• Thank you for creating an account on Hunt Talk! We require that all new users contribute at least 10 posts before gaining the ability to start new threads. Once you have made 10 posts, you will be able to start new threads in the forum.
SITKA Gear

Wolves delisting imminent

ShootsManyBullets

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
1,637
Location
OR Trail
My takeaway thus far, besides learning about hemorrhoids, is that some people need to focus on reading comprehension and sarcasm detection.
That reminds me that I saw a hemorrhoid once in a gentleman's club. You can't unsee that. Probably par for the course when you go in those places during the day.

I noticed someone else had the thought that we just reintroduce wolves in Boulder and every other metro with liberal majorities so they can enjoy them up close.
 

old school

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
35
Sadly it’s turned into a political mess instead of a science based solution. I just look at what the wolves did in Idaho to the elk herd and think of what will happen in Colorado as well.
Reintroducing wolves and thinking it will improve elk/deer habitat and hunting is like thinking by introducing a cat in the barn it will help the mouse habitat/population.
 

MNElkNut

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
901
Location
Minnesota
Just took the Minnesota Wolf survey. It is available to nonresidents as well. I think the more ungulate hunter responses we can get the better. here is the linky if anyone is interested in commenting:

 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
12,406
Location
Helena
Done - I want them around, just at manageable numbers, wary of humans and not a felony to protect my dogs.

Killing an animal that is attacking your property is allowable under the ESA. You would not be charged with anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLS

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
5,812
Location
Twin Cities
Killing an animal that is attacking your property is allowable under the ESA. You would not be charged with anything.
I am reluctant to argue with you in this field, but . . . . . . . I did a little checking. I was wrong about felony. It is a federal misdemeanor and the only exception while listed is life/harm to a person - pets don't count for exception. Under MN law it is a gross misdemeanor, but allows for protection of pets and livestock.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
8,878
Location
Colorado
They will not be in rmnp, I believe the ballot states western slope/nw corner of the state.
"designated lands west of the continental divide"

But yes I agree it is going to be the flattops.

No CO National Park will have wolves, given the nature of the flattops the only people who are likely to ever encounter wolves are hunters and ranchers.

Will be interesting how that pill is swallowed given the bear depredation that goes on in the flat tops, per Oak a single permittee killed 83 bears in 3 years in the flattops.
 
Last edited:

diamond hitch

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
579
Location
Western Montana
Mt had timber wolves until they planted Alberta pack wolves. Same effect as bucket biology. Haven't seen a shootable buck in seven years. Hell Montana can't even manage cats let alone wolves. We need to manage FWP and USFWS.
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
949
Location
Montana
Here is a paper of a recent study (I'm not sure the author knew he was studying a debunked idea). Even reading the one you attached, a quick review will show the experts cited have other articles supporting the idea of trophic cascade, to varying degrees. I'm sure reality is much more complex than what we want it to be.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200528160514.htm
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
12,406
Location
Helena
I am reluctant to argue with you in this field, but . . . . . . . I did a little checking. I was wrong about felony. It is a federal misdemeanor and the only exception while listed is life/harm to a person - pets don't count for exception. Under MN law it is a gross misdemeanor, but allows for protection of pets and livestock.

It's up to the investigating officer to determine charges. 9 times out of 10, protecting your property won't get you fined or charged. USFWS law enforcement does a good job of not being dbags about this stuff, especially with a recovered species. I'll pay your fine if they charge you.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
5,812
Location
Twin Cities
It's up to the investigating officer to determine charges. 9 times out of 10, protecting your property won't get you fined or charged. USFWS law enforcement does a good job of not being dbags about this stuff, especially with a recovered species. I'll pay your fine if they charge you.
A guy 10 miles from my cabin got $50,000 fine and 90 days in federal prison for protecting his hunting dog back in 2014ish. As discussed in other threads, leaving bad laws up to the independent discretion of law enforcement isn't the ideal way to run a system. Pretty much the locals learned that doing the right thing and reporting the incident is a bad idea and now there is a county of SSS advocates. As someone who tries to follow the law in all areas, I don't agree with this approach, but this is no way to run a conservation system. We are making enemies of the very people that should be our allies by not using common sense.
 
SITKA Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
90,559
Messages
1,303,677
Members
28,145
Latest member
OldShaky
Top