Quote:

---

im okay with people trying to spinn the issues like the anti's does but this is plain stupid.
let there be no misunderstanding, im all for controlling the wolf population.
this is just a really stupid way to gather support, yes the wolfes eat elk, and rightfully so. the thing i dont understand is the talk about the herds of elk, and there wont be any left soon, to me that sounds like farming, not hunting.

all in all lousy spinn in my book,

how can we help them, get them a better spinn doctor quick.

peter

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

when people say "I believe wolves have a place in the wilderness" it demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge of wolf habits and the natural history of Idaho. This is a very common statement made by outsiders. Idaho is a land of animals and working people; towns, mining, hunting, farming, ranching, logging. What is "wilderness"? Usually, it means "somebody elses back yard".

---

Quote:

---

Idaho is a big state, about 1/2 the size of Sweden with 1/7 the population with many different climates and terrains.

---

then I guess that sets a worrying precedent for conserving habitat for lions and other dangerous game in Africa. I guess you could argue that with villages everywhere, there is no wilderness there either

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

In fact, most of us believe the main reason for the funding of wolf recovery lawsuits is to cause the destruction or dramatic reduction of ungulate herds and the restriction or banning of human hunting as a result.

---

I suspect the same thing goes for our wolf population here in Norway too. Which by the way a great number of people suspect are for the most part re-introduced. No matter if they are re-introduced or not, we didn't have wolves here for about 100 years, and the ones we now have are the same genetically as the ones found in Russia. Which are so numerous that they will never be endangered.

The Bunny Huggers will do whatever they can to stop hunting in the future, and have been smart enough to infiltrate all levels of government. Especially in those branches that deal with nature, in order to secretly further their own agenda. Protecting the "endangered" wolves is just another trick...

Erik

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

No offence taken - All I meant was that I wouldn't want to see wolves extinct. But it seems that there were already wolves in Idaho before the introduction of the Canadian wolves. I take it that Canadian wolves are bigger and not the same as the native Idaho type? If so, it begs the questions - were there too few Idaho wolves, and why were a non-native strain introduced, rather than efforts made to increase the breeding success of the existing population?

Jabali, great discussion, as you are hitting all the big points! In speaking to Id Fish and Game, I am told the species are the same. However, similar to introducing large Albertan whitetails to Florida, though, the size is much bigger. I really do not know why more efforts weren't put into encouragement of indigenous Idaho wolves. I am not suggesting that such an effort would be prferable, maybe not, as it may have resulted in draconian laws preventing hunting in order to build those packs. The point is; DO WE WANT WOLVES IN IDAHO AT ALL?? Idahoans were not asked.

On a different point though, and not wishing to upset any Idahoans, I didn't want to get into a debate about wilderness,

Indeed, though, the whole issue revolves around that very debate. The issue of wolf recovery and the debate about wilderness are intimitely intertwined.

but if there is no space for wilderness in a place like this

Quote:

---

Idaho is a big state, about 1/2 the size of Sweden with 1/7 the population with many different climates and terrains.

---

then I guess that sets a worrying precedent for conserving habitat for lions and other dangerous game in Africa. I guess you could argue that with villages everywhere, there is no wilderness there either

---

In fact, you are raising very good points. Personally, I do not believe there IS much wilderness left in the world and I stand firmly with the say, Indian farmer who defends his goats with a load of birdshot against the marauding tiger. If governments are going to impose the existence of predators on local populations then governments should make them profitable to local populations, and indeed, assuming the predator in-question doesn't already exist in the area, the locals should be asked if they want them at all. I probably differ with many on this forum who desire to see expanding "wilderness". I don't, because I simply do not believe it is possible in the absence of intense injustice.

Sorry, but except for VERY FEW places, wilderness {my definition; an area where human impact does not exist or is very difficult to detect} in the world does not exist. Many hunters want to go to Africa because they believe "Africa" is wilderness. Not by my definition. not even close, and I have travelled in a good chunk of it. VERY FEW places in Africa are anything like wilderness. There are SOME fairly vast regions, but by definition, you shouldn't be hunting there, right...? Or does everybody want "wilderness" limitations to be imposed on the other guy, while they themselves get to benefit by the impositions...?

I suspect that many urbanites would view where I live as total wilderness. That is the problem because it leads to the imposition of problematic land management schemes on us, "because nobody lives there...".

Our game department did a very fine job encouraging the growth of huntable species. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves are a serious threat to that success.

--------------------
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:

Quote:

---

Now I understand why BC guides always want you to have a wolf tag on hand...... although they generally say that chances are slim of actually filling it

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Not specifically with regards to Idaho but a lot of the anti wolf attitude seems to me to be a competitive thing. Wolves eat game - deer, moose - and also domestic livestock.

Right on. Exactly. Current generations seem to be embarrassed about that to some degree and some people, hunters even, seem to resist the inclination to COMPETE with the wolf or even that they are rightfully entitled to do so. I'm not embarrassed about wanting wolves to lose. First, I'm glad my forefathers shot, poisoned and dynamited every wolf they did and as regards wolves, the hunting opportunities of Western Europe would be a far different thing if wolves were around today. The benefits of wolf persecution are widespread. It is a great success story!! Yes, they are in my opinion a disease to be stamped out or at the very least held to a very low minimum, sort of like small pox kept in a lab for further study...

Reduce the availability or numbers for man, whether game or livestock.

Wolves on appearance as predators are no different to lion, leopard, tiger etc in their effect on game and human interaction. Except a lion, tiger or leopard is more likely to also kill humans.

One very significant difference involves weather. We in the West not only have predators taking game each year, but every year winter takes its toll and cyclically it is devastating to our game herds. For example, in 1996, Idaho suffered a devastating winter. In the Lolo area, herds have not yet recovered, and this year we are experiencing another very serious winter. A State study demonstrated the severe impact of wolves on elk populations struggling to recover from the '96 winter in the Lolo. I discussed this with the biologist yesterday and he agreed; this year with the game concentrated in the low country and suffering limited brouse and hindered by deep snow, they are being slaughtered en masse by predators. I might add we are seeing evidence of this just off my ground at the river.

Hard winters Africa does not see, though drought in Africa and Australia might be a similar climatic factor to be compared. We see a certain % of healthy, strong game animals killed every winter by winter alone. And our game numbers overall are nothing like the densities existing in most game country of sub-Saharan Africa in the first place. Nitro, you are right: We hunters are competing with predators for the game and I for one, in concert with many who have gone before me, sincerely hope I win and they lose.

I still think the world is lesser if there were not populations, indeed huntable populations of all these predators.

As mentioned, irradication is not the issue, though as also mentioned, I believe we were far better off when we had a very small number of wolves in Idaho. One thing that many on a Forum of this type may not understand is the ACTUAL financial benefit large game have in poverty-stricken areas like mine and many others throughout the West and indeed in Africa. MANY people count on an elk and deer for food. Rich guys who want to hunt this or that game animal in places far from home are to be commended for paying the $ to do so, but they should never forget that many people actually utilize the game for direct and needed sustenance. I personally do not need an elk's weight in meat each year. I make enough money that I can afford not to shoot one. But many hard working local people DO rely on elk and deer, and I make no apologies for standing 100% with them in my desire to see them succeed and wolves fail.

***

With regards to the Indian and tiger example given above, but what if as is mostly likely the man killing a tiger in defence or in defence of his cow, is actually encroaching on a national park? ie illegal grazing in a small area of what was originally habitat for the tiger?

I am not saying government doesn't have a responsibility to manage game and or predators. And certainly in India with 1,100,000,000 people the issue is of crisis proportions. But is there anyone among us that would let our own children starve in order to "save a tiger"? I wouldn't even let them skip breakfast.

Beyond that, if the existence of tigers is so all-fired important to the world, then let the world provide a sustainable income to the people who are competing with them.

Also the historic decimation of tigers in the wild was not by shotgun or rifle, but more by poisoned bait or carcases. Similar to what is described for the treatment of wolves.

Correct again, at least regarding wolves. I submit to your knowledge of tiger decimation. Hunting of large predators is as Daryl notes, very difficult with a gun. I saw one wolf on my ranch last fall {heard many during elk season. Our local herd was driven off by them. I never got a shot at elk last fall.} Anyway, the wolf was about 500 yards away and running. I'm not as good a shot as some others and this would have been beyond my ability had I took a whack at it... My wife saw one in August '07 about 200 yards from our house. It was on the railroad tracks standing, watching my sheep and horses. She didn't have a gun and it took off when it saw her move for the house. I saw another one in 2000 while grouse hunting, this time very close to me. It was chasing a deer and I only had a load of #6's in my Beretta had I the inclination to slow it down.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I don't quite see them as vermin to be eradicated (almost impossible anyway), like most ranchers do, but one should sometime put oneself in their shoes. How would you like to lose your entire income for the following year before you even start working for it (you still have to work that year), just so some bunny hugger in LA or New York can dream of wolves howling in the night in Idaho.

---

Post Extras: