Native Americans were wiped out, it is the reason that Bison are being slaughtered..

        You give far to much power to the hunters, and not enough to the stock associations, we have legislation on the table this year to actually put other species under the control of the dept of livestock, mainly elk.. The stock association is the main group bending the ears of our government in this state..

      • Savebears Says:

        rtobasco,

        For the most part, I would agree, people just want this over with and have some management like with other species, there are certain areas of concern where wildlife have been deeply impacted. but just based on last hunting season in my area, for the most part hunting take was up, I have heard a few around my area sounding like the tired old broken record, but most were happy with their last hunting season, they got their animals.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        We had a discussion on here either early last year or late the year before and a couple of the ranchers in the Big Hole area pulled out of the Block Management Program, that allowed public hunters to access their lands to hunt for elk and deer, it made a bunch of hunters mad, but it was not the hunters that were the driving force, it was the powerful land owners that told the state, if you don’t do something about wolves, then we are not going to participate in your programs.. So the hunters were of course mad. But the real problem was those ranch owners that said, if you don’t do it my way, I am taking my ball home and not going to play with you…

  40. rtobasco Says:

    To my knowledge, harvest stats for 2010 have yet to be released by IDF&G. My impression is that it was an average year in most places. I have heard comments from some that hunting pressure is becoming more concentrated in some areas as a result of hunters moving to “greener pasture” because of wolf depradation. Most of the folks I know would rather enjoy a hunting experience with fewer, rather than more, people tromping the hills in their favorite haunt. Even if this is hearsay, it does foster a sentiment that continues to breed frustration among hunters, which in turn amps up pro-wolf advocates.

    Both sides need to see that 1) wolves can be managed in a ways that will maintain a reasonable and healthy population, and 2) elk populations can be sustained in a similar manner. General hunting will not/cannot eradicate wolves. And wolves aren’t going to take all of our elk. As much as anything I tend to think that the average hunter feels powerless in the current climate.

    • Phil Says:

      rtobasco: Management of species who are abundant in population is one thing, but to manage a species that is less then even 2,000 in such a large land base like Montana, Wyoming and Idaho with a small human population is another. It is not management for significant purposes, it is management to satisfy hunters and ranchers. If wolves were hovering around the 100,000 mark and had been growing in population for 20 years or so, then I can see that management is duable on the species because for some circumstances nature is not playing out its niche in sustaining a notable wolf poplation.

      rtobasco: I see you the same way I see SaveBears, and that is not in the same category as people like Eaglecreek, who Ralph probably knows pretty well.

      • rtobasco Says:

        Not sure why you feel the need to classify me or anyone else on here nor why it should matter. If you mean that you hold me in lower esteem because I generally tend to disagree with what you write – so be it. From what I have read of SaveBears’ opinions I’ll take your comment as a compliment. When it comes to hunting and such, I am quite envious of SaveBears in that I have to drive a considerable distance to put some space between myself and the hordes of SW Idaho. Makes me homesick for my old stomping grounds in W. Montana.

  41. Phil Says:

    SaveBears: I absolutely agree with you. That is why I stated that hunters are either the first or second when it comes to who the government bends over knees for, and the other being the ranchers. I do have an understanding as to exactly what you are saying, because it is that way here in Michigan as you get further up in the glove and the UP. I wish the entire wolf issue would be done with as soon as possible, but do you think that the anti-wolf hunters are ever going to be satisfied with any outcome of wolves besides the one that eliminates them all? Do me a favor, SaveBears, you mentioned that you talk to your hunting buddies on wolves frequently, right? I can understand many of them not even caring about wolves anymore, but ask them if they would rather have or not have wolves in the region and see what they say? I understand this would be a small sample, but it’s better then nothing. I remember last year when I spent some time in Idaho volunteering with a research group we surveyed 35 non-hunters who live within the area their thoughts on wolves. All were positive, and the most intriguing comments stated by most is their disbelief at the misunderstanding hunters are throwing out there about wolves. Not some hunters, all the ones they had been in contact with. I am not condeming all hunters, because you have proven that not all are selfish killers, but it seems to be that a large majority are.

    Survival is one thing, but when someone wants to kill competition to elongate their entertainment of killing to be on top is not moralistically the code of being human.

    • Savebears Says:

      see again Phil,

      You are not understanding, in the area I live in as well as other areas of Montana that have small unemployed communities(the actual rate of unemployment in my area is over 20%) you have people that depend on their ability to hunt and put food on the table, I live in a community that virtually has no manufacturing jobs, the timber industry is gone, mining is gone, most of the jobs around here for the 100K that live here is either fast food joints, Wal Mart or the local diner..

      There are no high paying jobs in this area, our local international airport only has about 60 employee’s.. The average family in this area has at least 3 kids, our property taxes have increased by 400% in the last 2 years…people are flat out of money, so putting meat in the freezer is very important to them.

      Most hunters in this area, just want to be able to take an animal and put it in the freezer, they want wolves managed as other species are. When you start comparing 100K elk to 2000 wolves, then we have to look at impact, those wolves have to eat as well and they don’t eat grass…they eat the same meat that humans eat..

      I am lucky, the last 4 deer and 2 elk I have taken were within a mile of where I live, I didn’t need to invest anything but the cost of my tag, I butcher my own, and I have the freezer space to keep them…

      We need to keep in mind the take that wolves have every year…what was the last estimate I heard? I think between 18-23 per wolf per year…

      • Phil Says:

        SaveBears: It is not 100,000 elk to 2,000 wolves. It is 100,000 + elk to less then 1,000 wolves in each of the three states. Combined it is more then 300,000 to less then 2,000 wolves. Management does not have to occur. Overall the population of elk has risen and you cannot disbute that.

        Let’s talk about the deer and take away the elk portion. I am pretty sure (even though I have not counted all the deer) that there are more then a couple million deer in the region, correct? SaveBears: the problem is that you cannot kill off individual wolves who depend off of hunting. How do you feel when people tell you that you should not hunt and instead find a promising career and use that income to purchase food? Probably not so easy on that statement, right? But, atleast no one is killing you for what you are doing. There is no doubt that the people you are speaking of need to eat and feed their families. But, if you truly want to make sure that there is enough elk and deer, then why let non-residential hunters come in and take their shares? Are there not deer in every state in the country? It does bring in money, but wolves do as well in large proportions. To say that wolves need to be managed with such a low population to make sure that there are enough elk and deer (who hover in the millions in population) is not a realistic management plan, it is a plan to eliminate competition.

        “They want wolves managed as other species are” Yes, that would be the case if the population was enormous, but it is not. Look at Minnesota which has 4x more wolves than the the state with the largest population (Idaho) in the Rocky Mountain region. The have not had a wolf hunt and still have plenty of deer and such for the wolves and human hunters. Why is it that your region was planning on increasing the quotes of wolf kills each year? If there were to be a wolf hunt last fall, the quote was larger then the previous years. It is not management, it is killing due to hate of the wolves.

        “We need to keep in mind the take that wolves have every year…what was the last estimate I heard? I think between 18-23 per wolf per year…” That is not the take, SaveBears, that is the average needed by a single wolf. You cannot solidify those numbers unless you collar and track a large samle size to get an accurate conclusion. But, let’s play with those numbers a bit, ok? Let’s take the Wolves in Idaho which number around 800. If each of the 800 wolves were to kill atleast 20 elk, that would total 16,000 out of the 103,000 elk in the state. I know there are other factors that kill elk, but this one is second just behind climate and natural causes. What hunters do not understand when putting this into factor is the breeding seasons in which almost every cow gives birth to young. I have mentioned before that I do not believe in hunting, but understand hunters killing elk and such. But, I would support it in greater detail if predators were not killed because they compete and change behaviors of ungulate that makes it harder for hunters to get their catch. Want a perfect example? Let’s take here in Michigan. We have almost 2 million deer in the state, but hunters cannot find them. Why? The slowly increasing population of wolves that has created a more scarce presence of the deer. It is like a kid who gets bullied in school. Will you make yourself visually present where the bully is? You are not dead, just not in the areas where the bully is. I am not an elk expert, but I have learned from others that they are incredibally intelligent. It is basically the law of nature, if a species is threatened by another (prey/predator) then they develop a solution to the stress factors. Just look at the Monarch Butterflies, for example.

      • Savebears Says:

        Phil,

        The last statement I will ever make to you, is your wrong, there is not over a million deer in this region..good night sir, this is a two day saga that has accomplished absolutely nothing, you and I will never agree..I have taken every single thing you can throw at me, being called immoral, being told that I am wrong, being accused of being angry..sorry not worth the time any longer, if you visit my region again, let me know, I will be more than happy to take yo around and let you meet real people..but as of now, no more conversation.

      • Immer Treue Says:

        Phil,

        It’s the livestock lobby that puts the big hit on wolves. That’s where the money in the Western States is. MN has more wolves, but most are concentrated in the NE portion of the state where they have very little impact on people. Livestock operations in MN are much smaller, and owners can keep closed tabs on their stock, but there is a silent grumbling in MN about wolves. I think the MN population os perhaps the most enlightened state in the Union in terms of wolves, but the NE reservoir largely keeps wolves from conflict with people and their animals.

      • wolf moderate Says:

        That was one heck of a 2 day saga lol.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: