Wolves!! I had no idea...

Taken from the most current Northern Yellowstone FWP Report in 2009. Link:
http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=36743

"We estimate that wolves killed more female elk than were killed by hunters
after 2005-06 and that wolves killed more male elk than hunters killed after 2001-02. Hunters kill few female elk during the general season and the reduction in lateseason
permits after 2003-04 has resulted in hunter harvest of only about 2% of estimated
pre-season numbers of females since 2005-06. Thus, even with reduced
numbers of wolves during 2005-06, estimated wolf-kill of females exceeded estimated
hunter-kill. During 2003-04, 2006-07, and 2007-08, estimated wolf-kill of female elk also
exceeded average pre-wolf hunter-kill as a percent of the pre-season population. With the low rate of recruitment observed since 2002 (mean = 15
calves:100 cows), estimated level of wolf-kill of female elk during 2006-08, by itself, is
enough to keep the elk population from growing. Any mortality of females in addition to
that caused by wolves results in a declining population. Low recruitment has also resulted
in the elk population comprised of disproportionately older females, increasingly subject
to death from all causes such that current rates of mortality due to wolves, other
predators, and other natural causes, even with no hunting mortality will likely guarantee
elk population decline for the near future.

Because adult males comprise a smaller portion of the population than females, reduced
recruitment and increased mortality affect their relative population size to a greater
degree than females. Also, wolves have been preying on males to a greater degree."

Now some cold hard numbers from this study. Even TA17rem might be intelligent enough to process these numbers, but his level of stupidity has surprised me before...

Pre-wolf Northern Yellowstone Elk pre-season population esitmation in 1993-94: 25,432.
Post wolf introduction pre-season elk population 2007-08: 8,783.

Wolf elk kills in 1993-94: 0
Wolf elk kills in 2007-08: 1,356

Hunter total harvest 1993-94: 546
Hunter total harvest 2007-08: 343

So rather than relying on a few check station reports from a region as HUGE as Region 3 as TA17rem did (to his self-serving end), I think I'd rather look at the data presented by the wildlife biologists that study the largest elk herd in the region. In other words the "big picture" vs. the micro picture TA17rem presented.
 
Yeah maybe i should of looked closer at who published the info but like i said the DNR also agrees with most of it and has simular posted you just have to digg. But i also think it boils down to something you don't want to believe or hear so no matter who publishes it you still would'nt accept it. I don't much care either way.. I will addmitt there are some problems with the wolves in certain areas and yes they need to be controled but not by hunters, it should be done by ADC trappers..

But from what i have read on the DNR harvest reports if you are'nt getting youre Elk you just are'nt hunting hard enough... But blaming the wolves wouldbe a good excuse for youre failure as a hunter...
wink.gif
 
What many folks forget is that it's not the mature animals (generally) that are targeted by predators. It's the young. At the same time we target the adults. As the young are reduced we don't see an immediate drop in what's available for us to hunt. However over several years the lack of replacement animals becomes a stark reality as the number of adults dwindles rapidly. As that happens, hunters that just have to fill a tag will also begin preying on younger animals as that's all they see. And when that happens, you're already 1/2 way down the death spiral.


Copy/past, so forgive the formatting.


The Casper Star Tribune carried an article on Friday, December 26, 2008 stating that the USFWS has
now delayed delisting of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains until sometime in 2009 and that
delisting in Wyoming is contingent upon revision of our current legislation and Wolf Management Plan.
Two groups in Wyoming have actively opposed removal of the dual classification of wolves and one of
these groups has indicated that they will seek a legal remedy to maintain the dual classification of wolves
in the State of Wyoming. While I understand the reluctance of some in the livestock industry to accept
wolves as a trophy game animal, we are in a situation where the longer it takes to delist wolves and turn
the management thereof over to the state, the more our big game populations in the northwestern corner
of the state will suffer. In this regard, Wyoming has seen a dramatic decline in elk recruitment in the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) since wolves were re-introduced into Yellowstone National Park
(YNP) in 1995. In the Cody elk herd, calf/cow ratios have dropped from an average of 35 calves per 100
cows between 1985 and 1994 to 15 calves per 100 cows in 2005 (a 57% decline). Other elk populations
within the “wolf recovery area” have demonstrated similar declines in recruitment as follows:
· Clarks Fork Elk Herd: average of 38 calves per 100 cows (1985-1994) pre-wolf to 20 calves /100
cows in 2005 (a 47% decline);
· Gooseberry Elk Herd: average of 37 calves/100 cows (1985-1994) pre-wolf to 14 calves/100 cows in
2005 (a 62% decline);
· Green River Elk Herd: average of 36 calves/100 cows (1985-1994) pre-wolf to 24 calves/100 cows
in 2005 (a 33% decline);
· Jackson Elk Herd: average of 34 calves/100 cows (1985-1994) pre-wolf to 22 calves/100 cows in
2005 (a 35% decline) ; and
· Wiggins Fork Elk Herd: average of 44 calves/100 cows pre-wolf to 29 calves/100 cows in 2005 (a
34% decline).
Calf/cow ratios that run around 25 calves/100 cows can sustain a limited sport harvest on an annual basis;
however, once calf/cow ratios reach levels of 16 calves/100 cows or less, little if any sport harvest can be
maintained in that herd.
Clearly the expanding wolf population is slowly but surely eliminating (both literally and figuratively)
our elk hunting opportunities in NW Wyoming. Montana hunters have already seen their elk hunting
opportunities in the Gardiner area north of YNP slip away. Elk populations in the northern Yellowstone
herd have declined by approximately 65% between 1994 and 2006 and recruitment in the Gallatin
Central Wyoming Chapter, P.O. Box 2376, Casper, Wyoming 82602-2376
3
Canyon herd has dropped to eight calves per 100 cows. This precipitous drop in the northern
Yellowstone herd has resulted in a concomitant drop in hunting permits issued in the Gardiner area, with
elk tags now limited to 160 permits issued by the State of Montana for the late season Gardiner elk hunt
in 2006. This same thing is happening in NW Wyoming with reductions in limited quota elk permits in
the late season hunts along the Absaroka Front west of Cody and in Sunlight Basin. With elk recruitment
rates dropping significantly in the GYE and the overall elk population aging, it is only a matter of time
before the population reaches a point where hunting is severely curtailed in an effort to maintain viable
elk populations - unless we control the wolves. We have already experienced declines in recruitment of
elk in populations surrounding YNP of 33 to 62 percent, these population declines will not only continue
in the GYE but will expand to adjacent herds if immediate action is not taken to delist wolves and allow
for state management of the wolf population. It is probably already too late for moose populations in the
GYE.
 
NdIndy, that report you just posted coincides very closely to the report I used from the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks website. Only difference being it was based on the northern portion of the GYE in Montana, rather than the WY portion of course. Don't expect TA17rem to comprehend any of this though.
 
lefty's read from lefty sites and right leaning people read from the right sites.
smile.gif

common sense doesn't matter to lefty's i can't believe they live as long as they do making all the wrong choices.
angry.gif

the new agenda for democrats and liberals should be to go jump off a cliff.
thumbup.gif

if we can get the first one to go the rest would follow.
lol.gif

right wrong or a total abortion doesn't matter just that a democrat said it
confused.gif
.
the more far fetched the more they get behind it.
scared.gif
 
WELL REM 17 THESE ARE THE BEST YOU CAN DO IS QUOTE JIM PEEK RALPH MAUGHAN. PEEK IS WOLF BACKER AND MAUGHAN THE GREAT WILDRNESS GUIDE AND A ANTI HUNTER I RELLY LIKED THE RED HIGH LIGHT BUT SENCE YOU DON'T NOW YOUR AASS FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND . I HUNT THE LOLO UNIT AND THE ROAD THAT I TAKED ABOUT IS THE ONLY ROAD FOR 20 MILES NOTH OR SOUTH. IHUNT A ARED THE SIZE OF 1/3 THE STATE OF VERMONT WITH JUST ONE ROAD TO GET THERE. AND THIS SAME ROAD HAS A SIGN ON THAT READS USE AT YOUR ON RISK AND THERE IS OVER 27 MILES OF THE ROUGHEST ROCK,BURSH COVERED YOU CAN TRAVEL. BUT I KNOW THAT I AN JUST A RED NECK AND DONT KNOW MUCH BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THE WOLVES ARE KILLING A LOT MORE ELK THAN ANY OF THE HUNTERS THERE AND THEY ARE KILLING MOSTLY THE COWS SO WHEN YOU HAVE LESS COWS YOU HAVE LESS CALFS AND YOU HAVS LESS ELK
 
Originally Posted By: lanoleOriginally Posted By: letsgohuntnI honestly believe that the government knew that the wolf population would sky rocket once they where reintroduced. I think they wanted it that way as a way to control the deer and elk populations in hopes of eradicating hunting all together.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...We have a winner. You hit the nail sqarely on the head here. How could they NOT know if you protect an apex predator and allow its numbers to go unchecked that if would not have the exact effect it is having right now. They knew exactly what they were doing and banked on all of us to be too stupid to figure it out and too apathetic to DO anything about it. Wolves were the stealth bomber used to dwindle big game numbers down to the point that they too will need to be put on the protected species list, thus eliminating hunting as we know it.


This is what I was thinking all along as I read this post.

Look at how we even hunters and sportsman are being divided by this. Their plan has worked perfectly.

I hope I am wrong.
 
TA17rem,

I know you’re aware of this but Goon has an alternative meaning as well AKA, Fool. Again I thank you for your endless supply of foolishness in your posts.

First: "vidios" is spelled VIDEOS

Second: I can't take the stock off from my Tikka...”OFF FROM”...REALLY??

Third: Take the stock off of youre Tikka...I believe you meant YOUR??

Fourth: Can you tell me why on earth I would take apart a rifle that will shoot Sub MOA? I believe this debate has run its course more than once on this site and it's obvious to me those in favor of Tikka have won the argument hands down.

Fifth: "watch abunch of edited tapes"... "ABUNCH" is not a word.

Sixth: If I want any lip from you I'll scrape it off my zipper!!!

It's bad enough having to check the sources you use to back up your opinion. If I'm going to have to spell/grammar check you as well, I'll have to start charging a fee.

Your B.S. logic can be thrown out the window. You'd think a "Die Hard Member II" would be a little more cognoscente of the puke he/she sprays all over this site. They must blindly hand those titles out??

Your ideas, thoughts and opinions are as useless as [beeep] on a boar hog. !!MCWALK, RanUtah, Redfrog!! Can I suggest this FOOL be removed from posting on here?? No wait, he seems to be useful for a good laugh, keep him.

Keep it coming Remmy. That is, if you can handle the embarrassment.
 
This is long but it gives you something to think about:



Thanking Russia Re: Wolves RUSSIAN REALITIES & AMERICAN ARTIFICE
« on: December 21, 2009, 08:11:30 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanking Russia Re: Wolves RUSSIAN REALITIES & AMERICAN ARTIFICE
October 29, 2006
The Cold War was a large part of my life. The Berlin Airlift, Korea, U-2, Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam were real experiences for me. When we “won” the Cold War I was elated not only for my country but really for the millions who would now have the opportunity to worship God, own property, and generally enjoy the fruits of freedom, liberty, and individual rights.

From the get-go I was intrigued about how Russia would turn over all that the government “owned” to people and equitably establish private property. While I didn’t know how it could be done I must express disappointment that it has not occurred and that the government seems to be moving to consolidate a dictatorial power once again over all resources and the right of citizens to own property. This is very disappointing. In short I am no fan of any Russian governments in my lifetime (I’m 65) or indeed in the lifetimes of my parents or grandparents or great grandparents going back to the middle of the 19th century.

The Russian people I have worked with, from the Russian American farmers of North Dakota to the marine mammal biologists of the Soviet Union that I hosted in my home when I lived on Long Island or the wildlife biologists of Russia that I worked with fighting the attempted European Union fur ban, were a joy to know. They all shared a wry sense of humor and looked into your eyes when they spoke to you. Smiles came easily to them in spite of the hardships dealt them by Russian governments. In short I love the people but distrust their governments to date. That is what makes this article so confounding to write.

How can a string of governments known for propaganda, the savage use of force, and for holding it’s own people (much less the rest of us) in contempt be envied? How can such governments create a model of truth and common sense that shames US treatment of the same topic? Before we find ourselves facing off again (a real possibility?) thereby making such statements semi-treasonous, it will be useful to take a look at what Russian governments do better than us and ask ourselves why?

The topic is wolves and the reaction of government to their presence:

- For 150 years under Czars, Commissars, and Bureaucrats in Russia wolves have been recognized as dangerous to human beings and harmful to human interests such as livestock, dogs, and wild game like caribou and sheep. Up to 35 years ago, a similar attitude was held in the US. - During the past century, large scale government wolf control efforts intermittently reinforced perpetual wolf control efforts by rural Russians to eradicate wolves in more populous western Russia and to reduce their numbers in Eastern Russia. For instance, helicopter gunship gunfire training under the Soviets was often combined with winter wolf control directed by knowledgeable biologists to “kill two birds with one stone” so to speak. From 1900 to the 1940’s US government efforts likewise reinforced state and private wolf control efforts in the American West to eradicate remaining wolves for the same reasons as in Russia; human safety and the protection of livestock, wildlife, dogs, and rural economies. Thirty-five years ago all that changed in the US. - For the past 150 years Russians were faced with far more wolves inhabiting far more land with fewer armed inhabitants per square mile than the US. While American property owners and rural residents of all stripes formed possees and freely used traps and poisons and high quality guns to eradicate wolves; Russian peasants did much of the control work while Russian scientists and naturalists researched and investigated wolves with a practical eye to minimizing their danger and harm. In short Russia amassed an enormous (compared to all other countries with wolves) body of naturalist and scientific information about wolves. Not the US or Canada or India or any of the other wolf host countries have anything like the body of wolf information lying dormant in Russian scientific reports, sporting journals, agriculture journals, newspapers, and other such sources.

Thirty-five years ago the US passed the Endangered Species Act. This created a wholly new dictatorial and anti-Constitutional concept regarding wildlife in the United States. By simply naming an animal (or plant) group as “Endangered” or “Threatened” the Federal government eliminated all Constitutional jurisdiction of State governments for such plant or animal. Additionally, the Federal government had but to assert that those woodlands or such and such grasslands or certain wetlands were “Critical Habitat” for a proclaimed species and without any payment, private property and the owner was encumbered from any use the Federal government did not approve. Public property was increasingly acquired and closed to any and all uses. Such proclamations often covered millions of acres destroying economies and communities and families in the process for dubious benefits since there was no “cost” to government. Like Robert Mugabe or Adolf Hitler, when government has unchecked power and can take property without cost for “high national purpose, there is no depth it cannot eventually plumb for its own benefit.

As this tyrannical power was exerted unchallenged by any court, Federal power was interpreted to permit the “reintroduction” of “Endangered” “Native” species into their “former” habitat. One of the first species to be so “reintroduced” was the wolf. Despite millions of wolves inhabiting much of the Northern Hemisphere (Russia, E. Europe, Siberia, central Asia, India, Canada, Alaska, etc.) in robust populations, the wolf was proclaimed “Endangered” and “reintroduced” by Federal fiat utilizing Billions in Federal dollars to date in the Great Lakes states, the Northern Rockies, the Southwest, and the Carolinas. Efforts are afoot to “reintroduce” wolves in New England and to encourage their spread into Midwest, Great Plains, West Coast, Southern, and Middle Atlantic States. State fish and wildlife agencies, state legislatures, and urban Americans are either AWOL or supporters of Federal hegemony in the confrontation between rural Americans, rural economic interests, hunters, dog owners, ranchers, farmers, and others fighting current and planned Federal wolf introduction and protection schemes. A similar approach is being enacted with grizzly bears and there is widespread planning going on for “reintroducing” buffalo herds. All of these will further endanger human lives and wreak widespread harm to rural economies, rural property, and rural residents.

When any of those fighting these Federal wolf programs speak out they are ignored or ridiculed or both. Why? Because the Federal government bureaucrats, University professors, and a bevy of Environmental/Animal Rights Non-Government Organization employees (“rescuers”, “protectors”, “defenders”, “welfare advocates”, etc.) dazzle the courts and media and schools and a portion of the American electorate by claiming to be “experts” utilizing “science”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let us compare just a few of the American artifices of the past thirty-five years that have justified wolf “reintroduction and protection” with the Russian’s cold, hard look at wolves for 150 years. - In the US we are told that “WOLVES DON’T ATTACK HUMANS”. While there are literally hundreds of accounts in American historical records of such attacks and only recently one Canadian was attacked and another killed by wolves, Russian records expose this misinformation immediately. Russian records show many hundreds if not thousands of attacks on individuals, groups, and even villages by wolves. Wintertime is the most frequent time but attacks, particularly on the young and the old can occur at any time. Records of livestock like reindeer being decimated are abundant. Attacks are frequent and common from the borders with Eastern Europe to the Pacific shores of Siberia. Attacks have been documented to increase during severe winters, during periods of peak wolf populations, and during periods when wolves become “habituated” and “bold” as when men are off fighting wars or weapons are in short supply and wolves enter parks and villages at will. - In the US we are told that “WOLVES DON’T SPREAD DISEASE”. It is true that there is little or no US information on this topic and veterinarians and professors will back this up immediately, but when asked “how do you know”? They can only shrug and say, “because we are veterinarians” or professors. While it was an agreed national US policy to eradicate wolves by whatever means necessary for a century, additional information about the soon-to-be-eradicated wolves regarding their disease characteristics must have been thought superfluous. Whatever the reason for this paucity of scientific information about wolves in the US we may once again look to the Russian records for reality. There is Russian research showing how wolves spread rabies to other wildlife, domestic animals, and people. Wolves spread brucellosis (undulant fever a disease often fatal to humans) among reindeer herds in Siberia. (Similar results with wolf vectors for brucellosis is more than likely for cattle, sheep, buffalo, and other stock as well as dogs.) Wolves spread anthrax outbreaks to people and other animals far beyond limits seen in areas without wolves. (Similarly, mad cow disease outbreaks, like anthrax, can be spread by work boots or infected clothing or even infected machinery but not by wolves transiting infected sites? The same vector pathology is likely with wolves transiting and contacting deer and elk infected with Chronic Wasting Disease, especially on wintering grounds but wolves “don’t spread disease” as “knowledgeable people know”.) There is also extensive Russian research on deadly intestinal disease spread by wolves to wildlife, stock, dogs, and people. In short, recent US “science” is merely propaganda meant to justify all the hidden agendas and power and money being generated by wolves that our forebears went to great effort to relieve us of for our own good. - In the US we are told that “WOLVES ARE GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT”. So here is “Godless Russia” clearly operating under the sound premise that “THE ENVIRONMENT” is for men and women and communities and wolves interfere with that, therefore wolves must be minimized constantly: while in the US we are clearing people off the land and locking up million of acres for wolves and grizzly bears? Why is Russia protecting people from wolves and the US protecting wolves from people? Why is there no research in Russia showing how wolves do anything good: while in the US all “science” paints wolves as equivalents to “water for residents of the Sahara” or “space heaters for Eskimos”, in other words supreme goods? If you say Russian views are “slanted” or “biased”: what does that make our assumptions? Governments are formed to protect PEOPLE: which government (Czar, Commissars, and Russian bureaucrats or US government of the past 35 years) is doing that? Which government is telling TRUTH and which is merely spouting propaganda?

(NOTE: A Maryland colleague who has lived in Russia and worked with Russian academicians and scientists for years has been laboring to distill much of this Russian wolf literature and research into a book for interested readers. Mr. Will Graves is additionally an experienced hunter and gun expert who has hunted in and traveled throughout Russia. His book should be required reading for anyone interested in wildlife, conservation, and liberty. All Americans should wish him well with this very important endeavor.)

Saying these things and asking these questions is painful for one who loves this country as much as I do. But, truly, doing so is necessary for the future of this great nation. This topic is not merely about the biology of wolves; it is about government run amok and what is to be done about it. It is not really about Russia per se, but about measuring how far our own country is faltering compared to a fixed star, in this case Russian policies towards wolves for 150 years and three contradictory systems of government. We need to be mindful of this as we consider American blindness to the truth and susceptibility to outrageous lies to advance hidden agendas being spread by government throughout society.

On the one hand we all applaud the breakup of the Soviet Union and anticipate good things for newly free Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Baltics, the “stans” (i.e. Kazhakstan, Uzbekistan, et al), Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. because they can govern themselves as they see fit. Similarly we send troops to Bosnia and Kosovo and pressure Serbia to surrender control of Macedonia and Croatia and Montenegro for the same reasons. Paradoxically, at the very same time we are doing everything possible in this country to eradicate any Constitutional vestige of State jurisdictions (“United States”?) or local controls or traditional lifestyles (hunting, fishing, ranching, dog ownership, horse slaughter, cockfighting, etc.) by creating an all-powerful Federal government complete with a citizenry lacking individual rights and subservient to the will of powerful coalitions and emotional sentiments. Endangered Species, like Marine Mammals and Wilderness and Federal land control are every bit as much a threat to our liberties as are concerns about the War on Terror giving too much authority to Federal bureaucrats that no more intend to return those powers than any other powerful entities throughout history.

There is no current wolf research for the same reason there is no reliable marine mammal population monitoring. That reason is conflict with hidden agendas disguised as political correctness. Wolf programs are intended to do many things: eliminate big game hunting by eliminating annual harvestable surpluses of big game, discourage rural residence by making it dangerous to leave children or dogs unattended and making the elderly fearful, justify government growth that benefits bureaucrats and professors and NGO’s, justify eliminating ranches and farms, and justify more government land acquisition are but a few examples of such hidden agendas.

Similarly marine mammals have been totally protected and unmanaged almost exactly as long as the Endangered Species Act has existed. This is because The (US) Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed at almost the same time. Also at this time the US and the Environmental and Animal Rights International NGO’s bribed, cajoled, and ultimately pressured the International Whaling Commission to change itself from an organization representing whaling nations and the management of the whales of the world into an organization opposed to any whale management or whale use. Today we know there are millions of marine mammals (many weighing many tons) eating and multiplying throughout the oceans but when commercial fishery “overharvest” or “recovery” are discussed marine mammals are invisible. When seals clog streams to eat salmon returning to spawn, the problem is “the sport fishermen” or “dams” or “farmers” or “irrigation” or “power plants” or “hatchery fish”, or “commercial overfishing”; never are the two words “marine mammals” even mentioned much less their impacts quantified. Seals and sea lions eat commercial fish, lobsters, and bait fish. Whales and porpoises eat commercial fish, baitfish, and the plant life that supports all the fish of the sea. Sea otters eat abalone. None of these are harvested or allowed in commerce or even allowed to be used when they wash up dead on a beach! Yet their numbers and impacts go unmentioned as we call for “Marine Sanctuaries” and “Fishing Season Closures” and more “UN control of species and commerce” to “save the oceans”. This is nothing but another version of the hidden agendas, lies, and deceptions we see with wolves when we compare Russian Realities to American Artifice.

I have written this because I had dinner last night with three Russian ladies on board a ship riding out a very heavy storm with 18 to 20 foot waves about 60 miles off the Carolinas. One of the ladies was in her late 70’s and could not speak hardly any English. Another was her daughter in her 40’s and a friend in her mid 60’s, both of whom spoke excellent English. They asked what I did and we talked about wildlife and I told them about flying off the Pacific coast of Russia in a P-2 40 years ago looking for subs and finding lots of whales. I told them about the Russian Pinniped (marine mammal) expert from Magadan (a Russian city on the Pacific shore of Siberia) that I worked with in New York City years ago. I told them about my work trying to defeat the EU ban on furs and the Russian biologists that were trying to protect their European fur market as well. When I talked about wolves, the two older ladies really perked up. Evidently during WWII lots of Russian women and children were sent East of the Urals while the War raged on West of those mountains. The lady about my age said she was only a small child then but she remembered the terrible problems with wolves in two of those bad winters. Her mother often spoke of how the wolves just came and came all winter to the villages and how some children and many wolves were killed. The few guns (evidently mostly homemade and held by a few old men) were in constant use during the nights by watchmen and during the day by hunters. She mentioned remembering large fires burning near home entries to keep wolves away during the night. All three of the ladies were very grim about wolves and for my money it had nothing to do with myths (why would it? think about that) and everything to do with Reality.

If there is even the chance of one child dying or one tenth of anything like the winter nights those ladies described happening in this country: why oh why would we do it? Who will be responsible when this comes to pass? How will we ever reverse it? The Billions spent to date will pale before future control costs. How did our government ever come to this point? There are many very serious problems facing this country. This is really one that deserves attention for many reasons but to see this ignored in elections and in the media while it corrodes the very fiber of the country like unattended rust in the seams of a ship, portends disaster.

Jim Beers
29 October 2006
(40 Miles East of Miami) - If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7@verizon.net

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolves/thankingRussiaBeers110606.htm
 
Quote: !!MCWALK, RanUtah, Redfrog!! Can I suggest this FOOL be removed from posting on here?? No wait, he seems to be useful for a good laugh, keep him.


You should take a good look at youre-self and some others. I'm not the one who broke my agreement..
thumbup.gif



Quote:"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. "
 
Fare enough, I didn’t know there was a rule book.

I guess we can agree to disagree.




That being said, I go back to my original question and the reason I started this post. Is there anything we can do to help our cause? It's obvious the tree huggers have been at war with us for years and have been winning. I hope we can turn this around but what can the average guy do???????

It seems to me that we could be at a tipping point and just sitting on our hands is no longer an option.
 
It will go the same way as deer hunting goes in some states. Bye-bye. Then when the prey animals are few enough the wolves will have to be managed, by govt. hunters killing back their numbers at $10k a wolf to the taxpayer.
 
REM 17 YOU ALLWAYS KNOW WHEN SOME IS LOSING WHEN THE BRING OUT THE RULE BOOK . AND TO MOUNTIONMANID ARE YOU REM 17 LITTLE BROTHER BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOUR NOT FROM IDAHO , BECAUSE ANY IDAHOAN WILL TELL YEA THAT WE DON'T WEAR HUNTER ORANGE AS IT NOT THE LAW. AN DRESSING THAT WAY IS NOT HOW WE DO IT HERE,AND THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT DO ARE OUT OF STATERS
 
I have read this thread with great interest. One thing that jumps out at me is that there is a great need for truthful information and methods to ensure that the information is presented reliably to the general public. To date, that has not happened. Instead, the general public is spoon fed half truths, emotional statements, outright falsehoods, and basic propaganda.

Misconceptions abound in all arenas I think. This needs to be addressed in a meaningful way without rancor and incrimination by all of us who have a vested interest.

I am ready and willing to do what I can to advance truth. I don't have money but I do have skills in web programming, space for deployment of web sites, observational and photographic ability, and a very small amount of writing ability. I am sure there are thousands of others who have ways that can be put to good use in spreading truthful information concerning our wildlife, wilderness, and conservation needs.

Isn't it time we all got together and made truth our common goal? Are we to squabble among ourselves while PETA, WWF, Sierra Club, and other dishonest groups slowly take away all that we enjoy?
 
Originally Posted By: alhefnerI have read this thread with great interest. One thing that jumps out at me is that there is a great need for truthful information and methods to ensure that the information is presented reliably to the general public. To date, that has not happened. Instead, the general public is spoon fed half truths, emotional statements, outright falsehoods, and basic propaganda.


So in other words, we're screwed...
 
Originally Posted By: suitOriginally Posted By: alhefnerI have read this thread with great interest. One thing that jumps out at me is that there is a great need for truthful information and methods to ensure that the information is presented reliably to the general public. To date, that has not happened. Instead, the general public is spoon fed half truths, emotional statements, outright falsehoods, and basic propaganda.


So in other words, we're screwed...

If we continue the way we are going....absolutely screwed. However, it doesn't have to be that way! We, all of us, can find common ground. We, can come together with a common goal. We, can find effective means to get our message out. We, can bring the lies, half truths, and misconceptions to light for the public to see in the bright light of day.

One person will not get this accomplished. However, with the shear numbers of hunters out there who want to protect hunting there is no excuse for NOT mounting an effective fight.
 
Originally Posted By: YoteblasterzHow do you silence these PETA pricks? That seems to be the issue. When did we go from being hunters and gatherers to a bunch of pansies who think all animals should be "protected"?!?!

reverse strategy:


PETA show's animals harmed bloodied pics of slayed animals.. well in turn we should bring up the end result of a wolf attack, it's proven in the discovery channel that even they have a much tougher bite than say a pitbull, why is it that they want to ban pits? when clearly the enemy is the wolves. I am glad to say that I don't live in an area that there are wolves, otherwise they be thinned out.. pronto..
whistle.gif
 
prewolf.jpg


colonizing.jpg


postwolf.jpg


Here are some distribution of elk in the madison headwaters of Yellowstone Park, Montana and Wyoming, where is hunting is NOT allowed.

How wolves in Yellowstone have impacted their environment is an evolving story, but federal biologists have tried to match what they predicted a decade ago in an Environmental Impact Statement, with what's happened regarding ungulate populations, hunter harvest, domestic livestock, and land use. Their research was published in the winter 2005 edition of Yellowstone Science. Authors include P.J. White, the park's ungulate biologist; Doug Smith, the park's wolf biologist; Terry McEneaney, the park's ornithologist; Glenn Plumb, the park's supervisory wildlife biologist; Mike Jimenez, the Wyoming wolf project leader for the U.S. Fish %26 Wildlife Service; and John Duffield, a professor of economics for the University of Montana.


--Wolves are altering the abundance, distribution, group sizes, movements and vigilance of elk. There are some indications that these interactions may be causing new growth in willows as elk are kept on the move by wolves and don't stay to browse in any one area very long.

--Elk are the primary prey for wolves, comprising 92 percent of kills during the winter.

--In the early stages of wolf recovery (1995-2000) predation effects were not detected because the elk count was similar to 1980-1994.

--Counts of elk decreased significantly from 16,791 in winter 1995 to 8,335 in winter 2004 as the number of wolves on the northern range increased from 21 to 106. Factors contributing to this decrease include bear and wolf predation, increased human harvests, winter-kill (1997), and drought's impact.

--Wolves have not reduced mule deer or bison populations. Mule deer remain within 1 percent of a 17-year average of 2,014 deer, while the bison population grew 15 percent. There are no reliable estimates of moose populations following wolf restoration. Moose represent less than 4 percent of wolf diets in winter and only 26 instances of wolf predation on moose were recorded in Yellowstone during 1995-2003.

--Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.

--Since 2000, wolves have caused 45 percent of known deaths and 75 percent of predation deaths (not including human harvests) of radio-collared female elk on the northern range. By comparison, human harvest and winter-kill accounted for 30 percent and 8 percent respectively of the known deaths.

--The average annual harvest of 1,372 elk during the Gardiner late elk hunts from 1995 to 2004 was higher than the long-term average of 1,014 elk during 1976-1994. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has reduced antlerless permits by 51 percent from 2,882 to 1,400 during 2000-2004 and recently proposed 100 permits for 2006 – a 96 percent decrease from the 2,660 permits issued in 1995.
 
Originally Posted By: TA17rem
We have had wolves here in Mn. just as long if not longer than some of the western states and we also have a higher population of them...



Maybe you should compare apples and apples instead of apples and oranges!!!


“Bergman’s Rule,” a widely accepted principal of evolutionary selection, has found species and races of homoeothermic animals in colder climates typically have larger bodies than their relatives living in warmer climates (Frings and Frings 1970:282; Welty 1975:130,432). The average weight of male wolves in the northern U.S. Rockies [presumably, occidentalis stock] is 100 lbs, 30% larger than male wolves in Wisconsin..."
 
Back
Top