Ithaca 37
New member
Marv, I'm trying to get the wolf topic going in the elk section.
Gov't Seeks End to Gray Wolf Protection
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
MarvB
Well-known member
Ithaca- Thanks...hopefully something of interest (other than sniping 
) will come from it!
) will come from it!Muledeer4me
New member
"Marv, I'll have to think a little about whether or not to start educating hunters about how to use the wolves. Kinda like not telling people here how to track birds thru the air. I gotta keep a few secrets for myself"
Just a thought here,but I havent seen any recent picture of Ithaca with an ELK.
I know he used to be a guide and he has the knowlage .
Maybe Ithaca would be willing to go out with a camcorder and really show how its done.
If there is enough intrest we could get a money donation to cover his expences and moosie could put it on hunt talk for sale.
He wouldn't have to tell us where it is .
If Ithaca can't use all that elk meat we can donate it or have a big hunt talk BBQ.
Come on Ithaca we all love good video's ,Heck we even like the ones moosie does.
I dont know about the others but I really did come on here to learn about hunting.
We aren't a very smart bunch of hunter's anyway so there really isn't much of a chance that many of us could go out and find your spot or put your secret's to use.
I havent seen any video's out that give any info. on how to hunt Elk in wolf country.
Alot of Hunt talkers havent had the chance to see live wolves ,it would be a kick to see it all take place on tape with a hunt talk member.
What do the rest of think ?
Just a thought here,but I havent seen any recent picture of Ithaca with an ELK.
I know he used to be a guide and he has the knowlage .
Maybe Ithaca would be willing to go out with a camcorder and really show how its done.
If there is enough intrest we could get a money donation to cover his expences and moosie could put it on hunt talk for sale.
He wouldn't have to tell us where it is .
If Ithaca can't use all that elk meat we can donate it or have a big hunt talk BBQ.
Come on Ithaca we all love good video's ,Heck we even like the ones moosie does.
I dont know about the others but I really did come on here to learn about hunting.
We aren't a very smart bunch of hunter's anyway so there really isn't much of a chance that many of us could go out and find your spot or put your secret's to use.
I havent seen any video's out that give any info. on how to hunt Elk in wolf country.
Alot of Hunt talkers havent had the chance to see live wolves ,it would be a kick to see it all take place on tape with a hunt talk member.
What do the rest of think ?
Ithaca 37
New member
MD, Actually, I haven't hunted elk in about 12 years, but I'm thinking about taking up the sport again now that the wolves have made it different. I think it would be interesting to get into the new ballgame and see what it's like. I'm hoping it's more challenging.
leftylock
New member
Buzz,Apparently you don't think his rantings are misguided, but I noticed you had no comments about the rest of the post.
BuzzH
Well-known member
What else needs to be said?
I didnt call anyones rantings "misguided".
If what Ithaca said is so "misguided" tell us why.
Pretty simple.
I didnt call anyones rantings "misguided".
If what Ithaca said is so "misguided" tell us why.
Pretty simple.
JoseCuervo
New member
Hey Lefty,
Which part of his rantings were mis-guided???
Do you know, or were you just "attacking others to create a smokescreen"?
You might want to be careful on the issues you challenge people on, as my guess is that you will soon learn that some of the others here don't suffer from Alzheimers...
Which part of his rantings were mis-guided???
Do you know, or were you just "attacking others to create a smokescreen"?
You might want to be careful on the issues you challenge people on, as my guess is that you will soon learn that some of the others here don't suffer from Alzheimers...
Muledeer4me
New member
"So they're "concerned"! Big deal. I suspect most of the people you talk to don't know any more than you do, so my only "concern" is that they're spreading as much BS misinformation as you do."
See Ithaca it's statements like that that leave alot of us wondering about you.
You have no clue who I talk to or what type of hunter's they are .
When I know you make stuff up about me because you dont like me ,I find it very hard to give you credit on anything,thinking your just tooting your own horn and patting your own back to make yourself feel better.
"MD, Actually, I haven't hunted elk in about 12 years, but I'm thinking about taking up the sport again now that the wolves have made it different. I think it would be interesting to get into the new ballgame and see what it's like. I'm hoping it's more challenging."
WOW 12 year's.
So your up for the video challange????
It would be real intresting for us to see you note what's changed in 12 year's.
See Ithaca it's statements like that that leave alot of us wondering about you.
You have no clue who I talk to or what type of hunter's they are .
When I know you make stuff up about me because you dont like me ,I find it very hard to give you credit on anything,thinking your just tooting your own horn and patting your own back to make yourself feel better.
"MD, Actually, I haven't hunted elk in about 12 years, but I'm thinking about taking up the sport again now that the wolves have made it different. I think it would be interesting to get into the new ballgame and see what it's like. I'm hoping it's more challenging."
WOW 12 year's.
So your up for the video challange????
It would be real intresting for us to see you note what's changed in 12 year's.
Ithaca 37
New member
Take a look at the topic in the Elk section. I don't claim to have all the answers.
leftylock
New member
Elkgunner and Buzz,
I felt that Ithica's views on environmental issues approach an extreme position based on his post " Ted williams says---", and several others. I advocate a more balanced middle of the road position, which I attempted to speak to in that same thread. I also got the impression that he felt that the Clinton admin. could do no wrong in the environmental area. Nothing to base this on other than what I read into it.I feel that that admin. caved in to the radical environmentalists to the detriment of those of you in the West. A number of friends in the West helped me form that opinion. Obviously, not everyone out there agrees, but from my perspective a majority do.
That is not to say the Bush admin. hasn't screwed up also. No admin. has a lock on that!! Thus far I feel that they are, for the most part, undoing Clinton mistakes; but I'm beginning to worry a bit about where they are going.
I think what really got me POd was what I percieved was Ithica's tendency to try to"put down" Those who didn't agree with him with some caustic remark and shrug it off with comments like "I don't suffer fools lightly." Perhaps I overstepped my bounds with one of your honored members. Civility brings civility, and I think we both need to work on that a bit.
I felt that Ithica's views on environmental issues approach an extreme position based on his post " Ted williams says---", and several others. I advocate a more balanced middle of the road position, which I attempted to speak to in that same thread. I also got the impression that he felt that the Clinton admin. could do no wrong in the environmental area. Nothing to base this on other than what I read into it.I feel that that admin. caved in to the radical environmentalists to the detriment of those of you in the West. A number of friends in the West helped me form that opinion. Obviously, not everyone out there agrees, but from my perspective a majority do.
That is not to say the Bush admin. hasn't screwed up also. No admin. has a lock on that!! Thus far I feel that they are, for the most part, undoing Clinton mistakes; but I'm beginning to worry a bit about where they are going.
I think what really got me POd was what I percieved was Ithica's tendency to try to"put down" Those who didn't agree with him with some caustic remark and shrug it off with comments like "I don't suffer fools lightly." Perhaps I overstepped my bounds with one of your honored members. Civility brings civility, and I think we both need to work on that a bit.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Lefty,
Thanks for the comments.
I have a few to add to your post.
You said, "I feel that that admin. caved in to the radical environmentalists to the detriment of those of you in the West. A number of friends in the West helped me form that opinion. Obviously, not everyone out there agrees, but from my perspective a majority do."
I dont think the people you've been talking to are in the majority at all on some of Clintons rules...in particular the Roadless initiative. There was overwhelming support by the LOCALS for that, and there still is. I was involved professionally and as a citizen in dealing with some of the roadless initiative. During many, many, many public meetings held all over the Interior West (MT, UT, CO, WY, etc.) there were very few negative comments on it. Many sportsmens groups backed it as well.
The same with the wolf issue, very strong support, even from the locals.
One other thing that struck me, and constantly does, is your comment about "COMPROMISE".
To be honest here, I'm done compromising when it comes to environmental and wildlife management issues. A hundred years of compromise have cost sportsmen big time...in access, quality of habitat, amount of available habitat, and so on.
The only compromising I see is the compromise for sportsmen to give more and for private interests like ranchers, loggers, federal agencies, oil businesses, developers, outfitters, etc. to TAKE WITH BOTH HANDS.
That isnt compromise, thats laying down and getting run over.
I wont play the compromise game anymore, been there, done that, lost enough. Time for someone else to compromise something.
My 2 cents.
Thanks for the comments.
I have a few to add to your post.
You said, "I feel that that admin. caved in to the radical environmentalists to the detriment of those of you in the West. A number of friends in the West helped me form that opinion. Obviously, not everyone out there agrees, but from my perspective a majority do."
I dont think the people you've been talking to are in the majority at all on some of Clintons rules...in particular the Roadless initiative. There was overwhelming support by the LOCALS for that, and there still is. I was involved professionally and as a citizen in dealing with some of the roadless initiative. During many, many, many public meetings held all over the Interior West (MT, UT, CO, WY, etc.) there were very few negative comments on it. Many sportsmens groups backed it as well.
The same with the wolf issue, very strong support, even from the locals.
One other thing that struck me, and constantly does, is your comment about "COMPROMISE".
To be honest here, I'm done compromising when it comes to environmental and wildlife management issues. A hundred years of compromise have cost sportsmen big time...in access, quality of habitat, amount of available habitat, and so on.
The only compromising I see is the compromise for sportsmen to give more and for private interests like ranchers, loggers, federal agencies, oil businesses, developers, outfitters, etc. to TAKE WITH BOTH HANDS.
That isnt compromise, thats laying down and getting run over.
I wont play the compromise game anymore, been there, done that, lost enough. Time for someone else to compromise something.
My 2 cents.
Ithaca 37
New member
Lefty, Here's an example of what Buzz is talking about: 95% of the old growth timber in this country has been cut, only the last 5% remains untouched. Now we're being told we should "compromise" and allow some of the last 5% to be cut.
I'm like Buzz. No more "compromise" at the expense of wildlife.
I'm like Buzz. No more "compromise" at the expense of wildlife.
Muledeer4me
New member
Lefty,right on .
I think you have a great handle on what goes on in this forum.
There should be a middle of the road ,we don't have to bow down to the most stringent clinton era rule's.
I also am for protecting our animal's and land.
But as you have seen if it isn't following certin poster's thought process to an t they have to resort to brow beating.
Closing off huge area's under the most restritive rule's ,bringing back large predator's,banning logging,minning,grazing,
bashing rancher's .
Putting animals above the human race with no compromise or thought about the people living in these areas that have familys to support .
I'll bet many of the radical green org. and animal rights groups would be proud of that.
I think you have a great handle on what goes on in this forum.
There should be a middle of the road ,we don't have to bow down to the most stringent clinton era rule's.
I also am for protecting our animal's and land.
But as you have seen if it isn't following certin poster's thought process to an t they have to resort to brow beating.
Closing off huge area's under the most restritive rule's ,bringing back large predator's,banning logging,minning,grazing,
bashing rancher's .
Putting animals above the human race with no compromise or thought about the people living in these areas that have familys to support .
I'll bet many of the radical green org. and animal rights groups would be proud of that.
JoseCuervo
New member
MD,
I have passed on putting arrows through deer, below the Stibnite Super Fund site, as there is no way I would feed that meat to my family.
Tell me again how I am putting animals before people???
If we have adequate habitat, then you really wouldn't worry about the "large predators", as we would have plenty of animals for both the Wolves and for the Fat-Assed ATV crowd who wants to be in the "middle of the road" as long as there is a road in every square mile of Idaho.
If you want to live in the middle of mining, why not go move to Kentucky or W.Va? If you want to live in the middle of excessive logging, why not move to Canada? If you want to live in the middle of a bunch of "yesterday's pasture", why not move to California???
It makes no sense to have Idaho, and then "compromise" it into some Godforsaken place.
I have passed on putting arrows through deer, below the Stibnite Super Fund site, as there is no way I would feed that meat to my family.
Tell me again how I am putting animals before people???
If we have adequate habitat, then you really wouldn't worry about the "large predators", as we would have plenty of animals for both the Wolves and for the Fat-Assed ATV crowd who wants to be in the "middle of the road" as long as there is a road in every square mile of Idaho.
If you want to live in the middle of mining, why not go move to Kentucky or W.Va? If you want to live in the middle of excessive logging, why not move to Canada? If you want to live in the middle of a bunch of "yesterday's pasture", why not move to California???
It makes no sense to have Idaho, and then "compromise" it into some Godforsaken place.
leftylock
New member
Guys, I don't think I used the word compromise, nor do I advocate caving into those who would rape our resourses.I wasn't suggesting that when I advocated a balanced , middle of the road approach. I would just like to see some common sense used in dealing with these resourses, rather than the farthest extremes battling each other and nothing being accomplished. I am beyond the age where I can wander around the wilderness areas.(although I almost decided on a pack hunt into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness this fall but went for a tamer version) Hell, it was all I could do to make it thru my last three self-guided hunts where I had to walk no more than 6 or 7 miles! Point is I wouldn't want roads in those areas even if it meant I could get there if that was the case. There are plenty of places that I can still hunt. However, it was my understanding that the Clinton admin. was trying to close many areas that already contain roads, which could dry up opportunities to hunt.Elkgunner , you referred to the fatassed ATV croud in relation to the road issue. I am in agreement with you there. I lost a chance at an elk two years ago because of an idiot who was off the road and spooked him. But,at the same time, I am 69 years old and had a heart attack seven years ago. Because of my job it was impossible for me to go west to hunt before 1998, so I have been trying to make up for lost time since then, Three trips in the last five years, and back again for a guided trip this year to try to learn something. So, some of us don't have an option, if we are going to hunt we have to have an accessable place.Would you deny us and maybe yourself sometime later that opportunity?
Ithica, I am with you regarding the timber. However, two summers ago I was riding with a friend who has since retired from the Forest Service, I know, I know-- thru a large burn near Helena and saw without any help from him where a cut area had allowed the fire to be stopped after traveling for miles. I know that isn't the complete answer, but in conjunction with other aids it could help. Old growth forests are a different story. I'm not trying to be an authority but what we are doing sure isn't working
He also told me that a lot of the burned timber could have been harvested but environmentalists had filed suit to prevent it, and by the time it was resolved the timber wouldn't be harvestable. That seems to be almost criminal to me.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the wolf issue. I would guess that from my reading and talking with others from the West it's running about ten to one against. If some satisfactory ( to reasonable people) controll method can be arrived at soon, I have a feeling the sentiment may change somewhat.
Elkgunner, not trying to be a smartass,and while agreeing that mining is generally a bitch,In Ky on reclaimed mining lands that still don't look too great, transplanted elk are multiplying at unbelivable rates, far ahead of the most optomistic projections. Here in Fl many reclaimed strip pits produce some of the best bass fishing in the world. doesn't mean that I like it, but sometimes you have to make lemonade out of lemons.
And, with Alzheimers you do get to meet a lot of new friends every day!! (havn't figgered out how to add smiley faces yet, but one would go here.)
Would like to hear your comments, but lets try to keep it civil, several of us have short fuses!
Ithica, I am with you regarding the timber. However, two summers ago I was riding with a friend who has since retired from the Forest Service, I know, I know-- thru a large burn near Helena and saw without any help from him where a cut area had allowed the fire to be stopped after traveling for miles. I know that isn't the complete answer, but in conjunction with other aids it could help. Old growth forests are a different story. I'm not trying to be an authority but what we are doing sure isn't working
He also told me that a lot of the burned timber could have been harvested but environmentalists had filed suit to prevent it, and by the time it was resolved the timber wouldn't be harvestable. That seems to be almost criminal to me.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the wolf issue. I would guess that from my reading and talking with others from the West it's running about ten to one against. If some satisfactory ( to reasonable people) controll method can be arrived at soon, I have a feeling the sentiment may change somewhat.
Elkgunner, not trying to be a smartass,and while agreeing that mining is generally a bitch,In Ky on reclaimed mining lands that still don't look too great, transplanted elk are multiplying at unbelivable rates, far ahead of the most optomistic projections. Here in Fl many reclaimed strip pits produce some of the best bass fishing in the world. doesn't mean that I like it, but sometimes you have to make lemonade out of lemons.
And, with Alzheimers you do get to meet a lot of new friends every day!! (havn't figgered out how to add smiley faces yet, but one would go here.)
Would like to hear your comments, but lets try to keep it civil, several of us have short fuses!
leftylock
New member
Oh yeah, What really pisses me off is that you guys have that fantastic country to live in and I'm stuck in country that doesn't have a fifteen foot hill anywhere around!!!!!
Nut
New member
Amen to that
Ithaca 37
New member
Lefty, the burned trees that didn't get harvested don't go to waste. They provide some shade (although not much, it's better than nothing) for young growth and when they fall and rot they provide habitat for small animals and insects. Eventually any nutrients in them go back into the soil.
I'm hoping for the day when we can control wolves at the minimum level needed to keep them off the endangered species list. That # seems to be about 400 in Idaho. That's been my goal all along (same with a few others here in SI who understand the issue well). I'll be happy to see any surplus over 400 hunted.
I can also tell you that the people who are doing all the whining about wolves will be the last ones to go out and hunt them when the opportunity arises. It's a lot easier to bitch about wolves than hunt them.
I'm hoping for the day when we can control wolves at the minimum level needed to keep them off the endangered species list. That # seems to be about 400 in Idaho. That's been my goal all along (same with a few others here in SI who understand the issue well). I'll be happy to see any surplus over 400 hunted.
I can also tell you that the people who are doing all the whining about wolves will be the last ones to go out and hunt them when the opportunity arises. It's a lot easier to bitch about wolves than hunt them.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Lefty,
You covered a fair amount of country in that last post.
I'll comment on a few things you said.
However, it was my understanding that the Clinton admin. was trying to close many areas that already contain roads, which could dry up opportunities to hunt.
Thats a flat misconception, not sure where you heard it but its false. The areas in question in Clintons Roadless rule were already defined as roadless in an inventory of roadless areas (RARE II) in about 1973. They were inventoried in response to the 1964 Wilderness Act. The definition used for the RARE II inventory was any area consisting of at least 5000 acres and CONTAINING NO ROADS. Further, none of these areas are off limits to hunting. The Roadless initiative simply put a moritorium on any road building in these previously designated roadless areas. I can assure you of one fact, you punch roads into these areas, the hunting WILL dry up. Increased access, increased roads, without doubt decrease usage by elk, deer, bear, etc.
So, some of us don't have an option, if we are going to hunt we have to have an accessable place.Would you deny us and maybe yourself sometime later that opportunity?
I hear this excuse all the time. There are currently 138,000 miles of roads on National Forest lands. If you cant find some access in that, I dont know what to say. Who knows how many more miles of accessible roads there are on private lands, BLM, State, and timber company lands...I'd say at least as much as on NF lands, if not more.
I realize that what I'm pushing for today (more roadless country, limited access) will someday take away opportunity for ME in the future. But, I'm fine with that. I'm not selfish, my main concern is having quality country, quality wildlife, and providing a quality experience for future generations. When I can no longer hunt the country I do now because of physical limitations, I'll still be happy knowing that truly wild country exists. I dont have to step foot into it, to realize the values of roadless country. I'll fight tooth and nail to keep roadless areas roadless...its the least I can do.
You covered a fair amount of country in that last post.
I'll comment on a few things you said.
However, it was my understanding that the Clinton admin. was trying to close many areas that already contain roads, which could dry up opportunities to hunt.
Thats a flat misconception, not sure where you heard it but its false. The areas in question in Clintons Roadless rule were already defined as roadless in an inventory of roadless areas (RARE II) in about 1973. They were inventoried in response to the 1964 Wilderness Act. The definition used for the RARE II inventory was any area consisting of at least 5000 acres and CONTAINING NO ROADS. Further, none of these areas are off limits to hunting. The Roadless initiative simply put a moritorium on any road building in these previously designated roadless areas. I can assure you of one fact, you punch roads into these areas, the hunting WILL dry up. Increased access, increased roads, without doubt decrease usage by elk, deer, bear, etc.
So, some of us don't have an option, if we are going to hunt we have to have an accessable place.Would you deny us and maybe yourself sometime later that opportunity?
I hear this excuse all the time. There are currently 138,000 miles of roads on National Forest lands. If you cant find some access in that, I dont know what to say. Who knows how many more miles of accessible roads there are on private lands, BLM, State, and timber company lands...I'd say at least as much as on NF lands, if not more.
I realize that what I'm pushing for today (more roadless country, limited access) will someday take away opportunity for ME in the future. But, I'm fine with that. I'm not selfish, my main concern is having quality country, quality wildlife, and providing a quality experience for future generations. When I can no longer hunt the country I do now because of physical limitations, I'll still be happy knowing that truly wild country exists. I dont have to step foot into it, to realize the values of roadless country. I'll fight tooth and nail to keep roadless areas roadless...its the least I can do.
Ithaca 37
New member
Buzz, As usual, that's a great post! Thank you.
Similar threads
