The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 14, 2014, 01:51 AM   #51
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 2,091
As actual hunting areas shrink in size across this State year after year. Due to the invasion of homes and farms into those wild areas. Why the US Dept of Interior re-introduce wolves here eludes me. The land will only support so many browsing deer. Especially so as those wild area's shrink in size. Its common knowledge Nature re-balance's her scales with disease and starvation. We always have had our fair share of yote's & fox to eat up the carrion. Why was Minnesota picked to be one of the States needing to save the so called extinction of the Grey Wolf?__ "I never got to vote on it!!"__ and neither did this States politicians in the very beginning.
I wonder what would have happen if farmer & cattlemen livestock lost to wind animal attacks went un-reinbursed here in MN? Strychnine and traps I suspect would of made a strong second debut in a century. No doubt about it. But!
Oh well. I guess we all have to be taken care occasionally. Citizen & wolf alike.
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 09:58 AM   #52
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally posted bySure Shot Mc Gee:

Why was Minnesota picked to be one of the States needing to save the so called extinction of the Grey Wolf?__ "I never got to vote on it!!"__ and neither did this States politicians in the very beginning.

Minnesota was the only state in the lower 48 whose Grey wolf population was not completely and deliberately exterminated by government control programs. Odds are the decision to save them from eradication(since there has always been a healthy population in Canada and Alaska, they really were never in fear of becoming totally extinct), was before any of the current law makers were in office and probably before you were old enough to vote. Minnesota did not "reintroduce" wolves to their state because they always had them. Ones that were not born there migrated there across the Canadian border. Just as Wisconsin never reintroduced them, we got ours from Minnesota and Michigan. Regardless, the conspiracy rumors of the DNR bringing them in at night by the truckloads still exists. A rumor almost as ridiculous as the one about wolves being introduced as a latent form of gun control....i.e. to eat all the wild game so hunters would have no excuse to own guns.

Yes, for the longest time the states did not have control over the wolves there. I believe this was wrong, as folks sitting in Washington have no idea of what's going on in the mountains of Idaho or the woods of Minnesota. Just as I can't speak for what wolves are doing to the deer population in Montana from my home here in the Mid-west. But I know what their impact is here and I know much of what folks think they know about wolves is not correct. So many of the statements made here in this thread are evidence of that. Only thing more disturbing than the misinformation being spread is the advocation of illegal poaching in this thread. I consider TFL a class act, not a forum for supporting illegal activities. Seems ironic that moderators blank out a slang word for urinating, but allow folks to preach and promote poaching.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 11:22 AM   #53
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,485
I have hunted the same areas of Montana for 30 years. This year a pack of wolves was camped out right in the middle of where I have always hunted.

I do not need a link or study to tell me why there were no elk or sign of elk compared to 30 years ago. Or, why there were wolves and sign of wolves everywhere compared to 30 years ago.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 01:31 PM   #54
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 2,091
Wolves are a touchy subject with many who have to endure the Grey Wolf's behavior. In this State. Many were apposed to their recycling. Apparently there is perhaps an equal number that weren't apposed. I'll admit I'm in competition with the Grey wolf. You-bet-cha!! The cost to me every year to hunt and hopefully harvest a single deer off my property is substantial considering the the stay, travel, and the State property tax I pay on the land I own and hunt on. Seems kind of ironic how some other not a friend, neighbor, or relation can tell me I have to put up with such a animal ravaging my property at will of the wild animals I intentionally help to survive and foster their growth thru my lone generosity. I guess there will always be those with opposing views who feel entitled. Be fore warned though. Those that try. You can't come and hunt with me._
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 01:45 PM   #55
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 5,268
How much support for wolves is due to them looking so much like Rin Tin Tin and Lassie?
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 01:46 PM   #56
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally posted by [b]ZeroJunk:[b]

I have hunted the same areas of Montana for 30 years. This year a pack of wolves was camped out right in the middle of where I have always hunted.

I do not need a link or study to tell me why there were no elk or sign of elk compared to 30 years ago. Or, why there were wolves and sign of wolves everywhere compared to 30 years ago.
I wonder what that pack was feedin' on then....unsuccessful hunters maybe?

Regardless of ones personal feelings about wolves, they ain't gonna be in high numbers like you claim if there's no food source around. Unlike humans, they don't live in a area because it's what they own, have permission to be on or it's the only spot they know of. They live and hunt there because game is plentiful and easy to get......at least for them. If there are a lot of wolves in an area, there is plenty of game, somewhere, nearby. No game....no wolves, cause they move on. Quota areas, GMAs, fences and property boundaries mean nuttin' to them. If there is a plentiful food source and no real threat to them, it's home for a while. Wolves, while not eradicating game, do influence their behavior and habits. Them making game wary means hunters sometimes have to work harder, change tactics or find the area where the game has moved to. For many, finding another spot/area is not an viable option and this in itself can be cause for frustration, and understandably so. Kinda like hunting an Oak ridge on public land for 30 years with good success and finding it clear-cut and burned over a week before the next hunting season. Or having beavers build a dam and flood your favorite spot for woodcock the last ten years. 30 years is a long time. Most hunting spots I hunted 30 years ago are long gone. On private land ownership and accessibility has changed and on Public land, clear cuts that once held deer and grouse are now grown up and to open underneath. Trees I used to hang my stand on have grown old or succumbed to lightning, wind or chain saws. One thing I have discovered about hunting is that nuttin' stays the same. Many times we don't appreciate those good spots till they are gone.

Quote:
Originally posted by g.willikers:
How much support for wolves is due to them looking so much like Rin Tin Tin and Lassie?
Probably about as much as the hatred and fear of them was fueled because moms read their kids the story of Little Red Riding Hood.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 03:28 PM   #57
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Regardless of ones personal feelings about wolves
That is the quote of the day.

Sure there is still game in the area, and yes it is harder to hunt. I'm not sure everybody understands what is involved in hunting elk that are 2000 feet above your camp and no motorized vehicles are allowed.

My point is why were they reintroduced. It is not like the Bob Marshall elk herd was over populating the habitat.

They were reintroduced because some people thought they are cool.

It is the same people who call it slaughter when you kill a wolf but don't even mention a wolf killing a new born calf. It's like they are vegetarians or something.

Everything was fine with them gone. And, then some moron decides to bring them back.

I am not for any wholesale removal of the wolves. The cat is out of the bag. I'm just not going back out there.

After spending around $100,000 in license and outfitter fees I am through with it.

Wonder how much wolf listeners are going to do for the economy of Montana.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old January 14, 2014, 07:48 PM   #58
bcarver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2007
Location: Jackson,Mississippi
Posts: 836
censoring

I don't think honest and frank conversations about the truth should ever be stopped.

Last edited by bcarver; January 17, 2014 at 03:03 AM.
bcarver is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 09:22 AM   #59
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally posted bybcarver:

I don't think honest and frank conversations about the truth should ever be stopped. I will admit I shoot bobcats and raccoons because they kill turkeys. I only kill them where I hunt and I am not sure of the season or limit. This is the feeling of many where I hunt
I have no problem with folks shooting predators as long as it's legal and ethical. 'ell, I shoot every 'yote that comes into range. Same goes for fox and raccoon. Just as I have no problem with the hunting of wolves within legal parameters. But I know the season dates and bag limits. The NWTF recommends the control of those predators that target turkeys as prey, but they also recommend one do so within legal parameters, not just because you can. Not knowing the season or bag limits does not make it right and I assume is the number one reply when confronted by a warden because of violating. Violation of game laws when one's life is not in immediate danger is poaching, plain and simple. No matter how one wants to justify it to themselves and to others. Same goes for condoning it to others. Hunting in an area of where many folks don't care about season dates or bag limits is not the area I would would want to have to hunt. Not caring myself and having a circle of friends that do not care about season dates or bags limits would tell me something about my own ethics. This is my honest and truthful conversation on that subject.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 01:33 PM   #60
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 488
Quote:
I will admit I shoot bobcats and raccoons because they kill turkeys. I only kill them where I hunt and I am not sure of the season or limit. This is the feeling of many where I hunt.

So game management, seasnons, and bag limits should be left up to the judgement of each individual in the field?

I think we tried that the first century or so of our nation, and started the 2nd half of our nation nearly gameless.
TimSr is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 07:58 PM   #61
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,540
TimSr, staying with predators, the thread's general subject, Texas law allows hunting them any hour of the day or night, no limit, all year around. All that's needed is the regular hunting license.

So, yeah, it's up to the individual.

The cougar population is expanding, and there is no shortage of coyotes and bobcats.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old January 15, 2014, 09:10 PM   #62
Againstthewind
Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2014
Posts: 60
Predator definition

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/EDUCATION-1000246.aspx

This probably doesn't affect most people, but in Wyoming a predatory can be hunted without a license but that only applies to these animals:
Coyote, jackrabbit, porcupine, raccoon, red fox, skunk or stray cat; whereas bobcat, linx, weasel, wolverine, etc. are under different categories like protected or furbearing animals and either can't be hunted or have a special license. So just because the animal eats meat in Wyoming doesn't mean it can be hunted as a predatory animal. I saw an old "B" horror movie about killer jackrabbits, so that is probably why they are classified under the predatory animal category.

I agree with Buck again. Just because you don't like an animal or it is your competition for turkeys or something, doesn't mean you can go postal on them. Lucky for me stray cats are a no limit animal. If you want to see an ecological disaster, follow around a stray cat for a little while. Barn cats are good, though. Back on track here...There are limits and seasons for a reason. I trust the biologists and wardens to keep the balance. In all these safety classes they say there wouldn't be a regulation unless something went wrong, so they made a rule to prevent it in the future. The way they say it has more of a ring to it. The same thing applies to hunting I think.
Againstthewind is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 12:18 AM   #63
bcarver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2007
Location: Jackson,Mississippi
Posts: 836
ethics

I have rarely had my ethics questioned.

Last edited by bcarver; January 17, 2014 at 03:02 AM.
bcarver is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 12:29 AM   #64
bcarver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2007
Location: Jackson,Mississippi
Posts: 836
delete

deleted

Last edited by bcarver; January 17, 2014 at 03:01 AM.
bcarver is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 09:16 AM   #65
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,485
Same with the wolves killed in my group. They were with a permit. Matter of fact Montana FWP took DNA samples for whatever.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 11:05 AM   #66
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally posted bybcarver:

some of your comments made me reread mine. You changed "not sure" to "don't care". And I remind you while not even knowing the regulations I still have never violated them. What comment labeled me as a poacher. Was it simply not knowing the regulations?
So........if you found out you were in violation of the law, would you have told us? The time to know the regs is before you pull the trigger, not after. Sorry, there is no legitimate excuse for doing otherwise. Not knowing IS not caring, altho, no-where in my post did I say you did not care or did I call you a poacher. Not knowing is irresponsible and not the image we as hunters should want to portray. Your being legal was purely a matter of luck, not from being responsible. Tell me how it was any other way. It is the responsibility of any hunter to know the regs before they hit the field. To argue and justify any thing else is ridiculous. Took me less than a minute to go to the Mississippi website and find regulations for Bobcat and raccoon. Less than a response to this thread took.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 11:13 AM   #67
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally posted by ZeroJunk: Same with the wolves killed in my group. They were with a permit.

......as it should be. Legal and responsible. Wolves DO need to be controlled. But the average poster on a gun forum is not the one to determine quotas and seasons, nor should they recommend or condone to others to. Wildlife biologists, whether you agree with them or not, determine these by facts and known numbers. Not by barroom and internet batter. Not by emotion and anger, but with clear heads and a goal that is best for the most folks, not just one individuals hunting success. For everyone out there that wants to shoot an elk, there is someone out there that wants to see/hear a wolf in the wild. They have just as much right to this as the hunter and in many cases spend just as much money for the opportunity.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 12:56 PM   #68
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Wildlife biologists, whether you agree with them or not, determine these by facts and known numbers
I have a degree in Biology from UNC . These are the same biologists who were 50% off in their estimates of the Bob Marshall elk herd for about twenty years ? It is not an exact science and don't think they are not influenced by their feelings same as you.

Quote:
For everyone out there that wants to shoot an elk, there is someone out there that wants to see/hear a wolf in the wild
Right ?. Yes. But, do you think several thousand men are going to pay $5000 in to the Montana economy year in and year out to hear a wolf ?
Why do you think Montana has decided to kill the things ?
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 02:06 PM   #69
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,540
Back ten or a dozen years ago, USF&WS gave cost figures for re-establishing the Mexican wolf into New Mexico. A full effort would cost twelve million tax dollars per year. A minimum effort? $8 million.

The do-nothing option would have cost $4 million per year. One wonders at the infinite wisdom of these professional wildlife biologists and their ability to spend $4 million per year doing nothing. But I found it to be rather underwhelming.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 07:59 PM   #70
Againstthewind
Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2014
Posts: 60
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wolf-economic-impact.htm
Againstthewind is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 08:08 PM   #71
Againstthewind
Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2014
Posts: 60
Montana Tourism

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wolf-economic-impact.htm

I am not sure I agree with all of the numbers being directly from wolf impact, but he is a doctor. At least some numbers to look at. Also, now there are outfitters for wolf hunting. Pretty much the best way to get a wolf is with a guide I think, unless you are out in the field 180 days a year or more like they are. That would be nice. Cougars hunters need hounds and wolf hunters need snowmachines and a lot of time looking.

I am pretty jealous of someone spending $5000 a year on hunting. I would love to do that just one year. I am also a big fan of the Bob. We spent a couple of nights there two years ago on a trip to Glacier NP. I don't know of a better definition of wilderness that the big expanse around the Bob. I need to take a trip up there again.

oops sorry about the double post there. fat fingers you know
Againstthewind is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 08:56 PM   #72
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,485
It doesn't matter what a person's credentials are their study is going to find exactly what they were looking for to start with. Few if any are immune. We see it all the time in all fields.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old January 16, 2014, 11:16 PM   #73
Againstthewind
Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2014
Posts: 60
Can of Worms/Still on the fence

Research bias is a whole other can of worms. I am sure that you learned in your biology classes how to eliminate bias when doing research. http://tigger.uic.edu/~lwbenn/jacswc...360/week14.htm

The title of the group the doctor was with (forwolves) was a good indicator which way he was leaning. This article seemed pretty well rounded especially the comments section.
http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/refe...ttes/wolf.html
http://www.oregonwild.org/fish_wildl...y-has-positive
These ones probably have a political bias because they can't very well say oops we screwed up and put ranchers in an even worse position.

http://www.realtree.com/hunting/arti...-the-rmef-pain The RMEF is clearly against wolves and actually show numbers to back it up. But then you have to look at what could be their bias. They (I should say we to identify my own bias as a member) have spent millions to get access and improve habitat in places like the Bob and the wolves are pushing the elk to lower and private grounds making their access less valuable.

We could all probably agree on how old the earth is before we all agree on the wolves topic. They are here for better or worse. It is pretty disquieting to hear them howl outside your back door, but seeing that easy lope for mile after mile in the snow is pretty amazing, too.

Last edited by Againstthewind; January 16, 2014 at 11:23 PM.
Againstthewind is offline  
Old January 17, 2014, 10:17 AM   #74
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,540
Closed per OP request.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12653 seconds with 7 queries