What Montanans Really Think of their Wolves

[slakjaw]

Originally Posted by 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.

They also kill livestock

[monoflo]

Neat polarizing issue - the pendulum swings both ways.

In Teddy Roosevelts day they thought the predators hurt the herds

Then it went the other way and the predators got the benefit of the doubt.

So the truth is in the middle - I agree that due to the fact that mankinds footprint is even in the most remote areas we need to manage the critters and fish.

Seems some critters adapt --Coyotes in fact most likely have a greater range than 50 years ago and mankind has selected for the smart ones. There have been coyotes in Lincoln Park in Chicago. Heck the cat population in my neighborhood is consistly culled by these guys. We got more deer than we know what to do with.

So man has to figure the best way to manage the situation because good old mother natures checks and balances is broken through not only hunting but habitat reduction and human settlement everywhere.
( look at the problems antelope have migrating from the US to Canada and back due to ranchland for example)

And in my humble view the only way to restore the balance is to have less humans -and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon

Mflo

[oldE]

Charles does make a couple of valid points.

Every deer (or other large species) taken by hunters (or predators), means one less to jump out in front of my car.

When most folks talk about a 'disaster' in the deer or elk population, they really mean "not enough for me to hunt with a reasonable chance to get mine".

The fact of the matter is, however, if it were possible to let the wolves/coyotes/etc. do their thing, they would indeed manage the prey species, but most would have their knickers in a knot because the swings in population as the component species went through their 'boom' and 'bust' cycles.
ie: The deer are starving! We must do something!
to: The wolves are eradicating the deer population! We must do something!
and: There are no deer or large predators in our woods! We must do something!

When you get right down to it, we want many things and what we want sometimes is so fuched up in the eyes of old Mother Nature she must be just waiting for us reach the end of our time.

Having said that, I have made it known to the local coyote population (the 70 lb Eastern wolf cross we now have here) that they are not particularly welcome here. I am under no illusions they have gone. They just don't let me see them. They don't take calves, as the herds protect them and most sheep farmers keep donkeys for the same reason. At the same time, the Province of Nova Scotia has (probably due to a fatal coyote attack on a human and a couple of other incidents) instated a bounty on the animals. Just a sorry waste of time.

One thing you can be sure of: if there seems to be a simple solution, you're probably wrong.

Be well
Les

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by oldE

When most folks talk about a 'disaster' in the deer or elk population, they really mean "not enough for me to hunt with a reasonable chance to get mine".

Very well put, Les. The only issue on which we apparently disagree is this one. Our (the United States') largest ongoing "disaster" on this front is occuring within the Yellowstone herds - where hunting is illegal.

Nature lovers love to view animals. Hunters love to hunt those same animals. Here in the U.S., neither group could enjoy these persuits without the hunters' efforts and dollars. As I stated before, we owe our currently healthy game populations (and non-game populations as well) to the conservation efforts of hunters. It's a very simple axiom that hunters need prey. Realizing this, hunters have organized, game departments have been created, and modern management practices have been developed and employed. All with hunters' dollars collected through license and tag fees, and taxes on their equipment levied through our Pitman-Robertson act.

Other nature lovers have no such infrastructure through which to funnel their money. Oh, they have various charitable foundations and organizations to whom they donate, but so do hunters. And hunters are far more generous in their donations, which come in on top of those legally required fees that others do not pay. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasant Forever, Safari Club International, and many, many more collect donations that run exponentially higher than any non-hunting nature group could ever imagine in their wildest dreams. Hunters are more than willing to "pay to play", where others don't seem to be nearly as willing to "pay to watch".

So, where am I going with this? Essentially, everyone who enjoys the outdoors does so on hunters' backs, on hunters' dollars. We have far more "skin in the game" than anyone else. Not just in funding game management, but in funding wilderness management. So, when the herds we enjoy hunting - that only exist today through our hard work and dollars - become threatened by groups pushing an emotionally driven agenda, based on nothing but emotion, put forth in the absolute ignorance of sound management policy - why, we have a problem with that. We have collectively spent better than a century - since the dark days of unregulated market hunting, poaching, bounty hunting, poisoning, and all of those practices that wiped out the herds in the 19th century - working and spending to restore those herds. To have groups who have not pitched in to shoulder this load suddenly throw a "hands-off" wildcard into the mix at this eleventh hour is simply unacceptable. It threatens to un-do a century of effort to bring the herds back to where they are today. Not just so we can hunt them, but so others can enjoy them. In places like Yellowstone.

[RWebb]

actually, very few of those $$ go to non-game wildlife

same is true for fisheries, tho to a lesser extent

I do agree with one of your larger pt.s tho - that huneter & fishers have done yeoman work to conserve wildlife & their habitat; many also volunteer, not just a forced to pay user fee type thing

BUT, wildlife "belong" to the public - all the public, not just those who pay for duck stamps & whatnot; so, everybody gets a say - in no way is this "unacceptible" - nor AFAIK has it ever been - the concept dates back to Justinian

BTW - the classic & worst "disaster" is that of the Kaibab deer herd - I used to have a slide of the pop'n crash but likely tossed it out. I'd bet it is on the internet somewhere tho, for those who want to load the above search terms into Google. The cause was predator removal.

[Jeff Higgins]

I agree that at the highest level, everyone gets a say - our natural resources do, after all, belong to everyone. Regardless who pays. I'm simply pointing out a major point of contention within the hunting community. It's not really so much that wolf advocates want a say - they have every right to that - it's that they, even more so than they want their say, refuse to listen. It would be one thing if they had an informed position, participating in the debate from that position based upon facts and data. But they don't. Their position has been an adversarial one, "our way or the highway" (or more like court). They steadfastly refuse to negotiate. They steadfastly refuse to consider any of the science behind modern wildlife management philosophies. Insofar as that goes, as far as I'm concerned (and most hunters, for that matter) - they have given up their right to have any say.

I do realize that very few hunters' dollars go to non-game wildlife. Those dollars do, however, go towards habitat. Habitat shared by all wildlife. Dollars by the billions within my lifetime. So, yes, as you point out - wildlife and their habitat. The collateral benefit has been enormous. No other group even comes close, even approaches a percentage point of what hunters have given. Both in dollars and time.

[aigel]

Originally Posted by 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.

My buddy promised to try a backstrap on the next one he kills. I am sure they taste fine. It is cultural.

George

[RWebb]

re adversarial - some aren't; many are

re Habitat shared by all wildlife - there is a voluminous literature on this (and I was unfortunate enuff to have to read some of it just yesterday); turns out that not all game animal habitat is good habitat for non-game animals

I'll add that scientists can say one thing as much as they want, but the policy decisions will be made by administrators. Then, various groups will sue to test whether the agency followed the law. A major reason I went to law school was b/c got tired of seeing my science trash-canned by agencies. Now, they don't have that luxury.

I expect the whole wolf controversy will diminish over time. For one thing, once they are clearly out of extinction danger they can be managed like other predators.
It is not a big deal in Europe or in Min..

[Superman]

Where I come from (which is the PNW), coyote sightings are happy events because of their value as target practice. Nobody eats them.

[Buckterrier]

Originally Posted by Superman

Where I come from (which is the PNW), coyote sightings are happy events because of their value as target practice. Nobody eats them.

Let's thin the herd. Open season on homeless, druggies, etc. homo sapiens. I'm sure you hunter types would love to plink at some easy prey. I think the poor homeless guy would make a damn good 'target'. Hell you guys could all gather on top of the bridge drink a few PBRs and have a ball with your .22s. Christ you could even lower the tax burden. Come on guys let's have a group hunt. We could take a pic of the 'prey' hanging from their feet on a line, (of course we have to cover our faces so no one knows who we are). And for those with really small penises they can use a .308 or larger. Blow a huge ****ing hole in them, hollow points only.


You guys like killing so much do some good for society will ya, GEEZ

My last post on this thread not that anyone, including myself, gives a ****.

And ODDDUCK, I'm REALLY sorry about your lack of self worth. No I've never sniffed a wolf's ass, drank it's piss, nor have I ever ate it's shyte. I'm not quite the man you are

[9dreizig]

Geez Mark it's been a long time since we got worked up on a hunting thread :-) seems like old times!!

[Buckterrier]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

Geez Mark it's been a long time since we got worked up on a hunting thread :-) seems like old times!!

OMG Todd thanks for that!! I'm laughing my ass off. Yes I think we also need to bring back the thread about clubbing baby seals

We do need to have a beer this summer. Have a great weekend.

And damnit, I said I wasn't going to post on this thread again!!

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

They also kill livestock

We kill more...
They do what comes natural. They gotta eat too, and they don't know the difference between "livestock" and "game." They take what they need, and only what they need, to survive.

[9dreizig]

Ha! Squeezed one out of you
I will be in Nh next week and may drive to NJ if so I'll buy you one on my way through CT

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by WolfeMacleod

They take what they need, and only what they need, to survive.

I'm sorry Wolfe, but even this is untrue. The natural world around us is a far, far different place than many folks choose to believe it is. There is nothing so "noble" about the wolf - they kill just for the hell of it, too. Just for sport. Just for fun. Just for something to do. Over territory, over mates, over status. Kind of like us...

[RWebb]

a lot of animals get excited and kill more than they can eat

... so, is it ok for me to kill the homeless now? or did I miss something in the post above?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by RWebb

a lot of animals get excited and kill more than they can eat

... so, is it ok for me to kill the homeless now? or did I miss something in the post above?

I'm wondering that myself, Randy. That was a pretty emotional, incoherent post. I wish I would have paid more attention in that blasted psyche class. I think his fixation on penis size means something, but what do I know? I'm just a po' dumb engun-eer. We don't do well with all that touchy-feely stuff. I think he's saying he wishes he had a bigger gun or something.

[drew1]

Everybody looks at things from a different perspective. A neighbor that complained about me shooting squirrels for stew in the woods behind our houses was in his yard shooting at them with a pistol because they were getting in his attic a couple of years later.

With a farmer that coyote or wolf that kills his calf is the same as a robber taking the cash in his billfold.

[ODDJOB UNO]

Originally Posted by RWebb

actually, very few of those $$ go to non-game wildlife

same is true for fisheries, tho to a lesser extent

I do agree with one of your larger pt.s tho - that huneter & fishers have done yeoman work to conserve wildlife & their habitat; many also volunteer, not just a forced to pay user fee type thing

BUT, wildlife "belong" to the public - all the public, not just those who pay for duck stamps & whatnot; so, everybody gets a say - in no way is this "unacceptible" - nor AFAIK has it ever been - the concept dates back to Justinian

BTW - the classic & worst "disaster" is that of the Kaibab deer herd - I used to have a slide of the pop'n crash but likely tossed it out. I'd bet it is on the internet somewhere tho, for those who want to load the above search terms into Google. The cause was predator removal.

the "kaibab deer debacle" was yer classic "ate themselves out of house and home", all the factors came into play, deer herd exploded, food stores depleted,heavy winter, not enough hunters etc. some really tragic photos taken of this that will make any hunter want to YACK for the sheer number of wasted beautiful animals.

the "kaibab" is one of the hardest units to get drawn for, very tough hunt. but some real live #300 monsters lurk in there, managed for its TROPHY BUCKS and also buffalo roam in there as well as elk.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by drew1

Everybody looks at things from a different perspective. A neighbor that complained about me shooting squirrels for stew in the woods behind our houses was in his yard shooting at them with a pistol because they were getting in his attic a couple of years later.

With a farmer that coyote or wolf that kills his calf is the same as a robber taking the cash in his billfold.

- did you ask him if his squirrelycidal opinions have changed?


more wolves = fewer coyotes