What Montanans Really Think of their Wolves

[Jeff Higgins]

Disclaimer: I have no idea if this really is in Montana, if those are really wolves, if that's real snow, or if that's a real rifle. I'm sure if it is, the gentleman in the photo had all proper licenses, tags, and permits required. He is only covering his face because it is very cold outside.

[9dreizig]

Cool!! We shoot em whenever we can in AK they are beautiful but really hammer the other wildlife

[MT930]

The Other White Meat !

They are destroying our beautiful game animal population.


We have a season pretty restrictive

That pic is from the Northwest Territories not here.

Coyotes

[HardDrive]

I would like to go coyote hunting, but I don't like shooting animals I can't eat. And like hell I'm eating a yote.

[WolfeMacleod]

Sick. And offensive. To me, anyways.

Most people don't realize that if you take away the wolves, the "other wildlife" will breed at exponential rates and overrun darn near everything, and eat every plant... then you have starving herds of everything and garbage cans full of moose and raccoons.
Wolves are nature's population control.

[crustychief]

The second one looks like a big Pomeranian!

[Rikao4]

I'm not anti hunt..
if you eat or can make a living..
but..
wolves glean the weak and feeble first..
as for having a restrictive hunting season..
they have a restrictive hunting area ...

I'd rather see some folks like V or P hanging instead of those pelts

Rika

[Gogar]

What kind of plane was he shooting from?

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by Rikao4

I'm not anti hunt..
if you eat or can make a living..
but..
wolves glean the weak and feeble first.. as for having a restrictive hunting season..
they have a restrictive hunting area ...

I'd rather see some folks like V or P hanging instead of those pelts

Rika

Thanks, Rika. That too.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by MT930

...

They are destroying our beautiful game animal population.

...

suggest you talk to a biologist

[Jeff Higgins]

This is an emotional issue for many, there is no doubt about that. I'm rather ambivilent beyond insisting we allow those who are truly trained professionals, acknowledged experts in their field, determine management policies. Such has never been the case with wolves. They have always been managed by the courts, driven by lawsuits from emotional people with no training in wildlife biology or management. Emotional politics have taken the place of sound management.

Phil Shoemaker, holder of a very much coveted (and very hard earned) Alaska Master Guide license, recently wrote of his perspective on wolves in Successful Hunter. He had some very astonishing numbers relative to fawn, kid, and calf survival in Alaska. I wish I had them in front of me but, since I don't, I'll go from memory.

From what I remember, he stated that biologists believe a healthy, sustaining herd ideally averaged somewhere right around a 15 to 20% survival rate for its newborn in any given year. Under 15% was cause for concern in that the herd was no longer even sustaining its numbers. Under 10% meant the herd was dying off and quite possibly could not recover.

High wolf population areas within Alaska typically dip under a 5% survival rate for the offspring of prey species. Think about that for a moment. That is well under the "grave danger" threshold of newborn survival. Alaskans simply will not put up with that. They go into action and start killing wolves. They are allowed to manage their populations at the state level, with real population numbers to guide their decisions.

Those in the lower 48 are not allowed to do that. States with wolf populations are not allowed to manage them along with the rest of their wildlife. They are managed by lawsuit, not game biology. Wolf advocates had target numbers they were hoping to achieve when this whole reintroduction thing started. We have now greatly exceeded those numbers, and yet they still want more. Game biologists say we should de-list them and open them up to state management. Wolf supporters respond with an adamant "no", and return to court to block any such action. They want even more wolves. Their targets have been surpassed by several fold, yet they want even more.

The end result is that affected elk and deer herds are dying off. Numbers are "alarmingly low" in affected areas according to wildlife managers in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and other affected states. Wolf proponents point out (and rightly so) that elk and deer numbers are actually up accross the west. Yes, that is true - if you include all elk and deer, most of which are in unaffected areas. Places where there are no wolves.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is that herds living in wolf recovery areas are being decimated by a wolf population that now vastly exceeds even their proponents' stated targets. It's time to turn their management over to the same state game biologists that manage the rest of their wildlife. Yes, that would mean seasons on wolves. That would mean hunters going in to control population levels so that all wildlife is sustainable. That would mean sound game management practices would trump emotion. What is so bad about that?

[MT930]

Originally Posted by RWebb

suggest you talk to a biologist

I Have talked to many State Biologists ! They agree, The Impact is irrefutable

Ranchers too. The MT FWP has known this for a long time Mid 90's

This is a problem that most people in other parts of the country are not exposed to. This is a fight with the Fed's plain and simple. The State Fish Wildlife and Park were the ones that reported the Elk declines in the first place.

I respect the wolf, We just have too many of them.

[Jim Bremner]

Wolves tend to get the old,sick,injured,slow, & young.

Hunters tend to take the prime.

[BlackTalon]

Please send some to Northen Virginia. And a handful to Summit Point in W Va!

[ODDJOB UNO]

heres my 1st hand experience.................1st wolves are cool. 2nd seeing them is cool 3rd every hunt unit i have hunted/fished in with wolves since im a native now HAS LESS GAME! hmmmmm wonder why?

4th unit 27 that includes alpine az. IS DEVOID OF ANY DEER or ANTELOPEZZZZZ, and this so happens to be smack dab in the fed wolf recovery area. and yes after spending (10) thats TEN DAYS in there, we did not so much as SEE (1) deer or antelopezzz poo bean nor track. hmmmmmmmmmmmm WTF?


yes we saw elk and yes we saw wolves and we heard wolves.


now btwn humping our azz off(feets dont fail me now), riding quads all over the unit(know it like the back of my hand since i have been going there since i was a kid), driving across the entire unit, a pair of doktor 15x80's, a pair of steiner 10x50's a bushnell spotting scope..................you would THINK we might find at least a freeking DOE!


now if you were a wolf would you square off on a cow elk bull elk...........or a measly azzd deer or antelopezzz?????? pretty obvious what the answer is.


now lets move over cross da border to new messiko..............from reserve new messiko south along the blue river and east into the black range and the gila.



guess what? the bare minimum of deer to be found spring summer fall winter. hmmmmmm wonder why? martian aliens???


and ya know what?????????? if ya think yer a real bad azz, i flat double dawg DARE YOU TO WEAR a I HEART WOLVES t-shirt into any bar/cafe from alpine ,az. over to reserve, new messiko on down south to silver city,new messiko, and see what the ranchers (their only income cattle/sheep) have to say about your opinion.



please forward pics and have your will made out.



i dont have a problem with them as i will never hunt a unit for deer or antelopezzz again that has wolves in it. why waste 5 hrs getting there,fuel beer,food etc. to hear wolves howl and see elk that ya cant shoot when ya got a freeking deer or antelopezz tag?


now look up the bull crap ya gotta go thru while buck nekid jumping thru fiery azzd hoops to get yer money back from the feds when some of yer cattle or sheep are killed by wolves and you will understand why so many(all) ranchers HATE THEM!




and then theres the clowns that want to re-introduce GRIZZLY BEARS back into the same area......UNIT 27 and along the blue river, where the last grizz was killed in 1920. yes grizzi bears where native to airy-zoney.



so there ya have both sides in a nutshell.

[Rikao4]

Thanks Jeff..

elk and deer up in certain areas = wolves hunted to extinction..

Hunt and Game did a poor job regulating # of wolves killed when they had control...= allowed killing to the point of extinction..

and folks will always side with the critter being hunted from a plane..

Rika

[Rikao4]

now Juan..
usen that 4 wheeler to travel into the bush..
then sitting some 300 yards back in the bushes in your Macy's gillie suit..
& using one of your uber Kalibers..& Hubble telescope
to go boom..is hardly fair huntin..
the wolfies at least sneak up and then go gotcha..

Rika

[Buckterrier]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

This is an emotional issue for many, there is no doubt about that. I'm rather ambivilent beyond insisting we allow those who are truly trained professionals, acknowledged experts in their field, determine management policies. Such has never been the case with wolves. They have always been managed by the courts, driven by lawsuits from emotional people with no training in wildlife biology or management. Emotional politics have taken the place of sound management.

Phil Shoemaker, holder of a very much coveted (and very hard earned) Alaska Master Guide license, recently wrote of his perspective on wolves in Successful Hunter. He had some very astonishing numbers relative to fawn, kid, and calf survival in Alaska. I wish I had them in front of me but, since I don't, I'll go from memory.

From what I remember, he stated that biologists believe a healthy, sustaining herd ideally averaged somewhere right around a 15 to 20% survival rate for its newborn in any given year. Under 15% was cause for concern in that the herd was no longer even sustaining its numbers. Under 10% meant the herd was dying off and quite possibly could not recover.

High wolf population areas within Alaska typically dip under a 5% survival rate for the offspring of prey species. Think about that for a moment. That is well under the "grave danger" threshold of newborn survival. Alaskans simply will not put up with that. They go into action and start killing wolves. They are allowed to manage their populations at the state level, with real population numbers to guide their decisions.

Those in the lower 48 are not allowed to do that. States with wolf populations are not allowed to manage them along with the rest of their wildlife. They are managed by lawsuit, not game biology. Wolf advocates had target numbers they were hoping to achieve when this whole reintroduction thing started. We have now greatly exceeded those numbers, and yet they still want more. Game biologists say we should de-list them and open them up to state management. Wolf supporters respond with an adamant "no", and return to court to block any such action. They want even more wolves. Their targets have been surpassed by several fold, yet they want even more.

The end result is that affected elk and deer herds are dying off. Numbers are "alarmingly low" in affected areas according to wildlife managers in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and other affected states. Wolf proponents point out (and rightly so) that elk and deer numbers are actually up accross the west. Yes, that is true - if you include all elk and deer, most of which are in unaffected areas. Places where there are no wolves.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is that herds living in wolf recovery areas are being decimated by a wolf population that now vastly exceeds even their proponents' stated targets. It's time to turn their management over to the same state game biologists that manage the rest of their wildlife. Yes, that would mean seasons on wolves. That would mean hunters going in to control population levels so that all wildlife is sustainable. That would mean sound game management practices would trump emotion. What is so bad about that?

Is that why in the 1800's there were millions of friggin' buffalo?????? Oh wait it was homo sapiens that damn near killed them off.
****ing sickening, and yeah that's a quote.

[ODDJOB UNO]

wez very very very SNEAKY! and we subscribe to: if they aint there and we aint seeing 'em......................then move along lil dawgie...........move along.



and thats why after 3 days of burning fat off, melting my vibrams, trudging across the tundra mile after mile and gitting real damn tarred(tired)................gawd made quads, and when ya get monkeybutt from being in the cold rain and snow(grateful dead) on a quad and yer hands permanently frozen to yer handlebars, and yer rifle and yerself covered in mud, thats why gawd made chevy Z71 4x4's with killer diller heating and thats when we become "kings of the roadhunters!"


1/2 hour before dawn until 1/2 after sundown, wez out hunting. none of this lil nappy poo crap during the middle of the day.

on average for a 10 day hunt i loose 10-12 pounds off of my svelte physique.



there is NOTHING BETTER than hunting hard, while some lazy ass feeks off taking naps,getting drunk, and you come back with game and he goes home SKUNKED!

[ODDJOB UNO]

Originally Posted by Buckterrier

Is that why in the 1800's there were millions of friggin' buffalo?????? Oh wait it was homo sapiens that damn near killed them off.
****ing sickening, and yeah that's a quote.

the reason why the buffalo died off.........................................was because they ran into TRAINS!




now how do you think all the "gandydancers"(look it up) got fed?




there used to be a whole slew of chinamen...................and they ran into TRAINS and those that decided to have them go back into a tunnel at 4:59pm on friday(payday)...................and suddenly there was an EXPLOSION and the chinamen mysteriously never had to be paid. hmmmm?



buffalo/wolves/humans..................wez all toast in the next hundert years anyway.