Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Hunting Wolves

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***
You are not logged in. [Login] Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Hunting >> Hunting in the Americas
Previous topic Previous   Search Results   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 9.3x57]
      #153224 - 10/02/10 01:26 AM

You will need to sit down and bolt on for this one---read an article in the Bozeman paper yesterday that another liberal genius is suggesting, in an attempt to control game numbers in parks here in the west, they put in small packs of wolves..just enough to control the game number---WTF???
Has no one learned a thing here???

The article states they could collar all the animals and if they posed a problem they could be tracked and eliminated --or neutered from the start so they could not reproduce...IMHO, the neutered part sounds good for the ones who come up with the idea of reintroducing wolves in the first place..

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
450_366
.400 member


Reged: 17/01/07
Posts: 1068
Loc: Sweden, west-coast.
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Ripp]
      #153225 - 10/02/10 01:37 AM

Yeah, god forbid some human would hunt and kill the poor animals

--------------------
Andreas

"Yeas it kicks like a mule he said, but always remember that its much worse standing on the other end"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 450_366]
      #153226 - 10/02/10 01:47 AM

Quote:

Yeah, god forbid some human would hunt and kill the poor animals



Oh no, you have it all wrong..it is much more humane to have an animal be hamstrung and have their internal organs pulled out while they are standing there than to make a quick kill with a bullet...come on what are you thinking???

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26537
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Ripp]
      #153228 - 10/02/10 03:51 AM

I suspect deer are killed more quickly than elk or moose. I watched an 8mm film of wolves eating the top rear quarters of a bull moose as it was struggling on through 5' of snow, while the wolves danced all around it. The moose lasted for over 1/2 hour and was eaten down to the hip bones and spine up through the loins before it finally secumed. The snow was deep enough, although crusted on top, to support the moose in an almost standing position. Yeah -Nature is not kind to animals.

In a pristine 'idealistic world', there are peaks and valleys in game populations. With game peaks, the predetor numbers rapidly increase due to an abundance of food. Soon, they eat themselves out of house and home and move off to greener pastures. The ungulates in that area are now at a valley in population - minimal #'s for survival and start on the road to recovering their population numbers. As the wolves move around the country decimating the ungulates, game populations are systematically reduced throughout a huge area and finally the wolves themselves secum to starvation down to minimal surviving numbers - aka alpha male and females in packs. The game #'s increase fast now and the wolve populations are controlled by the internal hierarchy of only allowing the alpha bitch and male to mate as she controls the other females into not entering estrus - an interesting situation in nature. The pack grows slowly while the ungulates, due to high food sources for them, repopulate more rapidly. With minimal predation and 2 calves or fawns living to maturity for every cow or doe - up go their numbers. Their populations blossum to a high, then it's the wolves turn again - up and down, up and down, the wolf and ungulate populations go - that's nature.

Enter man - Man supplies the high wolf population #'s with cattle to mantain their numbers and the ungulates never do recover over vast areas until Man comes to his senses and does a full-scale assault on the wolves. The wolf is smart, and retreats way back into the wilderness to feed on the burgeoning ungluate populations that have grown in the meantime where man doesn't tread, and thus takes a long time to overcome his fear of man, before hunger again forces him into conflict after the wolf decimates the 'wildnerness' game populations. Due to man being there, the wolf populations never do attain the bare minimum needed for 'nature' to take it's course.

These BC and Alaskan wolves are not 80 pound 'brush' wolves or merely large coyotes. An 8 month old pup will weigh 80 pounds. They are slaughterers of game and livestock and when heavily populated, run in packs of way over 20 individuals. At a conservative average weight of 130 pounds(male and female), 20 animals is 2,600 pounds of hungry carvivour with the cunning a fox only wished he had. There are no animals here can fight a big pack. Even a 1,000 pound grizzly will move off a kill for them.

So - if you see one, put a bullet into it him and it doesn't matter where, as the others will kill it quickly - faster than nature would have, if that bothers you. It's going to be a matter of survival for the rancher and that situation is currently in it's infancy.

I'm not a biologist so I don't know any of this as fact, other than from living 'amongst' them for 30 years and attending a few seminars to learn some of their 'pack' idiosyncrasies. They've been spoiling our hunt for too many years now and some of the 'guys' are starting to fight back - ie: trap sets as explained in a previous post.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Story
.333 member


Reged: 15/10/08
Posts: 262
Loc: SE PA, USA
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Ripp]
      #153237 - 10/02/10 07:32 AM

Quote:

You will need to sit down and bolt on for this one---read an article in the Bozeman paper yesterday that another liberal genius is suggesting, in an attempt to control game numbers in parks here in the west, they put in small packs of wolves..just enough to control the game number---WTF???
Has no one learned a thing here???

The article states they could collar all the animals and if they posed a problem they could be tracked and eliminated --or neutered from the start so they could not reproduce...IMHO, the neutered part sounds good for the ones who come up with the idea of reintroducing wolves in the first place..

Ripp



It gets even better, Ripp - they want to NEUTER the wolves first!

So let me get this idiot's idea straight - someone wants to spend money (during this depression) to make eunuch Wolves and have a threat to livestock as a secondary problem (thereby raising the cost of meat) to take care of a problem that could be solved by hunters (who would make money for state coffers and the supporting tourism industry, as well as provide meat...). Am I missing something here?

Researchers say small packs of gray wolves introduced to national parks and other sites across the country could curb oversized elk and deer herds that are eating up parklands.
Keeping the predators on target would be a tricky prospect: They breed prolifically, roam hundreds of square miles and easily pick up a taste for cows and sheep.
The proposed solution, outlined in a paper for the journal BioScience: Neuter the wolves, fence them in, fit them with shock collars and add a tracking device so they can be hunted and killed if they get too far afield.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011005387_apmtwolfnation.html

Edited by Story (10/02/10 07:38 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Story
.333 member


Reged: 15/10/08
Posts: 262
Loc: SE PA, USA
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Story]
      #153238 - 10/02/10 07:35 AM

Attention hunters - fire mission!

Seriously, the way to deal with this is to write logical, dispassionate counter suggestions.

That said, weapons free, guys.

http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/masthead.html

If you'd like to get in touch with us, please send all editorial correspondence to:

Dr. Timothy M. Beardsley,
Editor-in-Chief, BioScience
AIBS
1444 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC, 20005, USA
Phone +1.202.628.1500
Fax +1.202.628.1509
bioscience@aibs.org

Article abstract with link to complete text here
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-rel...ecosystems.html


Some food for thought -

Because only hunting seems to clearly reduce wild boar damage, we suggest more emphasis be put on the development and introduction of new harvest models among local hunting teams.

Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):939-946. 2004
doi: 10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0939:EOHFAF]2.0.CO;2

EFFICACY OF HUNTING, FEEDING, AND FENCING TO REDUCE CROP DAMAGE BY WILD BOARS
HANNES GEISSER1a and HEINZ-ULRICH REYER2b
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068%5B0939:EOHFAF%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Edited by Story (10/02/10 07:48 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26537
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Story]
      #153247 - 10/02/10 11:11 AM

Just keeps getting gooder and gooder, doesn't it.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5504
Loc: United States
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: DarylS]
      #153254 - 10/02/10 01:08 PM

National Parks, etc. I read that, too.

They can start with Central Park in NYC.

Unreal.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul
.400 member


Reged: 28/08/07
Posts: 1031
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 9.3x57]
      #153279 - 10/02/10 08:45 PM

Daryl's take on it makes sense to me. I guess the answer is just to shoot wolves wherever until their numbers are under control and to compensate ranchers who lose stock to them. Neutering male animals that can jump fences doesn't make any sense to me. The neutered ones will still eat stuff - some ring-in will do the diddlin'.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JabaliHunter
.400 member


Reged: 16/05/07
Posts: 1958
Loc: England
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 9.3x57]
      #153295 - 10/02/10 10:53 PM

Quote:

Right on, Daryl.

"Balance" in nature is caused by human intervention.

There is no such thing as "balance" with wolves. It is feast or famine.

With the aid of the Pittman Robertson Act dollars, US gun owners and hunters have built amazing supplies of ungulates all over the country, and even here in the West where the country was subject to terrible peaks and valleys before the advent of modern management.

Now, with the wolf back in the picture, we are headed for the same famine unless those numbers are sharply reduced. It is a catastrophe.



9,3 - I hear what you are saying and know you have very good reasons for not liking wolves, but is this really true? I don’t think so, or at least it is a distortion of the truth. There is a balance which is determined by habitat and food supply. If that were not the case, then either wolves or elk would have become extinct in the past, long before increased human pressure. In the past, wolf numbers were kept in check by the carrying capacity of the land (i.e. the number of food species that could live sustainably). However, the area of land covered the whole continent!

Daryl citing the experience of Spatzizi park in Northern BC park does illustrate a point, but not the one that perhaps he thinks. If wolves had been prevented from leaving the park (a totally impractical and hypothetical proposition no doubt) then wolf numbers would have died back to a sustainable level in balance with a sustainable level of elk numbers, assuming of course that the habitat is sufficient in size and carrying capacity to support a sustainable population of both species – chances are that an individual park would not be, particularly as prey species have summer and winter ranges.

With increased human population and competing land uses, that carrying capacity is reduced. However, ultimately the number of wolves is still determined by the availability of food - whether it be elk or cattle (and the carrying capacity for domestic cattle is far higher than for elk because of intensive management). The wolf population is no doubt expanding rapidly, but if the space and food source declines, then so will the wolf population. However, what you have is a government that is conducting an ecological experiment on a continent-wide scale. Unfortunately, in designing the experiment, they have failed to take into consideration the competing land uses - for instance they have failed to take into account that the availability of cattle and sheep will support an artificially higher wolf population than otherwise would be the case if wild species were the only food source.

To sum up, human intervention causes imbalance (contrary to your statement). There already was a balance, but at an unacceptably low level for some. Now it can be argued that there is imbalance. Nevertheless, I think that an equilibrium of wolf numbers will be found, but at what cost?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5504
Loc: United States
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: JabaliHunter]
      #153301 - 10/02/10 11:45 PM

Quote:

9,3 - I hear what you are saying and know you have very good reasons for not liking wolves, but is this really true?

Yes, it IS true. But remember, "balance" is a term of personification. What we call wild swings in both carrying capacity and populations IS "natural balance". If you remove man from the equation {an utter impossibility, and an absurdity, of course, but for the sake of discussion, let's do it}, you get what? Well, in philisophical terms, "who cares"? Meaning, the deep meaning of our observations of biological conditions only have meaning IF we are there to describe them.

To sum up, human intervention causes imbalance (contrary to your statement). There already was a balance, but at an unacceptably low level for some. Now it can be argued that there is imbalance. Nevertheless, I think that an equilibrium of wolf numbers will be found, but at what cost?

I absolutely disagree 100% with this statement because, pardon me for saying, it lacks focus on value. Look, now let's inject people again to the equation. We are a biological organism. Somehow the "ecotheologists" {using Magnus Hagelstam's term} have hijacked the thinking of modern man to believe that man is an outsider to various ecosystems, when in fact we a deep insider, and many ecosystems exist only because of us and in fact ALL are impacted by us. "Wolves" or rats or anopheles mosquitos are given a pass to seek their own maximum gain, but people are seen as a superflous and intrusive element and should not seek their own maximum gain. These are of course statements of value. And, interestingly, most of the time the enviro's who demand the sacrifice and suffering of people aren't included in that list of people they expect to suffer for the cause. WE are.

And there it lies.

Science is the tool of values.

We do what we do for a purpose. If the purpose is to create an ecosystem where wolves exist, then we will have an ecosystem where game numbers are significantly depleted for human utilization and humans will pay a very high price in many other ways for the existence of wolves. We can use science to support that. If we want an ecosystem where certain animals {here, ungulates, bear, lion} are managed to maximum sustainable yield for human utilization, then wolves are OUT. I am not afraid to say that based on the options, I don't want a single living wolf in Idaho. If you want them in England, by all means, introduce them! IIRC, they were once there, yes? Well, if you say that is not practical, then my response is, it isn't practical, here, either, for all the same reasons. They are a pest and menace.

What we are re-learning is that Vernon Bailey was right, in his pamphlet on "The Destruction of Coyotes and Wolves", 1907. He was prophetic in saying, in paraphrase, that if we want to reap the benefits of a wolf-free existence {and the benefits for people are immense} then we must vigilantly and unendingly destroy them, persecute them and hold them down. To "go to sleep" for a while will result in their rising up, then our relearning just how serious a threat they are to us and our activities. Yup, we are RE-learning. The wisdom of our forefathers escaped us for 70 years, but we are gaining it back the hard way.

Daryl's exposition here is absolutely right-on.

Wolves are, in the presence of people, a disease organism.

All these discussion highlight the truth of Ed Bang's statement "Everyone loves wolves...unless you have to live with them".



--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JabaliHunter
.400 member


Reged: 16/05/07
Posts: 1958
Loc: England
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 9.3x57]
      #153306 - 11/02/10 01:19 AM

I think we are actually in agreement. You are correct that there is a fundamental argument over whether mankind is an outsider to ecosystems or not, but there is another element there, namely time! Those that want wolves in the woods are pursuing an agenda to return ecosystems to at least pre-industrialisation or the widespread settlement of the west by non-indigenous populations. In fact, those who place a greater value on the wolf than on both rural livelihoods and sustainable use conservation of wildlife resources through hunting are ahead in the game (actually, not morally IMHO)- they have got their wish and re-introduced the wolf, which is increasing and spreading. There is definitely a question here of values which is being argued by both sides, but in this case, wolf re-introduction could result in an imbalance through not providing a means for effective counterbalance - if we continue to provide wolves with food (as we inevitably will through agriculture) and don't allow sufficient control, the wolf will spread and increase to a greater population size than would have existed before man got involved (which is a paradox for the eco-mentalists)... which brings us back to how can we hunt or control wolves effectively... I hope!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26537
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: JabaliHunter]
      #153308 - 11/02/10 01:34 AM

There can be no return to the peaks and valleys in wolf and ungulate populations of old, with man there to sustain the wolf through what should be his die-off time. Man provides the wolf with sustenance, while the wolf really does a job on what normally would have been the surviving ungulates in the area.
This, in itself might be part or parcel for thereasoning for the peta's, sierra clubs, etc, to populate with wolves and now to stop the wolf shooting/poisoning programs, whatever. If the wolf eventually breaks the rancher, there will no more rancher & we can all turn into vegetable eaters like them.
How many ranchers can go 2 years without any income? On one ranch near Hungry Hill, BC (the owner lost all calves for 2 years along with 1/2 his heffers. It's difficult to feed your family with that, let alone the remaining cattle.

Oh yeah - wolves are great!

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Der_Jaeger
.375 member


Reged: 09/10/08
Posts: 607
Loc: SE Pennsylvania
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: JabaliHunter]
      #153309 - 11/02/10 01:40 AM

Also, mankind has been on this planet for 2.5 million years and certainly cannot be considered an outsider by any definition. I agree with 9.3 in that there are many new ecosystems in existence BECAUSE of mankind. Remember the childhood puzzle that consisted of a closed square with one empty place and you had to shuffle the pieces around within the puzzle to get to the desired picture or solution? Such is the balance of life in any ecosystem. There is only room for so many thriving species of life and one form will move another to the side and that form will do the same to another. If mankind and ungulates are the desired inhabitants, then something else must move over to allow that progression to occur. Even mankind has been threatened in the past by species wanting to move US out of the way. Personally, I don't want to be the one to make the determination whether an entire species should be placed into extinction, which is soley the job of the Creator, BUT, I believe that since we are the sentient stewards and alpha predators on this planet, we can determine what goes where.

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

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
450_366
.400 member


Reged: 17/01/07
Posts: 1068
Loc: Sweden, west-coast.
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: DarylS]
      #153312 - 11/02/10 01:46 AM

SDS, Shoot Dig Shotup

--------------------
Andreas

"Yeas it kicks like a mule he said, but always remember that its much worse standing on the other end"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26537
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 450_366]
      #153316 - 11/02/10 02:12 AM

SDS- exactly - and 6 at a time is good.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5504
Loc: United States
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Paul]
      #153318 - 11/02/10 02:55 AM

Quote:

Daryl's take on it makes sense to me. I guess the answer is just to shoot wolves wherever until their numbers are under control and to compensate ranchers who lose stock to them. Neutering male animals that can jump fences doesn't make any sense to me. The neutered ones will still eat stuff - some ring-in will do the diddlin'.



Paul, you are close!

But...

It is not so easy to "shoot wolves". VERY difficult, and VERY expensive in time and effort. It is impossible to reduce wolf numbers in our country by "shooting them".

As for "compensate", that, too is exponentially more difficult than you seem to understand, because PROOF of the take must be made {remember, we are dealing with the US legal system...}. That proof is denied continuously because ranchers find stock long after the kill or the stock never comes back with the herd. True compensation must include compensation for defense measures {additional movements of stock to safe areas, at night, increased innoculations, etc} AND must include compensation for radical change of lifestyle being imposed on us; children being shut up in the house instead of being allowed to play, or not fishing, hiking, berry picking, etc because wolves are in the area. I will not let my daughters ride their horses in the mountains UNARMED because of wolf threat for example. Since they were young they must carry a gun. People throughout our region are altering their lifestyles due to wolf threat. When you find wolf track in the snow next to your child's swingset in the backyard, you do not find any of this funny.

The ONLY way to CONTROL wolves, is to unleash all methods and attempt to eradicate them. I say attempt because you will not be 100% successful, and you will always have "a little disease" to deal with, but as Daryl says, a strong program of control will buy time, BUT those control methods must not be forgotten and they must be implemented immediately and wherever wolf numbers begin to increase.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26537
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 9.3x57]
      #153324 - 11/02/10 04:55 AM

Quote:


It is not so easy to "shoot wolves". VERY difficult, and VERY expensive in time and effort. It is impossible to reduce wolf numbers in our country by "shooting them".

As for "compensate", that, too is exponentially more difficult than you seem to understand, because PROOF of the take must be made {remember, we are dealing with the US legal system...}.



One of the problems we ran into with this very aspect, is that the government becomes or already is filled with peta types who claim only a couple wolves in each pack do the killing and to killing many from a pack kills innocent wolves - bloody hell.
They also proclaim that wolf kills aren't wolf kills and that the animal died of natural causes and the wolves just happened upon it. It is almost impossible to prove wolf kills without video or pictures - and if the entire sequence of the kill isn't recorded, they say the animal got away.

When the ranchers start losing too many livestock, like ALL of the calves (happened here), the goverment might allow as to predation being the cause, but they will claim since they cannot tell if it was a wolf, bear, cat, eagle or raven, they cannot act against the wolves as they might be innocent. Even if they are backed into a corner on the wolf issue, they'll say they can't tell which wolf form which pack was responsible, therefore stall on any counter measures.

You guys have it even worse than here, when a season is actually opened - when private citizens or groups can sue the government or courts to have a season stopped - now that's a ridiculous situation - is that some form of freedom?

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5504
Loc: United States
Re: Hunting Wolves; Track Pix For Jabali. [Re: DarylS]
      #153345 - 11/02/10 12:44 PM

Quote:

You guys have it even worse than here, when a season is actually opened - when private citizens or groups can sue the government or courts to have a season stopped - now that's a ridiculous situation - is that some form of freedom?



It is sick.

The court carnival this thing has become will no doubt lead to mass civil disobedience.

There is no difference to what we are facing as there would be if rats were required to be introduced to restuarants.

Jabali:

Here are some pix I took this afternoon.

The boot is an American size 12 Asolo. In the trail are coyote tracks. The coyote tracks are the size of one wolf paw PAD!!!



Yeah, these things are big.

Here's another one, a bit smaller, a few miles away.



Yours truly.





Edited by NitroX (18/07/10 04:17 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26537
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 9.3x57]
      #153346 - 11/02/10 12:50 PM

4" to 5" wide is an adult female and adult male. Yeah - they are big - they are not the painted dogs used in Jeramia Johnson movie.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul
.400 member


Reged: 28/08/07
Posts: 1031
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: DarylS]
      #153372 - 11/02/10 10:56 PM

I give up, Daryl. It sounds like wolves are the devil incarnate. My father used to hate foxes because they killed his lambs - but he could do that with impunity because they were an introduced species. I don't suppose ranchers could sue the sponsors of wolf reintroduction. If something is not you'll have to keep all cattle in sheds - and the animal libbers don't like that either.

- Paul

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Paul]
      #153375 - 12/02/10 12:02 AM

Was at my office in West Yellowstone, Montana yesterday--go there one day per week..had breakfast with 2 locals...heard an interesting story which, according to them, can be verified by park officials working in the part currently..in one area of Yellowstone currenlty, there is a small pack of 3 wolves---in the past 10 days--they have killed one adult elk every other day..have NOT eaten any of them..and the carcasses are currenlty being eaten by the birds..literally...

Last summer, one wolf killed 90plus sheep on a 24 hours period in sw Montana by Dillon..then traveled a considerably distance--20 plus miles..killed quite a few more sheep two days later..and 2 days after that, was near the first location where he killed quite a few more..

My point in all of this is the old adage that they only kill what they need is utter and complete BS...they kill because they can...whether that be for hunger or the enjoyment of killing...

One other element people seem to forget is the current plight of the local moose population..which in the past 10 years has plummeted to almost nonexistant...I have 2 really good friends who worked for the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks for 25 plus years..both have retired in the past 2 years..they BOTH have stated on numerous occassions the FWP department will act--but when it is far too late and too little of an enactment to boot as is evidenced by the wolf program ..

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Story
.333 member


Reged: 15/10/08
Posts: 262
Loc: SE PA, USA
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Ripp]
      #153380 - 12/02/10 12:33 AM

Quote:

Last summer, one wolf killed 90plus sheep on a 24 hours period in sw Montana by Dillon..then traveled a considerably distance--20 plus miles..killed quite a few more sheep two days later..and 2 days after that, was near the first location where he killed quite a few more..
My point in all of this is the old adage that they only kill what they need is utter and complete BS...they kill because they can...whether that be for hunger or the enjoyment of killing...




Sounds not unlike urban two legged predators.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5504
Loc: United States
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: Story]
      #153381 - 12/02/10 01:16 AM

RIPP:

Glad you brought up moose.

YES, one of the GREAT and almost miraculous success stories of the American West has been the resurgence of moose populations...

...until the advent of wolves. Ours, too, are going down fast.

And Story, what you say is no joke.

Not so funny how "Predators" are protected. I imagine most states, like Idaho, have a sex offender site where you can go and find the friendly neighborhood, two-legged predator, frequently continuing to prey on the populace. Yes, like the wolf, protected instead of purged.

Our culture has lost its mind.

Common sense is dead.

Famous gunwriter Jeff Cooper used to say the we lived in the Era of the Common Man.

That was then.

I am convinved we live in the Era of the Common Idiot.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26537
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Hunting Wolves [Re: 9.3x57]
      #153386 - 12/02/10 02:01 AM

About this "kill only what they need" - that drivel was also presented here by the 'antis'. Turned out they found an unemployed 'graduate of biology' (same schooling as both of my girls - BSC's) whom they paid to back their statements in a news paper and in interviews. Of course, it's crap, but that's the kind of thing we're dealing with or against.
Kill only the weak or wounded is another 'statement' used, saying it improves the herd - ie; elk or caribou. Bulltwitty - yes, anything previously wounded is now weak or wounded, and is easly brought donw but the herd bull - the prime genetics of the herd stands back and alone to protect his herd and is the first to go. That's natural selection at it's worse. Thus, the herd's genetics gets poorer and poorer for a period of time. It takes a young spike who becomes a monarch, who can reverse this - again, time. With man's cattle to support the wolves, the herd suffers in times of draught, severe winters and even more to predation due to downgrading genetics.

The problem goes far beyond them killing a few too many ungulates.

We are here to stay and to live the way be demand, we cannot have a healthy population of such mobile and deadly predetors.




--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)


Previous topic Previous   Search Results   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Extra information
0 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:   

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 22855

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved