The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 18, 2011, 06:13 PM   #76
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Dear buck460XVR, simply because you are not informed about this issue does not make my documented and sound communication of articles, reports and studies on these issues conspiracy or lunacy in some manner that you are erroneously trying to imply.
I have given you much information, but it appears that you have not really studied this issue in depth. Dig up the research on the Finnish reasons for aggressively reducing wolf population levels and why they have done so as a public health initiative and then let's discuss that data specifically instead of personal opinions not based on the facts.
I've spent the last hour doing just as you asked and have read the "Management plan for the wolf population in Finland" as prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Funny how their story is much different than yours. From what they say they are not aggressively reducing wolf populations, but are allowing populations to stay the same in half the country while allowing the population to increase in the other half. Altho they do make mention of the parasite you claim will be the death of us all, they make no mention of it being a major health risk, much less of any mass outbreaks. Same with the risks to humans. They claim most of the negativity for the wolf comes from unfounded fear, and that even tho there is no records of a wolf attack on humans in Finland in the last two centuries, the government still provides transportation for school children within the wolfs range. I thought it interesting that they claim the majority of this unfounded fear is harbored in females, the old and the uneducated.


Oh....just in case you want to read it, here's the link........Management plan for the wolf population in Finland
buck460XVR is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 06:24 PM   #77
Deja vu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2010
Location: Border of Idaho & Montana
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Seems the only people who want wolves in the Northern Rockies is the people who don't live in the Norther Rockies.
I use to hunt in the Lolo zone. The last time I went there I saw 11 wolves and not a single elk. I now hunt elk closer to home. Last year I saw my first wolf here. Its just a mater of time.
__________________
Shot placement is everything! I would rather take a round of 50BMG to the foot than a 22short to the base of the skull.

all 26 of my guns are 45/70 govt, 357 mag, 22 or 12 ga... I believe in keeping it simple. Wish my wife did as well...
Deja vu is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 06:35 PM   #78
arch308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
Jeez guys, calm down.
I'm sure we all agree on one thing, whatever happens should be decided locally, not by the feds. Right?
arch308 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 06:39 PM   #79
IDAHO83501
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2009
Location: Lewiston, Idaho
Posts: 337
Sad picture,,,I'm sorry for your loss..........Here in the Clearwater region of Idaho,,,our Elk numbers,,and Elk hunting have fallen on hard times....Wolves are Evil....plain and simple !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
The next time someone asks you " What do you know ? " Respond with a smile and say " A frogs ass is water-tight."
IDAHO83501 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 06:54 PM   #80
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Dear buck460XVR, you are failing to recognize the serious public health issues of the 1950-1970's that lead Finland and Russia to wage a government sponsored battle against the wolves in those areas to keep them to the lowest possible levels without complete extermination. You are quoting a political document drawn up by politicians. Let's go back and look at some historical and scientific reports that will give you the background on this issue and why many scientists in Finland and Russia shake their head in complete dismay at Americans placing these beasts back into the ecosystem where they are the known propagator of Hydatid disease. In addition, the snow mobile has replaced many of the duties that dogs performed reducing the contact with Hydatid disease due to wolves.

Finland keeps a very close eye on the interaction of wolves and reindeer since reindeer is such an important economic force for the native peoples of Finland. In many ways, Finland has already secured a rational approach to wolves and management of them is quite closely followed due to the history of out of control disease from a generation ago. The report you cited is completely devoid of the true history of the battle of Finland against the wolves. Go figure why, but here is an old scientific report on Hydadit disease and wolves.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...r%20herders%22

I now carry enough ammo for my rifle and revolver to protect against an entire wolf pack. I used to carry enough to protect against a bear or mountain lion with loaded gun and one speed loader. Now, I carry 3-4 speed loaders, my 20 pack rifle cartridges in a leather case with both my .44 magnum revolver and my .444 Marlin loaded completely. I hope I never encounter them, but from the folks that report being surrounded by wolves while on their pack horses, etc, they were not at all afraid of the sound of a rifle or pistol. In addition, I now leave my boots out in the garage and do not bring them into the house any longer because of all the wolf poo that you may have no idea you even went near. Since, 2008, the numbers of wolves in Northern Idaho is exploding. No wonder the governor signed the wolf disaster bill back in April.

I would invite folks to come up to Idaho and spend some time with the folks that spend their time in the woods. I suspect that after a couple months hanging out, you will have a very different attitude towards these creatures. I would strongly recommend spending some time with the ranchers and what they are up against in bringing that beef to the market all of us enjoy. It is time to bring some common sense. No one is talking about making the wolves go extinct, but I will tell you, no one missed them at all while they were gone from this ecosystem and no one that spends any time out in the woods of Idaho is happy that they are back.

Here is an opinion from a Canadian scientist who has studied the Echinococcus organism for years. We should pay attention to some real science on this issue and learn from the Fins and Russians how they handled these issues nearly 50 years ago.

http://leg.mt.gov/content/Committees...sease-memo.pdf
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 07:39 PM   #81
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Dear

I believe I have found the reason why your 2005 Wolf Management plan was so lacking is historical facts. Since joining the EU, the wolf is now a protected animal even in Finland:

Quote:
This part of Finland is just north of the line that demarcates the country's reindeer herding zone. Before Finnish law was amended in 2001 to meet EU standards, there were few restrictions on hunting of predators here. Now, every kill must be covered by a permit. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry grants around 30 permits a year.

"Until Finland joined the EU, they were free to hunt these predators in the reindeer herding areas," said Schepel, the local official of the Finnish ministry. "The EU expects Finland to protect these predators but we have a big conflict between the reindeer herders and the demands of the EU."

In 1998 in the Yhteensa reindeer herding district, 22 reindeer were killed by lynx, 8 by wolves, 50 by bears and 56 by wolverines. In 2007 lynx killed 102, wolves 236, bears 92 and wolverines 59, according to Schepel's statistics.

The European Commission insists that, under the European Habitats Directive, wolves have the right to be protected - whatever their "nationality" - when in EU territory. "Men and wolves have lived together for centuries, and there is no reason why they should not continue to do so," said Barbara Helfferich, a spokeswoman for Dimas. "We need to ensure coexistence and protect the species according to the law."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/wo...pagewanted=all

Pretty much analogous to the Fed-state interaction where at the local level, people rightly wish to control the Idaho wolf disaster, but the Feds are a stumbling block. To stay in compliance with EU laws and wolf protection, their wolf management plan must also be in compliance. I seriously doubt that at the local level, there is any support for EU wolf protetective status.

It appears Finland is being forced by the EU to comply by the power of the laws of the EU:

Finland last year lost a court case brought by the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, which ruled that Finns had failed to protect wolves from hunters. The commission is expected to review the case and decide in the next two weeks whether the authorities in Helsinki protect wolves and other endangered predators sufficiently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/wo.../21wolves.html

Last edited by Alaska444; December 18, 2011 at 07:46 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 07:43 PM   #82
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Digging deeper, it looks like Sweden has fallen for this lunacy as well and is "reintroducing" wolves into their areas that have low wolf population numbers. Finland is opposing this however:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne...2441297788062/

It appears that Finland doesn't want any more than about 110-130 wolves in the entire country. The number in all of Sweden is about 200. We are approaching nearly a 1000 in the greater Idaho/Montana area alone. I don't believe looking at Finland is going to be an ally for promoting the Federal Wolf disaster in Idaho, far from it. Finland has been there done that and doesn't want to go back to high numbers of these critters. They are very tightly controlled. It is the EU that is trying to force a different course on Finland that locals are resisting. Hmmm, sounds familiar to me.

Last edited by Alaska444; December 18, 2011 at 07:53 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 08:14 PM   #83
dalegribble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2007
Posts: 861
since the original post was about wyoming i did a little research. it is amazing how much bs is posted on boards like this that isn't true. just like the bogus picture posted of all the wolvesthese are some actual facts.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

JACKSON - The Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the estimated number of elk in the state is well above the agency's goal population.
The most recent elk count shows more than 93,000 elk in the state. The Game and Fish goal is about 83,000, meaning the population is about 12 percent above the goal.


Wyoming gray wolf population grew by 7 percent in 2010
March 11, 2011 by bill.mccarthy

CHEYENNE – The federal government’s annual report on gray wolves shows about 7 percent growth in Wyoming.
Wyoming’s population increased from 320 to 343 in about 45 packs, that include 27 breeding pairs, according to the report posted on the Internet today.

btw....... 343 wolves divided by 45 packs averages less than 8 wolves per pack.
__________________
Waltzes with woofs
dalegribble is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 08:20 PM   #84
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Wyoming isn't the state most impacted by wolves at the present time. Go look up the data for Idaho and you will get a different story.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 09:27 PM   #85
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,832
I did:
Idaho
Elk Population: 103,000
Wolf population: 705
Doesn't sound like they have a huge issue with disappearing elk herds. They're also taking 20% of the wolfs annually via hunts.
__________________
I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 09:31 PM   #86
maxman894
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2011
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 141
Please excuse me for trying to make a joke. It seems to me that no one can ever take a joke in this world anymore. If I was attributing my lack of a kill to the wolves, I wouldn't even consider myself a hunter. There are many variables that would make it so you would be lucky enough or not to come home with a kill. So once again, would everyone please excuse my sarcasm? I seem to be the only one who understands it...
maxman894 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 09:36 PM   #87
dalegribble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2007
Posts: 861
to alaska 444.....................from the rocky mt elk foundation.

Idaho
Elk Population: 107,000
Bull/Cow Ratios: 10 to 50/100
Nonresidents: $142 hunting license plus $373 elk tag.
Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? Not even close, says Brad Compton of Idaho Fish and Game. “We still have some good elk hunting. Wolves have had an impact on our herds in some parts of the state, but they’ve not been decimated like it’s been publicized.” Elk populations are fairly stable statewide with areas of western Idaho trending upward, while wolves have had the biggest impact on the Lolo and Sawtooth zones on the Idaho/Montana border. For 2009, caps will occur on tags offered in the Sawtooth and Diamond Creek elk zones. Idaho elk hunters enjoy around a 20 percent success rate on average. In an area such as the Lolo zone, elk are holing up more often in security cover. Compton suggests hunters who enjoy hunting whitetails in cover should try the same tactics for elk.
__________________
Waltzes with woofs
dalegribble is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 09:47 PM   #88
Cowboy_mo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,039
Darwin's Laws

No he didn't say that man came from Monkeys but he did have 4 pieces to the puzzle as to why some species survive and some (like the dinosaurs) become extinct.

Now, wolves will never be extinct in this world but that doesn't mean they should be living in every part of the world. They were extinct (or eradicated) from the Western U.S. and thus the elk, deer, and other prey animals thrived. Those states made a ton of money from people who paid to hunt those animals and thus control their population.

Then some "well meaning" people decided the wolves should get a 2nd chance in those areas and now the prey herds are suffering and eventually (if not already) the livestock populations will suffer.

You can't violate Darwin's laws without causing damage to the remainder of the ecosystem. Finally, I am absolutely amazed at the number of people on a hunting/shooting forum that think this violation is a good idea despite what the experts from state and federal resource management say.
Cowboy_mo is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 09:51 PM   #89
spaniel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2008
Posts: 217
Don't have time to read all of this thread...

I will say that as a biologist myself, this whole ordeal smacks of lunacy. Introducing an apex predator onto prey populations that no longer have the flexibility afforded to them in former times -- elk/deer are now restricted to much smaller geographical areas than they formerly were due to human habitaiton -- with no plan to control the population of the apex predator, is textbook stupidity.

I have nothing against wolves. I don't mind them being there. But to allow their population to explode unchecked, is simply asking for an extermination of game species.

As for trusting various state Fish and Game agencies to be authorities on game population levels...been there done that and I have little faith. Most recently the area of Montana I hunted this year, F&G said the elk came through the hard winter well and numbers were as good or better than the prior year. We saw hillsides littered with winter kill skeletons and every hunter we talked to that hunted there annually said they'd never seen fewer elk in that area.

There was an area of western Montana I used to hunt, we saw decent elk numbers every year. Now the wolves arrived and within a year it was not even worth the effort to hunt there. Fish and Game can spout whatever numbers they want, but when I talk to most of the hunters in the area and hundreds of foot/horse miles add up to only half a dozen elk sightings, something is seriously wrong.
spaniel is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 09:58 PM   #90
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,832
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business.
__________________
I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 10:00 PM   #91
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Perhaps you should do a bit more homework on the Idaho elk predation problem. Wolves are not evenly spread throughout the state with some areas having the majority of the wolves such as the Lolo region where the wolves are literally wiping out the herds. Up in Coeur d'alene, and the panhandle area, wolves are beginning to spread but they have not yet reached the level as in Lolo area. However, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to forecast what is coming in these areas as well as the numbers of wolves exponentially increase.

Take a look at the 2010 Idaho F&G report:

http://greateryellowstone.org/uploads/Idaho_FG.pdf

Also, if you do a bit more homework, the state is planning to reduce the wolf presence by 75%, not just the 20% you are talking about. Idaho has up to 800 wolves at present and the Feds set a minimum number of 150 for the state. Looking at the numbers in Finland and Sweden, that may be a manageable number.

In addition, how many "annual" wolf hunts do you think that we have had in Idaho in the last 10 years? One in 2009 and this year only.

I would also read some of the news reports on wolf depredation from Idaho to get a flavor of what Idaho is up against. Idaho is "blessed" to have more than half of the estimated 1500 wolves in the greater Yellowstone area of WY, MT and ID also over to WA and OR. There is a reason that the state passed a wolf disaster bill last April.

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/st...b164a9526.html

Last edited by Alaska444; December 18, 2011 at 10:12 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 10:01 PM   #92
spaniel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2008
Posts: 217
"The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business."

Why do you default to unlimited and unchecked wolf population being the assumed proper objective?
spaniel is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 10:09 PM   #93
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 06:58 PM #90
mapsjanhere
Senior Member

Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 1,897
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
Good grief!! Sorry, but elk are an important resource that Idaho has protected for quite some time not the least of which is the out of state hunting license revenue it generates. Not sure where you are getting your logic, but it has no place in the reality of Idaho before the Feds placed wolves here. The did just fine managing the elk herds in Idaho without any help from the Feds before the wolf reintroduction program. Now that the issue is back at the state level, Idaho will manage the elk and the wolves just fine without any Fed intervention. Afterall, it is the folks that actually live in Idaho that have to live with these creatures. If you want some, ask the Feds to give you some.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 10:34 PM   #94
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Here is a graph of wolf numbers in WY, MT and Idaho as well as depredations against live stock. Without intervention, the numbers of wolves will grow exponentially. It is time to control this out of control wolf population while there is something left to preserve.

http://bruskotter.wordpress.com/2011...-the-rhetoric/
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 10:39 PM   #95
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Here is a clue for you Einsteins, Elk/deer are browsers, cows/sheep are grazers. They don't compete for the same food.

Thats what you get for allowing outsiders setting rules for areas they've never been to. It's akin to Hillary Clinton (in the 90) telling ranchers to hire their own cattle guards since the cattle guards don't pay taxes.

Do you have any ideal what meat would cost if they didn't allow public grasing. Not to mention the fire hazzard from lightning strikes on dry grass because the live stock aren't allowed to keep it down.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 10:48 PM   #96
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
The following map shows why the wolf problem is mainly an issue with Idaho and Montana more so than WY.

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/po...R_wolf_map.jpg
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 10:58 PM   #97
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Here is the elk population numbers for the Bitteroot ecosystem where wolves are decimating the herds:

http://explorethebitterroot.com/bitt...st-for-funding
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 03:28 PM   #98
IdahoHombre
Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Location: IDAHO
Posts: 18
I'm pretty certain that Idaho will get down to the ol' objective of 150 - or at least they will try. I have confidence in the Governor that he wants to see that done. I'd like to get there quicker by offering a bounty on the wolves, as that proved to work quite well earlier in the 20th Century, when wolves were considered an "infestation" in Idaho.

I would also note that elk and wolf surveys are not exact science. I think any biologist will admit that. But wildlife management decisions have to be based off of something. Surveys can sometimes not be 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean F&G agencies are purposely hiding facts.

Their livelihoods depend upon tag/license sales. It would be a non-sensical PR move to tell hunters elk herds are above or at objective when they aren't. Hunters aren't stupid. If evidence out in the field appears to prove otherwise, I would suggest that the truth is somewhere in the middle, at least from a logical point of view. Maybe I'm missing something.
__________________
www.idahoman.com
IdahoHombre is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 04:06 PM   #99
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
Wolves are just like dumps, prisons, power plants and the like. They are great and everyone needs several, just dont put it anywhere near me!!!
langenc is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 04:36 PM   #100
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
@Alaska444

Well, thanks for the clarification that the two issues of parasite infestation and wolf policy in Finland were in fact not linked.
However, having re-read the post I had been answering, I have to say the distinction there is not so clear. Hence why I made that connection.

I, indeed, have not read through the material in detail, nor have I had time to serach for points of view from the other perspective which there are bound to be: unfortunately now is a rather hectic period...

Personally, I fervently hope that a true balance can be reached, and that outright elimination of anything is not necessary. It certainly seems, based on some posters' figures that there are some gounds for that hope...
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12972 seconds with 8 queries