MORE ON WOLVES

[Michaelr]

Ithica check out this site and tell us what you think.
http://www.natureswolves.com/index.html
here is a sample

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-16-2002 18:29: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>

 

[Michaelr]

Killed by wolves, NOTICE THE CHAIN.

 

[Michaelr]

sad!!!!!!!

 

[Ithaca 37]

What's your point, mike? Are you trying to convince us that wolves kill?

And what's your crusade? Are you trying to get all wolves eradicated? Do you expect to repeal the Endangered Species Act?

I clicked on your link and then went to the site's links! You're right back into the wise use movement gang!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-16-2002 19:27: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Michaelr]

Ithica,
Here is a quote from one of your previous posts.

"I'm also in favor of getting them started in Colorado. If they're good for Idaho they oughta be good for lots of other states"

That to me is very disturbing, and I think unwise and misguided.
I would very much like to have people like you pushing against wolves instead of making statements like the one above. Just as much as you would like to have people like me and MD in your camp concerning ATV's.

I truly believe that the wolf is a serious threat to hunting, and the magificent game animals that we all chase.

"Is this my crusade?"
I could ask you the same question concerning all the posts you have made about ATV's and the damage you believe they do.
I'm probably as serious about wolves as you are about wise land use.
If you want people to take serious the issues you bring to the table, then you should take others serious about the issues they bring to the table, instead of dismissing them like you have done to mine.

 

[Muledeer4me]

Mike ,Very good post.
I hope Leanwolf,takes the time to check out the post's down here as well.
The point isnt that we have predator's here now so what's the big deal?
We also have a season on cat's.
Like it should be.
The point is that ,now we have people buying into the (we need to bring in MORE predator's )and they dont believe that there are anit-group's backing this bring back predator movement as a way to stop hunting.
It's the WHOLE picture ,not just one item out of the box.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"I'm also in favor of getting them started in Colorado. If they're good for Idaho they oughta be good for lots of other states"

That was only about half serious. I'd like every state's residents to have to wrestle with the wolf issue, just like we do here in Idaho. It's a good, educational topic to debate.

One of the reasons I like the wolf debate is that it ultimately leads to the Endangered Species Act, which just about everyone in the country is going to have to at least hear of if it's ever going to be changed--- Not that I'm in favor of changing it, although I'd be open minded about any real compelling reason--- But because it's so tied into environmental awareness.

The problem with the wolf haters is that they don't understand reality. The wolves are here. There isn't any way to turn back the clock. I don't think they can change the ESA. They might as well quit fantasizing about eradicating wolves. They might as well quit misleading people about the possibility of getting rid of wolves. They might as well look at the only practical solution, which is getting them to the level required to delist them and then controlling them at that level. And if they're so convinced that wolves are going to wipe out all the deer and elk they should be more concerned about lions---which is something they can take action on today if they want to save some deer and elk. But they don't! Does that make an any sense?

Most of these wolf hater groups are uneducated (on the issue), irrational, illogical thinkers wasting their time and everybody else's.

Now, ATVs are a huge threat to hunting and it's not so difficult to restrict them. It's been done already here in Idaho where the F&G Commission banned them in one unit for off main road travel during hunting season. It will soon be possible to ban them in other places. The wheels are in motion. I'm doing everything I can to keep the wheels greased---I talked to the F&G Commission about the problem last week.

I believe in picking the battles I can win. The wolf haters are going to lose theirs. That's why I laugh at them. Come to the Sportsman's Show in Boise in March and spend some time at their booth. They're a bunch of wackos!

 

[Deerslayer]

Mike...I don't mean to sound insensitive here......but while that elk photo is pretty sad.......I saw a lot worse than that in the field this year at the hands of hunters mis-placed shots. Some elk had their legs completely blown off as they limped past.
......and the pup pix.....equally as sad....and could just have easily been pix of some of the tens of thousand of pets abused by their human owners this year.

I'm just saying......wolves are pedators, just like us.....except they do it because it is there natural driven instinct for survival.....we do it...well, most of the time for kicks.....
DS

 

[Oak]

I've kinda got to agree with DS on that one. I've seen things just as bad or worse done by hunters. I think one should choose his weapons wisely. What would we all say if the antis used pictures of deer or elk with legs blown off? We'd probably say that they were using irresponsible hunters to cast all hunters in a bad light. Pictures are used to gain support from those who are sitting on the fence, the people who are indifferent. These pictured don't tell me anything I didn't already know.

Everyone knows (I think) that wolves kill animals to survive, and they aren't administering lethal injections to their prey. Maybe they even kill for sport. Your argument could easily be used by those fighting hunting. How many of us hunt for survival?

It seems like we all think it's funny when the retired couple living in a Phoenix or LA suburb lose "Fluffy" to a coyote or mountain lion. So how are the dog pics above any different? Your argument isn't logical when you use it to single out one predator.

It seems to me that some of these anti-wolf groups are pulling too hard. If you want to remove all wolves, you're not going to get as far (and you're going to stir up a lot more protesters) than if you work for a reasonable management plan. Total removal sounds as far-fetched as total protection. So, if I felt as strongly about wolves as you do, I'd put less support on the groups like the one that Leanwolf mentioned. Work for a solution that might actually get somewhere.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't fight for what you believe, I'm just saying that maybe you should change your tactics if you want to be successful.

Oak

 

[Michaelr]

When the delisting process is stopped cold by the enviro-nuts, I am going to come back here and make a post saying I told you so.
It will happen, they are going to file suit to stop any control measures. Their argument will be that there is not enough genetic diversity. No control measures will be allowed until the population reaches a level that supports genetic diversity. Unfortunately that number will be way to high to also allow sport hunting.
In the areas that have wolves hunting will be either severely restricted or stopped all together.
This will cause areas that do not have wolves to be over hunted to the point that the game departments will have to go to limited quota or draw hunts. This is going to result in guys not being able to hunt at all.
Guys will say the heck with it and hang up their rifle and not hunt at all.
Kids will never be introduced to hunting and our numbers will slowly decline. Then it will be much easier to pass ballot initiatives to ban different forms of hunting, just like they tried here a few years ago, and just like has been done successfully in many other states.
Gentlemen, the writing is on the wall, the future of our sport is at stake.

 

[Lostagain]

I agree with micheal on this b/c he is saying take your head outa the sand and look. He is more moderate on the wolves than on many other things. I read it as the truth, it is true that wolves kill and maim, and you of the prowolf want to dismiss that and point out that human hunters do worse. It is true that a modern system of managing the wolves is in order but will it happen? Problably not, the people for a real solution to the management of wolves is (look back thru the posts) shunned as backwards wackos. Really helps when the radicals on both ends are dismissing the other end and the folks in the middle are left with the choice of picking by eliminating the worst of the radicals. Shouldn;t the moderates in the middle be picking the best plan, instead of the lesser of two evils.

 

[dgibson]

This post can apply to other threads too, but I'll put it here. I guess since I'm not in the west I don't understand. I don't get the big, massive fear over wolves. Wolves existed for many years before we all but eradicated them the first time, and the elk herds survived. What's different now? Even dumb easterner me knows that wolves will generally leave humans alone if given the chance, so I don't see that as being the concern. Is the real worry that the wolves will start getting into livestock and cost money? That's a very understandable argument, but why all the other complaints? What's the real issue here?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-17-2002 12:14: Message edited by: dgibson ]</font>

 

[Lostagain]

dg, I think the concern is over control. Many people I have talked to and have listened to are worried about the control. The management of the wolves. Most are not that overly concerned over a wolf eating them or their pets, tho they know this prob won't happen, but that the wolf has a free ride. They feel helpless to do anything but watch as someone from somewhere else tells them what they can't do. For the most part they don't might the wolf but wish the management was more like the coyotes= able to chase, shoot, otherwise scare it from their private property. Basically that is it, they feel no one should have the right to tell them what they can't do with their own private property.

 

[tmsander]

The world is a very different place now than it was before we nearly eradicated the wolf. The differences exist at all levels, political, social, economic, habatat quantity and quality, real and intrinsic value systems, demands on resources, including game animals, human population levels and distribution, hunting purposes and methods, etc. etc. etc.

The point of all this being that one can not simply say that because everything in nature was harmonious before that it can be again. There simply may not be room for wolves everywhere some folks would like to have them. Not, at least, without serious human behavior modification.

 

[Ithaca 37]

If the states want control of wolves thay have to come up with management plans that will insure that wolves aren't wiped out again. It's that simple. If you were the feds would you trust WY not to wipe out the wolves again? Remember the WY legislature is controlled by anti wolf rancher wackos! Right now the only plan they've come up with is to declare open season on all wolves. They are their own worst enemy.

WY is the state that's preventing any progress on delisting.

"Basically that is it, they feel no one should have the right to tell them what they can't do with their own private property."

Lost, Well, they oughta be used to it by now! They've been told for many years they can't have open season all year long on animals on their property. They're not allowed to kill people there either, anytime they feel like it.

Is that the best excuse you can come up with for wolf haters?! Wait til they hear about zoning!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-17-2002 18:46: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

I think the biggest impediment to the WY management plan is the predator designation in some areas. If they would've introduced everything with given population goals that would be maintained through controlled hunting would it have been better recieved? I think so. An open season on wolves has no chance of getting anywhere. There's not an open season in any of the wolf states for other predators like cougar or black bear that I'm aware of. IMO, if they model their plan after those that are used for these animals I think they'd have a much better chance of getting something across.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-17-2002 23:05: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[tmsander]

Somebody please educate me on the WY management plan and why it is bad. The little I know about it suggests that in some areas wolves would be listed as preditors similar to coyotes and free-for-all killing would be permitted. But in other areas (wilderness areas?) hunting would be controlled such that the wolf population remains viable there.

Given (assuming?) that it is not desirable to have wolves running around everywhere and that it is desirable to have a small but viable population in restricted and defined areas, what is wrong with this plan?

 

[BigHornyRam]

Tmsander,

You got it right. Ithica is just spoating more of his BIASED propoganda. Saying that Joe's comments are biased is like the pot calling the kettle black. Wyoming will probably accept a minimum wolf clause and delisting will be on it's way. Then if we can get passed the lawsuits of the antihunter - propreditor groups, sanity will be restored in the west! At least this is the dream I'm having.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, You probably aren't familiar enough with my posts to realize I've been for hunting wolves all along. It's just that I understand the process needed to get to that point. I doubt you do.

 

[1_pointer]

It is those predator laws that will cause the majority of the lawsuits. I truly think they'll be delisted, but an all-out persecution even in limited areas will never happen.