Interesting Wolf Facts

Buzz,
Thank you for laying it out for everyone to see how the process played out(whether or not they comprehend it is an entirely different matter).

Its lonely at the top....
 
>Buzz,
>Thank you for laying it out
>for everyone to see how
>the process played out(whether or
>not they comprehend it is
>an entirely different matter).
>
>Its lonely at the top....

It's lonely at the top?

You narcissistic folks just can't help it can you? You're so far above the common man, it's amazing. You're so predictable I can flush you out at will.
 
Eelgrass posted:

Then, when BGF came out with a simple Bill that would have solved the problem, he and his buddies came unglued. Here it is for a reminder:

Here is the specific language of the American Big Game and Livestock Protection Act: S. 249 and H.R. 509

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) is amended by adding at the end the following:
'(j) Exemption of Gray Wolf- This Act shall not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus).'.

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

You would think that every concerned sportsman would rally behind this effort, but no. It was seen as a direct threat to the long range goals of the eco-freaks. A huge campaign was launched to discredit BGF and any who backed the bill. That in itself should tell you where Buzz and his holier than thou friends stand. He will no doubt say that the bill never stood a chance from the beginning, but wasn't he just on here saying we're at fault because we didn't "get in the car" or some such smoke and mirror?

*************************************

Eel is completely wrong on this one. Facts, links, and citations provided.

The Utah franchises of BGF/SFW introduced HR 509 and no one in the hunting world opposed it, NONE. Everyone would have been happy if it had passed, but given the terrible record Peay/Benson have in politics, it had zero chance, zilch.

Don't believe me, go look at the Congressional record. It was introduced January 26, 2011 and referred to the House Natural Resourced Committee.

Link here - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr509

Rehberg could not even get a Committee hearing in the House Committee of which he was a member, let alone a vote. Not surprising, given Rehberg never got anything passed in his years in the House.

And in the Senate side, Hatch put the Senate companion bill, S.249 in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Link here - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s249

That Senate committee was/is chaired by Barbara Boxer of California. Like Boxer was going to let it have a committee vote. It never had a committee vote or committee hearing. Hatch is a smart and experienced guy, so I am pretty sure he knew the eventual outcome of putting this bill in Boxer's committee.

It did not die, as Eel says, due to hunters protesting it. It died because anything that changes the ESA is pretty much DOA, and the SFW/BGF folks pushing it through thought they were still in the halls of the Utah Capitol, only to be sized for 4XL asshats in the process.

But, both Rehberg and Hatch did what they promised, then stood back and collected their campaign donations from the Utah franchises. Even they knew the bill would not see the light of day in either the House or the Senate.

Seeing the SFW/BGF bill was DOA, Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, came up with an idea that might pass. He started floating it around in February and Benson/Peay sent out the hatchet squad to try take him down. They were making tons of money on the wolf charades and any solution would slow the pace at which the greenbacks were rolling in.

Here is a MM thread from those days where it was laid out how SFW/BGF sent out their loyalists to try kill the Simpson idea. Fortunately, SFW/BGF is as inept as they come in the world of politics outside the Beehive state and as a result, the Simpson idea passed.

http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=17620&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0

BGF/SFW even got so desperate as to send out an email to every member of Congress, saying other groups such as NRA, SCI, CSF were against the Simpson idea, when in fact those groups supported the Simpson idea.

Here is the NRA press release, verbatim, where the NRA called out SFW/BGF for lying to Congress and misrepresenting the facts, all in an effort to salvage their cash cow, HR 509.

***********************************************************
[U}NRA, SCI, and CSF Disavow Misleading Press Release[/U]

Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

The draft release was circulated by an individual representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. The individual representing these two groups was immediately advised to remove the aforementioned organizations named in the release. Unfortunately, he did not, and the release was transmitted without correcting the inaccurate information.

The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue.

Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.


NRA Federal Affairs
Jeff Freeman
Senior Federal Lobbyist
[email protected]
410 First Street S.E.
2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20003
tel: 202.651.2568
fax: 202.651.2577



*************************************************************

Eel's post is flat out wrong.

It was SFW/BGF that was out trying to kill other bills. They were trying to protect their new species of bovine dog, the Cash Cow.

Not a single person tried to kill HR 509. Every hunting group out their supported HR 509, even though they knew the political amateurs pushing that bill had zero chance of getting it out of either a Senate of House committee.

Since this thread was titled "wolf facts," I felt compelled to provide the real facts of who tried to kill what bill related to wolf delisting. It was SFW/BGF who was trying to kill other bills.
 
>Eelgrass posted:
>
>Then, when BGF came out with
>a simple Bill that would
>have solved the problem, he
>and his buddies came unglued.
>Here it is for a
>reminder:
>
>Here is the specific language of
>the American Big Game and
>Livestock Protection Act: S. 249
>and H.R. 509
>
>Be it enacted by the Senate
>and House of Representatives of
>the United States of America
>in Congress assembled,
>Section 4 of the Endangered Species
>Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
>1533) is amended by adding
>at the end the following:
>
>'(j) Exemption of Gray Wolf- This
>Act shall not apply to
>any gray wolf (Canis lupus).'.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You would think that every concerned
>sportsman would rally behind this
>effort, but no. It was
>seen as a direct threat
>to the long range goals
>of the eco-freaks. A huge
>campaign was launched to discredit
>BGF and any who backed
>the bill. That in itself
>should tell you where Buzz
>and his holier than thou
>friends stand. He will no
>doubt say that the bill
>never stood a chance from
>the beginning, but wasn't he
>just on here saying we're
>at fault because we didn't
>"get in the car" or
>some such smoke and mirror?
>
>
>*************************************
>
>Eel is completely wrong on this
>one. Facts, links, and
>citations provided.
>
>The Utah franchises of BGF/SFW introduced
>HR 509 and no one
>in the hunting world opposed
>it, NONE. Everyone would
>have been happy if it
>had passed, but given the
>terrible record Peay/Benson have in
>politics, it had zero chance,
>zilch.
>
>Don't believe me, go look at
>the Congressional record. It
>was introduced January 26, 2011
>and referred to the House
>Natural Resourced Committee.
>
>Link here - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr509
>
>Rehberg could not even get a
>Committee hearing in the House
>Committee of which he was
>a member, let alone a
>vote. Not surprising, given
>Rehberg never got anything passed
>in his years in the
>House.
>
>And in the Senate side, Hatch
>put the Senate companion bill,
>S.249 in the Senate Environment
>and Public Works Committee.
>
>Link here - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s249
>
>That Senate committee was/is chaired by
>Barbara Boxer of California.
>Like Boxer was going to
>let it have a committee
>vote. It never had
>a committee vote or committee
>hearing. Hatch is a
>smart and experienced guy, so
>I am pretty sure he
>knew the eventual outcome of
>putting this bill in Boxer's
>committee.
>
>It did not die, as Eel
>says, due to hunters protesting
>it. It died because
>anything that changes the ESA
>is pretty much DOA, and
>the SFW/BGF folks pushing it
>through thought they were still
>in the halls of the
>Utah Capitol, only to be
>sized for 4XL asshats in
>the process.
>
>But, both Rehberg and Hatch did
>what they promised, then stood
>back and collected their campaign
>donations from the Utah franchises.
> Even they knew the
>bill would not see the
>light of day in either
>the House or the Senate.
>
>
>Seeing the SFW/BGF bill was DOA,
>Representative Mike Simpson, a Republican
>from Idaho, came up with
>an idea that might pass.
> He started floating it
>around in February and Benson/Peay
>sent out the hatchet squad
>to try take him down.
> They were making tons
>of money on the wolf
>charades and any solution would
>slow the pace at which
>the greenbacks were rolling in.
>
>
>Here is a MM thread from
>those days where it was
>laid out how SFW/BGF sent
>out their loyalists to try
>kill the Simpson idea.
>Fortunately, SFW/BGF is as inept
>as they come in the
>world of politics outside the
>Beehive state and as a
>result, the Simpson idea passed.
>
>
>http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=17620&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0
>
>BGF/SFW even got so desperate as
>to send out an email
>to every member of Congress,
>saying other groups such as
>NRA, SCI, CSF were against
>the Simpson idea, when in
>fact those groups supported the
>Simpson idea.
>
>Here is the NRA press release,
>verbatim, where the NRA called
>out SFW/BGF for lying to
>Congress and misrepresenting the facts,
>all in an effort to
>salvage their cash cow, HR
>509.
>
>***********************************************************
>[U}NRA, SCI, and CSF Disavow Misleading
>Press Release[/U]
>
>Today the National Rifle Association, Safari
>Club International and the Congressional
>Sportsmen?s Foundation publicly disavowed a
>misleading press release distributed on
>Friday, March 11th to congressional
>offices and other outlets. The
>press release blatantly misrepresents the
>position of these organizations regarding
>legislation to delist gray wolves
>under the Endangered Species Act.
>
>
>The draft release was circulated by
>an individual representing Sportsmen for
>Fish and Wildlife and Big
>Game Forever. The individual representing
>these two groups was immediately
>advised to remove the aforementioned
>organizations named in the release.
>Unfortunately, he did not, and
>the release was transmitted without
>correcting the inaccurate information.
>
>The release in question claimed that
>the NRA, SCI and CSF
>along with the other organizations
>listed below are opposed to
>language relating to the delisting
>of gray wolves in spending
>legislation currently pending before the
>U.S. Congress. In fact, these
>organizations support that language, as
>well as every other measure
>that has been introduced in
>the U.S. House and Senate
>to date addressing this important
>issue.
>
>Congressional offices and members of the
>media should exercise caution in
>accepting as fact, or repeating,
>any claims made by Sportsmen
>for Fish and Wildlife, Big
>Game Forever or any person
>claiming to represent them. Due
>to the blatant misrepresentation contained
>in the press release circulated
>by these two groups, any
>claims they make in the
>future should be thoroughly investigated
>and independently confirmed.
>
>
>NRA Federal Affairs
>Jeff Freeman
>Senior Federal Lobbyist
>[email protected]
>410 First Street S.E.
>2nd Floor
>Washington, D.C. 20003
>tel: 202.651.2568
>fax: 202.651.2577
>
>
>
>*************************************************************
>
>Eel's post is flat out wrong.
>
>
>It was SFW/BGF that was out
>trying to kill other bills.
> They were trying to
>protect their new species of
>bovine dog, the Cash Cow.
>
>
>Not a single person tried to
>kill HR 509. Every
>hunting group out their supported
>HR 509, even though they
>knew the political amateurs pushing
>that bill had zero chance
>of getting it out of
>either a Senate of House
>committee.
>
>Since this thread was titled "wolf
>facts," I felt compelled to
>provide the real facts of
>who tried to kill what
>bill related to wolf delisting.
> It was SFW/BGF who
>was trying to kill other
>bills.

Eel is Wrong?

It'd be the first time in History!















I used to know of places worth Hiking in to for Elk & Deer!
Thanks to Illegal Bastards & the USFS not enforcing Rules you can Zing in to them Places on Wheelers now & not see a Damn thing!
But by GAWD it don't take long for them U-Tards to get there with all the Unethical BS and the New Technology!
 
Went to school with this kid. He is a wrangler for an outfitter.

Got Balto the wolf. the alpha male. Another wolf got shot out of this pack by a non-resident.

This kid is lucky got a grizzly bear last year in Wyoming { Got charged and almost killed} and a wolf this year.

 
JUDAS!

That a Collar?

You Ain't suppose to shoot the Tame Wolves!:D










I used to know of places worth Hiking in to for Elk & Deer!
Thanks to Illegal Bastards & the USFS not enforcing Rules you can Zing in to them Places on Wheelers now & not see a Damn thing!
But by GAWD it don't take long for them U-Tards to get there with all the Unethical BS and the New Technology!
 
Every problem is waiting for a solution. An organization has been formed that is writing checks for the harvest of wolves. Because Idaho Fish And Game predator harvest objectives had not been met this group was formed to help close the gap. We are not an anti wolf organization, we are a predator management organization.

Over 95% of funds received have been paid out in the form of reimbursements to hunters and trappers who have legally harvested a wolf.

This organizations membership includes some of the past and some of the current Idaho Fish And Game Commissioners.

Current funding comes from $35 sportsman memberships and corporate sponsors.

Last year this program only existed in region one of Idaho (the Panhandle wolf management unit). This year it is available state wide. When you join or contribute you have the option to choose the region that you wish to have your funds paid out in.

The proof is in the numbers. Check out the F&G website to see that the Panhandle had an increase in wolf harvest of 18% last season over the previous season. All other regions had a decrease in harvest, for an average decrease of 20%. This years wolf hunting harvest in the Panhandle is almost double last years.

This organizations political involvement has been, and will be limited to influencing of season and rule changes that will help increase harvest in regions that are not meeting predator harvest objectives. We have a great appreciation for those that fight the battle on the political front, however we see a need to make a difference in the field.

We would love to have you join us in being part of the solution. http://foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/
 
Reading this thread reminded me of a video I watched a while back.

http://thunderousintentions.com/201...ids-at-camp-will-play-in-pro-am-this-weekend/

Randy and Buzz remind me of Durant and the BGF back rubbers remind me of the kids. Comparing well supported arguments from guys who were in the fight against guys singing the big bad wolf marketing pitch sold to them by the wolf welfare pimps. No contest in my opinion.

The Utah wolf lobby squad is run by the same people that brought you hundreds of auction tags, raffle tags (expo party favors), 90/10 split landowner tags, preference points, premium priced draw tags, and dedicated hunter and lifetime license entitlement programs. Brilliant.
 
>Comparing well supported arguments
>from guys who were in
>the fight against guys singing
>the big bad wolf marketing
>pitch sold to them by
>the wolf welfare pimps. No
>contest in my opinion.

+1

Couldn't have said it better myself, and like I said before, shredded to high heaven and back.
 
Amen Mightyhunter!


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
While entertaining, interesting and at times informative, the politics and finger-pointing will never change the FACT that wolves have a negative impact on big game popluations. It's certainly not the only issue but it was the original topic of this thread.
We are ALL smart enough to know that the clock cannot be turned back since the worms are already out of the can and receive Federal protection/oversight. We still don't have to like the loss of livestock and big game to wolves!
It's been a fun thread!
Zeke
 
Bigfin wrote:

"Eel is completely wrong on this one. Facts, links, and citations provided.

The Utah franchises of BGF/SFW introduced HR 509 and no one in the hunting world opposed it, NONE. Everyone would have been happy if it had passed, but given the terrible record Peay/Benson have in politics, it had zero chance, zilch.

Don't believe me, go look at the Congressional record. It was introduced January 26, 2011 and referred to the House Natural Resourced Committee.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I know it was introduced, never said it wasn't. Nobody opposed it? Can you show me any written documentation showing their SUPPORT for it? If everyone would have been happy it see it pass surely there must be some record somewhere. Show me a sample of support. Thanks.

Eel
 
Eel:

It took me one minute to find a letter showing hunting groups that were asking Congress for support of HR 509. Go to this link.

http://biggameforever.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dear-Colleague-H.R.-509.pdf

It was supported by these groups, even though they all knew had no chance of passing. Other groups wrote their own letters to Congress supporting HR 509.

Now, since you are the one claiming that hunting groups were trying to kill HR 509, go show me the evidence to support your claim; a completely erroneous claim. You're the one who made that claim, not me, so rather than asking me to continue providing more proof, time for you to show your evidence. You comments seem to come directly from the BGF/SFW playbook.

I have shown you where BGF/SFW tried to kill the other bills and hammer the good politicians working for our cause, time to show us where there was this groundswell of hunters you claim tried to kill HR 509.

You won't find it.

It was SFW/BGF that launched the first volley by attacking other groups and those politicians that could actually get the problem solved. Until BGF/SFW used welfare money from Utah hunters to go after the other groups, there was no dissention among the hunters and the groups involved. These two groups, new arrivals to the wolf topic, brought it upon themselves via some very poor leadership decisions.

Your posted recount of history is completely the opposite of what happened. Feel free to post links and evidence that show otherwise.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
So, do you really believe that BGF intentionally introduced a bill that they knew couldn't pass, just to make money? I don't.

If they introduced a bill that everybody was for, why the hatred? I don't get it. There has to be more to it than "we support the bill but hate them for introducing it".

The bill we got didn't really solve the problem like you claim. I can understand why BGF would try to push their own bill. Wolves are guaranteed to spread almost unchecked. I don't understand the joy. Well, I guess I do.

And then if someone comes on here and says anything bad about wolves, the hate crowd shows up and blasts them. Why?????

I just draw my own conclusions.

Eel
 
Well, I have read all of this and it has not swayed my opinion one bit.

On Dec 1st, I will be in Hamilton, Montana, license and tag in hand, and fully prepared to spend the next 7 days taking as many wolves as I legally can.

Oh, and by the way, I have spent the last month super-tuning my 300WSM to hit things at 1000 yards.

"If you get upset or offended by ANY website forum
post.....especially mine, you need serious
intervention!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-13 AT 05:30PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-13 AT 05:03?PM (MST)

nickman,

Save up some dog sh!t from your dog or the pound, when you find the wolves spread it out in a good ambush or calling location. You may want to follow them and find a couple places to set up with the sh!t. The wolves will have a pattern to their territory figuring that out will help if you only have a week. Wait until the wolves find it and mark their territory. Start calling with dog barks and howls...wait... and shoot straight. Be ready!! cuz they will come to fight!

Good luck to you!!



+ the equivalent to Obamas debt (Trillions) quest!!!!
 
The hatred stems from their open attempts to derail the Simpson bill that's responsible for MT and ID being able to hunt wolves, then taking credit for that bills passage.
 
+1 WapitiBob!!! It was just one of many shenanigans that SFW/BGF has been caught at and some people just can't seem to see the forest for the trees!
 
Really? 19,000 to 3,400 and people are actually debating what impact the wolf has had? It is truly astonishing to me that people can look at direct facts and find some way to explain away a 15,000 animal loss in an area. Please , please , please no matter what your stand on wolves are please admit that the reintroduction of the wolf has had a incredible impact on elk and moose populations in certain key areas.
Go ahead and debate your judgements on whether you think it is good or bad or something else but don't look up into the blue sky and insist that it is green.
All debate has to begin with the acceptance of fact. drought, habitat, coyotes? Come on, all those factors in a perfect storm could drop that population maybe 10-15%. Almost 90% with the only real variable being the wolf. Really?
No one is more blind than he who simply refuses to see.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-13 AT 07:16AM (MST)[p]How about we have a refresher of how Don Peay went before the legislature in Utah and had the audacity to lay claim that bgf and sfw were part of the "WE" that got wolves delisted. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Audio from Feb 21, 2013 (The pukefest starts at about 00:20:300) or just click on the "Wolf Reintroduction" tab under the player:

http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2768

No other sportsman groups have worked harder to derail success than bgf and sfw did to kill the Simpson/Tester rider from passing. H.R. 509 and S. 249 were supported by other groups despite being flawed and having history working against them. Another bill, H.R. 6028 had mild support from a couple other groups but had too much wiggle room for the pro-wolf gang to file future lawsuits and that would have been decades more work to achieve what the CR ultimately did. The only reaction to those dead bills from other groups came in the wake of boobing and crying from DP and RB that the bills were stuck in committee or weren't brought up because of other groups. What got the wolf delisted? Simpson/Tester which was supported by almost every other conservation, sportsmen, and wildlife group in the nation except for sfw and bgf:

https://groups.google.com/group/wup... Agreement FINAL.pdf?part=4&authuser=0&view=1

And this message from Ryan Benson:

"Yesterday?s development in wolf delisting:

Some of you may of heard that wolf delisting language was included in the House C.R. to keep the government funded. Unfortunately, the language in the C.R. is not the good development it appears to be. See Rehberg press release below.

Unfortunately the language that is included is the administration?s language that is being pushed by Tester and Baucus. The language leaves most of the country squarely in the cross hairs of unmanaged wolves?. It leaves the door open to relisting in Idaho and Montana. Does nothing to stop the wave of spreading destruction anywhere else. Doesn?t delist most wolf states. Does nothing to restore state management. Doesn?t end the endless cycle of wasteful litigation. Keeps the spigot of EAJA funding for enviro litigants alive diverting millions of dollars from our children?s and grandchildren?s future into lawyers and environmental endowment funds. For all these reasons, the C.R. Approach could never be ?The American Big Game and Livestock Protection Act? as H.R. 509 and S. 249 are so appropriately named.

Dan Ashe convinced Simpson from Idaho to break ranks with the 48 Senators and Congressmen that are working on the right solution. 2 Senators recognize the need for a fix, but are pushing a watered down non-solution that has no support. Why are we such a nation of ambulance chasers sometimes? Why are some officials afraid of obvious solutions to stop the hemorrhaging once and for all? This is a $100 Million a year problem that is only getting worse, bigger, deeper and more widespread.

Last year a very similar approach was used by the anti-wolf management folks. They make it appear to be a compromise, but ultimately they divide the ranks and then kill the watered down solution as well. The folks who are pushing this want no wolf management, not even under the watered down scenario.

We all need to call Simpson today and tell him he is falling for politics of divide and conquer. Tell him you do not support the CR that the ONLY solution is H.R. 509.

DC office 202-225-5531
Boise office 208-334-1953
Email: simpson.house.gov

Ryan Benson"

And how about where DP stood on the legislation?

http://newwest.net/topic/article/le...enators_for_derailing_wolf_delisting/C41/L41/

Plainly put, except for one single solitary lawsuit initiated by another conservation group (omitted because I'm "bias"), sfw and bgf have had virtually zero success. There's nothing complex about hiring a lobbyist. And suggesting that lobbyist is a "supporter" before a dude trying to profit from party planning at his townhouse with wolf shaped carrot cake is disingenuous too. I'm happy to see that hunters are taking wolves and I believe as science moves forward, those states offering tags for wolves will eventually be more confident in their management practices.

Supporters of Simpson/Tester and Farm Bill that ends Wolf ESA:

http://www.wildlifepartners.org/partners/

http://www.sportsmenslink.org/about/partners/


On the wrong side 99.9% of the time (or for morons, %99.9).


Oh, while I'm here for a second, where can I get my elephant tag for AI? The expo? No thanks, there are ABUNDANT elephants on the Monroe, I hear. And you can hunt them on OTC tags.


"When you are dead, you don't know that
you are dead. It is difficult only for the
others. It is the same when you are
stupid"
 
>Bigfin wrote:
>
>"Eel is completely wrong on this
>one. Facts, links, and citations
>provided.
>
>The Utah franchises of BGF/SFW introduced
>HR 509 and no one
>in the hunting world opposed
>it, NONE. Everyone would have
>been happy if it had
>passed, but given the terrible
>record Peay/Benson have in politics,
>it had zero chance, zilch.
>
>
>Don't believe me, go look at
>the Congressional record. It was
>introduced January 26, 2011 and
>referred to the House Natural
>Resourced Committee.
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I know it was introduced, never
>said it wasn't. Nobody opposed
>it? Can you show me
>any written documentation showing their
>SUPPORT for it? If everyone
>would have been happy it
>see it pass surely there
>must be some record somewhere.
>Show me a sample of
>support. Thanks.
>
>Eel


Eel,

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pr...cus-TesterBillFallsShortofAddressingtheR.aspx

ENJOY!!!!


"When you are dead, you don't know that
you are dead. It is difficult only for the
others. It is the same when you are
stupid"
 
Groups endorsing nationwide wolf delisting and management via H.R. 509 and S. 249:

American Farm Bureau
American Sheep Industry Association
Arizona Cattle Feeders Association
Arizona Cattle Growers? Association
Arizona Wool Producers Association
Big Game Forever
California Cattlemen?s Association
California Public Lands Council
California Wool Growers Association
Colorado Cattlemen?s Association
Colorado Wool Growers Association
Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation
Florida Cattlemen?s Association
Georgia Cattlemen?s Association
Idaho Cattle Association
Idaho Wool Growers Association
Independent Cattlemen?s Association of Texas
Kansas Livestock Association
Maryland Sheep Breeders Association
Michigan Cattlemen?s Association
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation
Minnesota Lamb and Wool Producers Association
Minnesota State Cattlemen?s Association
Montana Association of State Grazing Districts
Montana Public Lands Council
Montana Stockgrowers Association
Mule Deer Foundation
National Cattlemen?s Beef Association
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Trappers Association
Nebraska Sheep & Goat Association
Nevada Cattlemen?s Association
North Carolina Sheep Producers Association Inc.
Oregon Cattlemen?s Association
Oregon Sheep Growers Association
Public Lands Council
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Safari Club International
Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Sportsmen?s Alliance
Utah Cattlemen?s Association
Utah Wool Growers Association
Virginia Cattlemen?s Association
Washington Cattlemen?s Association
Wild Sheep Foundation
Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Let's see, the only hunting organizations I see on that list are BGF, MDF, RMEF, SFW, SCI and maybe one or two others. Is it just a coincidence that these are the ones you guys like to trash? The rest of them I know you hate.

Oh, I know you like to slam them because they take tags and sell them to raise money. In fact you get all red faced and start foaming at the mouth at the very thought. They're stealing tags from the little guy. Welfare tags, I think you say.

When tags are drastically cut, and some hunts even eliminated because of wolves, not a GD whimper from you. No outrage, not even a mention. In fact you actually defend it by blowing smoke and blaming it on habitat, cutthroat trout, climate change, etc.

If you like the Simpson/Testicle bill and want more wolves, just come out and say so. You don't have to be two faced about it and say "we all wanted Don Peay's bill to pass but he just couldn't get it done". Nothing I hate worse than someone who smiles while he stabs you in the back.

I actually lean toward giving TOPGUN a pass though. He's just a ignorant boot licker. He reminds me of a Justin Bieber groupie.

I have no further desire to waste time with people like you.

Eel
 
>Groups endorsing nationwide wolf delisting and
>management via H.R. 509 and
>S. 249:
>
>American Farm Bureau
> American Sheep Industry Association
> Arizona Cattle Feeders Association
> Arizona Cattle Growers? Association
> Arizona Wool Producers Association
> Big Game Forever
> California Cattlemen?s Association
> California Public Lands Council
> California Wool Growers Association
> Colorado Cattlemen?s Association
> Colorado Wool Growers Association
> Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation
> Florida Cattlemen?s Association
> Georgia Cattlemen?s Association
> Idaho Cattle Association
> Idaho Wool Growers Association
> Independent Cattlemen?s Association of Texas
>
> Kansas Livestock Association
> Maryland Sheep Breeders Association
> Michigan Cattlemen?s Association
> Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation
> Minnesota Lamb and Wool Producers
>Association
> Minnesota State Cattlemen?s Association
> Montana Association of State Grazing
>Districts
> Montana Public Lands Council
> Montana Stockgrowers Association
> Mule Deer Foundation
> National Cattlemen?s Beef Association
> National Rifle Association
> National Shooting Sports Foundation
> National Trappers Association
> Nebraska Sheep & Goat Association
>
> Nevada Cattlemen?s Association
> North Carolina Sheep Producers Association
>Inc.
> Oregon Cattlemen?s Association
> Oregon Sheep Growers Association
> Public Lands Council
> Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
> Safari Club International
> Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
>
> U.S. Sportsmen?s Alliance
> Utah Cattlemen?s Association
> Utah Wool Growers Association
> Virginia Cattlemen?s Association
> Washington Cattlemen?s Association
> Wild Sheep Foundation
> Wyoming Stock Growers Association
>
>Let's see, the only hunting organizations
>I see on that list
>are BGF, MDF, RMEF, SFW,
>SCI and maybe one or
>two others. Is it just
>a coincidence that these are
>the ones you guys like
>to trash? The rest of
>them I know you hate.
>
>
>Oh, I know you like to
>slam them because they take
>tags and sell them to
>raise money. In fact you
>get all red faced and
>start foaming at the mouth
>at the very thought. They're
>stealing tags from the little
>guy. Welfare tags, I think
>you say.
>
>When tags are drastically cut, and
>some hunts even eliminated because
>of wolves, not a GD
>whimper from you. No outrage,
>not even a mention. In
>fact you actually defend it
>by blowing smoke and blaming
>it on habitat, cutthroat trout,
>climate change, etc.
>
>If you like the Simpson/Testicle bill
>and want more wolves, just
>come out and say so.
>You don't have to be
>two faced about it and
>say "we all wanted Don
>Peay's bill to pass but
>he just couldn't get it
>done". Nothing I hate worse
>than someone who smiles while
>he stabs you in the
>back.
>
>I actually lean toward giving TOPGUN
>a pass though. He's just
>a ignorant boot licker. He
>reminds me of a Justin
>Bieber groupie.
>
>I have no further desire to
>waste time with people like
>you.
>
>Eel

Voted the "best post to date"!
Let the in-fighting continue while the wolves eat our elk and moose and we blame it on the "other" factors.
Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-13 AT 04:26PM (MST)[p]>Let's see, the only hunting organizations
>I see on that list
>are BGF, MDF, RMEF, SFW,
>SCI and maybe one or
>two others. Is it just
>a coincidence that these are
>the ones you guys like
>to trash? The rest of
>them I know you hate.

You said flatly that sportsmen and other hunting groups (conservation actually, but yeah) are the reason those two bills failed (there were actually three, but I digress) and wanted PROOF that other groups supported it other than your magnificent sfw and bgf. You were given it and clearly don't know what to do with it.


>Oh, I know you like to
>slam them because they take
>tags and sell them to
>raise money. In fact you
>get all red faced and
>start foaming at the mouth
>at the very thought. They're
>stealing tags from the little
>guy. Welfare tags, I think
>you say.

Nope. They (sfw primarily) take tags from the public trust and then tell the public its none of their business what they do with the money generated. THEN, not only try to take credit for the work done by non members of sfw and bgf but money that is legally required to be RETURNED to the public trust, they pose with a giganto fake check and suggest its a "donation".

>When tags are drastically cut, and
>some hunts even eliminated because
>of wolves, not a GD
>whimper from you. No outrage,
>not even a mention. In
>fact you actually defend it
>by blowing smoke and blaming
>it on habitat, cutthroat trout,
>climate change, etc.

Hey, I'm a member of almost every group you mentioned, except for sfw and bgf. How come your two partner groups are not members of ANY of the associations in Washington DC that are actually impacting national issues to return control of wildlife management to the states?


>If you like the Simpson/Testicle bill
>and want more wolves, just
>come out and say so.
>You don't have to be
>two faced about it and
>say "we all wanted Don
>Peay's bill to pass but
>he just couldn't get it
>done". Nothing I hate worse
>than someone who smiles while
>he stabs you in the
>back.

I LOVE the Simpson/Tester Amendment because it actually did something that will be proved long standing despite the cries from pro-wolf stump humpers. Speaking of stabbing someone in the back, you're dear leader, DP has attacked the one model of management that finally put hunting in check from solely a profit center to public trust and made every hunter a steward of tht public trust, the wildlife. The NAMWC is routinely chewed at annually by DP's bull crap and an ever changing propaganda power-point suggesting the model that gives us the nation wide elk herds while putting more bite into state control of almost all other wildlife, is flawed. DP will send out his minions with quotes from Teddy Roosevelt despite the dagger he so eloquently placed in TR's back. R.I.P..


>I actually lean toward giving TOPGUN
>a pass though. He's just
>a ignorant boot licker. He
>reminds me of a Justin
>Bieber groupie.

I like TOPGUN, his opinion isn't forged by what some asshat has told him to think.

>I have no further desire to
>waste time with people like
>you.
>
>Eel

Have a great weekend! That is, if its allowed by the dear leader.


"When you are dead, you don't know that
you are dead. It is difficult only for the
others. It is the same when you are
stupid"
 
These wolf arguement threads crack me up. A bunch of bitching and finger pointing. The wolves are here. It's over. Deal with it as best you can. This thread was titled wolf facts, and there was a lot of info that is not fact. The guys that know the most are the ones labeled as wolf lovers. Not so, they are just guys that are educated. Not guys that carry dog $hit around. mtmuley
 
>These wolf arguement threads crack me
>up. A bunch of bitching
>and finger pointing. The wolves
>are here. It's over. Deal
>with it as best you
>can. This thread was titled
>wolf facts, and there was
>a lot of info that
>is not fact. The guys
>that know the most are
>the ones labeled as wolf
>lovers. Not so, they are
>just guys that are educated.
>Not guys that carry dog
>$hit around. mtmuley


+1 Dale!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-13 AT 11:01PM (MST)[p]>Let's see, the only hunting organizations
>I see on that list
>are BGF, MDF, RMEF, SFW,
>SCI and maybe one or
>two others. Is it just
>a coincidence that these are
>the ones you guys like
>to trash? The rest of
>them I know you hate.
>

dunno about that..

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/NewbergAppointedtoRMEFCommittee.aspx

If this is common man VS elite there is none better in our corner than BigFin and Buzz (even if you dont like his delivery), and no worse than SFW/BGF. The records will back that up on both sides. SFW's plan was doomed from the get go, yet when a realistic plan was put on the table SFW came unglued. Untill it passed then they jumped on the victory wagon..WTF?

And yes I do believe SFW would push a bill knowing it would fail.Its always about money with them, always has been.
 
>These wolf arguement threads crack me
>up. A bunch of bitching
>and finger pointing. The wolves
>are here. It's over. Deal
>with it as best you
>can. This thread was titled
>wolf facts, and there was
>a lot of info that
>is not fact. The guys
>that know the most are
>the ones labeled as wolf
>lovers. Not so, they are
>just guys that are educated.
>Not guys that carry dog
>$hit around. mtmuley

How is it "not factual", I took it directly from the US Fish and Wildlife site. The others are from the RMEF.....Are you saying they don't post real facts?

avatar-1.png
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-13 AT 08:59AM (MST)[p]Ya Mtmuley it's pretty funny... Facts are; We have lost 100,000 elk out of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem area of ID WY MT and Buzz is so proud. Idaho has wilderness areas that are void of elk, I am glad that cracks you up. Buzz and wolves is kind of like Obama and healthcare, they sure do have a great delivery. I put zero faith in the "so called experts" on the subject of both. The facts are easy to see with your own eyes in areas that have a large wolf population in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska and Canada. I do not need "peer reviewed" bullish!t that has been bought and paid for to sway the argument.

Mtmuley one question, are you smart enough to kill a pack of wolves terrorizing your local elk????? I don't see Buzz with D!CK measuring dead wolf pictures. Topgun could NOT kill a pack of wolves in Yellowsone Park with a black ops helicopter and poison....
 
Wolfhunter---I see you are continuing to post your usual drivel and BS on the Forums with that last tidbit especially aimed at mtmuley, who HAS killed a Montana wolf, and me when I've not made one comment about any good that wolves do! Where do you see BuzzH saying that wolves haven't taken a lot of elk in certain areas? All I believe he's stated in the past is that he can still go out in areas where there are wolves, have a good hunt and have a good chance at taking an animal. With his job working all over the countryside, don't you figure that just maybe he has a leg up on many of us who can't get out in the back country like his job requires to know the better hunting spots? Yes, in many areas the wolves have decimated the ungulate populations and I don't believe that is being disputed by anyone on here including BuzzH. Hopefully now that there are seasons established and the states have control they will be brought down to manageable numbers everywhere just like other game animals we hunt. You can also bet your azz that if I see a wolf in the predator zone I hunt in over in the Bighorns that the lead will start flying at him. I'd love to smack one or more of them if I get the chance, as they are absolute killing machines!
 
I hope people keep believing wolves have killed so many elk. It might take some hunting pressure off the ever increasing heards where I hunt in wolf country. Keep up the good fight Fin and Buzz.
 
I normally don't comment on long, contentious threads, but this time I think it's worth mentioning a few points.

First, it is indisputable (at least by those who exercise logic) that wolves have had a major impact upon elk and other ungulate populations, especially in and around YNP. While there have been other factors, including expanding grizzly and black bear predation, wolves are the single biggest influence on declining elk and moose populations in the northern Rockies.

Second, the "Pro-wolf" crowd used very disingenuous tactics to get wolf re-introduction in the first place. The originally agreed upon populations were to be at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in each of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. At no time did the pro-wolf advocates indicate they'd push for higher and higher populations and ever expanding range. Had they taken a more honest approach, it is not unreasonable to think that even today there might not be any wolves in the lower 48, other than a few that wander down from Canada. At no point, even with populations up 400-500% over originally agreed upon objectives, have the pro-wolf advocates agreed to state based management or limits to the range and overall population of wolves.

Many in the 'anti-wolf' crowd want no wolves at all, which isn't going to happen in this day and age.

One problem with this entire subject, nearly every time it comes up, is that those on the liberal side begin calling those who don't agree with them by names, such as 'tin hat crowd'. At that point, those people have lost most or all of their credibility, not only with me, but also with most other logically thinking, reasonable people. Credibility comes with an ability and willingness to engage in a discussion or debate and use facts and discussion skills to influence the point of view of the opposite side. Name calling does nothing except to show how lacking some people are in their ability to make a cogent point.

On the other side, people need to be more open minded and listen to valid points that are brought up by those with whom they don't necessarily agree, in an effort to find some common ground that EVERYONE can agree upon.

As for my own view, I'm not opposed to all wolves, but I am most definitely opposed to unregulated wolf expansion and lack of the controls and population limits that were originally agreed upon in order to begin wolf introductions into the northern Rocky Mountain states. I've enjoyed seeing wolves in Alaska and British Columbia, and even shot 2 wolves out on the Alaska Peninsula that were part of a pack that was eating a caribou. I brought a wolf in with a predator call in BC, but wasn't able to shoot him, and that still remains as a vivid memory among my other cherished hunting memories.

Wolves are here to stay, and they need to be managed just like every other species. Their range also needs to be limited to the states they were originally proposed to occupy and neighboring states such as Colorado, Utah, Oregon and elsewhere should not implement management plans that protect wolves. These states were never part of the originally proposed introduction scheme, and should not be burdened with the impacts a wolf population would entail.
 
Some won't like this!

Oh Well!

I'm already in trouble over a Stupid Picture!

I'll admit there are places for Wolves!

Utah Ain't one of them!

Where you gonna put em where there Ain't gonna be a BIG Conflict with Our already Suffering Deer Herd and Ranchers,Farmers & LandOwners?

Like I've said many a times!

Better Hurry!

You gotta beat the DWR from finishing them off!

Anybody know how many Millions of Dollars have been Wasted on the SQUAW Fish here in Utah & to my knowledge they've still never got any transplanted in to the Green River?

SQUAW FISH = Wolves!










I used to know of places worth Hiking in to for Elk & Deer!
Thanks to Illegal Bastards & the USFS not enforcing Rules you can Zing in to them Places on Wheelers now & not see a Damn thing!
But by GAWD it don't take long for them U-Tards to get there with all the Unethical BS and the New Technology!
 
Good post, nuts. Now if we could just get every single person that posted on this thread to send their comments in before the deadline, we might have something.

But we all know that's not gonna happen. Right?

We're too busy arguing.
 
I might as well pipe in, everyone else has.

I live in Wyoming, about a hundred miles from Yellowstone, where all these wolves are wiping everything out. Im not saying the wolves aren't killing everything off as I don't live right there, but I did talk to a friend of mine that went elk hunting up by the park this year, he said they had a great hunt, saw lots of animals, they saw some smokers too and both of them tagged out.

There are wolves where I live, they haven't hurt the elk herds much around here though, at least as far as I can tell. Wolves can travel a long ways just in one day, so I question the often heard speculation that they will soon make it down to wherever and kill the Monroe mnt or whatever elk herd off, since they have been here for over 15 years I'm guessing If they were coming,they would have already made it that far.

I think the overdone fear and hatred of wolves by some people is tied to our evolution as predators and prey, its hidden inside our brains, hardwired from thousands of years of competition with other predators back in the caveman days, what else could explain it? The wolves of little red riding hood and modern video games.

I spent a lot of time trying to help bring about reasonable numbers of elk back to their historic habitat in NE Nevada, it was incredibly upsetting to me because we couldn't get sportsmen and hunters to show up at the numbers setting meetings at all, local sportsmen, out of state hunters, out of county, it didn't matter, they all turned a blind ear to what went on.
In the end the county commissioners and public land ranchers kicked our tails and we have lost thousands of huntable elk every year because of that.
Its all public land that is owned by all of us, its all lost opportunity for all sportsmen due to competition from other uses, yet the wolf issue is fascinating to Californians, people from Utah, Texans, Nevadans and everyone else it seems, but all those cow elk hunts that are designed to kill off and beat down elk herds in Utah or Nevada or wherever? they don't even get a response from local big game hunters, not to mention anyone else.

So I wonder is it really about lost hunting opportunity, or something else?
 
wolfhunter, I can't kill a whole pack unless there are only 5. That's all the tags I can get. I did manage to take one big male out last year, and I'm not done wolf hunting this year. Slam, I'm not disputing the stuff you have links to, it's the BS posted by all the other wolf experts around here that gets out of hand. mtmuley
 
So piper?

You don't believe the Wolves have had much Impact on the Elk & Moose Herds?













I used to know of places worth Hiking in to for Elk & Deer!
Thanks to Illegal Bastards & the USFS not enforcing Rules you can Zing in to them Places on Wheelers now & not see a Damn thing!
But by GAWD it don't take long for them U-Tards to get there with all the Unethical BS and the New Technology!
 
elkassassin, I'm sure they have an impact, they have to, they kill elk and moose, I also sure that their impact is exaggerated much of the time,
that's just the nature of humans and wolves, it always has been.

Like I said I don't live in an area where their impact is really noticeable, we can buy up to 3 elk tags per person around here, moose are on a downward trend as in most of the state, how much of that is due to wolves? I don't know.
The deer aren't doing great, but that has little to do with the wolf.
 
I read you comments on wolves.

Do you know how many wolves the Forest Service said they needed before they would take them off of the endangered species list?


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
I gotta agree with your conclusion, Piper. We hunters are numerous enough to impact the decision-making process, but we appear content to allow our unelected representatives to make our case for us. If the day ever arrives that Ted Nugent, etc. can adequately represent my interests, then I will take up watching the Sportsman's Channel and give up actual hunting. Many of us treat hunting as though it is a right that cannot be taken away. Even in California, no one would have believed fifty years ago that a huntable population such as the mountain lion would be declared protected for no reason other than a demographic shift in power from the rural to the urban community (and that was just the beginning). Hunters all over live in denial of the fact that they, too, are destined to become Californians if we fail to see past this misconception and get off our asses to take individual action.
 
I'm not going to weigh in on the wolf issue. It's been hammered pretty hard and it just gets me fired up if I get involved in these emotional posts. But I do feel the need to correct a misstatement made by BUZZ in one of his posts in this thread.

Here's what BUZZ posted:

"Why did the entire Platte River drainage go to LQ only for mule deer???"

I just want to point out that is a gross misstatement. Buzz might need to go over his geography again. The Platte River system is pretty big. It drains a large portion of both Wyoming and Colorado and most of Nebraska. I'm sure he's referring to Wyoming (my assumption)but nonetheless, there are at least 15 mule deer areas in the NORTH Platte drainage that are not limited quota for mule deer.

I just want to clarify that most of the deer areas in the "ENTIRE" North Platte drainage are not limited quota for mule deer.

The areas that were moved to limited quota were changed at the request of local sportsmen, landowners and residents of the Upper North Platte and are primarily south if I-80 in the Saratoga-Encampment area.

Just an FYI.
 
Good lordy.. aint nothing like discussing wolves to get people rilled up.

BuzzH, I have lost all and any ounce of respect I had for you. Not that you care, but it just validates my feelings on your stance.. in which your stance is ridiculous and obscured.

I wont argue with the idiots on here, because they will beat me with experience.

I will say this.

S.S.S.

The End
 
"BOISE, Idaho (February 23, 2012) - Idaho Department of Fish and Game announced yesterday that it helped fund USDA Wildlife Services? removal of 14 wolves in the Lolo zone of the Clearwater National Forest in northern Idaho. The federal action is part of an Idaho program to remove most wolves from a remote section of federal land in an attempt to boost elk numbers. An additional 28 wolves have been removed from this area through trapping, hunting, and previous aerial gunning.
Statewide, more than 400 wolves have been eliminated from Idaho?s population since the beginning of 2011. This represents a significant impact on the state?s wolf population, which was last estimated at 705 animals at the end of 2010.


?The decline of the Lolo elk herd was the result of multiple factors, including historic habitat changes, road-building, and over-hunting by humans. Killing wolves without addressing these other factors is misguided. Further, biologists do not have an accurate count of how many wolves are in the Lolo region, and Idaho has no formal plan in place to measure the impacts of killing wolves on the elk population. Targeting dozens of wolves could wipe most of them out of the area, defeating the purpose of restoring the species to its proper ecological role. Wolves are vital to maintaining nature?s balance and should not be eliminated so carelessly."

Are these people really this this dumb?
Duh.......yes the elk herds have also been impacted by the other factors besides the wolves! Are we supposed to just let the wolf numbers keep expanding while the other factors continue to impact the herd sizes? It doesn't take a biologist to figure that out!! Lets keep shrinking habitat and increasing wolf numbers, this will certainly raise the elk numbers!




avatar-1.png
 
?The decline of the Lolo elk herd was the result of multiple factors, including historic habitat changes, road-building, and over-hunting by humans. Killing wolves without addressing these other factors is misguided. Further, biologists do not have an accurate count of how many wolves are in the Lolo region, and Idaho has no formal plan in place to measure the impacts of killing wolves on the elk population. Targeting dozens of wolves could wipe most of them out of the area, defeating the purpose of restoring the species to its proper ecological role. Wolves are vital to maintaining nature?s balance and should not be eliminated so carelessly."

Buzz has said this about the lolo elk herd almost word for word in another thread. DO YOU REMEMBER BUZZ??

I am surprised the IFG finally realized the gravity of the situation and took action. Good for them!! FINALLY!!!!

One thing that I think a bunch of people who have not spent a lot of time around the wolf do not understand is once we get a generation of educated wolves like canada and Alaska, our hunter success is going to go way down. Plus once theses wolves figure out our winter closer area's, those deer and elk are going to be in trouble. The wolf is plenty smart enough to figure this out. For example; Western Wyoming, Idaho and Utah have tons of areas closed to human presence during the winter. Or at least big closures to motorized travel which essentially closes it down for hunting in winter. Most of these areas are already covered up with coyotes. It will not take long before the wolf proves Buzz is not as smart as he thinks he is...

I plan on being proactive in my area!!
 
The Lolo herd increased over the decades....through road construction, human hunting, grazing, increased human population...........the heard declined dramatically the year WOLVES were introduced.

Seems so blatently obvious that a RETARD could pick up on it. But that is stretching it for some....

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
+1 AA
Example- The Wasatch area in Utah is covered in roads with year round excessive human activity and that herd has exploded over the last 20 years to the point where there are so many cow tags given you'd think the herd would be decimated by now......simply not the case. That herd, among others in Utah continue to grow even with all the LE tags, spike tags, cow tags and shrinking winter habitat.
I now reside in Idaho and I have never seen so much untouched, uninhabited amazing elk country in all my life. I'll never buy into the claims of declining elk herds are due to increased human pressure!
The difference between Utah's elk country and Idaho's?
Wolves.....






avatar-1.png
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-04-13 AT 09:13AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-04-13 AT 09:10?AM (MST)

Pretty simple isn't it slamdunk? the only problem is Idaho has always had a lot of untouched uninhabited elk country, I remember spending 28 days in the Bitterroots one fall, that was about 20 years ago and there was an awful lot of beautiful elkless habitat then too.

The habitat in Idaho that mostly resembles Utahs isn't over populated with elk either, Idaho's agriculture industry is the big factor as far as game populations in Southern Idaho go, they control the politics and the game populations, the same goes for Northern Nevada, where the habitat is similar to much of Utah yet the elk numbers are held down by politics.

The most productive elk habitat in the country isn't in the northern conifer forests of the west, that's the big difference.
 
Piper, I understand that completely as I live in Idaho Falls where agriculture is everything.
I was more referring to the remote areas like the Salmon/Challis area and other central "uninhabited" units in the Sawtooth range where elk habitat is phenomenal.









avatar-1.png
 
>Piper, I understand that completely as
>I live in Idaho Falls
>where agriculture is everything.
>I was more referring to the
>remote areas like the Salmon/Challis
>area and other central "uninhabited"
>units in the Sawtooth range
>where elk habitat is phenomenal.
>
>
>

>
avatar-1.png



There sure used to to be fantastic Elk, Deer, Moose and Antelope Habitat up there Slam.. it started declining in 2003 when I spotted the first wolves in the area stalking a doe Mule Deer and subsequently killed her. I was no more than 200yards away on horseback.

I'll never forget it. That was the beginning of the end for the herds of Central Idaho.
 
You guys are still arguing about this? Good hell. Wolves kill deer, elk, moose, cattle, horses, llamas, sheep, hounds, oh and people too. Now how bout we go out and do some hunting? I'm gonna pound a big ol whitetail buck in the morning. I'd suggest the rest of you go shoot something too. It'll make you feel better. I promise.
 
Piper,

We were discussing the fact that the elk population was rising everywhere.....until the exact moment wolves were introduced.

Not elkless habitat.


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Aspen- no, elk populations were not rising everywhere, in fact many of Idahos herds were stagnant and some have been declining for decades, ever study up on the great burn of 1910?

The wolves are here, and no amount of crying or sniffeling is going to change that, so go hunt and enjoy the wild country they live in or go somewhere else and hunt.

Wolves don't destroy habitat, overgraze and abuse the land or put no trespassing signs up, so I have decided I'm not going to lose any more sleep over the issue.
 
"Wolves don't destroy habitat, overgraze and abuse the land"

Your exactly right and that is my whole point. With those things going against our herds, letting wolves flourish is definitely not helping much!




avatar-1.png
 
We're managing wolves just like we manage lion, bears, furbearers, etc.

WTF more do you want?
 
>We're managing wolves just like we
>manage lion, bears, furbearers, etc.
>
>
>WTF more do you want?


Too keep wolves at the number that was originally agreed upon...300 and 10 breeding pairs... Keep them from infecting the entire west. Kill them off in winter closer areas... Predator zone management for everywhere...
 
You have the ability to make that happen, the States control management.

But, that would take some active participation and prying your arse off the couch.

Easier to whine...
 
"the States control management"

Really Buzz?

We both know the States really can't do too much because the Feds have the final say in everything. If the States go too far, by Federal standards, the Feds will swoop in and save the poor wolf and the States will lose all control... AGAIN. That's a fact!

The wolves are here to stay and we have to deal with the ongoing mess. We have to work with modern wolf reality but we don't have to like it!

Zeke
 
Zeke,

That is absolutely 100% fact, the states control wolf management.

The only way the Feds will "swoop" in, is if the number drop below those adopted in the FEIS.

As long as those minimum numbers are maintained, the States run the show...and have been.

Since the States Plans have been in effect, quotas in MT and ID have been raised. Bag limits have been raised. Trapping is now allowed in Montana. NR license fees have been reduced in Montana, and IIRC, Idaho as well. The Feds did NOTHING to meddle into any of those changes that are all meant to control wolves.

For you to claim that the States are being hamstrung by the Feds. in regard to wolf management, is not only wrong, but a flat out lie.

Get your facts straight...
 
Zeke---I have to go along with old BuzzH on this one, as everything he stated was right on the money! Once the wolves were delisted, unless there is a big screwup on the part of a state that would cause the number to drop below the agreed upon level, the Feds are out of it.
 
Gee, If you re-read my post we said the same thing!
We're both right: The Stares control IF they follow the Feds quota rules!
Same-o thing Buzz.
Zeke
 
If we want to label the REAL liars... I think the first lies came from pro wolf agenda, and still do. Wolves were never talked about spreading outside of Yellowstone and some very large wilderness area's in Idaho. Most of the justification to the public was to biologically manage the bison in Yellowstone. You remember Buzz! Bison were being shot to control brucellosis as they left the park and animal rights activists groups went wild... The wolf was suppose to be the answer. So I don't think the lies are on the sportsman's shoulders. The sportsman are being lied to and taken advantage of still to this day! Then your peer reviewed science perpetuates the lies to spread wolves to rest of the west...
 
Buzz,

Your one of the biggest liars... You were there in Montana when the public was assured this was just for Bison. Elk predation was going to be minor...

You should be using your "GREAT INTELLIGENCE" to help protect our elk hunting. Instead you defend wolves and divide hunters. You may not like all hunters but you should be defending hunters rights. The wolf has taken more from hunters than anything else in the last 2 decades... Even you should be smart enough to see that. What you are doing on these pages is only hurting our hunting future. Shame on you!!!
 
wolfhunter---Why do you keep blaming BuzzH for everything that you don't like about the way the wolf deal is going? They are being controlled to some degree now and that's better than when they were listed as endangered! Most, other than the huggers, probably feel that the numbers are too high and the areas they are in are too large. At least Wyoming held it's ground and got the larger part of the state classified as a "shoot on site" predator zone, even though it took a lot longer than most would have liked. BuzzH feels that delay was a big mistake on the part of Wyoming, but that is his view and I disagreed with it. Is it just because BuzzH has a Federal job and you think he doesn't do anything for the money he's paid or what? You seem to blame him for all the problems going on that involve the government at every level when all he has said is that controls are now in place and if people don't like what is going on then it's up to them to try and change it. There is little argument that there are too many wolves in certain areas and hopefully those numbers will come down. Is it too late to have ungulate numbers like you were used to in some areas? Probably for quite a lfew years to come, if ever, but we can at least control wolves now and I would hope the elk and moose make a comeback in those areas where they took a big hit due to wolves and several other factors. Yes, we were fed some BS when the initial quotas and areas were set up and agreed to and then allowed to go way past that number and agreed upon areas. Is that his fault, my fault, or maybe really all of our faults for not taking control of our liberal Federal Government that has run amuck and is trying to control every phase of our lives?!
 
I do not blame Buzz for ALL that is federally Fooked up... Buzz is the one on this site belittling hunters who care about seeing our next generation enjoy what he has so masterfully enjoyed!
 
Wolfhunter...who's lieing? Show me one statement in the FEIS that said wolf recovery was only being done to control bison...I'll save you the trouble, its not there. WHY? Because if flat didnt happen, except maybe in your mind that seems content to thrive somewhere between make-believe and fantasyland.

Directly from the EIS:

Impact on wolf recovery on ungulate populations. ? Wolf recovery is predicted to have an impact on big game populations. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), bison (Bison bison), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis),
mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), and antelope (Antilocapra americana) will be killed by wolves. Effects of wolf recovery on populations of these species will vary and will be analyzed to the extent possible for each alternative.

Impact of wolf recovery on hunter harvest. ? Wolf recovery is predicted to have an impact on the hunter harvest of big game (primarily female ungulates). The impact of wolf recovery on the harvest of big game by human hunters will be an area of impact analysis. Other types of hunter opportunity and harvest (small game, game birds, waterfowl, and varmint) will not be measurably impacted.

Impact of wolf recovery on domestic livestock. ? Wolf recovery is predicted to have an impact on domestic animal losses. Livestock depredations is a subject of impact analysis in the FEIS as part of one or more alternatives. Non-livestock domestic animal losses (primarily dogs) are expected to be
uncommon but were addressed under some alternatives in the FEIS. The issue of wolf control strategies and compensation to address domestic animal depredations will directly affect the level of
depredations and local human tolerance of wolf recovery.

Instead of posting a bunch of lies, guesses, and half-truths, try reading the EIS. Comprehension is your friend...
 
No one is whining...

Since when is discussing an issue considered whining?

Look at the original post at the top......when did elk start declining?

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
>I do not blame Buzz for
>ALL that is federally Fooked
>up... Buzz is the
>one on this site belittling
>hunters who care about seeing
>our next generation enjoy what
>he has so masterfully enjoyed!
>


***How in the heck can you say he is belittling hunters when all I think he is saying is that he disagrees with the feelings of many who think that there should be no wolves anywhere, which is damn sure not going to happen. He obviously goes in areas where there are wolves and still shoots game even though at least one member doesn't like what he calls "grip and grin photos"! I have no idea how many wolves are in the areas BuzzH hunts and maybe if he regularly hunted where they have definitely had a tremendous impact on the elk and moose he would change his view. Maybe he already hunts those areas and is just a damn site better hunter than the rest of us. I have no idea and really could care less. From what I have read and gathered in most of his posts though, I would say he wants good habitat balanced by a reasonable number of tags for the available animals in a given area that is kept accessible to all and not just ones who can buy their way to hunts on high priced auction tags.
 
When did elk start declining where?

You already made the false claim that elk were "increasing everywhere" prior to wolf reintroduction.

That, I can tell you for a fact, is total and complete bullchit. Search the archives on any State G&F website on elk herds and you'll find that fact out for yourself.

Once you understand the basics, come back and we'll have some discussion.
 
Buzz what was sold to the general public in places like Gardner Montana was a predator for the bison and you know it!!! I was in Gardner and remember the lies...

Back in the early 90's people took what they heard at the meetings at face value. They did not read the fine print of the EIS. Being flat lied to by the fed's was something new in the 1990's...

Today being lied to by the federal government is an everyday occurrence. Kind of like let's pass it so we can read what's in it. You government guy's are really good a going back to the fine print when it helps your position...

So where in the F-CKING "EIS" does it say let's have wolves spread to ALL their former ranges??? Where does it say 300 wolves and 10 breeding pairs is just a smoke screen to get the poison in the system...
 
Try to keep up.

The authors original post has the population listed each year. That is why I referenced the "authors original post". Jeeeez, try to follow along buzz.

The elk were doing great till the wolf was introduced....if you look at the AUTHORS ORIGINAL POST....you can see that.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-13 AT 09:49AM (MST)[p]AspenAdventures,

Do yourself a favor...read this starting on page 273.

http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31438

Look back prior to 1995, pay attention to the 60's, 70's and notice the huge population swings in the GYEH.

Elk werent always "doing fine" prior to wolf reintroduction.

Also, pay attention to how many antlerless tags the MTFWP was handing out when they knew that their population of cow elk were skewed to older, less productive cows. Pay attention to the fact that in 1996/97 nearly 2500 antlerless elk were killed on the Gardiner late hunt. Pay attention to the fact that 1000+ antlerless tags were being issued at least until the year 2000.

Also pay attention to the YNP study that states the primary source of calf mortality in the park is not from wolves, but Grizzly and Black bears.

Also, check out the elk objective numbers defined in the EMP specific to the GYEH. The EMP defines an elk population objective of 3,000-5,000 elk...not anywhere near the 19,000 peak in the mid-90's.

For your further education, the State of Montana is bound by law to adhere to the EMP. Thanks to state legislators like Debbie Barrett, the MTFWP is required to kill elk down to the numbers defined in the EMP.

Once again, the Agriculture community got there way and the elk objectives in the EMP are not based on science, carrying capacity, or anything else to do with biology. They are set at socially acceptable levels that the ag. interests in Montana will tolerate.

The reason that happened is once again complacency on the part of the hunting public. When MT's EMP was being discussed, the Ag. interests were active, they participated, and they showed up to the meetings. The hunting public in Montana sat on their thumbs, as per usual (again), and let themselves be steam-rolled by a chicken-chit plan.

Once again, I'm not forced to "guess" about this problems associated with the EMP, etc., I lived it.

For anyone to blame the decline in elk in the GYEH solely on wolves is a complete joke and not even close to anything dealing with reality.

Stay tuned for even lower elk numbers in and around Yellowstone...brought to you courtesy of the Department of Livestock. I'm sure the wolves will get the blame when APHIS starts their proposed test and slaughter on Yellowstone elk.

You can thank me later for your continuing education.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-13 AT 07:16PM (MST)[p]Buzz,

You make a nice argument trying to take the responsibility away from the wolf for being the largest factor in destroying the GREATER YELLOWSTONE ELK HERD...GYEH. I have a couple of problems with your arguments and call BS!

1. Montana's ranchers (as you say) do not have control of the Wyoming and Idaho sectors of the GYEH's wintering and summer grounds. Those other GYE elk are in just as much of a decline...Just a wolf problem!!

2 The Frank Church wilderness in Idaho has the same low calf recruitment and declining herd numbers as the GYEH and no grizzlies, no Montana ranchers and few black bears.... Just the same damn wolf problem!

3 The Selway Bitterroot wilderness, Idaho has the same problem... Just wolves!

4 The Gros Ventre Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, Jedediah Smith wilderness, Absaroka Wilderness all in Wyoming have the same problem...Just the wolf!!

5 Banff National Park in Canada...Same problem

6 Alaskan moose in some areas with large wolf numbers...That's right same problem!!!


So you certainly give good arguments for taking away the focus from your "loving wolf" being the problem. I am also confident with enough time you could dig up some distractions on each and every one of these separate areas experiencing the same elk and moose declines to distract from the argument that the introduction of the Canadian Timber Wolf into the western united states will go down in history as the biggest F-CK UP!!! in wildlife management history!!!!!
 
The funniest part of the whole" wolf deal" is you coming on here and defending the wolf.... Now that is funny!!! You don't have to be too smart to see the humor in that!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-13 AT 00:35AM (MST)[p]Wow, can't believe I'm really bored enough to read this entire manuscript. It's embarrassing and must tell me how stupid I really am, and now to comment, is even more telling! Doesn't reflect well off my redneck or my tinfoil bonnet.

Quite frankly........I don't care what anyone thinks I know or don't know, whether I'm unlearned or a biological Einstein. These are my facts, no one else's, just simple old 2Lumpy's and they're no better or worse than anybody else's, including those many that have been share, repeatedly here. What's more my facts will have no more influence with anybody, nor will anybody else's, so far as this post is concerned. We're just "all" setting around a pot bellied stove, in some guy's service station b!tching, an p!ssing. As if one damn thing is going to come from it. Nothing more than the old boys down at the early morning coffee shop from where ever you live.

So what the he11............., I already said I was bored out of my mind, maybe I'm just "out of my mind, for commenting".

My Facts:

It's not 1790 it's 2013 and next year is 2014, not 2012. We're not going backwards in time nor is the world in which we live.

Nothing here, nor any where on this planet is the same as it was last year, or 50 years ago, a hundred years ago, 200 years ago or a million years ago. Nor will it ever be, even if the entire North American Continent implodes politically, economically, morally or socially.

'm not going back to Denmark, neither are my kids nor their kids, and yours aren't going back to England, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Spain, Kenya, Indonesia, Samoa, Chile, China or where ever the he11 you and /or your ancestry came from.

We're not going to commit suicide and rid the globe of human beings, at least not individually.

There are over 313 million American alone, add Central America, Mexico, and Canada and your over 400 million.............and the number is increasing.

Wilderness, in the lower 48 States, Alaska and the northern territories in Canada, is shrinking. We are adding a few more acres of "administrative wilderness" with "imaginary boundaries" around them such as the National Parks, Monuments, and Designated Wildernesses. In the big picture, these "administrative wilderness with their imaginary boundaries" are postage stamps in the ocean of private and multiple use public land. In the lower 48 States they are confined, by enlarge, to Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona and California. Which are, at the present, some of the most rapidly growing States in the largest country in North America. Alaska and northern Canada are not growing in population at the same rate however development has exploded over the last 40 years and human "pressure" will continue and at an accelerating rate, in these last large bastions of wild lands. Human encroachment will continue, at an accelerated rate, long into the future.

As the continent gets divided into smaller and small plots, be it diamond mines in the North West Territories, pipelines on the Brooks Range, coal mines in Utah, oil wells in Montana, hay fields in Wyoming, sub-divisions in Arizona, swimming pools in California, or research labs in Idaho, we're pressing the wild lands and we will continue to do so. That is, in spite of the best efforts to protect and preserve "eco-wild" lands that are "large enough" to "self support", the opposite is happening. The few, small acres that will get added to the existing designation are insignificant when compared to the ever increasing amount of agriculture, industrial, commercial and residential. You can argue that water limitations will stop it soon enough, no it won't. Humans are amazingly resourceful, it might slow us down, it will not stop inevitable human encroachment.

Wild species disappear when human numbers reach critical mass. (We are long passed critical mass.) They disappeared a 1000 years ago and they do today. In 1826 and 27 Jedediah Smith and his band of "hunter/trappers" (and they were pretty go at it) nearly starved to death crossing Utah, due to the lack of big game, they couldn't find a lowly jack rabbit for days on end. Indigenous peoples, long before modern civilization, moved regularly as their numbers regularly over powered "eco-wild" systems. If Indigenous populations over harvested their resources..........I know what 400 million are going to do. Some species are not going to survive, they may have likable characteristic and they might be seen as symbolic to some but, they simply do not fit the needs of the present day king predator, that's us, you and I. I've noticed,.......... eventually needs trump wants.

Wolves need large areas and large numbers of prey-able mammals to exist. Large areas and large numbers of prey-able mammals do not exist, and they will never, no never, be it large areas or large prey-able mammals, ever again on this continent. State managed or not, wolves will, soon enough, out grow and out eat the current prey-able mammals. Their reproductive rates have and will continue to force them to expand their range, out of the "administrative wilderness with their imaginary boundaries" into the "don't go there acres" and they'll die.

Large mammals in North America are presently "artificial" "eco-wild". They are only there now because humans put and keep them here. The same area in Utah that Smith and his crew nearly starved in is presently well populated with elk and numerous other large mammal species, because humans put and them them there. We have the ability to kill every living large mammal on the continent, if we wanted to, which we don't. We have them because we want them. We manage "eco-wild" populations nearly as closely as we manage domestic live stock.

A segment of the human population doesn't care if there is a single cow, pig, chicken, sheep, goat raised or eaten but the majority of the population does care, the demand for meat is secure. A segment of the population doesn't care if there's an artificial "eco-wild" mammal left, as long as there are free ranging wolves, but the majority of the population does care. Some say wrong, the majority want wolves, as part of the "eco-wild" but they quickly change there minds when the other "eco-wild" but "artificial" mammals (moose, deer, elk, etc.) are gone, and the wolf needs their cat, dog, or domestic livestock to survive. It's rare to have any human witness a wolf eat their house pet or there livestock and say, "that's fine, the wolf needs to eat". It's all good,.......... until your what's for dinner.

Humans that put and manage "prey-able" mammals will not tolerate boom and bust cycles caused by the what might be called "the natural life cycle of highly interactive species". When humans are putting "eco-wild" species in place to hunt and harvest they are not going to let nature take it's course. We are, to the best of our ability, going to control it, as we want it to be, the same as a live stockman does with his herds.

Now:

You might say, "where do you get all these facts, fat boy"? Here's where, in the lower 48 States, wolf populations were here in small numbers, in the 1990's their numbers were "artificially" accelerated by moving them into locations with large numbers of prey-able mammals. For a few years, the public watched, some quietly, others with a vocal "watch out" attitude. The "watch out" group got no traction, little support, no sympathy. For those that wanted more wolves, they got, "get over it", "you lost, we got wolves and they're staying, and you can't do a dam thing about it". "They're endangered and that's where there staying." The majority of the population looked on with passive curiosity or indifference. (I said, "most, not all".)

As the number grew and their range expanded, more pets got ate, more sheep and cows died and more ""eco-wild" mammals disappeared. The "watch out" group started to get traction. Mud started to fly because with more horse you got more horsepower and the "watch out" group now had photos, eye witnesses, videos, helicoper visuals, of large numbers of wolf packs, large numbers of dead livestock and house pets and they showed them around. People went to the "administrative wilderness" with "imaginary boundaries" and saw....................not what they used to see. Some may know otherwise but the visitor only knows one thing, "there used to be a bunch of large mammals here but since they put the wolves here the large numbers of large mammals are gone.

Wolf caused or not, it's suspect, by a large number of people. Some of those people make decisions for the rest of us, and they did. The result is, the wolf has been delisted in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. So you can say or think, the wolf is here to stay so get over it, isn't so apparent as it was five years ago. The "watch outs" are still increasing in numbers, wolves are still eating cats, dogs, livestock and our artificial "eco-wild" prey-able mammals. We're already killing wolves and it's only been twenty years since they said, "get over it, you lost". Those that didn't want wolves didn't "get over it". They fought. They haven't stopped fighting, groups that first stayed neutral, are no longer neutral, people that were indifferent are no longer indifferent. Politicians are preemptive and getting more preemptive in their interest in wolf issues. Some don't like it, others do, but the fact remained, right or wrong. it's happening.

The fight to have wolves is not over, far, far from it. Those that want wolves will say, "it's over, we'll always have wolves from hear on out, so go hunting or knit some thing or get our your nine iron out and quit moaning, b!tching, and p!ssing around your pot bellied stove or your cup of joe. That is exactly what they should say, if they want you to give up. Nothing abnormal in that but, in reality, the fight is fresh, it's young and there is energy and resources on all sides because we now know things we didn't know before the "artificial" introduction of the present wolf population.

Those are the facts, no buddies but 2Lumpys. You've got your own. Your opinions are as good or bad as mine.

So what.........here's a prediction......."watch and see".

Wolves are not here to stay. Sooner or later, those in charge, will decide, for many reasons, wolves cannot live in our current world. There is no enough free space and the prey base is not wild, it is artificial, put and kept there by humans and those humans are not going to share their deer, moose and elk with the wolf any more than the general public is going to raise house pets to feed to wolves, nor is the business community going to raise livestock so wolves can eat them, at will.

I don't know how many acres are in the Bob Marshalls or Yellowstone National Pk but there small, compared to the over all size of North America. Elk, moose, and deer can thrive in these areas. As everyone can see, as large or small as these wilderness areas are wolves, quickly out eat and over populate them and the only alternative they have is to expand into areas where they come up against a 400 million, and growing, human population. I predict, we'll eventually have fewer wolves than we had before the reintroduction of the 1990's. That includes Alaska and all of Canada. A couple of hundred years from now, will they try again, I doubt it, but I'd wager that's what they said a 100 years ago. Seems we need to learn these lessons over and over because we just can't or at least we don't get it until. "it our cat, in the dog's mouth".

Like it or not....... it will be 2014 next year.....not 2012. That is a 2Lumpy fact.

DC
 
Well......2Lumpy just nailed down the lid on this issue.

Agree with the long term prognosis or not, there is not much room for argument, especially where the wolf's future food source is concerned.
It is simple math and "a blind baby with measles" can figure it out.

"If you get upset or offended by ANY website forum
post.....especially mine, you need serious
intervention!"
 
Hey Buzz,

I think you and the wolf experts need to reevaluate your stand on wolves and admit your not as smart as you thought. That is, if you/we want any elk left to hunt in 15 years.... The educated wolf of today is proving to be a little harder to kill than you figured. In Salmon Idaho 250 hunters went to the hills in a derby, in two days with an army of hunters, not one lobo killed. Hmmm!

I guess I have to say it again "I am RIGHT and you are WRONG" Your wrong about a lot of things when it comes to wolves. I guess sooner or later the only choice for control will have to be poison and helicopters...
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-14 AT 06:44PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-14 AT 06:42?PM (MST)

Wolfhunter,

Educated wolves?

I doubt it, more like a bunch of assclowns with deer rifles, riding machines, nursing hangovers, expecting to see a wolf at noon...FACT.

Of course it could also be that there isnt wolves around piece of sagebrush...

I've participated in some of the local predator hunts, wiped the floor with the locals and took their money...greedily...and with ease. In fairness, knowing chit from clay about hunting predators, having a rifle that could shoot, getting away from the vehicle, and not being falling down drunk made it pretty easy...

Same can be said of elk...its hard to believe elk success rates are so low, until you consider the caliber of the average hunter (pun intended).
 
IT WAS SAID ABOVE:

Buzz,

You make a nice argument trying to take the responsibility away from the wolf for being the largest factor in destroying the GREATER YELLOWSTONE ELK HERD...GYEH. I have a couple of problems with your arguments and call BS!

1. Montana's ranchers (as you say) do not have control of the Wyoming and Idaho sectors of the GYEH's wintering and summer grounds. Those other GYE elk are in just as much of a decline...Just a wolf problem!!

2 The Frank Church wilderness in Idaho has the same low calf recruitment and declining herd numbers as the GYEH and no grizzlies, no Montana ranchers and few black bears.... Just the same damn wolf problem!

3 The Selway Bitterroot wilderness, Idaho has the same problem... Just wolves!

4 The Gros Ventre Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, Jedediah Smith wilderness, Absaroka Wilderness all in Wyoming have the same problem...Just the wolf!!

5 Banff National Park in Canada...Same problem

6 Alaskan moose in some areas with large wolf numbers...That's right same problem!!!

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

Great points.....

The elk herd declined at such a fast rate there is no debate as to what caused it.

Shut up Buzzzzzz and tell your bud to Pipe down!

This one is a no brainer.

Even wolf lovers admit that wolves eat an insane amount of elk. I have even watched it with my own eyes in the Lamar Valley.

This is so obvious you just need to shut your very tiny pie hole.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Buzz,

Tell us what you really think about the good people of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana...don't hold back!!

I am still right and your wrong!! The wolf will prove your over educated, arrogant a$$ wrong sooner than later.

If your so lethal lets see your pack of dead wolves buzz. You think your so bad to the bone killing rag horn bulls and antelope bucks in general units. Maybe you need to graduate to the big boys club and prove your manhood killing super canines... If you can keep up!!
 
That "army" of bad-ass wolf hunters managed to kill 23 coyotes. 23 in two days with 250 plus guns. While I support hunting wolves, I bet Buzz's description is fairly close to what happened. mtmuley
 
Wow...2 days of "hunting", and less than 1 out of 10 of those hard chargers shot a coyote. They've saved the herds!

They actually thought they had a chance at a wolf?

I can assure you, more mouths and whiskey were "shot" than anything else.
 
Still waiting for buzz to prove he not just all talk and no action...

Killing rag horn bulls and antelope with a long range gun is child's play. Killing multiple wolves is where you prove yourself Buzz... I personally do not think you can do it!!!!
 
wolfhunter,

The only thing you have ever proven you've shot...is your mouth.

Congratulations?
 
We're going to do it! Come on big 2 hundred!

This is a not-so-civil way to hit 200 posts. But hey, there are only so many original ideas, I suppose.

I doubt that anyones mind has changed one little bit but it's been fun to follow along.

Look what you started Slam! I hope your leg heals soon. Spiral fractures suck.

Good luck to us all. Application season is here. FUN

Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-14 AT 10:58AM (MST)[p]Buzz,

Some guys need to prove something to themselves and post up d!ck measuring pictures...other have nothing to prove because they walk the talk!!!

I am doing my part of thinning the wolf population very well...
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-14 AT 11:34AM (MST)[p]11:33?AM (MST)[/font]

11:31?AM (MST)[/font]

>AT 10:58?AM (MST)[/font]
>
>Buzz,
>
>Some guys need to prove something
>to themselves and post up
>d!ck measuring pictures...other have nothing
>to prove because they walk
>the talk!!!
>
>I am doing my part of
>thinning the wolf population very
>well...


***Geez, I didn't know spouting off on the internet killed wolves! How does that work and were your kills legal?

Hey Zeke, is there a big prize for being post 200? Hmm, I wonder what caused this color and font change!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

3.jpg
3D957EDC-027C-434F-9A0E-AEEBD9A4BB48.jpeg
DC449AE2-EC33-4414-AE48-632ADAA4FB0D.jpeg
2848D3CF-53CD-45A3-9441-77EF6FB8BE3E.jpeg
05669DF3-061C-4234-BE6F-5B5147A5C435.jpeg
3D382FC9-4172-4118-A1C6-B09D6BCB81BA.jpeg
99305023-7185-489F-BD4E-3E7F461A9E6A.jpeg
3FFFBE8A-D2AB-4738-A889-C92AD9A9EAD3.png
08803A22-E7CF-46C0-9BA0-547EA193CD2A.jpeg
fullsizeoutput_3fb8.jpeg
PPLO2640.jpeg
PS1.jpg
Back
Top Bottom