WOLVES OR POACHERS?

coryb

coryb

Active Member
Messages
294
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-12 AT 11:02AM (MST)[p]Which would you rather have in your state?

Which do you think kill more deer and elk in your state?

Is anyone else sick of hearing people on here supporting poaching of wolves? I know I am and it has me wondering what others think of it. Now before people label me as a liberal or anti let me state that I don't think any animal, including wolves, should be introduced anywhere unless they can effectively and LEGALLY be managed. With that said, I am against the introduction of wolves as it currently stands.

In my home state of New Mexico there is no way that our wolf population comes even remotely close to killing as many deer and elk as poachers. Regardless of this, many New Mexicans feel poaching is OK when it comes to wolves. It is not. If you dislike the wolves take LEGAL action to change it. Most New Mexicans either disregard or don't realize the fact that ALL of the elk we have to hunt in our state are here because of reintroduction. Our native elk, the now extinct Merriams, were completely gone when we started to reintroduce RM Elk trapped in Yellowstone. Some farmers and ranchers were no doubt angry and against this competitive and "invasive" introduction, much like the wolf reintroduction today. However, through proper and LEGAL management we now have an amazing resource that many of us love and enjoy. The same might be the case with PROPER and LEGAL wolf management.

Many claim the wolves are simply an anti tool to take away our hunting. This may or may not be true. I believe that our open support of law breaking poachers is a more powerful tool to damage our cause.

If introduced, wolves need to be managed effectively by hunters and kept in appropriate numbers, just like all of the other game. That being said, I would rather have wolves than poachers in New Mexico, as I believe legitimate management of them is inevitable. Containing poaching will never be possible as some will always think they are above the law or that circumstances prohibit it from applying to them.

I'm sure this will be a controversial post, but let's here what others have to say.

Cory
 
Man, overpopulation and advanced technology has done away with the need for a balance of predator and prey; kill 'em. IF states are hard pressed to generate functional revenue, why allow something to take away tags & revenue?
 
NO CONTEST......I WILL TAKE THE POACHERS OVER THE PACKS OF WOLVES THAT KILL 24/7 HANDS DOWN. POACHERS DONT HAVE TONS OF LIBERAL FOLKS PROTECTING THEM, POACHERS NORMALLY HUNT CLOSE TO ROADS WHERE THEY CAN BE DETECTED. I THINK THE RATE OF KILL GIVEN THE TWO CHOICES IS 100 TIMES AS MUCH FOR THE WOLVES. TOO BAD WE CANT GET THE WOLVES TO EAT THE POACHERS HEY................YD.
 
"Many claim the wolves are simply an anti tool to take away our hunting. This may or may not be true."

Definitely NOT TRUE from a states point of view, PETA groups, yes. Yes, they want the wolves to do all the managing.
They would rather know that thousands of big game animals are dying slow, horrible, tragic and ruthless deaths versus ethical hunters managing and harvesting the animals with humane weapons because it's "natural". Lets hear those groups tell all the native americans who lived off the land and hunted with weapons that they were not "natural" and that they were just "sport killers".
Hunters generate millions of dollars, wolves only COST us money.
 
That's a loaded question and, anyway, I thought everyone was just firing warning shots at those wolves!
 
I would prefer wolves to poachers.

For starters wolves rid the herd of the sick and weak helping the herd to preserve and pass on dominant genes. The poacher kills the big and strong from the herd therefore diminishing the strength of the herd?s gene pool. One could argue that in the long run the loss of the dominant gene kills more deer and elk in your state.

The wolf is a part of a complex ecological relationship between wolves and prey. The wolves obviously affect elk, but that then affects numerous plants and scavengers, which also affect other aspects of the ecosystem, and so on.

Quoting a popular ecological expression: "Nature is not only more complicated than we think. It's more complicated than we can think."
 
BP........NICE TRY. WOLVES DONT RID OF THE SICK AND WEAK, THEY WILL KILL THE FIRST ANIMAL TO MAKE A RETREAT MISTAKE. IN THE CASE OF LIVESTOCK THEY KILL AS MANY AS THEY CAN CATCH.....& MAY NOT FEED AT ALL. THEY GOTTA GO......AGAIN !!!................YD.
 
Blind Pilot!

Your name kinda fits ya!

You've been watching too much TV/Marty Stauffer/PETA Movies!

Most Big Game Predators take what they want!

Sure the Hell ain't Killing Sick/Weak animals for Dinner niether!

That'd be like saying:poachers take only the Sick & Weak 35+ Inchers!

BULLLSSHITT!








[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-12 AT 01:23PM (MST)[p]YD and STTM---I just made a similar post telling him the same thing and asking him to explain why a rancher friend had over 30 of his sheep killed one night by a pack and they never ate a thing. Then I asked if he lived In San Fran or Manhattan and told him the people on this site know the facts on wolves. My post #7 has already been deleted off this thread and the same thing has happened a number of times the last two days regarding the amazing elk head shot. None used foul language and were anything different from other posts people are putting up regarding serious topics. I can't even get a courtesy PM telling me what's going on when I asked on the Forum (that was yanked too)or by PM! It would appear this site is really starting to censor these Forums, but I sure wish an explanation was forthcoming as to what rules were violated because I'm stumped.
 
Well lets add it up:
Idaho with Poachers 210,000 elk in 1989
Idaho with Wolves 145,000 Elk, now

Yellowstone never had poachers 32,000 elk
Yellowstone with Wolves 7,500 Elk

Of course all of the reductions were just related to the Old and Sick Elk...YEAH RIGHT! Wake up!

So, yes I would take our Poacher problems over Wolves
 
I'd take wolves over poachers any day of the week...

Poaching is a much bigger problem, without a doubt.
 
I LIVE IN WOLF COUNTRY,AND THEY DON'T KILL THE SICK AND WEAK! I WOULD SHOOT A WOLF ON THE CAPITAL STEPS, IF IT PRESENTED ITSELF!
 
If I had to pick between the two I would have to go with having the poacher. They don't have as many off spring as the wolf does. Not all of their offspring will be poaching animals for sport as the wolf does. Some will eventually get caught, which means somehow they are going to pay for what they did. The wolf will not. The Poacher won't kill as many big game, as the wolf does. 1 mountain lion kills a deer (and eats it) on an average of one a week, how many elk will a pack of wolves kill just for sport? if I turn in a poacher I might just get me a big game tag, turning in a wolf isn't helping anyone or anything at all except make those who want them here and cheer them on. I don't disagree about poachers being a problem, but IMO I don't think they are a bigger problem than the wolf will eventually be for hunters and our big game.

GBA
 
You should let your rancher friend know that April 2010 that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Announced $1 Million to States For Wolf Livestock Compensation Project. Also available to your rancher friend the Defenders of Wildlife as a fund. The Defenders of Wildlife Proactive Carnivore Conservation Fund helps prevent conflict between imperiled predators and humans by supporting the use of nonlethal deterrents and best management practices.

Hope this info helps your friend.
 
Thanks, but he did get compensated and still had had to bury 30+ sheep that he shouldn't have had to if it wasn't for the Feds and huggers forcing the bass turds all over the country where people don't want them and where they never were in the first place! This particular pack was from way above Yellowstone and his ranch is in the BigHorns hundreds of miles from there. For your edification though, the Feds shot 3 of the SOBs and one had a collar from up in Montana, so that's how we know where they came from. As soon as they are delisted, any that we see will hit the dirt because they will be considered predators and fair game that far from the trophy protected area way to the west.
 
OK Blind_Pilot!

I have a Question for you?

We have a few Wolves in TARDville!

We've had a few forever!

You ever wonder why they haven't Flourished in TARDville?

Want me to tell you Nicely?

Because they get their Asses shot every chance a TARD gets!

Planting Semi-Wild Wolves in this State would be nothing more than a Shooting Gallery!

Let me remind you,the Red Wolves to the South of us in another State got their Asses shot,every one of them!

Same thing will happen here!




[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
You cannot prosecute wolves. Nor can you prosecute the groups who sponsor the wolves. They have plenty of blood on their hands they will never have to answer for.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-12 AT 04:00PM (MST)[p]take legal actio huh... yeah that worked so well for id wy montana huh! by the time legal action took effect the herds are almost decimated! we know gray wolves are not native and that is call to remove them. im no poacher but when it comes to wolves killing livestock, big game animals, domestic pets, that enough for me! there non native and damaging to the wildlife herds that we as sportsmen have invest way to much into (time and MONEY ) to allow the anti hunting groups to be allowed to undo it in just a few short years.
IMO its not poaching shooting a non native wild animal or hybrid. its called management.

Poachers anyday over wolves! they can be caught. and there impact is far less than wolves imo. wolves kill everything most paochers kill trophy bucks bulls etc, and the poachers that dont are just putting meat on the table. which i do not agree with poaching. but shooting canadian grey wolves is not poaching imo
 
Poaching is a bigger problem...and anyone with half a firing brain cell would know it.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/poaching/price.html

I've yet to find a single wolf killed deer or elk where one of the above poaching rings was busted up...and I've been hunting there for over 30 years.

Wolves arent even a drop in the bucket to what is illegally harvested every year, and thats a fact.
 
Back your statement up with hardcore documented facts to show that X amount of poachers kill more game then a wolf pack will in a given amount of time where both are present.

RELH
 
BUZZ.......YOUR JUST TRYING TO STIR THE POT ..RIGHT????? I DONT THINK YOU REALLY BELIEVE WOLF PACKS ARE THE LESSER THREAT TO GAME HERDS THAT POACHERS. .....(NOT EVEN CONSIDERING LIVESTOCK & PEOPLE)..........LOL...............YD.
 
Well, Blind Pilot, all I can say is you sure picked the right name for yourself! You sure seem to have been brainwashed by the "Nature is wonderful, and will manage itself" group of idiots. Wolves have already destroyed thousands of dollars in wildlife, livestock, and peoples means of making a living. They have probably forever changed what has made our western states great. You can damn straight be sure that this has been the plan all along. The anti's will end hunting as we know it without doing anything but cry for more wolves.
 
>Well lets add it up:
>Idaho with Poachers 210,000 elk in
>1989
>Idaho with Wolves 145,000
>Elk, now
>
>Yellowstone never had poachers 32,000
>elk
>Yellowstone with Wolves
>
> 7,500 Elk
>
>Of course all of the reductions
>were just related to the
>Old and Sick Elk...YEAH RIGHT!
>Wake up!
>
>So, yes I would take our
>Poacher problems over Wolves



+1
 
I don't care where you live, as long as there are people you will always have poachers. You don't have to have wolves.

So the real question would be: Do you prefer poachers OR poachers AND wolves?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-12 AT 08:48PM (MST)[p]I read this post first in the NM forumn then find it again here.

Cory b, what is your intention with this post?

I get the impression that you're up to no good.

Wolves or poachers? Seriously?

That's like asking if we'd prefer distracted drivers or bank robbers.

The only answer is neither... dummy.

Do you have the ability or authority to give us an option?
 
>You should let your rancher friend
>know that April 2010 that
>the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
>Service Announced $1 Million to
>States For Wolf Livestock Compensation
>Project. Also available to your
>rancher friend the Defenders of
>Wildlife as a fund. The
>Defenders of Wildlife Proactive Carnivore
>Conservation Fund helps prevent conflict
>between imperiled predators and humans
>by supporting the use of
>nonlethal deterrents and best management
>practices.
>
>Hope this info helps your friend.
>

BP, where the hell do you think that $$$comes from??? Does it fall out of the sky??? It's coming outta our pockets genius!





Traditional >>>------->
 
I wish I could say I am enjoying reading the writings of the misinformed. This question should only be answered by those that live in country the the wolves have taken over. The rest of you only have opinions based on hersay & opinions of others that are ussualy tainted one way or the other.

I have seen moose missing more than 40 lbs bleeding in the snow to tired to move surounded by wolf tracks. Ive seen cow elk killed w/ the fetus at thier side both dead. Bull elk in the prime of thier lives drug down & torn apart. I watched a pack of eight chasing a herd of elk w/ two week old calves. Just three weeks ago one killed a prime muledeer doe that was carrying a calf. Friends found a bear that the wolves had pulled from its den & killed two weeks ago.

Wolves reproduce at a rate that not even poachers can keep up with. I had never even heard of wolves in this area until twelve years ago. Today wolves can be found in every corner of North Idaho.

If you allow wolves in your area (state) your history has already been written. Read all you can find on what has happened in Yellowstone, the Bighole, the Selway, the St Joe river, & anywhere else that has had wolves for fifteen years or more.

If you have wolves your poachers will soon go extinct, as will your fish & game dept. & your heritage.

I don't know if the wolves were put here as a terorist attack on your heritage, but I can tell you that, that is what it has become.

A friend of mine could have killed three wolves nine years ago, He didn't. Removing those three would have made a real difference in the number we have today. He considers it one of the biggest mistakes of his life. My friends & I have taken twelve within thirty miles of my home this year & that twelve will be replaced by roughly forty new pups in another month.
North Idaho is the next Big Hole.


At the begning of the tea party I'm sure that blind pilot & buzz_h had relatives standing on the side of the river Pointing & scoffing at those who had spine enough to do something about it.



For those that don't know where to stand on the wolf issue, Please decide swiftly. For those that have decided please act swiftly.
 
What I can't believe is, in this day and age, someone actually threw out the statement that "wolves kill only the weak in the herd". Are there really people out there that still believe that BS? How ignorant is that statement alone? It is like comparing apples to oranges though but wolves definately kill a lot more animals than poachers ever could.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
In the long run, wolves are more detrimental to wildlife. They have the ability to impact an ecosystem if left alone.

Eldorado
 
The libearl left (anti's) put up posts like the OP did here to get responses they can highlight on their websites. I can see it now:

"UTAH HUNTERS CONDONE POACHING!"

Geeze....

Neither is acceptable!
 
1FastGambler

I decided to write this post after reading the "caught the lil pos" thread on here. Everyone that posted seemed to think that the person caught poaching a trophy bull should be punished severely. I agree. It made me wonder how many dislike poaching and how many only dislike poaching if it is a trophy animal.

My intention is only to feed my curiosity and try to increase my understanding. I don't consider that up to no good. It is definitely not to cause problems or force my agenda.

I couldn't agree with your analogy more. It is perfectly in line with my feelings on wolves and poachers. Neither are acceptable and neither should be condoned. I tried to make it perfectly clear that I am against the reintroduction of wolves.

My reference to elk reintroduction was included only to show that I don't think poaching is ok just because the animal is non native. It's not ok to poach our oryx, ibex, or barbary, is it? I agree that there is no comparison to the effects of wolves and elk.

I do not have the ability or the authority to give you either, but I do believe the wolf problem should be handled with both the authority and ability required, though neither currently exist.

I was surprised to see that you were the first on either thread to assume I was up to no good and resort to name calling. I have always respected your opinion on here as you seem to write objective and well informed posts. Based on your data on the NM thread you undoubtedly have more knowledge on the wolf issue than I do. I appreciate you sharing the facts.

I greatly respect your efforts to introduce kids to our sport. This has inspired others on here and is a powerful tool for our hunting heritage. Since you have taken kids into the Gila, I'm curious if you have discussed the wolf issue with them. What would you, or have you, told them to do if they encounter a wolf? Again, I am not "up to no good", only truly curious. I am not belittling your good deeds, I truly appreciate them.

Cory
 
I don't want either one.

0d7caaf5.jpg


_____________________________________
"Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid."

-John Wayne
 
I would rather have poachers... Many good points have been made already, my reasoning is that poachers can be caught, and punished, where wolves can not... And you would be naive to believe that "legitimate management of them is inevitable". Also, poachers dont generally wander onto farms and slaughter farm animals...

Plus it only takes 1 year to draw a LE poacher tag... :D


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
>I don't care where you live,
>as long as there are
>people you will always have
>poachers. You don't have to
>have wolves.
>
>So the real question would be:
>Do you prefer poachers OR
>poachers AND wolves?


^This pretty much sums it up.

I guess I consider myself lucky b/c our state actually gives us tax breaks/exemptions for predation control.
 
As I posted earlier, I would like to thank all of those whom have directed me to educational resources, and provided insight, I have learned a lot an appreciate it. And for those that chose to attack me personally thank you too.

My personnel stance ?today? is not to support the complete eradication of a species without cause, I do support a responsible management approach, ?if the responsible management approach is to hunt, trap or eliminate the species than I am ok with that too.?

For the record; I am a gun toting liberal, hunter, and outdoorsman however those alone do not define me.
 
I wonder how many poachers will try to cut back a little so wolves will have more to kill. If you poach you could be depriving some poor little wolf pup.

Eel
 
No question both wolves and/or poachers should be stretched and skinned...

Killing a wolf in todays theater to protect our heritage is not poaching. Remember the deal was 300 wolves and 11 breeding pairs. The wolf is the ultimate poacher of our wildlife.
 
"My reference to elk reintroduction was included only to show that I don't think poaching is ok just because the animal is non native. It's not ok to poach our oryx, ibex, or barbary, is it?"

Just curious when the last time you saw a pack of Oryx, barbary sheep or Ibex chase down an elk, sheep or cow and have it for dinner? And I'm not condoning poaching. However, if we can't get rid of the wolf going through the right channels then we'll just have to do it the "right way". Wolves are no good. They are absolutely detrimental to ALL wildlife and if you like hunting you will do everything in your power to keep these POS's out of our mountains!!!




It's always an adventure!!!
 
....BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) ? A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected a lawsuit from conservation groups that want to block wolf hunting and trapping that have killed more than 500 of the predators across the Northern Rockies in recent months.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Congress had the right to intervene when it stripped protections from wolves last spring.

Lawmakers stepped in after court rulings kept wolves on the endangered list for years after they reached recovery goals. Wildlife advocates claimed in their lawsuit that Congress violated the Constitution's separation of powers by interfering with the courts.

But in an opinion authored by Judge Mary Schroeder, the court said Congress was within its rights. Schroder wrote that lawmakers changed the Endangered Species Act to deal with Northern Rockies wolves, and did not directly interfere with the court's prerogative to decide when the law is being followed.

The amendment marked the first time Congress has forcibly removed a species' endangered status. It was tacked onto a federal budget bill by Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson and Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester.

"This case has made it clear that those who persist in trying to manage wildlife through the courts, in spite of all scientific evidence that this species has recovered, no longer have a defensible position," Simpson said Wednesday.

Michael Robinson with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that sued to restore protections, said a Supreme Court appeal was possible but no decision had been made.

"We're very disappointed and very saddened," Robinson said. "Hundreds of wolves have been hunted and trapped and snared, and they are essential to their ecosystem."

He called the congressional budget bill rider that lifted protections "undemocratic" and said that it set a precedent for future political meddling with imperiled wildlife.

Wolves once thrived across North America but were exterminated across most of the continental U.S. by the 1930s, through government sponsored poisoning and bounty programs.

They were put on the endangered list in 1974. Over the last two decades, state and federal agencies have spent more than $100 million on wolf restoration programs across the country.

The Northern Rockies is now home to more than 1,700 wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and expanding populations in portions of eastern Oregon and Washington. That figure is up slightly from 2010, although Wyoming and Idaho saw slight declines.

In the Northern Rockies wolf hunting is allowed in Montana and Idaho and could resume in Wyoming this fall.

Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin also are considering wolf seasons after protections for wolves were lifted in the upper Great Lakes in December.

Wisconsin's legislature on Wednesday approved a measure to establish a hunting and trapping season that would run from mid-October through the end of February. It still has to be approved by the governor.

There more than 4,400 of the animals in the Great Lakes and a struggling population of several dozen wolves in the Desert Southwest. Alaska, where the animals never went on the endangered list, has an estimated 10,000 wolves.

In parts of Montana, ranchers and local officials frustrated with continuing attacks on livestock have proposed bounties for hunters that kill wolves. Montana wildlife officials said they will consider ways to expand hunting after 166 wolves were killed this season, short of the state's 220-wolf quota.

Idaho allows trapping. Its 10-month wolf season runs until June and has claimed 353 wolves so far.

Prior lawsuits resulted first in the animals' reintroduction to the Northern Rockies and then later kept them on the endangered list for a decade after the species reached recovery goal of 300 wolves in three states.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is monitoring the hunts. But agency officials have said they have no plans to intervene because the states have pledged to manage wolves responsibly.

Federal officials have pledged to step in to restore endangered species protections if wolf numbers drop to less than 100 animals in either Montana or Idaho.

Even without hunting, wolves are shot regularly in the region in response to livestock attacks. Since their reintroduction, more than 1,600 wolves have been shot by government wildlife agents or ranchers.

.
 
Wolves eat what they kill. Poachers hack heads off. Wolves eat to survive. Poachers are a bunch of greedy bassterds or thrill killers taking away from all lawful hunters and giving legal hunters a bad name. I've never known a wolf to show a bad light on a legal hunter. At the same time wolves should be managed like all other wildlife.
 
>Wolves eat what they kill. Wolves eat
>to survive. Poachers are a
>bunch of greedy bassterds or
>thrill killers taking away from
>all lawful hunters and giving
>legal hunters a bad name.

Blah blah blah!!!!!! Wolves eat what they kill?? Really! Wolves eat to survive. Doesn't just about everything. Poachers may be thrill killers, but wolves aren't??? Just follow a set a wolf tracks in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming or any where else they inhabit and then tell me wolves are NOT thrill killers and they eat everything they kill!!! Your ignorance is truly amazing.
 
+1 Not thrill killers, huh! Tell that to my rancher friend that I mentioned in post #10 that lost over 30 sheep in one night alone and none were eaten!
 
I'm just saying poachers suck. In my experience I've seen a lot more damage caused by poachers than wolves. Go poachers!!! Right guys?
 
I don't think anyone is thinking "Go poachers!!!"

However, both types of predators need to be managed. We have some limited management of poachers. It isn't sufficient, but it is certainly better than what we have for wolves. Poachers rob from our herds, wolves do so in a much bigger way. The question was to force a choice. Many would no doubt choose neither.
 
I don't think anyone is thinking "Go poachers!!!"

However, both types of predators need to be managed. We have some limited management of poachers. It isn't sufficient, but it is certainly better than what we have for wolves. Poachers rob from our herds, wolves do so in a much bigger way. The question was to force a choice. Many would no doubt choose neither.
 
I don't have much experience with Wolves yet but everywhere i go i run into "some" who believe that a little camp meat never hurt anybody. Not necessarily talking camp meat either but taking home game illegally to feed the family, shooting one too many big bucks to extend the hunt, or use the meat year around in a form of barter. Yes, it's kept pretty quiet and few will come right out and admit their law breaking but like i said, i see the repressed attitude everywhere and if i can see it, i wonder what's going on in all the rural houses scattered across the lands.

Now, this is just from the people that i run into. There are thousands of people out there with the same train of thought. They believe that they are owed, in some fashion for some reason, the right to go get a deer anytime if they need or want one!

I doubt very seriously that very many who come here are among the mass of poachers i believe to be out there. Because so, i'm basically preaching to the preacher.

I have brought this topic and my beliefs up before here and got shot down. My thinking at the time was that many were aware but chose not to make it a issue, in a way maybe covering for someone they know, but i strongly believe that poaching is a MAJOR issue, along with a imbalanced predator prey ratio, and that those who think not are burying their head in the sand!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
I agree that poaching is a major issue. I also hear of a prevalence of poachers with particular reference to small game and birds. Ironically they are reported to often be some up in arms about people poaching big game. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black. My friends all know I'll turn them in in a second if they break game laws, take the ATV off trail, etc...

We have seen in short order, very measurable effects of wolves in the declination of our game herds. We know that prior to the wolves that we had stable elk herds. Now there are indications that they are no longer sustainable because of increased mortality rates. Moose likewise seemed to be doing fairly well before. They appear to not be thriving either.

Before we had the wolves, the vermin we call poachers were already a problem and we were able to manage viable herds. Obviously most of us would choose to have neither. Making a HYPOTHETICAL choice between the lesser of two real evils, I would still eliminate the wolves.
 

Similar threads

runamuk
Idaho wildlife federation
Replies
10
Views
841
devobrodie
devobrodie
Bluehair
A special wolf job opportunity
Replies
10
Views
591
SS!
SS!
Founder
Predator Hunting Success Photos
Replies
61
Views
4k
Founder
Founder

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

A926A485-AF6A-4CBE-8A4C-41E4BBD4EFC7.jpeg
59B44BC3-6036-4F2B-AE31-4220DC760CBC.jpeg
IMG_9781.jpeg
645F9C4D-CEED-40F7-8889-B4D4CB040BAC.jpeg
IMG_0253.jpg
Joe Herero and Jimmy with 13A 6x6 buck 11-14-2022.jpg
Screenshot_20160706-153216_Original.jpeg
20231109_070122.jpg
Screenshot_20230115-092008_Facebook.jpg
Big Buck 1.jpg
EFA36CF8-59D4-4AD4-9E70-9A6E00BF9CD1.jpeg
elk.jpg
Back
Top Bottom