The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 19, 2011, 04:52 PM   #101
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,230
One of my friends up in Idaho is a life long resident south of Lake Coeur d'Alene near St. Marie's and grew up on a ranch that he later took over from his father. He recalls very distinctly the native Idaho wolf that didn't bother him or his livestock. They mainly ate field mice according to this man who has spent his entire life living and working in the Idaho woods.
You have mentioned this in a couple of threads now. This may be what your friend remembers, but it isn't an accurate description for Rocky Mountain wolves. They were pack hunters and their primary prey were elk and bison.

When those animals were depleted or encroached upon sufficiently through Manifest Destiny, the Rocky Mountain wolves did turn to hunting livestock. That is a big part of the reason attempts were made to completely eradicate them.

If they were living in such peaceful harmony as your friend remembers, then they would not have been hunted to near extinction.

It is a very romantic notion that the indigenous wolves of Idaho were living in harmony with people, but that isn't reality. They didn't just eat mostly mice (ala Cry Wolf).

Locals in the 1800s and early 1900s hated the Rocky Mountain wolf as much as locals today hate the MacKenzie Valley wolf.
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 05:14 PM   #102
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
and were eradicated by the 1930s.
With the govts help too. There is a reason they were eradicated, too bad city folk dont understand the loss of one cow. One cow could produce 10 calves, each one could bring a grand or more, do the math. 100 cows get killed some rancher is out 100 thousand bucks. How many of you could suffer that loss yearly over a 10 year spread? You would go bust, not enough padding in the cattle industry today for that type of loss. Who will pay for it? anyone eats beef will pay.

Beef cost at the auctions is higher than i seen it for years, will keep on going up too.

Good for me, bad for most others.

Why folks trap mice when they get into places they dont want em, same thing here.
markj is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 05:52 PM   #103
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Dear DNS, it is a very brave thing to call my friend a liar which he is not. He is quite familiar with the Mackenzie Valley wolf since he has spent quite a bit of time hunting in the Mackenzie Valley over the years. How many times have you been there? In addition, he has written three books on life in the mountains. Yes, he knows how to read as well. He is quite familiar with all of the game and predators here in the Pacific Northwest and Canada.

Secondly, he is a life long rancher in Northern Idaho, I respect his opinions on game and wild life and have found him spot on in every way. Go read your books on wolves my friend, I will go see them in the wild and learn from those that have lived a lifetime up here. He is not alone in his assessment of the Idaho wolf as I have listed the link several times. What is described in the link is exactly what my friend described to me.

Lastly, the native Idaho wolf is not the same subspecies found in Montana and Wyoming. I looked at your government propaganda links that is a true source of propaganda. I would suggest that you spend some time talking and learning from some of the old timers here in Idaho who have spent their entire lives out in these woods instead of your govn't propaganda papers which clearly do not reflect the experience of life long Idaho woodsmen.

Last edited by Alaska444; December 19, 2011 at 05:58 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 06:32 PM   #104
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
Whether it be DNS's sources or Alaska's sources it is prcatically impossible to read anything about this subject that is not biased one way or another.

But, when it is all said and done things were still just fine without the wolves.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 08:13 PM   #105
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Things will be just fine once we have their population under control. 150 won't be too soon.

As far as bias, someone that has lived their entire life ranching should be respected. He has no reason for bias, just giving his experience as a rancher since he was a kid on his father's ranch that he later took over. The native Idaho wolf was about half the size of the Mackenzie Valley wolf and in its greatly reduced numbers, did not pose a threat to his live stock. In addition, because they were shot on sight for so many years, they avoided man.

Not so with this huge animal animal that the Feds have placed in Idaho.

As far as the graphs and other things, most of those come from the F&G data sources as well as the wolf re-introduction committees. If you look at the map of the breeding packs as well as the graphs of the population increases, you can see that Idaho has been hit the hardest of the three states: WY, MT, ID. This information came from the F&G folks and is also seconded by the wolf reintroduction folks. Idaho spent a couple of million last year looking at the elk and wolf numbers. Is that information biased as well?

If folks are going to call information biased, I guess we couldn't even describe the differences between a great dane and a chiwawa without someone making that same statement of bias. To show bias, you have to prove it. Simply stating that a source is biased is not enough. If I described my high school neighbors great dane Merle who used to look eye ball to eye ball with me because he was so huge, is that a biased statement? No that is an observation that he was so big I looked directly into his eyes. (I am 5'7" tall). That is an objective observation of how big that Merle was in relation to me. You should have seen the beast when he stood on his hind legs!!

So why would a man that has actually spent quite a few summers camping, hunting and fishing in the Mackenzie valley in Canada where he saw wolves, bear, mountain lion and likewise spent the rest of his life literally out in the woods ranching, farming and logging. He likewise came across the native Idaho wolf on several occasions and had opportunity to observe this creature and its habits in Idaho. In fact, he was seeing it more frequently prior to the wolf reintroduction.

That my friend is an experienced observation. It is not a biased view as DNS states. He has no axe to grind, he no longer ranches or logs. In times past, we used seek out these sort of folks as guides because they knew the land and the animals in the land. But now, because DNS states that this man is biased and he has never met him, never spoken with him and knows nothing of his experiences. That has another name, defamation of character. The burden of proof is on DNS to show the bias.

So, if folks are going to accuse him of bias, that is an allegation that must be proven. On the other hand, if his opinions and experiences are consistent with other observers, then his information is important and relevant.

Last edited by Alaska444; December 19, 2011 at 08:19 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 10:15 PM   #106
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Native Idaho Timberwolf observations from a biologist in 1916: Can we agree that his observations are not biased by the current political aspects of the wolf "reintroduction" plan?

Canis lupus irremotus subsp. nov.

Type--From Red Lodge, Carbon County, southwestern Montana. Male adult, skin and skull, collected by M.E. Martin, April 19, 1916.

Distribution--Northern Rocky Mountain region, and high adjoining plains, from southwestern Wyoming north through western Montana and eastern Idaho at least to Lethbridge, Alberta.

General characters--A light-colored subspecies of medium to rather large size, with narrow but flattened frontal region. Similar in size to Canis lupus youngi of the more southern Rocky Mountain region, but whiter, the upper parts less heavily overlaid with black; skull differs in detail, especially in the narrowness of the frontal region. Size larger and color whiter than in Canis lupus nubilis of Nebraska, or in Canis lupus gigas of southwestern Washington, and differs from both in cranial features, including the relative narrowness of the frontal region. Differs from Canis lupus occidentalis of Mackenzie in decidedly smaller size.

Looking up the history of the wolf reintroduction plan, in 1973, canis lupus irremotus was listed as endangered by the ESA. In 1978, they changed its classification to canis lupus opening the door to introducing a different subspecies that in 1916 was noted to be much larger than the native Idaho wolf. The observation of this biologist nearly a hundred years ago lines up exactly with what my friend from Idaho had to state about the two subspecies. The politicians have reclassified the native Idaho, Rocky Mountain wolf to allow the Canadian wolf to be placed here instead.

Sadly, in doing so they have wiped out what was a slowly recovering native population.

Get the facts, not the hype on wolves and the interloper from Canada. They do NOT belong here.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old December 21, 2011, 12:17 AM   #107
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,082
Excellent research AK444,

Also a big thank you to Spaniel for his confirming statement.
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.
Nothing like "Boots on the Ground" I will take that over someone behind a desk trying to justify the job.
Good thread Kraig, you certainly are not the 1st to get a misrepresented picture. And won't be the last.
As for my neck of the woods, we have deer and just like we were told, the wolf will enhance the herd. Well that's the truth as long as we are also happy with a reduced herd. And the deer also tend to move in closer to the populated areas and so do the big cats. There have been many Mountain Lion sightings in the area, way up from 20-30 years ago.
But of course this is also "Boots on the Ground" as our DNR is quick to Deni there are Lions frequenting our forests.
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old December 21, 2011, 01:46 AM   #108
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
The mountain lions are just transients passing through to CT. LOL

Yes, I will take the boots on the ground sooner than the "official" line from from the govn't. Too many instances where the information and data is distorted.
Alaska444 is offline  

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 02:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06070 seconds with 8 queries