If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Most popular Wolf in Yellowstone killed by hunter. Where is your Red Riding Hood now?   (latimes.com) divider line 279
    More: Sad, Little Red Riding Hood, Yellowstone, animal liberation movement, hunters, contiguous United States  
•       •       •

9329 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2012 at 2:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-12 01:24:39 PM  
Nobody cries about the nerdy wolves.
 
2012-12-12 02:32:32 PM  
was the eighth wolf fitted with a GPS collar to be shot
Those collars are great trophies.
 
2012-12-12 02:41:02 PM  
Heard this on NPR this morning. She was the HWIC.
 
2012-12-12 02:42:03 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-12 02:42:53 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: was the eighth wolf fitted with a GPS collar to be shot
Those collars are great trophies.


If they were to put the collar on, or in their pocket after the kill, the gps readings would open a few eyes...
OMG!! It's at the mall!
 
2012-12-12 02:42:59 PM  
This is really disappointing.
 
2012-12-12 02:43:35 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-12 02:43:54 PM  

Pinner: Because People in power are Stupid: was the eighth wolf fitted with a GPS collar to be shot
Those collars are great trophies.

If they were to put the collar on, or in their pocket after the kill, the gps readings would open a few eyes...
OMG!! It's at the mall!


That would be hilarious.
 
2012-12-12 02:44:46 PM  
blogs.ajc.com

RIP
 
2012-12-12 02:46:34 PM  
Suck it wolf
 
2012-12-12 02:48:22 PM  
On one hand, this sucks.

On the other hand, you get less legitimacy for poachers (screwed up, I know) if there is a legal avenue for them to hunt.

//Wanted to smack a hunter that said there is an unwritten law in Oregon that if you see a wolf, you shoot it and never saw a word. What an asshole.
 
2012-12-12 02:48:36 PM  

Gunny Highway: This is really disappointing.


Yeah, some of the pack survived. Better luck next year hunters
 
2012-12-12 02:49:04 PM  
She will live on forever in our hearts...and on some guy's mantle stuffed.
 
2012-12-12 02:49:34 PM  

Gunny Highway: This is really disappointing.

 
jvl
2012-12-12 02:50:20 PM  
And by saying "in Yellowstone" multiple times they presumably mean "outside of Yellowstone". You can't hunt in a National Park without federal charges.
 
2012-12-12 02:50:52 PM  
She was Delicious.
 
2012-12-12 02:51:06 PM  
The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid
 
2012-12-12 02:51:58 PM  
I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?
 
2012-12-12 02:52:23 PM  

ChipNASA: She was Delicious.


And her hair was Perfect.
 
2012-12-12 02:53:00 PM  

meat0918: On one hand, this sucks.

On the other hand, you get less legitimacy for poachers (screwed up, I know) if there is a legal avenue for them to hunt.

//Wanted to smack a hunter that said there is an unwritten law in Oregon that if you see a wolf, you shoot it and never saw a word. What an asshole.


There's a similar saying in Wisconsin about Poachers.
 
2012-12-12 02:53:45 PM  
So, we can kill these by the millions:
www.saawinternational.org

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.
 
2012-12-12 02:53:47 PM  
Who the fark shoots a wolf?!? Why not go twist a bald eagle's head off while you're at it?
 
2012-12-12 02:54:50 PM  
I still don't understand hunting, even when hunters aren't shooting popular animals. A bunch of fat, illiterate drunks stumble out into the woods at dawn, sit around in a wooden chair in the cold until mid-afternoon (or they get too drunk and fall out) and take potshots at wandering, defenseless wildlife in the meantime.

This is somehow "hunting".

When you manage to kill something by tracking it and fighting it to the death with your bare hands, I'll stop calling you fat, illiterate drunks and start calling you hunters. Not a moment sooner.

/ I'm just pissy because some fat, illiterate drunk was hunting in off-limits property behind my house a few years ago and put a bullet in my deck
// welcome to north-central PA.... I guess I should at least be glad he got out of his truck before he took the shot
 
2012-12-12 02:54:52 PM  

jvl: And by saying "in Yellowstone" multiple times they presumably mean "outside of Yellowstone". You can't hunt in a National Park without federal charges.


Yup, you can hunt in national forests, but not national parks. The problem here in CO is that animals don't have/understand maps, so the process of protecting them doesn't go very well when they're safe on one side of the imaginary line, but fair game on the other side. I'm ok with self-defense, or even if they shot wolves that came onto their own land (threatening to their cattle, sheep, or whatever)... but it bothers very much that there's only 1700 of them, and that seems to be enough that we think it's sustainable practice to hunt them still.

I mean, I don't even support moose hunting right now (I'm ok with deer hunting and other game) because the populations are so low... and I farking hate moose, they're the biggest jerks of the animal kingdom.
 
2012-12-12 02:55:24 PM  

jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.


You are lucky trolls are on the endangered species list.
 
2012-12-12 02:55:34 PM  

jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.


Would you eat wolf? No one ever has. They are a problem for ranchers, but no one else.
 
2012-12-12 02:55:56 PM  
the wolves are the aggressors!

/right? we were here first! Right?
 
2012-12-12 02:57:27 PM  

Gunny Highway: jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.

You are lucky trolls are on the endangered species list.


They still need to be managed.
 
2012-12-12 02:57:30 PM  

powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?


You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.
 
2012-12-12 02:57:35 PM  
So until you get to grandma's place. I think you 'ought to walk with me and be safe
 
2012-12-12 02:57:47 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Yeah, some of the pack survived. Better luck next year hunters


This is what people who don't know a damned thing about hunting and wildlife management actually believe.
 
2012-12-12 02:57:49 PM  

jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.


The difference is mostly taste and texture, sheer bang for the buck in volume of meaty goodness doesn't hurt either.
 
2012-12-12 02:57:55 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I still don't understand hunting, even when hunters aren't shooting popular animals. A bunch of fat, illiterate drunks stumble out into the woods at dawn, sit around in a wooden chair in the cold until mid-afternoon (or they get too drunk and fall out) and take potshots at wandering, defenseless wildlife in the meantime.

This is somehow "hunting".

When you manage to kill something by tracking it and fighting it to the death with your bare hands, I'll stop calling you fat, illiterate drunks and start calling you hunters. Not a moment sooner.

/ I'm just pissy because some fat, illiterate drunk was hunting in off-limits property behind my house a few years ago and put a bullet in my deck
// welcome to north-central PA.... I guess I should at least be glad he got out of his truck before he took the shot


Vegans should be shot on sight IMO.
 
2012-12-12 02:59:10 PM  

jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.


We can kill millions of those because they're not in any danger whatsoever of going extinct, but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left. That and I bet wild wolf meat doesn't taste as good as bovine.
 
2012-12-12 02:59:43 PM  

Gunny Highway: jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.

You are lucky trolls are on the endangered species list.



The point about food is valid, if you consider hunting to be only a matter of obtaining food. ...but otherwise its a serious question: these various animals are all about at the same level of intelligence. Pigs (food) are probably at least as smart as wolves, yet one is killed in huge numbers daily and the other gets a fark thread for a single individual being shot. Is "cuteness" really so compelling that it determines which animals are kill-able and which are sacrosanct?
 
2012-12-12 02:59:49 PM  

ChipNASA: She was Delicious.


try some wolf liver with onions, Delicious!
 
2012-12-12 03:00:05 PM  

mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid


Hunting isn't stupid... if we didn't have deer hunters to thin the pack, the deer would get all kinds of sick... I was in MD when they banned it for a little while... I've never seen anything as sad as the consequences of that experiment... wasting diseases and starvation... it's pretty messed up what happens to their populations. As for elk hunting (which I did this year)... for the price of one elk tag, I can get enough meat to put in the deep freezer for several months, and the guy down in Fraser who dresses/carves them up gives 10-20 lbs of meat to a program that donates the (frozen) meat to poor families here in the mountains that need food. You say hunting is stupid, I say growing cows in torture-like conditions for years on end just so you can slaughter them en masse without needing to try as hard as hunters is stupid. Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.
 
2012-12-12 03:00:06 PM  

sp86: Gunny Highway: jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.

You are lucky trolls are on the endangered species list.

They still need to be managed.


Broken picture link :( 

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-12 03:00:24 PM  

powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?


See: Wolf's Rain. People are terrified of them. That's why they keep them as pets....

This is actually really, really bad. Species come and go, but wolves are a keystone species. The collapse of the wolf population would be tantamount to the collapse of the shark population around Australia. Imagine the island being surrounded by a sea of box jellyfish, which subsequently kill most of the fish. Wolves are some of the most efficient pack hunters in the world; they're dangerous where they haven't been and they're critically important where they've been for a long time. Removing them is a huge ecological shift.

And yet we let hunters take them because they conflict with human interests.. what? Put a fence around your farking livestock.
 
2012-12-12 03:00:30 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: / I'm just pissy because some fat, illiterate drunk was hunting in off-limits property behind my house a few years ago and put a bullet in my deck


Perhaps calling the police to report the inebriated trespasser would have done more to assuage your anger than has your futile hand-wringing.
 
2012-12-12 03:00:44 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


Well you did choose to live in a wolf populated area, it's not like they were put there after you moved.
 
2012-12-12 03:01:50 PM  

T.rex: Who the fark shoots a wolf?!? Why not go twist a bald eagle's head off while you're at it?


Mosly, those that have livestock killed by wolves, or those that don't want to see elk populations diminish further than they already have. Basically, you need to manage wolf populations just the same as you manage other big game populations.
 
2012-12-12 03:01:52 PM  
FTA: "Wyoming's regressive wolf management plan is reminiscent of a time when bounties paid by state and federal governments triggered mass killings that nearly exterminated wolves from the lower 48 states," Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation at the Humane Society, said when the lawsuit was filed.

The term you are looking for is "extirpated."
 
2012-12-12 03:02:07 PM  

Jamik137: We can kill millions of those because they're not in any danger whatsoever of going extinct, but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left. That and I bet wild wolf meat doesn't taste as good as bovine.


State DNRs are usually pretty even-handed, and are staffed with people who know far more about conservation than we here in a fark thread. ...and a quick glance at the "Gray wolf" Wikipedia page seems to confirm their judgement: the species is listed as having a conservation status of "least concern" -- i.e., quite a way from endangered.
 
2012-12-12 03:02:25 PM  
Personally, she wasn't my favorite. I didn't vote for her - I thought her song was off key and her dance moves kinda pedestrian.
 
2012-12-12 03:02:37 PM  
Not one picture of Ruby from Once Upon A Time yet?

/ Fark, you're slipping.
 
2012-12-12 03:02:48 PM  

firefly212: You say hunting is stupid, I say growing cows in torture-like conditions for years on end just so you can slaughter them en masse without needing to try as hard as hunters is stupid. Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.


I really want to take up deer hunting in Maryland--with a bow, not a rifle (I don't like guns; in fact I want a recurve bow, not a compound), but it will take archery practice, hunting practice, safety courses, equipment, time, etc etc. I've never been able to put together the time.
 
2012-12-12 03:03:01 PM  
thesportshernia.typepad.com

RIP
 
2012-12-12 03:03:06 PM  

mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid


But it's not the most popular wolf "outside" of Yellowstone.
 
2012-12-12 03:03:09 PM  

firefly212: Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.


That's cute and all, but you have to admit deer hunting is pretty easy.

Granted you won't see a 400 lb dude dragging a bambi out on his all terrain rascal any time soon ... I forgot where I was going with that but that mental image is hilarious.
 
2012-12-12 03:03:46 PM  

grasse: Well you did choose to live in a wolf populated area, it's not like they were put there after you moved.


I feel the same about women who go to bars and then complain about being raped.
 
2012-12-12 03:04:22 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I still don't understand hunting, even when hunters aren't shooting popular animals. A bunch of fat, illiterate drunks stumble out into the woods at dawn, sit around in a wooden chair in the cold until mid-afternoon (or they get too drunk and fall out) and take potshots at wandering, defenseless wildlife in the meantime.

This is somehow "hunting".

When you manage to kill something by tracking it and fighting it to the death with your bare hands, I'll stop calling you fat, illiterate drunks and start calling you hunters. Not a moment sooner.

/ I'm just pissy because some fat, illiterate drunk was hunting in off-limits property behind my house a few years ago and put a bullet in my deck
// welcome to north-central PA.... I guess I should at least be glad he got out of his truck before he took the shot


Because I am poor, I live in the mountains, I want food, and one dead elk provides for months of it.... the cost ends up being pennies per pound of meat.

/145 lbs (not fat)
// MA in Econ (not illiterate)
///out of beer (but that's a great idea)
 
2012-12-12 03:04:47 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


That is a pile of bullshiat. There are more dog attacks than wolf attacks. Wolf attacks are exceedingly rare, in fact, as most wolves stay well away from humans.

Wolves don't decimate deer or elk herds either. They, in fact, cull the sick and weak from the herd. They also prevent the herds from overgrazing which in turn protects the environment for other wild life.

Wolf kills also feed many other animals.

To say that people are wolf prey is just astoundingly ignorant.
 
2012-12-12 03:04:49 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


Isn't that what humans do?
 
2012-12-12 03:05:11 PM  

Jamik137: but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left.


Uh, no. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America right now. Wolves as a species are listed as 'Least Concern' by IUCN.
 
2012-12-12 03:05:56 PM  
Since reading the headline I cannot get this song out of my head. If I suffer, so shall you.

Link
 
2012-12-12 03:06:08 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


Nope, not from the city, just not wolf country. Funny how you assumed that... FYI, grew up as a hunter, in strong hunting country in upstate NY and have no problem with hunting meat. Killing animals for the sake of killing though was never considered "hunting" though where I'm from.

Anyways, from the stats I've seen, wolves don't take out livestock anywhere near the rate that weather and disease does. Also, I don't recall hearing about any wolf attacks on humans at all, but can tell you about a dozen stories of bear attacks, yet we're not killing them in to extinction (pardon my refusal to use the word "hunt"). As for pets, well, keep your pets under control, and don't let them wander and they won't look like prey.

So, again, why the hate?
 
2012-12-12 03:06:21 PM  

mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid to people that don't hunt.


FTFY

/ I am sad about the wolf.
 
2012-12-12 03:06:57 PM  

HeadLever: Jamik137: but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left.

Uh, no. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America right now. Wolves as a species are listed as 'Least Concern' by IUCN.


He might mean Red Wolves.
 
2012-12-12 03:06:59 PM  

sp86: firefly212: Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.

That's cute and all, but you have to admit deer hunting is pretty easy.

Granted you won't see a 400 lb dude dragging a bambi out on his all terrain rascal any time soon ... I forgot where I was going with that but that mental image is hilarious.


Dunno, never hunted deer... just turkey and last season was my first for elk. To be fair, I only hunted turkey because I know a guy with a proper smokehouse, that and I hate turkeys, they're mean and aggressive little a-holes.
 
2012-12-12 03:07:07 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I still don't understand hunting, even when hunters aren't shooting popular animals. A bunch of fat, illiterate drunks stumble out into the woods at dawn, sit around in a wooden chair in the cold until mid-afternoon (or they get too drunk and fall out) and take potshots at wandering, defenseless wildlife in the meantime.

This is somehow "hunting".

When you manage to kill something by tracking it and fighting it to the death with your bare hands, I'll stop calling you fat, illiterate drunks and start calling you hunters. Not a moment sooner.

/ I'm just pissy because some fat, illiterate drunk was hunting in off-limits property behind my house a few years ago and put a bullet in my deck
// welcome to north-central PA.... I guess I should at least be glad he got out of his truck before he took the shot


Friend of my ex was walking in Centre county with her dog on leash. Both wearing blaze orange. Dog got killed and she lost an eye. Hunter got a small amount of time and ordered to pay restitution. He still hasn't payed much
 
2012-12-12 03:07:09 PM  

grasse: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

Well you did choose to live in a wolf populated area, it's not like they were put there after you moved.


You Trolling? Wolves were reintroduced to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana in 1995.

/been here longer than that
 
2012-12-12 03:07:52 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


Whatever. They do not decimate anything. There are only a few of them.

This argument makes me so angry. The people who move to the mountains and then are SHOCKED that there are mountain lions and bears piss me off beyond reason. You're an idiot If you move to the freaking mountains and then are surprised that a mountain lion eats your poodle or a bear gets into your hot tub. If you put a bunch of prey in a place where there are wolves, you shouldn't be surprised when a few get taken. I live where there are coyotes. None of my animals have been eaten by them because I take precautions and I'm not a farking idiot.
 
2012-12-12 03:08:00 PM  

firefly212: Hunting isn't stupid... if we didn't have deer hunters to thin the pack, the deer would get all kinds of sick...


Which is what wolves have been doing since the dawn of time.
 
2012-12-12 03:08:39 PM  

sp86: HeadLever: Jamik137: but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left.

Uh, no. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America right now. Wolves as a species are listed as 'Least Concern' by IUCN.

He might mean Red Wolves.


No, he is mistaking the current population of grey wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (about 1700 wolves) to be all that is left.
 
2012-12-12 03:08:51 PM  

firefly212: mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid

Hunting isn't stupid... if we didn't have deer hunters to thin the pack, the deer would get all kinds of sick... I was in MD when they banned it for a little while... I've never seen anything as sad as the consequences of that experiment... wasting diseases and starvation... it's pretty messed up what happens to their populations. As for elk hunting (which I did this year)... for the price of one elk tag, I can get enough meat to put in the deep freezer for several months, and the guy down in Fraser who dresses/carves them up gives 10-20 lbs of meat to a program that donates the (frozen) meat to poor families here in the mountains that need food. You say hunting is stupid, I say growing cows in torture-like conditions for years on end just so you can slaughter them en masse without needing to try as hard as hunters is stupid. Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.


In fairness, the reason we need hunters to thin deer herds is because hunters and urbanization wiped out most of their natural predators.

I'm all in favor of responsible hunting, but there's a long history of the irresponsible kind that is still going on.
 
2012-12-12 03:09:40 PM  

Glitchwerks: Smeggy Smurf: You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

That is a pile of bullshiat. There are more dog attacks than wolf attacks. Wolf attacks are exceedingly rare, in fact, as most wolves stay well away from humans.

Wolves don't decimate deer or elk herds either. They, in fact, cull the sick and weak from the herd. They also prevent the herds from overgrazing which in turn protects the environment for other wild life.

Wolf kills also feed many other animals.

To say that people are wolf prey is just astoundingly ignorant.


I think maybe he's thinking of coyotes... they're known to overdo hunting to the point they have no prey/food, they're pretty aggressive towards people too. You're spot on though about wolves... they don't want anything to do with people unless you leave trash out, in which case they're much like bears... curious and hungry, but if you turn on a light and yell at em, they'll go away.
 
2012-12-12 03:10:39 PM  

GoldSpider: Perhaps calling the police to report the inebriated trespasser would have done more to assuage your anger than has your futile hand-wringing.


Why would you assume I didn't? The odds of some drunken, trespassing hick in central PA getting caught for shooting at one guy's backyard from a heavily-forested area are pretty much nothing when he's just barely smart enough to realize he might not want to stick around, especially when you've only got two local cops and the staties don't really care.

firefly212: Because I am poor, I live in the mountains, I want food, and one dead elk provides for months of it.... the cost ends up being pennies per pound of meat.


<cartman>Haha, you're poor. </cartman>
 
2012-12-12 03:11:09 PM  

sp86: HeadLever: Jamik137: but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left.

Uh, no. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America right now. Wolves as a species are listed as 'Least Concern' by IUCN.

He might mean Red Wolves.


Red Wolverines?

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-12-12 03:12:27 PM  

Litig8r: grasse: Well you did choose to live in a wolf populated area, it's not like they were put there after you moved.

I feel the same about women who go to bars and then complain about being raped.


I was not aware that bars stood for Brick Abodes Rapists Stay... but if it did, then yes I would see your point.
 
2012-12-12 03:13:11 PM  

Wayne 985: firefly212: mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid

Hunting isn't stupid... if we didn't have deer hunters to thin the pack, the deer would get all kinds of sick... I was in MD when they banned it for a little while... I've never seen anything as sad as the consequences of that experiment... wasting diseases and starvation... it's pretty messed up what happens to their populations. As for elk hunting (which I did this year)... for the price of one elk tag, I can get enough meat to put in the deep freezer for several months, and the guy down in Fraser who dresses/carves them up gives 10-20 lbs of meat to a program that donates the (frozen) meat to poor families here in the mountains that need food. You say hunting is stupid, I say growing cows in torture-like conditions for years on end just so you can slaughter them en masse without needing to try as hard as hunters is stupid. Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.

In fairness, the reason we need hunters to thin deer herds is because hunters and urbanization wiped out most of their natural predators.

I'm all in favor of responsible hunting, but there's a long history of the irresponsible kind that is still going on.


I agree wholeheartedly about the need for hunting to be responsible... right now near where I live the cops are looking for a guy who killed a cow moose and three of her babies... that dude is gonna go to jail for a good long time, and very much deservedly so. Over-hunting animals totally jacks up the local systems, seeds and forestry things don't get spread by their poop, other animals don't have prey, underbrush doesn't get eaten by the lower herbivores... it just messes the whole balance of things up. Aside from that, I don't at all agree with the (common) practice of drinking while hunting... if there is anything that doesn't mix with gun safety, it's booze.
 
2012-12-12 03:13:12 PM  

HeadLever: grasse: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

Well you did choose to live in a wolf populated area, it's not like they were put there after you moved.

You Trolling? Wolves were reintroduced to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana in 1995.

/been here longer than that


Reintroduced after an aggressor took them all out... Oh wait that aggressor was humans
 
2012-12-12 03:13:13 PM  
thetrendboutique.files.wordpress.com

Much like Gary Busey and Rutger Hauer, I only hunt The Most Dangerous Game.

You can die from syphilis, you know.
 
2012-12-12 03:14:13 PM  

HeadLever: sp86: HeadLever: Jamik137: but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left.

Uh, no. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America right now. Wolves as a species are listed as 'Least Concern' by IUCN.

He might mean Red Wolves.

No, he is mistaking the current population of grey wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (about 1700 wolves) to be all that is left.


oh, he's a dumb shiat then.

probesport: sp86: HeadLever: Jamik137: but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left.

Uh, no. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America right now. Wolves as a species are listed as 'Least Concern' by IUCN.

He might mean Red Wolves.

Red Wolverines?

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]


ha.
 
2012-12-12 03:14:35 PM  

powtard: So, again, why the hate?


For me, it is not about hate, but about proper management. Wolf populations need to be kept in check along with big game populations and it also helps to keep them out of rancher's pastures.

Most folks here really don't hate the wolves. They just do what they do. They hate the fact that they were reintroduced by the feds when the population of the three states did not want them in the first place. More a matter of politics than anything.

Combine that with the radical enviro crowd suing at every opportunity and you have a recipe for a good ol divisive issue.
 
2012-12-12 03:15:18 PM  
I am reasonably calm about hunting despite the fact that hunters were always trespassing on my family's land and bullet holes ended up in my great uncle's porch but I still feel there are only certain reasons killing animals is okay:

1) Your life is in danger
2) Your property is in danger [like if a wolf was killing your animals]
3) You are going to eat it
4) Someone else is going to eat it

Trophies and showing off are not acceptable reasons for hunting. This shiat is stupid and they killed an alpha female. I hope they get caught and fined a lot of money.
 
2012-12-12 03:15:34 PM  
What did the wolves think was going to happen after they killed Gerald Ford?
 
2012-12-12 03:17:32 PM  

Gunny Highway: This is really disappointing.


you know it, man...huge story here in Montana. the two opposing sides are once again at each other's throats...i side with the wolves.
 
2012-12-12 03:18:17 PM  
R.I.P.
 
2012-12-12 03:18:53 PM  
If we didn't hunt deer, you'd be paying taxes to have them culled, and would lose the billions in hunting license fees that go toward management and conservation, not to mention the fact your crops would be decimated and you couldn't drive down a road in most rural areas.

I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.
 
2012-12-12 03:18:57 PM  

ChipNASA: R.I.P.


www.chicagonow.com
 
2012-12-12 03:21:14 PM  

please:
I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.


Atlatl?
 
2012-12-12 03:22:04 PM  

ChipNASA: ChipNASA: R.I.P.

[www.chicagonow.com image 522x368]


You don't know Jack . . .
 
2012-12-12 03:22:13 PM  

Braindeath: I am reasonably calm about hunting despite the fact that hunters were always trespassing on my family's land and bullet holes ended up in my great uncle's porch but I still feel there are only certain reasons killing animals is okay:

1) Your life is in danger
2) Your property is in danger [like if a wolf was killing your animals]
3) You are going to eat it
4) Someone else is going to eat it

Trophies and showing off are not acceptable reasons for hunting. This shiat is stupid and they killed an alpha female. I hope they get caught and fined a lot of money.


You forgot "when it is needed".

We've completely altered the environment these animals live in: we've eliminated predators, shrunk their habitats and put roads through what is left, and provided millions of acres of agriculture on which their populations can explode unchecked. Hunting is necessary and you're lucky there are still people left who are willing to do it (though that number shrinks rapidly every year).
 
2012-12-12 03:24:18 PM  

please: I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.


Why would you shoot a wolf? I am not here to argue I am actually curious.
 
2012-12-12 03:24:19 PM  

sp86: please:
I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.

Atlatl?


I'm looking into that actually.
 
2012-12-12 03:25:26 PM  

grasse: Reintroduced after an aggressor took them all out... Oh wait that aggressor was humans


Yep, the old time ranchers knew how devistating they could be on livestock.
 
kab
2012-12-12 03:25:57 PM  

Braindeath: Trophies and showing off are not acceptable reasons for hunting. This shiat is stupid and they killed an alpha female. I hope they get caught and fined a lot of money shot in the face.


Me too.
 
2012-12-12 03:26:31 PM  

meat0918: On one hand, this sucks.

On the other hand, you get less legitimacy for poachers (screwed up, I know) if there is a legal avenue for them to hunt.

//Wanted to smack a hunter that said there is an unwritten law in Oregon that if you see a wolf, you shoot it and never saw a word. What an asshole.


You wouldn't say that if wolves were on your property killing your animals.
 
2012-12-12 03:26:36 PM  

Gunny Highway: please: I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.

Why would you shoot a wolf? I am not here to argue I am actually curious.


Personally, I wouldn't, unless I was a property owner and they were nuisance animals, or unless their population was adversely affecting their prey numbers.

Sure, we could let them have at the prey unchecked, but in nature that often goes through peak and bust cycles that are wildly high and low, and if we can help manage that we should.
 
2012-12-12 03:26:43 PM  

firefly212:

Hunting isn't stupid... if we didn't have deer hunters to thin the pack, the deer would get all kinds of sick... I was in MD when they banned it for a little while... I've never seen anything as sad as the consequences of that experiment... wasting diseases and starvation... it's pretty messed up what happens to their populations. As for elk hunting (which I did this year)... for the price of one elk tag, I can get enough meat to put in the deep freezer for several months, and the guy down in Fraser who dresses/carves them up gives 10-20 lbs of meat to a program that donates the (frozen) meat to poor families here in the mountains that need food. You say hunting is stupid, I say growing cows in torture-like conditions for years on end just so you can slaughter them en masse without needing to try as hard as hunters is stupid. Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.


Always wanted to go elk hunting, but the hunters I know pay crazy money for tags and lodging, and I'd prefer to go with experienced elk hunters my first time out.
 
2012-12-12 03:27:06 PM  

HeadLever: grasse: Reintroduced after an aggressor took them all out... Oh wait that aggressor was humans

Yep, the old time ranchers knew how devistating they could be on livestock.


So they chose extincting a species over building better fences... Smart people! The wolves totally deserved it!
 
2012-12-12 03:27:33 PM  
I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument. Prey number falls as predator population increases. Insufficient prey leas to predator decrease due to famine and disease. decrease in predators leads to increase of prey. Increase of prey means increase of predators.
 
2012-12-12 03:28:45 PM  

grasse: HeadLever: grasse: Reintroduced after an aggressor took them all out... Oh wait that aggressor was humans

Yep, the old time ranchers knew how devistating they could be on livestock.

So they chose extincting a species over building better fences... Smart people! The wolves totally deserved it!


Who said anything about "extinct"? The number of tags granted are always heavily regulated.
 
2012-12-12 03:29:04 PM  

Gunny Highway: please: I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.

Why would you shoot a wolf? I am not here to argue I am actually curious.


For me it would be for the challenge of the hunt and general population control. Where I live elk populations have plummeted and the main cause is wolf depredation. It also helps out the local ranchers and a good pelt can bring you several hundred bucks.
 
2012-12-12 03:29:53 PM  

please: Gunny Highway: please: I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.

Why would you shoot a wolf? I am not here to argue I am actually curious.

Personally, I wouldn't, unless I was a property owner and they were nuisance animals, or unless their population was adversely affecting their prey numbers.

Sure, we could let them have at the prey unchecked, but in nature that often goes through peak and bust cycles that are wildly high and low, and if we can help manage that we should.


I haven't seen too many people in this thread who have a problem with hunting. People seem to understand that herd number have to be managed. What I, and others, are confused about is the killing of this wolf in this particular instance. We will have to wait for more facts to come out to see if the killing of the wolf was for a legitimate reason.
 
2012-12-12 03:30:52 PM  

please: grasse: HeadLever: grasse: Reintroduced after an aggressor took them all out... Oh wait that aggressor was humans

Yep, the old time ranchers knew how devistating they could be on livestock.

So they chose extincting a species over building better fences... Smart people! The wolves totally deserved it!

Who said anything about "extinct"? The number of tags granted are always heavily regulated.


I was talking about the old time ranchers, that nearly extincted the species and ran the wolves completely out of their natural habitats. That's why the wolves were reintroduced to the Yellowstone areas, so they could repopulate in a real environment.
 
2012-12-12 03:30:59 PM  

please: You forgot "when it is needed".

We've completely altered the environment these animals live in: we've eliminated predators, shrunk their habitats and put roads through what is left, and provided millions of acres of agriculture on which their populations can explode unchecked. Hunting is necessary and you're lucky there are still people left who are willing to do it (though that number shrinks rapidly every year).


And those predators were wolves.

Only the most ignorant Farker would suggest we outlaw hunting, but like police officers, people stereotype hunters. The image of people hunting for sustenance is replaced by the typical image of people ruthlessly killing everything in sight, a lot like that South Park episode.
 
2012-12-12 03:31:25 PM  

Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument. Prey number falls as predator population increases. Insufficient prey leas to predator decrease due to famine and disease. decrease in predators leads to increase of prey. Increase of prey means increase of predators.


Yes, having an over abundance of starving, diseased predators is way better than allowing hunting. O_o

Also, when that predator population is crashing and starving, do they think they go quietly into the night? They eat whatever they can when their prey is gone. Usually pets. I'm watching this happen with the northern Michigan coyote population right now, which is in its bust cycle. "Hide yo dogs, hide yo cats, coyotes stealing all the pets up in here!"
 
2012-12-12 03:32:08 PM  

please: sp86: please:
I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.

Atlatl?

I'm looking into that actually.


I couldn't get into that. I need the meat, I don't need an animal to suffer; it's the same reason I don't use a bow or take shiatty shots with my .30-06.
 
2012-12-12 03:32:12 PM  

HeadLever: Gunny Highway: please: I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.

Why would you shoot a wolf? I am not here to argue I am actually curious.

For me it would be for the challenge of the hunt and general population control. Where I live elk populations have plummeted and the main cause is wolf depredation. It also helps out the local ranchers and a good pelt can bring you several hundred bucks.


Is there a registration process for something like this? Is there ever a 'wolf season'? Are the environmental activists too strong in this case?
 
2012-12-12 03:32:30 PM  

grasse: So they chose extincting a species over building better fences...


#1 - obviously, wolves were never extinct
#2 - when you run livestock on public land, fences are a moot point
#3 - Ranch pastures are often set up for big game to winter in. You fence it off for wolves, you would fence it off for deer and elk as well.
 
2012-12-12 03:32:52 PM  

Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument.


What confuses me are my fellow hunters (in PA) who believe you should never, ever shoot doe because "they make the bucks" (not to mention the Game Commision's introduction of the "3 points on a side" rule for bucks) yet they still tell the public they hunt for "population control." Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers
 
2012-12-12 03:33:15 PM  

Gunny Highway: We will have to wait for more facts to come out to see if the killing of the wolf was for a legitimate reason.


More than likely, not. There are some hunters that specifically hunt collared wolves out of sheer spite.
 
2012-12-12 03:33:33 PM  

Glitchwerks: please: You forgot "when it is needed".

We've completely altered the environment these animals live in: we've eliminated predators, shrunk their habitats and put roads through what is left, and provided millions of acres of agriculture on which their populations can explode unchecked. Hunting is necessary and you're lucky there are still people left who are willing to do it (though that number shrinks rapidly every year).

And those predators were wolves.

Only the most ignorant Farker would suggest we outlaw hunting, but like police officers, people stereotype hunters. The image of people hunting for sustenance is replaced by the typical image of people ruthlessly killing everything in sight, a lot like that South Park episode.


I'm responding to posters above who were specifically discussing the fact that there is no merit whatsoever to any kind of hunting at all. Restoring predators is one of many steps to having a functional, healthy prey herd, but sometimes those predators need o be managed as well.
 
2012-12-12 03:34:22 PM  
good, now serving #358

//lude
 
2012-12-12 03:34:24 PM  

Glitchwerks: Gunny Highway: We will have to wait for more facts to come out to see if the killing of the wolf was for a legitimate reason.

More than likely, not. There are some hunters that specifically hunt collared wolves out of sheer spite.


Source?
 
2012-12-12 03:35:16 PM  

amindtat: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument.

What confuses me are my fellow hunters (in PA) who believe you should never, ever shoot doe because "they make the bucks" (not to mention the Game Commision's introduction of the "3 points on a side" rule for bucks) yet they still tell the public they hunt for "population control." Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers


Doe regulation is really the best way of controlling herd numbers. Antler restrictions are just for bigger antlers.
 
2012-12-12 03:35:48 PM  

jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.


That's a dairy cow. I think they keep those around for a few years.
 
2012-12-12 03:36:18 PM  

Gunny Highway: I, and others, are confused about is the killing of this wolf in this particular instance.


Some of the largest elk populaiton declines in the past decade or so have happened in the herds that are around Yellowstone.

Link
 
2012-12-12 03:37:39 PM  

mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid


They actually did in the story:

On Monday, Montana wildlife commissioners temporarily shut down the gray wolf hunting season in some areas outside Yellowstone, saying the move was a reaction to the killing of 832F and other tagged wolves that wandered out of the national park.
 
2012-12-12 03:38:24 PM  

please: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument. Prey number falls as predator population increases. Insufficient prey leas to predator decrease due to famine and disease. decrease in predators leads to increase of prey. Increase of prey means increase of predators.

Yes, having an over abundance of starving, diseased predators is way better than allowing hunting. O_o

Also, when that predator population is crashing and starving, do they think they go quietly into the night? They eat whatever they can when their prey is gone. Usually pets. I'm watching this happen with the northern Michigan coyote population right now, which is in its bust cycle. "Hide yo dogs, hide yo cats, coyotes stealing all the pets up in here!"


I never said it was pretty but it sorts itself out without human intervention.
 
2012-12-12 03:38:43 PM  

sp86: please: sp86: please:
I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.

Atlatl?

I'm looking into that actually.

I couldn't get into that. I need the meat, I don't need an animal to suffer; it's the same reason I don't use a bow or take shiatty shots with my .30-06.


I never said I would try it without being proficient.
 
2012-12-12 03:40:18 PM  

HeadLever: Gunny Highway: I, and others, are confused about is the killing of this wolf in this particular instance.

Some of the largest elk populaiton declines in the past decade or so have happened in the herds that are around Yellowstone.

Link


Did you read that article?
 
2012-12-12 03:40:40 PM  

Glitchwerks: More than likely, not. There are some hunters that specifically hunt collared wolves out of sheer spite.


I think I'm safe in assuming you just made that up.
 
2012-12-12 03:41:04 PM  

Maggie_Luna: please: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument. Prey number falls as predator population increases. Insufficient prey leas to predator decrease due to famine and disease. decrease in predators leads to increase of prey. Increase of prey means increase of predators.

Yes, having an over abundance of starving, diseased predators is way better than allowing hunting. O_o

Also, when that predator population is crashing and starving, do they think they go quietly into the night? They eat whatever they can when their prey is gone. Usually pets. I'm watching this happen with the northern Michigan coyote population right now, which is in its bust cycle. "Hide yo dogs, hide yo cats, coyotes stealing all the pets up in here!"

I never said it was pretty but it sorts itself out without human intervention.


That would be great if their on Isle Royal, but most aren't - they live in a habit we've altered. If we want to hunt them (we do) then we have to be their stewards.

Also, think how well your cunning plan would go over if people are already anthropomorphizing them with names like Rock Star.
 
2012-12-12 03:42:34 PM  

Maggie_Luna: please: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument. Prey number falls as predator population increases. Insufficient prey leas to predator decrease due to famine and disease. decrease in predators leads to increase of prey. Increase of prey means increase of predators.

Yes, having an over abundance of starving, diseased predators is way better than allowing hunting. O_o

Also, when that predator population is crashing and starving, do they think they go quietly into the night? They eat whatever they can when their prey is gone. Usually pets. I'm watching this happen with the northern Michigan coyote population right now, which is in its bust cycle. "Hide yo dogs, hide yo cats, coyotes stealing all the pets up in here!"

I never said it was pretty but it sorts itself out without human intervention.


Given the potential for wolves to become Commensalistic to compensate for overpopulation "letting nature sort itself out" is not an acceptable long term solution.
 
2012-12-12 03:44:06 PM  

please: sp86: please: sp86: please:
I was about to defend the way I hunt, which is traditional, but you know what, fark that - if you don't hunt, have no idea what it is about and why it is important, and spout the ignorant nonsense like I see in these types of threads there is no convincing you, and I shouldn't have to and don't need to anyway.

Atlatl?

I'm looking into that actually.

I couldn't get into that. I need the meat, I don't need an animal to suffer; it's the same reason I don't use a bow or take shiatty shots with my .30-06.

I never said I would try it without being proficient.


My old man is one of the best shots with a bow I've ever seen, and I still end up tracking deer for him. No matter your proficiency there's a margin for error associated with less efficient harvest methods that I find unacceptable.
 
2012-12-12 03:44:22 PM  

please: Source?


I read it in one of the articles about this incident in the past day or so. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the article, but I'll keep looking.
 
2012-12-12 03:44:24 PM  

sp86: Maggie_Luna: please: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument. Prey number falls as predator population increases. Insufficient prey leas to predator decrease due to famine and disease. decrease in predators leads to increase of prey. Increase of prey means increase of predators.

Yes, having an over abundance of starving, diseased predators is way better than allowing hunting. O_o

Also, when that predator population is crashing and starving, do they think they go quietly into the night? They eat whatever they can when their prey is gone. Usually pets. I'm watching this happen with the northern Michigan coyote population right now, which is in its bust cycle. "Hide yo dogs, hide yo cats, coyotes stealing all the pets up in here!"

I never said it was pretty but it sorts itself out without human intervention.

Given the potential for wolves to become Commensalistic to compensate for overpopulation "letting nature sort itself out" is not an acceptable long term solution.


Bingo.

And why would anyone who claims to respect and care for these animals let it come to that anyway? When it comes to starvation and disease an arrow or a bullet is a god-send.
 
2012-12-12 03:44:45 PM  

amindtat: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument.

What confuses me are my fellow hunters (in PA) who believe you should never, ever shoot doe because "they make the bucks" (not to mention the Game Commision's introduction of the "3 points on a side" rule for bucks) yet they still tell the public they hunt for "population control." Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers


.....you can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you seem.

3 points per side gives the hunter some idea of the maturity and health of the animal. Admittedly not a very good one but it's not like you can check it's teeth before shooting it is it?

Not shooting does avoids killing an animal that may be carrying or caring for an adolescent deer that will one day grow into an adult which can be harvested for food.
 
2012-12-12 03:45:54 PM  

Glitchwerks: please: Source?

I read it in one of the articles about this incident in the past day or so. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the article, but I'll keep looking.


I'm just giving you a hard time. I know some jerks have a hardon for wolves. But it isn't accurate or even cool to paint all hunters with a broad brush.
 
2012-12-12 03:46:01 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-12 03:47:30 PM  

Egoy3k: amindtat: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument.

What confuses me are my fellow hunters (in PA) who believe you should never, ever shoot doe because "they make the bucks" (not to mention the Game Commision's introduction of the "3 points on a side" rule for bucks) yet they still tell the public they hunt for "population control." Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers

.....you can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you seem.

3 points per side gives the hunter some idea of the maturity and health of the animal. Admittedly not a very good one but it's not like you can check it's teeth before shooting it is it?

Not shooting does avoids killing an animal that may be carrying or caring for an adolescent deer that will one day grow into an adult which can be harvested for food.


Good points.

I took a button buck this year that i thought was a doe. It happens. I made up for it two weeks later with a ten point though. :)
 
2012-12-12 03:49:17 PM  

jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.


A cow is a domesticated food animal, a wolf is a wild predator.
 
2012-12-12 03:50:26 PM  

Gunny Highway:
Is there a registration process for something like this? Is there ever a 'wolf season'? Are the environmental activists too strong in this case?


It has been a complicated and convoluted process to get where we are now. Much too complicated to get into much detail here. However, to answer your questions, anyone can hunt wolves in Idaho/Montana/Wyoming as these are general tags (purchased over the counter), however many areas within the states have quotas on the number of wolves that can be killed. It is the hunters responsibility to know if the quota has been filled. Here is Idaho's information page

The environmentallist went so far overboard that they kept winning all the battles, but lost the war. Originally, the plan was to delist wolves when there were 300 between the 3 states and turn them over to state management. Well that plan was quickly shot down by lawsuits. Even when the population exceeded 1500 wolves, they kept filing lawsuits until Tester (D-MT) and Simpson (R-ID) added a rider to a budget bill that delisted the wolves and barred any and all judicial review.
 
2012-12-12 03:50:33 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: firefly212:

Hunting isn't stupid... if we didn't have deer hunters to thin the pack, the deer would get all kinds of sick... I was in MD when they banned it for a little while... I've never seen anything as sad as the consequences of that experiment... wasting diseases and starvation... it's pretty messed up what happens to their populations. As for elk hunting (which I did this year)... for the price of one elk tag, I can get enough meat to put in the deep freezer for several months, and the guy down in Fraser who dresses/carves them up gives 10-20 lbs of meat to a program that donates the (frozen) meat to poor families here in the mountains that need food. You say hunting is stupid, I say growing cows in torture-like conditions for years on end just so you can slaughter them en masse without needing to try as hard as hunters is stupid. Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.

Always wanted to go elk hunting, but the hunters I know pay crazy money for tags and lodging, and I'd prefer to go with experienced elk hunters my first time out.


It is fun... here in CO, tags aren't too expensive (about 50 bucks), and I like camping, so the lodging gets carried on my back. All that said, there's still the possibility that you'll spend money on the tag and not end up getting an elk. Before you go hunt though, get good with your gun... if you don't kill it quickly with one well-placed shot, you're just being a dick. Also, do go with experienced hunters... aside from it being more fun as a group, they'll impart random information about how to better track animals.
 
2012-12-12 03:50:43 PM  
Found it:

http://news.yahoo.com/yellowstone-wolf-shootings-draw-scrutiny-mont-1 4 2702644.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CZW7chQiFUAvLDQtDMD

Marc Cooke with the group Wolves of the Rockies alleged hunters were targeting collared animals, either for bragging rights or out of spite for wolf restoration in the Northern Rockies.
 
2012-12-12 03:52:14 PM  

HeadLever: Gunny Highway:
Is there a registration process for something like this? Is there ever a 'wolf season'? Are the environmental activists too strong in this case?

It has been a complicated and convoluted process to get where we are now. Much too complicated to get into much detail here. However, to answer your questions, anyone can hunt wolves in Idaho/Montana/Wyoming as these are general tags (purchased over the counter), however many areas within the states have quotas on the number of wolves that can be killed. It is the hunters responsibility to know if the quota has been filled. Here is Idaho's information page

The environmentallist went so far overboard that they kept winning all the battles, but lost the war. Originally, the plan was to delist wolves when there were 300 between the 3 states and turn them over to state management. Well that plan was quickly shot down by lawsuits. Even when the population exceeded 1500 wolves, they kept filing lawsuits until Tester (D-MT) and Simpson (R-ID) added a rider to a budget bill that delisted the wolves and barred any and all judicial review.


Interesting. Thanks.
 
2012-12-12 03:53:05 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I still don't understand hunting, even when hunters aren't shooting popular animals. A bunch of fat, illiterate drunks stumble out into the woods at dawn, sit around in a wooden chair in the cold until mid-afternoon (or they get too drunk and fall out) and take potshots at wandering, defenseless wildlife in the meantime.

This is somehow "hunting".

When you manage to kill something by tracking it and fighting it to the death with your bare hands, I'll stop calling you fat, illiterate drunks and start calling you hunters. Not a moment sooner.


That's my take too. You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon. i don't get a thrill when I step on spiders.
 
2012-12-12 03:53:32 PM  

please: I'm just giving you a hard time. I know some jerks have a hardon for wolves. But it isn't accurate or even cool to paint all hunters with a broad brush.


I'm not trying to do that. I have no problem with hunting. I believe it's a few bad apples that are spoiling the bunch. Someone related a story on Fark about someone they knew stumbling across a wolf den and killing every last one of them. Those are the types of people who are scum.
 
2012-12-12 03:55:48 PM  

Glitchwerks: http://news.yahoo.com/yellowstone-wolf-shootings-draw-scrutiny-mont-1 4 2702644.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CZW7chQiFUAvLDQtDMD


Here's that link so it works:
http://news.yahoo.com/yellowstone-wolf-shootings-draw-scrutiny-mont-1 4 2702644.html

It's quoting a wolf advocacy group spokesman who is speculating. :/

Also, the article notes that in those three states, over 250 wolves have been taken. 8 had collars. :|
 
2012-12-12 03:56:54 PM  

Gunny Highway: HeadLever: Gunny Highway: I, and others, are confused about is the killing of this wolf in this particular instance.

Some of the largest elk populaiton declines in the past decade or so have happened in the herds that are around Yellowstone.

Link

Did you read that article?


Yep. I am well aware that wolves are not the only cause. They are one of the main causes, though.

As for the continuing decline of the herds, they want to look at the cow:calf ratios. That has been a problem here in Idaho. A skewed older animal ratio will cause populations of elk to diminish even after other pressures decrease.
 
2012-12-12 03:57:11 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7482624/81243001#c81243001" target="_blank">Glitchwerks</a>:</b> <i>please: I'm just giving you a hard time. I know some jerks have a hardon for wolves. But it isn't accurate or even cool to paint all hunters with a broad brush.

I'm not trying to do that. I have no problem with hunting. I believe it's a few bad apples that are spoiling the bunch. <b>Someone related a story on Fark</b> about someone they knew stumbling across a wolf den and killing every last one of them. Those are the types of people who are scum.</i>

<facepalm image>
then
<you're not helping image>
 
2012-12-12 03:58:14 PM  

firefly212:
It is fun... here in CO, tags aren't too expensive (about 50 bucks), and I like camping, so the lodging gets carried on my back. All that said, there's still the possibility that you'll spend money on the tag and not end up getting an elk. Before you go hunt though, get good with your gun... if you don't kill it quickly with one well-placed shot, you're just being a dick. Also, do go with experienced hunters... aside from it being more fun as a group, they'll impart random information about how to better track animals.


Hmm, they head to Utah but I have some friends in CO, so I'll have to investigate that avenue. $50 is a pittance, and while I'd like to actually get an elk, a lot of the fun is just being out there and away from technology and the daily grind. lol Definitely plan on getting more proficient and grouping with experienced hunters is a must, it made a huge difference for my first few dove hunts compared to other stories I've heard.

/CSB
 
2012-12-12 03:58:29 PM  

Litig8r: grasse: Well you did choose to live in a wolf populated area, it's not like they were put there after you moved.

I feel the same about women who go to bars and then complain about being raped.


Bad analogy or worse analogy ever?
 
2012-12-12 03:58:43 PM  

amindtat: Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers


I already responded to this but I just thought of another point

You must not know many hunters. I don't hunt myself since I never had anyone to teach me as a kid, don't particularly like the taste of deer, moose licenses are rare (picked in a 'lottery' around here) and I don't have the equipment to handle a moose carcass in any event but I know a lot of hunters. Hey I gotta get my moose meat somehow. Anyway none of the hunters I know has any antlers or heads on display even at their hunting camps. This is mostly because taxidermy is expensive (in the case of heads)and they shoot the first buck they see in the interest of ensuring their food supply, and getting out of the usually miserable Nova Scotian weather as soon as possible.
 
2012-12-12 03:58:52 PM  
Yum.....Popular wolf Jerky.

Time to start opening up the hunts all over the west. Too damn many wolves already left Jellystone.
 
2012-12-12 03:59:07 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


You've got be farking kidding me. There are, what, a little more than 1,000 wolves in the vicinity of Yellowstone? Compared to how many millions of cattle? Surely some way can be found to compensate ranchers for their losses without completely destroying the natural ecosystem. I think we can afford to pay a fractional penny more per ton of beef if that's what it takes to keep the wilderness wild.

As for "decimating" deer, elk, and other wildlife. Well, yeah. That's what wolves are supposed to do.
 
2012-12-12 03:59:17 PM  
*worst

/shiat
 
2012-12-12 03:59:25 PM  
I understand the legitimate reasons for allowing hunting, but having met some avid hunters, I don't think most of them truly give a shiat about them.
I think they use it as a good excuse to justify their love of shooting and killing things.
After all, what good is having all those awesome guns if you can't kill something with them?
 
2012-12-12 04:01:21 PM  

Gawdzila: I understand the legitimate reasons for allowing hunting, but having met some avid hunters, I don't think most of them truly give a shiat about them.
I think they use it as a good excuse to justify their love of shooting and killing things.
After all, what good is having all those awesome guns if you can't kill something with them?


Who are these avid hunters you've met? Friends, family, people in a Fark thread? Nobody I know has a love of shooting and killing things, they like to eat venison.
 
2012-12-12 04:02:25 PM  

please: <you're not helping image>


What part of that do you have a problem with? I said I believe it's a few people who are causing a problem, and relayed an example that was posted on Fark.

Those types of things happen, and that's how people get a bad image of hunters.

If I said all hunters did things like that, maybe you'd have a point, but I'm clearly not doing that.

please: It's quoting a wolf advocacy group spokesman who is speculating. :/

Also, the article notes that in those three states, over 250 wolves have been taken. 8 had collars. :|


Forgive me for not verifying everything I read, Jesus Christ. You are giving me a hard time for no reason.
 
2012-12-12 04:04:08 PM  

browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.


Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.
 
2012-12-12 04:05:24 PM  

Gawdzila: I understand the legitimate reasons for allowing hunting, but having met some avid hunters, I don't think most of them truly give a shiat about them.
I think they use it as a good excuse to justify their love of shooting and killing things.
After all, what good is having all those awesome guns if you can't kill something with them?


I go on a dove hunt every year. My family enjoys the bacon-wrapped, green chili/jalapeno dove meat, as do a number of my friends. I don't even use my awesome guns to kill them with, just a simple Beretta shotgun.

/CSB
 
2012-12-12 04:05:49 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.
 
2012-12-12 04:07:17 PM  

heidinoele: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

Whatever. They do not decimate anything. There are only a few of them.

This argument makes me so angry. The people who move to the mountains and then are SHOCKED that there are mountain lions and bears piss me off beyond reason. You're an idiot If you move to the freaking mountains and then are surprised that a mountain lion eats your poodle or a bear gets into your hot tub. If you put a bunch of prey in a place where there are wolves, you shouldn't be surprised when a few get taken. I live where there are coyotes. None of my animals have been eaten by them because I take precautions and I'm not a farking idiot.


Heh, I live in Illinois and a hidden camera got pictures of a cougar on one of our pick trails last year. Here kitty, kitty, kitty.
 
2012-12-12 04:07:33 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com 

/Pic of the hunter?
//IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!
 
2012-12-12 04:08:08 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

R.I.P.
 
2012-12-12 04:08:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.


And I just noticed this part, and the stupid now burns.
 
2012-12-12 04:09:00 PM  

Glitchwerks: Marc Cooke with the group Wolves of the Rockies alleged hunters were targeting collared animals, either for bragging rights or out of spite for wolf restoration in the Northern Rockies.


Not exactly rock-solid, but even if it's true, seems like a douchebaggy thing to do.
 
2012-12-12 04:10:07 PM  
How does a wolf become alpha with a big dorky transmitter around its neck?
 
2012-12-12 04:11:23 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: heidinoele: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

Whatever. They do not decimate anything. There are only a few of them.

This argument makes me so angry. The people who move to the mountains and then are SHOCKED that there are mountain lions and bears piss me off beyond reason. You're an idiot If you move to the freaking mountains and then are surprised that a mountain lion eats your poodle or a bear gets into your hot tub. If you put a bunch of prey in a place where there are wolves, you shouldn't be surprised when a few get taken. I live where there are coyotes. None of my animals have been eaten by them because I take precautions and I'm not a farking idiot.

Heh, I live in Illinois and a hidden camera got pictures of a cougar on one of our pick trails last year. Here kitty, kitty, kitty.


More and more being seen i michigan now too, pretty cool:
http://www.freep.com/article/20121128/NEWS06/121128046/Michigan-DNR-v e rifies-3-Upper-Peninsula-cougar-photos
 
2012-12-12 04:14:22 PM  

mortimer_ford: How does a wolf become alpha with a big dorky transmitter around its neck?


No kidding, they might as well just put giant orthodontic retainers on them. "ERMAHGERD, HUNTERS!!"
 
2012-12-12 04:14:22 PM  

mortimer_ford: How does a wolf become alpha with a big dorky transmitter around its neck?


Maybe she cut an album.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-12 04:14:44 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.

And I just noticed this part, and the stupid now burns.


I think he got that from the award winning national geographic documentary, The Gray.
 
2012-12-12 04:15:33 PM  

superdude72: Compared to how many millions of cattle? Surely some way can be found to compensate ranchers for their losses without completely destroying the natural ecosystem.


They have. however, it is only good if you can prove that it was a wolf kill via a necropsy. also, the hunting season seems to keep most of the wolves away from the ranches during the fall/winter/spring. Seems to be working out pretty well.

As for "decimating" deer, elk, and other wildlife. Well, yeah. That's what wolves are supposed to do.

No, wolves were never supposed to decimate these populations. Controlled predation is fine, but when the depredation ends up drastically reducing big game herds, this hits the State Wildlife Agencies (and most conservation programs) right in the pocketbook. Best to keep a small population of wolves and a larger prey base where you can continue to issue hunting tags and keep that revenue flowing to state wildlife managemnt agencies.
 
2012-12-12 04:15:46 PM  

please: mortimer_ford: How does a wolf become alpha with a big dorky transmitter around its neck?

No kidding, they might as well just put giant orthodontic retainers on them. "ERMAHGERD, HUNTERS!!"


By kicking ass. You're not going to be laughing at the guy with braces after he beats your face in.
 
2012-12-12 04:16:15 PM  

buck1138: Keizer_Ghidorah: Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.

And I just noticed this part, and the stupid now burns.

I think he got that from the award winning national geographic documentary, The Gray.


I haven't watched "Wolf-Puncher" yet, how is it?
 
2012-12-12 04:19:13 PM  

HeadLever: superdude72: Compared to how many millions of cattle? Surely some way can be found to compensate ranchers for their losses without completely destroying the natural ecosystem.

They have. however, it is only good if you can prove that it was a wolf kill via a necropsy. also, the hunting season seems to keep most of the wolves away from the ranches during the fall/winter/spring. Seems to be working out pretty well.

As for "decimating" deer, elk, and other wildlife. Well, yeah. That's what wolves are supposed to do.

No, wolves were never supposed to decimate these populations. Controlled predation is fine, but when the depredation ends up drastically reducing big game herds, this hits the State Wildlife Agencies (and most conservation programs) right in the pocketbook. Best to keep a small population of wolves and a larger prey base where you can continue to issue hunting tags and keep that revenue flowing to state wildlife managemnt agencies.


According to your article the populations of both groups are getting smaller. There are more factors than just the wolves at play here.

I will admit that you know a lot more about the subject than I do so I may be off base. It just seems that the wolves are being blamed for a larger problem.
 
2012-12-12 04:19:36 PM  
w65.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-12 04:19:59 PM  

HeadLever: superdude72: Compared to how many millions of cattle? Surely some way can be found to compensate ranchers for their losses without completely destroying the natural ecosystem.

They have. however, it is only good if you can prove that it was a wolf kill via a necropsy. also, the hunting season seems to keep most of the wolves away from the ranches during the fall/winter/spring. Seems to be working out pretty well.

As for "decimating" deer, elk, and other wildlife. Well, yeah. That's what wolves are supposed to do.

No, wolves were never supposed to decimate these populations. Controlled predation is fine, but when the depredation ends up drastically reducing big game herds, this hits the State Wildlife Agencies (and most conservation programs) right in the pocketbook. Best to keep a small population of wolves and a larger prey base where you can continue to issue hunting tags and keep that revenue flowing to state wildlife managemnt agencies.


Do you know what the word decimate means?
 
2012-12-12 04:20:12 PM  

HeadLever: superdude72: Compared to how many millions of cattle? Surely some way can be found to compensate ranchers for their losses without completely destroying the natural ecosystem.

They have. however, it is only good if you can prove that it was a wolf kill via a necropsy. also, the hunting season seems to keep most of the wolves away from the ranches during the fall/winter/spring. Seems to be working out pretty well.

As for "decimating" deer, elk, and other wildlife. Well, yeah. That's what wolves are supposed to do.

No, wolves were never supposed to decimate these populations. Controlled predation is fine, but when the depredation ends up drastically reducing big game herds, this hits the State Wildlife Agencies (and most conservation programs) right in the pocketbook. Best to keep a small population of wolves and a larger prey base where you can continue to issue hunting tags and keep that revenue flowing to state wildlife managemnt agencies.


Of course, if we'd stop carving up the land into small chunks of land where wildlife is forced to be crowded into, maybe we wouldn't have to slaughter the predators. The whole predator-prey relationship worked for billions of years, and still works today where nature has room and is left alone.
 
2012-12-12 04:21:09 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Smegg
I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.


Actually, this point is legitimate. Here in Idaho, wolves are one of the main causes of declines in big game populations to the point where hunting tags were drastically reduced and in some cases, completley eliminated from certain areas. This not only pisses off hunters, but this also reduces revenue to the state which typically spends this money on wildlife and conservation type programs.
 
2012-12-12 04:21:23 PM  

browntimmy: Vegan Meat Popsicle: I still don't understand hunting, even when hunters aren't shooting popular animals. A bunch of fat, illiterate drunks stumble out into the woods at dawn, sit around in a wooden chair in the cold until mid-afternoon (or they get too drunk and fall out) and take potshots at wandering, defenseless wildlife in the meantime.

This is somehow "hunting".

When you manage to kill something by tracking it and fighting it to the death with your bare hands, I'll stop calling you fat, illiterate drunks and start calling you hunters. Not a moment sooner.


That's my take too. You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon. i don't get a thrill when I step on spiders.


I'm gay, I could give two farks about your "manliness points," but they aren't even worth that much. Hunt for food or population control... other than that, it's all just asshattery... That said, I'm not going to be bullied by someone who feels morally superior because they simply use their money to employ people to keep animals in concentration camp like conditions until they heads smashed in before someone carves them up in a far-away place and has their ground up innards sent to them via truck. There's no nice way to get any kind of meat, at least hunters are honest about it.
 
2012-12-12 04:27:01 PM  

firefly212: browntimmy: Vegan Meat Popsicle: I still don't understand hunting, even when hunters aren't shooting popular animals. A bunch of fat, illiterate drunks stumble out into the woods at dawn, sit around in a wooden chair in the cold until mid-afternoon (or they get too drunk and fall out) and take potshots at wandering, defenseless wildlife in the meantime.

This is somehow "hunting".

When you manage to kill something by tracking it and fighting it to the death with your bare hands, I'll stop calling you fat, illiterate drunks and start calling you hunters. Not a moment sooner.


That's my take too. You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon. i don't get a thrill when I step on spiders.

I'm gay, I could give two farks about your "manliness points," but they aren't even worth that much. Hunt for food or population control... other than that, it's all just asshattery... That said, I'm not going to be bullied by someone who feels morally superior because they simply use their money to employ people to keep animals in concentration camp like conditions until they heads smashed in before someone carves them up in a far-away place and has their ground up innards sent to them via truck. There's no nice way to get any kind of meat, at least hunters are honest about it.


Nah guy, he's right, clearly the manliest of men descend into the deepest, darkest forests and do battle with the brutal tofu, carving the beastly beans in twain with naught but the glint of light shining off their pecs and a mean look.

/Brutal Tofu would be a weaksauce metal band
 
2012-12-12 04:27:43 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: please: mortimer_ford: How does a wolf become alpha with a big dorky transmitter around its neck?

No kidding, they might as well just put giant orthodontic retainers on them. "ERMAHGERD, HUNTERS!!"

By kicking ass. You're not going to be laughing at the guy with braces after he beats your face in.


You gotta admit it would be a solid threat. "I'm going to tear you a new asshole, record the GPS of where it happened and send the details to the University of Idaho."
 
2012-12-12 04:28:34 PM  

Gunny Highway: According to your article the populations of both groups are getting smaller. There are more factors than just the wolves at play here.


That is for the Northern Yellowstone Herd in Montana. Here in Idaho, populations of wolves have been pretty steady for the last few years and elk populations have also leveld out some. From my persepctive, elk are changing thier habits quite a bit and hunting is keeping wolves pushed up into the backcountry. This is best for both species. More elk and less conflict with wolves.

You are right that there are more factors than just wolves, but as I have said, wolves are a big part of the equation. Another point that is missed is that during the mid 90s, there were too many elk around in many of these areas. Pretty much the same issues as Rocky Mountain National Park is going through right now. There needed to be a decline in many of these populations. However, in many cases, this went too far.
 
2012-12-12 04:29:55 PM  

HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.


How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?
 
2012-12-12 04:30:05 PM  
Wow good job. You killed something that couldn't defend itself. Congrats.
 
2012-12-12 04:32:25 PM  

browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?


Squirrels go in stew. Raccoons are the ones that get made into trophies:

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-12 04:32:32 PM  

browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?


If all I squish is the head I'll pick it up, take it home and put it in the freezer with the rest. Why waste it?
 
2012-12-12 04:33:25 PM  

sp86: browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?

Squirrels go in stew. Raccoons are the ones that get made into trophies:

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x403]


That is quite possibly the most awesome thing I have ever seen anywhere. *Save as...*
 
2012-12-12 04:34:37 PM  

sp86: browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?

Squirrels go in stew. Raccoons are the ones that get made into trophies:

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x403]


You might be a redneck.
 
2012-12-12 04:34:51 PM  

please: browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?

If all I squish is the head I'll pick it up, take it home and put it in the freezer with the rest. Why waste it?


images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-12 04:35:59 PM  

sp86: browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?

Squirrels go in stew. Raccoons are the ones that get made into trophies:

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x403]


and actually there is some pretty sweet squirrel taxidermy out there too, ninja moves, etc. Mounted squirrels go for more then you'd think too - they are small and goofy enough that people are willing to get them for kitsch value.

I should be getting the cape from my 10 point back in the spring, hair on. Can't wait, never had a cape done before!
 
2012-12-12 04:36:00 PM  

HeadLever: Keizer_Ghidorah: Smegg
I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.

Actually, this point is legitimate. Here in Idaho, wolves are one of the main causes of declines in big game populations to the point where hunting tags were drastically reduced and in some cases, completley eliminated from certain areas. This not only pisses off hunters, but this also reduces revenue to the state which typically spends this money on wildlife and conservation type programs.


Probably because of the limited space for wildlife to live in as well as humans hunting the elk as well. You can't blame the wolves for doing what they've been doing for a few million years.
 
2012-12-12 04:36:01 PM  

jshine: So, we can kill these by the millions:
[www.saawinternational.org image 425x319]

...yet wolves are different somehow? Why? Whats the difference -- aside from how much wolves look like domestic pets.


Do the hunters eat the wolf? I justify the killing of cows with the creation of leather and hamburgers.
 
2012-12-12 04:36:13 PM  

browntimmy: Fun activity?


Not for me.

Now fill a farmer's field full of Ground Squirrels and I'll perform extermination duties till the sun goes down.
 
2012-12-12 04:38:01 PM  

browntimmy: sp86: browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?

Squirrels go in stew. Raccoons are the ones that get made into trophies:

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x403]

You might be a redneck.


I'm from Wisconsin, I'm not a Redneck I'm a Snow-Honkey.
 
2012-12-12 04:43:11 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: HeadLever: Keizer_Ghidorah: Smegg
I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.

Actually, this point is legitimate. Here in Idaho, wolves are one of the main causes of declines in big game populations to the point where hunting tags were drastically reduced and in some cases, completley eliminated from certain areas. This not only pisses off hunters, but this also reduces revenue to the state which typically spends this money on wildlife and conservation type programs.

Probably because of the limited space for wildlife to live in as well as humans hunting the elk as well. You can't blame the wolves for doing what they've been doing for a few million years.


Not sure if you are familiar with the Western US or not, but most of the land out here is public (no development). The county I grew up in is about the size of Connecticut, has a population of about 400 people and is 97% owned by the federal government. the space that wildlife has here is not really 'limited' in any sense of the word.

And no one is blaming the wolves for doing what they do. Thier population just need to be managed as with any other big game animal species.
 
2012-12-12 04:43:17 PM  
Is this the thread where people demonstrate that if they had been born 10,000 years ago they wouldn't have survived childhood?
 
2012-12-12 04:44:42 PM  

trappedspirit: Is this the thread where people demonstrate that if they had been born 10,000 years ago they wouldn't have survived childhood?


To be fair a significant percentage didn't anyways.
 
2012-12-12 04:45:45 PM  

sp86: browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?

Squirrels go in stew. Raccoons are the ones that get made into trophies:

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x403]


There are recipes for raccoons.

The book you need you may want to look at is "Cooking the sportsman's harvest"

/FYI I'm not a hunter but, I do understand why people do to help feed their families. People who hunt for sport are jackasses in my eyes. I won't kill anything if I can avoid it. For survival its a great skill to have.
 
2012-12-12 04:47:16 PM  

HeadLever: Keizer_Ghidorah: HeadLever: Keizer_Ghidorah: Smegg
I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.

Actually, this point is legitimate. Here in Idaho, wolves are one of the main causes of declines in big game populations to the point where hunting tags were drastically reduced and in some cases, completley eliminated from certain areas. This not only pisses off hunters, but this also reduces revenue to the state which typically spends this money on wildlife and conservation type programs.

Probably because of the limited space for wildlife to live in as well as humans hunting the elk as well. You can't blame the wolves for doing what they've been doing for a few million years.

Not sure if you are familiar with the Western US or not, but most of the land out here is public (no development). The county I grew up in is about the size of Connecticut, has a population of about 400 people and is 97% owned by the federal government. the space that wildlife has here is not really 'limited' in any sense of the word.

And no one is blaming the wolves for doing what they do. Thier population just need to be managed as with any other big game animal species.


Not really. Nature did an excellent job of it before humans ever appeared, and had been for a couple billion years. "Manage" means "keeping them where humans desire so we can exploit them as needed".
 
2012-12-12 04:49:15 PM  

Evil Mackerel: sp86: browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?

Squirrels go in stew. Raccoons are the ones that get made into trophies:

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x403]

There are recipes for raccoons.

The book you need you may want to look at is "Cooking the sportsman's harvest"

/FYI I'm not a hunter but, I do understand why people do to help feed their families. People who hunt for sport are jackasses in my eyes. I won't kill anything if I can avoid it. For survival its a great skill to have.


Given the sheer amount of parasites raccoons carry it hardly seems worth the risk. My dad told me they make decent pets, though.

/Named her Princess
//The pictures are hilarious
 
2012-12-12 04:49:58 PM  

grasse: Well you did choose to live in a wolf populated area, it's not like they were put there after you moved.


That's exactly what it was like.
 
2012-12-12 04:53:43 PM  

sp86: Evil Mackerel: sp86: browntimmy: HeadLever: browntimmy: You get zero manliness points for hunting when the only danger is you being an idiot with your weapon.

Being sucessfull is all we need for us to be happy with the results. Arbitrary points given by anonomyous posters on a social website is not why folks hunt. You can take your manliness points and keep them in your mom's basement for all we care.

How about running over a squirrel with your car? Fun activity? Do you make a trophy out of it?

Squirrels go in stew. Raccoons are the ones that get made into trophies:

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x403]

There are recipes for raccoons.

The book you need you may want to look at is "Cooking the sportsman's harvest"

/FYI I'm not a hunter but, I do understand why people do to help feed their families. People who hunt for sport are jackasses in my eyes. I won't kill anything if I can avoid it. For survival its a great skill to have.

Given the sheer amount of parasites raccoons carry it hardly seems worth the risk. My dad told me they make decent pets, though.

/Named her Princess
//The pictures are hilarious


I eat most things in the forest with exception of raccoons and opossums. Opossums smell terrible, don;t even ant to know how they taste, and raccoons are RIDDLED with parasites. They make cool pets but usually get the call of the wild and disappear at some point. You don't want to be around them when they get that call.
 
2012-12-12 04:54:33 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.



I don't live in the big city. I live in the Rockies, about 3 miles from the gates Rocky Mountain National Park. I also spend a lot of time around the Tetons, and Yellowstone.

1.) FACT: Wolf impact on livestock is LESS than other sources. Other Ranch/Farm predators like Bears, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, Bob Cat, Fox, Opossum, and Raccoons will do lots of damage to Chickens, Goats, etc..
2.) FACT: The Wolf population keeps herd of Deer and Elk HEALTHY. Go to Yellowstone, and look at the Elk there. The Elk are strong, healthy, with impressive coats. You don't see stragglers. Then, come here.. to Estes Park right outside of Rocky Mountain National Park. The Elk herds are huge with the only real predators being Mountain Lions, Coyotes, and the yearly culling of the heard at night by Sharp Shooting Men in Black. The Elk look ragged. Lots of stragglers.. limpers.. large tumors.
3.) Coyotes, Mountain Lions, Bob Cats, and Fox and numerous Birds of Prey also attack pets, and in some cases people.
 
2012-12-12 04:55:52 PM  

jshine: The point about food is valid, if you consider hunting to be only a matter of obtaining food. ...but otherwise its a serious question: these various animals are all about at the same level of intelligence. Pigs (food) are probably at least as smart as wolves, yet one is killed in huge numbers daily and the other gets a fark thread for a single individual being shot. Is "cuteness" really so compelling that it determines which animals are kill-able and which are sacrosanct?


I didn't read the rest of the thread so this may have been mentioned, but domestication plays a huge part in that. If an animal cant be domesticated (at least on a large scale), they are game/vermin (wolves). If they can be domesticated and trained to do something useful, they are pets/working animals (dogs). If they can be domesticated, but can't really be trained to do much else but taste good, they are food (cows). About the only animals I can think of that might be an exception to that last rule are pigs (they can be pretty smart, for a mobile food product), but their tastiness tends to outweigh their utility.
 
2012-12-12 05:00:06 PM  

HeadLever: T.rex: Who the fark shoots a wolf?!? Why not go twist a bald eagle's head off while you're at it?

Mosly, those that have livestock killed by wolves, or those that don't want to see elk populations diminish further than they already have. Basically, you need to manage wolf populations just the same as you manage other big game populations.


Elk populations are not at all diminished. I know... I live in the middle of Elk Central in Estes Park.
Elk are very very far from being diminished. Like the Deer.. there are plenty to go around.
Don't believe me? Google it.
 
2012-12-12 05:03:17 PM  

HeadLever: Jamik137: but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left.

Uh, no. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America right now. Wolves as a species are listed as 'Least Concern' by IUCN.


There are 1700 left in Colorado. Just heard in on NPR.
 
2012-12-12 05:09:08 PM  

japlemon: meat0918: On one hand, this sucks.

On the other hand, you get less legitimacy for poachers (screwed up, I know) if there is a legal avenue for them to hunt.

//Wanted to smack a hunter that said there is an unwritten law in Oregon that if you see a wolf, you shoot it and never saw a word. What an asshole.

You wouldn't say that if wolves were on your property killing your animals.


Ya know.. it's not like the Big Bad Wolves are surrounding these ranches and taking out entire herds of livestock 24/7. Yes, it happens.. but don't come off like every waking moment on the ranch is spent fending off packs of wolves. They aren't perpetually "killing your animals". A raccoon will take out some chickens. A coyote will take out your goats. A fox will take out your baby goat. A mountain lion can take your horse... it happens.. but not as much as you imagine.
 
2012-12-12 05:10:53 PM  

santadog: HeadLever: Jamik137: but wolves not so much considering there are only ~1700 left.

Uh, no. There are about 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America right now. Wolves as a species are listed as 'Least Concern' by IUCN.

There are 1700 left in Colorado. Just heard in on NPR.


Here in Arapaho National Forest a few weeks ago, we found several dead wolves, as best we can tell, they picked the wrong fight with a moose in a bad mood. Sometimes the nature channel is right and pack hunting takes down bigger animals... other times, when small-ish animals pick a fight with a 3ton wrecking machine, the results are extraordinarly one-sided in the other direction.

/csb
//gross
///Wolverines!
 
2012-12-12 05:11:53 PM  

firefly212: There's no nice way to get any kind of meat, at least hunters are honest about it.


THIS:

anyone biatching about hunting being cruel is a hypocrite unless they are vegan.

hunting an animal which has grown to adulthood in the wild is vastly less cruel than eating animals that have been raised in cages for generations.


/not vegan
/not a hunter
/got no beef with beef
 
2012-12-12 05:12:34 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Not really. Nature did an excellent job of it before humans ever appeared, and had been for a couple billion years. "Manage" means "keeping them where humans desire so we can exploit them as needed".


Nature no longer exists in a vacuum here in the lower 48. Every state has management agencies that manage differing populations with respect to stated goals. in places where there is little development this is easy as it is more of a predator/prey/hunter population balance equation. In areas where you have greater development, wildlife conflict also becomes a major player as well as teh fact that hunting cannot be utilized in the same form for population control.

It is not really exploitation. It is managing populations for the greater good of the entire (including humans) system.
 
2012-12-12 05:16:24 PM  

santadog: Ya know.. it's not like the Big Bad Wolves are surrounding these ranches and taking out entire herds of livestock 24/7. Yes, it happens.. but don't come off like every waking moment on the ranch is spent fending off packs of wolves. They aren't perpetually "killing your animals". A raccoon will take out some chickens. A coyote will take out your goats. A fox will take out your baby goat. A mountain lion can take your horse... it happens.. but not as much as you imagine


While you are mostly correct, there was a pack of wolves in Montana that took out over 100 buck rams in one night. Livestock predations by wolves do happen relatively frequently, but yeah, they are not ever night.
 
2012-12-12 05:18:55 PM  
can't one be pro-elk, anti-wolf hunting just for the helluvit?

\likes elk meat
\\likes funny wolf shirts
 
2012-12-12 05:29:33 PM  

HeadLever: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not really. Nature did an excellent job of it before humans ever appeared, and had been for a couple billion years. "Manage" means "keeping them where humans desire so we can exploit them as needed".

Nature no longer exists in a vacuum here in the lower 48. Every state has management agencies that manage differing populations with respect to stated goals. in places where there is little development this is easy as it is more of a predator/prey/hunter population balance equation. In areas where you have greater development, wildlife conflict also becomes a major player as well as teh fact that hunting cannot be utilized in the same form for population control.

It is not really exploitation. It is managing populations for the greater good of the entire (including humans) system.


That works until the managers are told to stop. Our DOW (Dept. of Wildlife) Guy that comes to Estes Park is stationed in Longmont.. about a 45min drive. We had bears like crazy this summer. I live on the property of the Elkhorn Lodge. For WEEKS we had numerous bears on the property at any given time or day. We were told by him, that Bear Relocations are no longer an option because of budget cuts. Now, the guy who's suppose to be the Liaison between the bears and the humans.. keep the peace, as it were, has been instructed to kill ANY and ALL nuisance bears.
And here's what you get: Dead Bears
There was a 2nd Bear on the Elkhorn Property. It's not been reported. It was DOW that took him down.. but the "Town" would be more up in arms if they found out there was another death.

No bear proof dumpsters for the Town..they don't want to spend the money, so there bears will keep coming and dying.

That's the management plan.
 
2012-12-12 05:31:58 PM  
I think we should kill them all. They ravage livestock, are a danger to pets and smaller people, and devastate population of slower maturing animals like elk. We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back. Ridiculous.
 
2012-12-12 05:34:12 PM  

Egalitarian: \\likes funny wolf shirts


I have a Three Wolf Moon tshirt packaged in a box shaped like a Three Wolf Moon tshirt. It's awesome².
 
2012-12-12 05:39:12 PM  

santadog: HeadLever: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not really. Nature did an excellent job of it before humans ever appeared, and had been for a couple billion years. "Manage" means "keeping them where humans desire so we can exploit them as needed".

Nature no longer exists in a vacuum here in the lower 48. Every state has management agencies that manage differing populations with respect to stated goals. in places where there is little development this is easy as it is more of a predator/prey/hunter population balance equation. In areas where you have greater development, wildlife conflict also becomes a major player as well as teh fact that hunting cannot be utilized in the same form for population control.

It is not really exploitation. It is managing populations for the greater good of the entire (including humans) system.

That works until the managers are told to stop. Our DOW (Dept. of Wildlife) Guy that comes to Estes Park is stationed in Longmont.. about a 45min drive. We had bears like crazy this summer. I live on the property of the Elkhorn Lodge. For WEEKS we had numerous bears on the property at any given time or day. We were told by him, that Bear Relocations are no longer an option because of budget cuts. Now, the guy who's suppose to be the Liaison between the bears and the humans.. keep the peace, as it were, has been instructed to kill ANY and ALL nuisance bears.
And here's what you get: Dead Bears
There was a 2nd Bear on the Elkhorn Property. It's not been reported. It was DOW that took him down.. but the "Town" would be more up in arms if they found out there was another death.

No bear proof dumpsters for the Town..they don't want to spend the money, so there bears will keep coming and dying.

That's the management plan.


Fascinating, thanks
 
2012-12-12 05:42:57 PM  
Not a single reference to Pluie? FOR SHAME.
 
2012-12-12 05:44:46 PM  

Egoy3k: amindtat: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument.

What confuses me are my fellow hunters (in PA) who believe you should never, ever shoot doe because "they make the bucks" (not to mention the Game Commision's introduction of the "3 points on a side" rule for bucks) yet they still tell the public they hunt for "population control." Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers

.....you can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you seem.

3 points per side gives the hunter some idea of the maturity and health of the animal. Admittedly not a very good one but it's not like you can check it's teeth before shooting it is it?

Not shooting does avoids killing an animal that may be carrying or caring for an adolescent deer that will one day grow into an adult which can be harvested for food.


None of which does anything to control population. But yet I'm the stupid one.
 
2012-12-12 05:44:48 PM  

Magnanimous_J: I think we should kill them all. They ravage livestock, are a danger to pets and smaller people, and devastate population of slower maturing animals like elk. We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back. Ridiculous.


Smaller people?
 
2012-12-12 05:46:42 PM  

santadog: That's the management plan.


Yeah, I am not going to say that all management plans are great as greed and politics can definatly find their way in. Especially when much of the population is as ignorant on these wildlife issues as they are.
 
2012-12-12 05:48:15 PM  

Magnanimous_J: I think we should kill them all. They ravage livestock, are a danger to pets and smaller people, and devastate population of slower maturing animals like elk. We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back. Ridiculous.


The Elk are not in danger of dying out. Not even close. Stop exaggerating.
The damage to livestock is much lower than other sources.

FACT: In Yellowstone, when the wolves were reintroduced, the Elk population dropped (because they took out all the sickly Elk and Deer for that matter). When the Elk population dropped, species of flora that was thought to be extinct from the area came back. When the Flora came back, a species of bird not seen in the park for almost 100 years suddenly came back.

I'll say it again. Come look at the Elk herd here at Rocky Mountain National Park where there are no wolves.. and compare them to the herds in Yellowstone. RMNP Elk are scraggly, sickly, visible tumors, limping along, and the herds are far to large. In Yellowstone, the Elk have gorgeous fur, smaller herds that look healthy.
Our herds here are so big, and destructive, that we have night time sharp shooters culling the herds so vacationers don't notice.
 
2012-12-12 05:51:19 PM  
Example of what a popular wolf may look like:

i470.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-12 05:52:59 PM  

Egoy3k: amindtat: Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers

I already responded to this but I just thought of another point

You must not know many hunters. I don't hunt myself since I never had anyone to teach me as a kid, don't particularly like the taste of deer, moose licenses are rare (picked in a 'lottery' around here) and I don't have the equipment to handle a moose carcass in any event but I know a lot of hunters. Hey I gotta get my moose meat somehow. Anyway none of the hunters I know has any antlers or heads on display even at their hunting camps. This is mostly because taxidermy is expensive (in the case of heads)and they shoot the first buck they see in the interest of ensuring their food supply, and getting out of the usually miserable Nova Scotian weather as soon as possible.


Since you live in Canada, I'm guessing you don't know many PA hunters, as I clearly said I was talking about in my OP. First you call me stupid, and then you talk like all hunters are just like Canadian hunters. That would be like saying all Americans are just like Canadians. You should probably stop now, you're really making yourself look foolish.
 
2012-12-12 05:54:31 PM  

Magnanimous_J: I think we should kill them all. They ravage livestock, are a danger to pets and smaller people, and devastate population of slower maturing animals like elk. We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back. Ridiculous.


Fail troll is fail.
 
2012-12-12 06:12:58 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.


In that case I hope you paid for college yourself. I'd hate to think that taxpayer dollars went to your failing to learn while getting educated.
 
2012-12-12 06:14:50 PM  

HeadLever: While you are mostly correct, there was a pack of wolves in Montana that took out over 100 buck rams in one night. Livestock predations by wolves do happen relatively frequently, but yeah, they are not ever night.


I looked that up, and that's a curious event if I ever heard of one. The fact that they say three wolves alone did it seems even more curious.

Even the so-called super wolf pack of something like 400 wolves in Russia only killed around 30 horses, and that was supposedly because of an especially cold winter killed off their natural prey.
 
2012-12-12 06:15:42 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.

In that case I hope you paid for college yourself. I'd hate to think that taxpayer dollars went to your failing to learn while getting educated.


That's funny, coming from someone who lies and trolls in every thread he's in. Especially when it comes to things that are easily and quickly refuted with a simple internet search.

Your original statement reads like something from both fairy tales and attitudes back in the 1700's.
 
2012-12-12 06:16:43 PM  

Glitchwerks: HeadLever: While you are mostly correct, there was a pack of wolves in Montana that took out over 100 buck rams in one night. Livestock predations by wolves do happen relatively frequently, but yeah, they are not ever night.

I looked that up, and that's a curious event if I ever heard of one. The fact that they say three wolves alone did it seems even more curious.

Even the so-called super wolf pack of something like 400 wolves in Russia only killed around 30 horses, and that was supposedly because of an especially cold winter killed off their natural prey.


Might have been hybrid wolf-dogs. They're the ones who are dangerous, as they have the domestic dog's lack of fear of man.
 
2012-12-12 06:19:32 PM  

Magnanimous_J: We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back.


Yeah, and do you know why? Because they were killing buffalo herds and wolf packs by the millions in attempt to destroy the livelihood of Native Americans.
 
2012-12-12 06:26:26 PM  

meat0918: On one hand, this sucks.

On the other hand, you get less legitimacy for poachers (screwed up, I know) if there is a legal avenue for them to hunt.

//Wanted to smack a hunter that said there is an unwritten law in Oregon that if you see a wolf, you shoot it and never saw a word. What an asshole.


There is a better unwritten law if you are private property owner and see and endangered species on your land you shoot it, shovel it (bury it) and shut up about it.
If you want the Feds to effectively take control of your property without them having to go through that whole annoying 5th Amendment takings clause thing just tell them you have an endangered species living on your land.

They then place so many restrictions on your land use that about the only thing you can do with it is pay the property taxes You certainly cannot sell it as nobody is going not buy property they cannot develop.
 
2012-12-12 06:28:07 PM  

Glitchwerks: I looked that up, and that's a curious event if I ever heard of one. The fact that they say three wolves alone did it seems even more curious.


Yeah, that was an extreme example. Wolves will joy-kill and sheep are always looking for a way to die. Combine the two and it is a bad recipe

Keizer_Ghidorah: Might have been hybrid wolf-dogs.


Nope, just plain wolves. Multiple killings of sheep happen quite frequently with packs of wolves. This magnitude is on the extreme side, though.
 
2012-12-12 06:35:09 PM  

santadog: The Elk are not in danger of dying out. Not even close. Stop exaggerating.


I dont think that his point was so much the extinction of elk, but more the impact on local populations. Here in Idaho we had several hunting units completely closed to elk hunting in an attempt to bolster elk populations, only to be able to do nothing about the primary cause when the enviros kept tying up any and all delisting attempt in court.

Now that they are finally delisted, we will see if managment can bring some sort of a balance back. I am pretty optimistic that it can.
 
2012-12-12 06:35:33 PM  

HeadLever: Wolves will joy-kill and sheep are always looking for a way to die.


Surplus killing is the term and while it does happen, it's usually when they are teaching the young to hunt or for other reasons.

Like you said, it's an extreme example, and I'm surprised I couldn't find any results of investigations into the matter. They also didn't seem to find two of the wolves either.
 
2012-12-12 06:52:03 PM  
This is bad news for the second most popular wolf in Yellowstone.
 
2012-12-12 06:52:55 PM  

mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid


Disagree with the "hunting is stupid" but hunting animals that are still massively diminished "IS" stupid.
 
2012-12-12 07:07:00 PM  
So long as the species is not endangered or is a threat to livestock or humans, there's nothing wrong with hunting them. Wildlife agencies are in charge of monitoring their numbers and deciding on whether bag limits should be set. Don't blame the hunters ... they're managing wildlife populations, and they do it for free. Asshats that make blanket statements against hunters/hunting because they're closeted p*ssies who eat meat from the grocery store, but don't have the awareness to recognize it's the same thing as going out and killing something in nature: they're the real a**holes.
 
2012-12-12 07:17:03 PM  

Glitchwerks: Magnanimous_J: We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back.

Yeah, and do you know why? Because they were killing buffalo herds and wolf packs by the millions in attempt to destroy the livelihood of Native Americans.


OMG... This. Wiped them out deliberately, to wipe out the Indians deliberately.
 
2012-12-12 07:17:24 PM  

Kazrath: mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid

Disagree with the "hunting is stupid" but hunting animals that are still massively diminished "IS" stupid.


Wolf populations are currently very healthy. They are not diminished here in the least. From a management persepctive, it is best to keep a moderate, but healthy population of wolves around. Especially when you consider the fact that if populations drop too much, they will be relisted under the ESA.
 
2012-12-12 07:26:12 PM  

HeadLever: santadog: The Elk are not in danger of dying out. Not even close. Stop exaggerating.

I dont think that his point was so much the extinction of elk, but more the impact on local populations. Here in Idaho we had several hunting units completely closed to elk hunting in an attempt to bolster elk populations, only to be able to do nothing about the primary cause when the enviros kept tying up any and all delisting attempt in court.

Now that they are finally delisted, we will see if managment can bring some sort of a balance back. I am pretty optimistic that it can.


Right, and in my post, I gave 2 examples of local herds and their conditions because of the wolves. (I spend a lot of time at the Park Headquarters here at RMNP, and have seen more than one expert speaker on the wolf population in Yellowstone) I can also talk to you about the symbiotic relationship between Badgers and Coyotes.. but that's another thread...
Do you live in a more Urban area? Rocky Mountain National Park is right *points with finger* over there. Our population in Estes Park is only 6,000 or so. Very small touristy town, next to the National Park. We are also surrounded by National Forest, so our herds flourish in numbers, but not in health without the natural predators.
I suspect you live more urban..not a city.. but not a super small town, because if you lived in the middle of nowhere like I do.. you wouldn't have a problem with too few Elk. At least, that's my guess.
I've been wrong before.
 
2012-12-12 07:46:35 PM  
static.tvguide.com

Loves me some Little Red Riding Hood.
 
2012-12-12 07:49:09 PM  
Wolves are apex predators, everyone knows that. Not enough know what it means. It means when they are around things are regulated. They affect everything, they keep wildlife population in check. Deer, elk, rabbit, fox, coyote, you name it. Because of that everything THOSE animals eat are regulated.

Here's kinda how I see hunting, wolves, elk, ranchers history happening:

Humans settle an area. They notice the various herds grazing in some really nice pasture and think hey, my animals could do great there!

So they move their animals in.

"Problem" is, that's the breeding ground for wolves. Wolves when they breed and have cubs select one area to camp out and raise their young for a bit. Know what's a really good spot? Prime grazing lands for herds. Awesome, we now have a kitchen!

So the ranchers shoot a bunch of grass eating animals to keep 'their' grazing land. The wolves are all like "Cool, they replaced those hard to catch risky to kill animals with these dumb ones that barely run..." You've invented "fast food" for wolves.

Ranchers are all "wtf, wolves are killing all our animals!" and they shoot em all.

Nature's balacing act gets all messed up. Now you have a crapload of plant eaters... eating plants. This messes up the ecosystem in pretty big ways (loss of habitat for other animals, run off from lack of plants to help hold ground/absorb water, etc) Well there's too many plant eaters, so lets... shoot them!

Hunters get used to hunting these animals. Some label it a sport because the animals are clearly faster than bullets, are armed, and they even know they're playing a sport.

These herds get fat, lazy and unhealthy because hey, we don't even have to move around anymore, just let a few of us get picked off to make the hunters happy. Diseases, etc. Yadda yadda.

Wolves eventually get reintroduced in an attempt to restore balance, which they do. Herb populations get thinned of the fat and diseases, forced to move around again, plant life comes back. But.. there's gotta be SOMETHING to shoot. Hey remember wolves? Yeah, those bastards ate the food we delivered to them. Let's go back to shooting them.

Look at it this way. You're in the kitchen chasing around a plate of food that won't sit still. I walk in and put down a plate of food that barely moves. You start to eat it, I shoot you. I blame you for taking the easy meal that I put right in front of you.

TL;DR - Nature is much better at balance than we are. Learn to work with it. Technology and knowledge of wildlife and it's animals have evolved a LOT since the 'kill em all' days. Use it. Offset your grazing in prime breeding areas by a little bit, your cows will be fine and the wolves will be more interested in moving on after their natural prey. Education, not eradication.
 
2012-12-12 08:41:18 PM  

powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?


A long time ago some wolves started hanging around with humans and became man's best friend, others didn't and we've hated them ever since. I stole that from somewhere but I don't remember where.
 
2012-12-12 09:04:51 PM  
I see how the services put a tracking collar on her and then published the tracks on line. I guess that's how the hunters were able to track her down. They go on line and know where to go to get her. They could have even waited until she left the sanctuary area and then knew they could get here legally. I wonder if they will stop publishing that tracking data now as it can result in a kill of the ones they are studying.
 
2012-12-12 09:08:12 PM  

JohnNS: Wolves are apex predators, everyone knows that. Not enough know what it means. It means when they are around things are regulated. They affect everything, they keep wildlife population in check. Deer, elk, rabbit, fox, coyote, you name it. Because of that everything THOSE animals eat are regulated.

Here's kinda how I see hunting, wolves, elk, ranchers history happening:

Humans settle an area. They notice the various herds grazing in some really nice pasture and think hey, my animals could do great there!

So they move their animals in.

"Problem" is, that's the breeding ground for wolves. Wolves when they breed and have cubs select one area to camp out and raise their young for a bit. Know what's a really good spot? Prime grazing lands for herds. Awesome, we now have a kitchen!

So the ranchers shoot a bunch of grass eating animals to keep 'their' grazing land. The wolves are all like "Cool, they replaced those hard to catch risky to kill animals with these dumb ones that barely run..." You've invented "fast food" for wolves.

Ranchers are all "wtf, wolves are killing all our animals!" and they shoot em all.

Nature's balacing act gets all messed up. Now you have a crapload of plant eaters... eating plants. This messes up the ecosystem in pretty big ways (loss of habitat for other animals, run off from lack of plants to help hold ground/absorb water, etc) Well there's too many plant eaters, so lets... shoot them!

Hunters get used to hunting these animals. Some label it a sport because the animals are clearly faster than bullets, are armed, and they even know they're playing a sport.

These herds get fat, lazy and unhealthy because hey, we don't even have to move around anymore, just let a few of us get picked off to make the hunters happy. Diseases, etc. Yadda yadda.

Wolves eventually get reintroduced in an attempt to restore balance, which they do. Herb populations get thinned of the fat and diseases, forced to move around again, plant life comes back. But..there's gotta be SOMETHING to shoot. Hey remember wolves? Yeah, those bastards ate the food we delivered to them. Let's go back to shooting them.

Look at it this way. You're in the kitchen chasing around a plate of food that won't sit still. I walk in and put down a plate of food that barely moves. You start to eat it, I shoot you. I blame you for taking the easy meal that I put right in front of you.

TL;DR - Nature is much better at balance than we are. Learn to work with it. Technology and knowledge of wildlife and it's animals have evolved a LOT since the 'kill em all' days. Use it. Offset your grazing in prime breeding areas by a little bit, your cows will be fine and the wolves will be more interested in moving on after their natural prey. Education, not eradication.


I don't disagree with anything you said until the last bold part. Yeah, we took the land from the wolves, and now we make money/food using it. WHY do we have to essentially give it back so that wolves can exist again? Why do we need wolves when we can already easily manage deer/elk populations precisely by modifying bag limits and tag costs? Life is better without the wolves. It's really easy to say, "hey Offset your grazing in prime breeding areas" when it's not money coming out of your pocket.
 
2012-12-12 09:22:03 PM  

spiderpaz: JohnNS: Wolves are apex predators, everyone knows that. Not enough know what it means. It means when they are around things are regulated. They affect everything, they keep wildlife population in check. Deer, elk, rabbit, fox, coyote, you name it. Because of that everything THOSE animals eat are regulated.

Here's kinda how I see hunting, wolves, elk, ranchers history happening:

Humans settle an area. They notice the various herds grazing in some really nice pasture and think hey, my animals could do great there!

So they move their animals in.

"Problem" is, that's the breeding ground for wolves. Wolves when they breed and have cubs select one area to camp out and raise their young for a bit. Know what's a really good spot? Prime grazing lands for herds. Awesome, we now have a kitchen!

So the ranchers shoot a bunch of grass eating animals to keep 'their' grazing land. The wolves are all like "Cool, they replaced those hard to catch risky to kill animals with these dumb ones that barely run..." You've invented "fast food" for wolves.

Ranchers are all "wtf, wolves are killing all our animals!" and they shoot em all.

Nature's balacing act gets all messed up. Now you have a crapload of plant eaters... eating plants. This messes up the ecosystem in pretty big ways (loss of habitat for other animals, run off from lack of plants to help hold ground/absorb water, etc) Well there's too many plant eaters, so lets... shoot them!

Hunters get used to hunting these animals. Some label it a sport because the animals are clearly faster than bullets, are armed, and they even know they're playing a sport.

These herds get fat, lazy and unhealthy because hey, we don't even have to move around anymore, just let a few of us get picked off to make the hunters happy. Diseases, etc. Yadda yadda.

Wolves eventually get reintroduced in an attempt to restore balance, which they do. Herb populations get thinned of the fat and diseases, forced to move around again, plant life comes back. ...


The reality is that Wolves take care of the weaklings, the sick, the old, the doomed.
Hunters want prime. Prime meat. Prime Trophy.
 
2012-12-12 09:37:29 PM  

spiderpaz: Why do we need wolves when we can already easily manage deer/elk populations precisely by modifying bag limits and tag costs? Life is better without the wolves.


Re-read some of his finer points and visit some items that other Farkers posted. Notably about the health of wildlife where there are wolves and where there are no wolves.

Even check out the post that comes after yours.

santadog: The reality is that Wolves take care of the weaklings, the sick, the old, the doomed.
Hunters want prime. Prime meat. Prime Trophy.


Everyone benefits by wolves coming back, including hunters. The only people who don't are ranchers, and mostly it's because they don't want to bother taking the precautions to protect their herds.

IIRC, earlier this year, 8 wolves were put down because they had eaten 17 cattle in the past months. However, wildlife services said the attacks could have been completely avoided if the rancher had followed proper precautions to protect his cattle.
 
2012-12-12 09:56:46 PM  

spiderpaz: I don't disagree with anything you said until the last bold part. Yeah, we took the land from the wolves, and now we make money/food using it. WHY do we have to essentially give it back so that wolves can exist again? Why do we need wolves when we can already easily manage deer/elk populations precisely by modifying bag limits and tag costs? Life is better without the wolves. It's really easy to say, "hey Offset your grazing in prime breeding areas" when it's not money coming out of your pocket.


Partially untrue. It is money out of my pocket if I choose to support the ranchers that work with nature in terms of higher prices just as I do by supporting local farmers that grass feed their livestock instead of supporting industrial. Nothing saying we have to give the land back either, but we can modify how we use it and when. It's not an all or nothing thing, it's co-existing. Of course farmers lose a lot more to coyotes when there's no wolves around.

As for managing the elk/deer/plant eater population 'easily'. Yes and no. We can shoot them and all that but we can't manage the trickle down economi.. err.. trickle down effects of what nature's put in place as effectively. Unless you want to get out there and chase herds around while shooting everything - which is what got us here in the first place.

Life is not better without wolves. Nor would it be better without other top level predators. Some aspects are easier, it seems, but not better. There might be less to hunt is all.

There's only one apex predator that could be removed from the system that would be to it's benefit and that's humans.

Think of the natural world as a game of Jenga. You can pull pieces out and have it balance for a while but eventually you yank the wrong piece.

(Also re-reading what I said, I should have said "Off set the TIMING of your grazing in prime breeding areas by a little bit.." Let the wolves breed, let them eat the wandering plant eaters, let them move on, then bring your heards in. That's what I meant by them moving on after their natural prey)
 
2012-12-12 10:12:50 PM  
Vegan Meat Popsicle: / I'm just pissy because some fat, illiterate drunk was hunting in off-limits property behind my house a few years ago and put a bullet in my deck

Maybe he went to City Hall and got a Permit for a deck...
 
2012-12-12 10:48:25 PM  

powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?


I'd like to see a Venn Diagram on those who hate wolves and also hate gay marriage, abortion, unions, the ACLU, the UN, Muslims and PP.
 
2012-12-12 11:16:11 PM  
Yeah.. 1700 wolves are a serious threat to our livestock, there's just too many of them! One bad virus, and they're extinct. Strange how it's the very people who are so concerned about maintaining balance, who are so content to keep species on the brink of extinction.
 
2012-12-12 11:21:22 PM  

santadog: Do you live in a more Urban area?


I do now, but I was born and raised and still all of my family lives in a very rural area with a population sign that is lower than the speed limit. Rural enough that you drove an hour to the nearest town big enough to have a high school. Rural enough where you had more deer and elk scat in your yard during the winter than dog.

So yeah, I know about living with elk. You bring up RMNP and Yellowstone as most of your examples and those models work pretty well for those areas. However, there is no sport hunting used as a population control device within these boundaries.

The reason I don't want low elk populations is because these hunting seasons is boons for the small rural towns like the one that I grew up in. Many places depend upon the outdoorsmen/women for their continued survival. From the sporting good stores, hotels, outfitters, gas stations, restaurants, and the list goes on. Plus I am a hunter. More elk means better chances to get one and fill the freezer. Lastly, don't forget the impact this has on state revenues from these licenses and tags that typically go to wildlife conservation programs. Idaho has had to cut thousands of tags per year and a study conducted back in the mid 2000s estimated that the state lost about $24 Million per year due to wolves and the impact on big game herds.

I agree that you don't want elk populations like RMNP, but again, you don't want elk populations like we have in Central Idaho either. Somewhere in between would suit most folks.
 
2012-12-12 11:24:23 PM  

JohnNS: Nature is much better at balance than we are. Learn to work with it.


Want to know how I know that you have no idea of current wildlife management?

Nature works well in a vacuum. When you have folks around (especially when those folks like to hunt), it does not work so well.
 
2012-12-12 11:32:14 PM  

santadog: The reality is that Wolves take care of the weaklings, the sick, the old, the doomed.


point of clarification;
Actually, during the winter when the deep snow get's a little crust on it, wolves has their choice of any animal they want. Old, young, fast, healthy, it really does not matter. The talking point that wolves only take the sick and old is a myth. During the part of the year where big game is not encumbered by snow, wolves will typically take the slowest in the herds, but individual animals (no matter how healthy) don't stand much of a chance against a hungry pack of wolves.
 
2012-12-12 11:40:50 PM  

Glitchwerks: Everyone benefits by wolves coming back, including hunters. The only people who don't are ranchers, and mostly it's because they don't want to bother taking the precautions to protect their herds.


Actually, many hunters don't benefit as elk populations have crashed in certain areas where there is no more hunting season. How does this benefit hunters?

Ranchers can't protect thier herds out here 100% of the time. Many ranchers graze public lands where you can't fence and if you keep your herds in bunches the Forest Service/BLM gets cranky when an area gets stomped flat. This usage is best when the herds are scattered. Even on private land, this protection cost is huge and many ranchers cannot simply afford it. Sure, they could post snipers 24/7 behind every tree, but they are not going to be staying in business very long doing that.

However, wildlife services said the attacks could have been completely avoided if the rancher had followed proper precautions to protect his cattle.

This is a good point as there are things that ranchers can do to limit some depredations. Things like removing any dead animals and, if there are collared wolves in the pack, install RAG boxes to haze them away. These are not foolproof, but they can help. The fact remains that some ranchers are good about it and some are just lazy. However, when wolves start eating into your profit margin $1500 at a time, most will wake up pretty quickly.
 
2012-12-12 11:43:48 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: One bad virus, and they're extinct.


one bad virus is going to wipe out 70,000 wolves in North America? You trollin' or just stupid?

1700 is only the population that lives within 3 states.
 
2012-12-12 11:57:25 PM  

JohnNS: Education, not eradication.


Also, this point is just flat out dumb. The states have vested interest in keeping populations within the goals set by their respective Wolf Management Plans. Trying to eradicate wolves will just lead to a relisting under the ESA by the federal government which will remove all ability for any further management. States cannot afford to let this happen again as they had such a hard time to get them delisted the first time. Attempting this a second time would be nearly impossible.

/amazed at the quality of arguments from the basement dwelling biologist in this thread.
 
2012-12-13 12:16:34 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Of course, if we'd stop carving up the land into small chunks of land where wildlife is forced to be crowded into, maybe we wouldn't have to slaughter the predators.


Since most of the area you are describing here is federally owned land, there really is none of this carving of which you speak. One does not simply build a homestead on BLM or Forest Service land. Again, many of the counties where this is an issue are over 90% federally owned. And if you want to keep the small percentage of private land that does make up the rest of this rural area pastoral, you may want to keep trying to bankrupt the ranchers. When ranchers go bankrupt, private pasture and hay land gets subdivided.

www.apeconmyth.com
 
2012-12-13 12:44:31 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: was the eighth wolf fitted with a GPS collar to be shot
Those collars are great trophies.


Also easy to track.

Bet their "hunting" success goes down once the collared ones are done...

/totally okay with wolves being hunted legally with scientific backing to the numbers, it's how we manage all of our big game animals (and they benefit tremendously from it as a species).
//but wolf-hate groups can suck it because they are a bunch of cowards.
 
2012-12-13 12:51:29 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


Yes, they decimate wildlife so bad that my hunting gathering ancestors could never get any meat except...well, nearly all the time. The elk, deer and whatnot have been without wolves for a while. They are readjusting, eventually they will balance back out. Now, I do think that wolves should be reintroduced slowly to prevent large population swings, but to imply that the wolves will hunt everything into near extinction and that we'll never have good hunting again is fear mongering nonsense completely contradicted by thousands of years of evidence.

As for livestock, they have been bred to be stupid, you don't get to exterminate an entire species because of it. Find another way to protect your investment. (Most of the meat in the stores now is crap anyway and not worth eating even if it was free.)

/lives in the mountains
 
2012-12-13 01:01:28 AM  

HeadLever: JohnNS: Education, not eradication.

Also, this point is just flat out dumb. The states have vested interest in keeping populations within the goals set by their respective Wolf Management Plans. Trying to eradicate wolves will just lead to a relisting under the ESA by the federal government which will remove all ability for any further management. States cannot afford to let this happen again as they had such a hard time to get them delisted the first time. Attempting this a second time would be nearly impossible.

/amazed at the quality of arguments from the basement dwelling biologist in this thread.


Pot, kettle, black. Assumptions r us? I'm sure your degree is wonderful though.
 
2012-12-13 01:04:07 AM  

sp86: firefly212: Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.

That's cute and all, but you have to admit deer hunting is pretty easy.

Granted you won't see a 400 lb dude dragging a bambi out on his all terrain rascal any time soon ... I forgot where I was going with that but that mental image is hilarious.


Come hunt the grey ghost of the Cascades. ;)

/blacktails are notoriously hard to hunt
//whitetails...not so much.
 
2012-12-13 01:12:25 AM  
FTA: Ranchers say hunting is necessary to keep wolves from raiding domestic livestock

I don't get this. If their livestock is being harmed by wolves, then the ranchers should find a way to protect their livestock in a way that doesn't involve killing the predators who are just doing what predators do. The ranchers are making the problem by bringing in easy prey and dangling it in front of the existing predators. If they can't find a way to protect their livestock in a way other than killing the predators, then they should get out of the business of ranching.

/hunting predators is wrong
 
2012-12-13 02:27:55 AM  
Yeah. Bob and Eddie were using the IR-50 Recon by Bushcomber. It's got a sixteen-inch microgrooved barrel with 30-30 mags, side-scope mount, wire- cutter sheath, quick-release bolt, mag catches and a three pound trigger. So I figured we must be going after a pretty dangerous duck. We shot a deer. (pause) In the woods near Lake Mattatuck on the second day. There was a special vest they had me wear so that they could distinguish me from things they wanted to shoot, and I was pretty grateful for that. Almost the whole day had gone by, we hadn't gotten anything. Eddie was getting frustrated and Bob Shoemaker was getting embarrassed. My camera guy needed to re-load so I told everybody to take a ten minute break. There was a stream nearby and I walked over with this care-package Natalie made me. I sat down and when I looked up I saw three of them; small, bigger, biggest. Recognizable to any species on the face of the planet as a child, a mother and a father. Now, the trick in shooting deer is you gotta get 'em out in the open. And it's tough with deer, 'cause these are clever, cagey animals with an intuitive sense of danger. You know what you have to do to get a deer out in the open? You hold out a twinkie. (pause) That animal clopped up to me like we were at a party. She seemed to be pretty interested in the twinkie, so I gave it to her. Looking back, she'd have been better off if I'd given her the damn vest. And Bob kind of screamed at me in whisper, "Move away!" The camera had been re-loaded and it looked like the day wasn't gonna be a washout after all. So I backed away, a couple of steps at a time, and closed my eyes when I heard the shot. Look, I know these are animals, and they don't play bridge and go to the prom, but you can't tell me that the little one didn't know who his mother was. (pause) That's gotta mean something. And later, at the hospital, Bob Shoemaker was telling me about the nobility and tradition of hunting and how it related to the native American Indians. And I nodded and I said that was interesting while I was thinking about what a load of crap it was. Hunting was part of Indian culture. It was food and it was clothes and it was shelter. They sang and danced and offered prayers to the gods for a successful hunt so that they could survive just one more unimaginably brutal winter. The things they had to kill held the highest place of respect for them, and to kill for fun was a sin. (pause) And they knew the gods wouldn't be so generous next time. What we did wasn't food and it wasn't shelter and it sure wasn't sports. It was just mean.
 
2012-12-13 04:15:19 AM  
Randomly reducing the sizes of all wolf packs by this kind of sport hunt destroys the wolves' own ability as an apex predator to control their own numbers by growing their packs with nonbreeding members and the corresponding territory they exclude other wolves from. It fact, it runs it backwards to force wolf breeding.

A moment's thought and you can realize how reducing a large wolf pack by just two can free territory they no longer use for a pair to found a new pack. Doubling the reproduction rate per adult wolf over what is now the territory of two packs, as well as increasing the original pack's reproduction rate from 1 litter per N wolves to 1 litter per N-2 adult wolves. Enough disruption and you end up with many single pairs of wolves having litters.

Game animals are evolved to take normal predation during the time wolf pups and their fawns or whatever are growing up. Either that or they are really really not evolved to have the number of wolf pups born artificially maximized.

A sport hunting season is not managing wolves, simply maximizing them. Hello?
 
2012-12-13 04:24:06 AM  

HeadLever: santadog: The reality is that Wolves take care of the weaklings, the sick, the old, the doomed.

point of clarification;
Actually, during the winter when the deep snow get's a little crust on it, wolves has their choice of any animal they want. Old, young, fast, healthy, it really does not matter. The talking point that wolves only take the sick and old is a myth. During the part of the year where big game is not encumbered by snow, wolves will typically take the slowest in the herds, but individual animals (no matter how healthy) don't stand much of a chance against a hungry pack of wolves.


Additional point: Wolves, by keeping their prey moving and from unnaturally congregating, prevent their parasites and diseases from being transmitted between those prey. They likely do much more to prevent most diseases than cull thoze actually infected. There is no reason to believe their prey animals are adapted to or can long withstand the additional disease transmission occurring without wolves' prevention.
 
2012-12-13 08:48:20 AM  

cuzsis: Bet their "hunting" success goes down once the collared ones are done...


Not really. From what I know, about 250 wolves have been shot in MT/ID this hunting season and 8 of them had collars.
 
2012-12-13 08:56:07 AM  

cuzsis: They are readjusting, eventually they will balance back out. Now, I do think that wolves should be reintroduced slowly to prevent large population swings, but to imply that the wolves will hunt everything into near extinction and that we'll never have good hunting again is fear mongering nonsense completely contradicted by thousands of years of evidence.


Again, the point of management is that wolf populations and big game populations never get out of whack and that you maintain a healthy population of both. Unfortunately, with the delayed delisting of wolves from the ESA due to environmentalist intervention, this never happened and the combined pressure of human hunting and wolf predation and a couple of tough winters drove some elk populations way down below target levels. From the wildlife manager standpoint, they could only change the human hunting variable and that was not enough for populations to recover (and pissed a pile of hunters off). Fortunately now, the state also has control over wolves so they have more ability to help some of these herds.

From the state standpoint, it is going to be nearly impossible to manage elk/deer populations when you cannot manage the population of an apex predator.
 
2012-12-13 09:04:08 AM  

Befuddled: If their livestock is being harmed by wolves, then the ranchers should find a way to protect their livestock in a way that doesn't involve killing the predators who are just doing what predators do. The ranchers are making the problem by bringing in easy prey and dangling it in front of the existing predators. If they can't find a way to protect their livestock in a way other than killing the predators, then they should get out of the business of ranching.


first, the wolves were reintroduced in 95 so most of the ranchers were 'there first'. secondly, from my post upthread; Ranchers can't protect thier herds out here 100% of the time. Many ranchers graze public lands where you can't fence and if you keep your herds in bunches the Forest Service/BLM gets cranky when an area gets stomped flat. This usage is best when the herds are scattered. Even on private land, this protection cost is huge and many ranchers cannot simply afford it. Sure, they could post snipers 24/7 behind every tree, but they are not going to be staying in business very long doing that.

Ranchers will always have a right to protect their property from predators. That was one of the rights granted by the federal government as a condition for reintroduction. If you want to see these ranchers go out of business, be prepared to see these pastoral landscapes turn into ranchetts and subdivisions.
 
2012-12-13 09:07:26 AM  

SwiftFox: A sport hunting season is not managing wolves, simply maximizing them. Hello?


We have had this discussion before and as we finally decided there - we will see. I am pretty optimistic that sport hunting can effectively manage these populations. The proof will be in the next few years. So far Idaho's overall wolf population is holding pretty steady over the last 3 years. So far, so good.
 
2012-12-13 09:10:09 AM  

SwiftFox: There is no reason to believe their prey animals are adapted to or can long withstand the additional disease transmission occurring without wolves' prevention.


Not sure about this. They have been doing exactly that when the wolves were removed from these areas. That is a time span of 40 to 50 years. Yes, there have been instances of certain diseases within this timeframe, but nothing that would endanger the entire population of these prey species.
 
2012-12-13 09:16:03 AM  

cuzsis: sp86: firefly212: Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.

That's cute and all, but you have to admit deer hunting is pretty easy.

Granted you won't see a 400 lb dude dragging a bambi out on his all terrain rascal any time soon ... I forgot where I was going with that but that mental image is hilarious.

Come hunt the grey ghost of the Cascades. ;)

/blacktails are notoriously hard to hunt
//whitetails...not so much.


I might try it if I were vacationing in the area but like I said, when I hunt it's for subsistence. Driving 30 hours to test my skills against more difficult prey seems like an arrogant indulgence.
 
2012-12-13 10:16:32 AM  

HeadLever: Nature works well in a vacuum. When you have folks around (especially when those folks like to hunt), it does not work so well.


Nature has never existed in a vacuum, never will. Native Americans did just fine with wolves around.

The problem here are the "folks" who have refused to seek a balance, not nature.
 
2012-12-13 10:44:08 AM  

HeadLever: SwiftFox: There is no reason to believe their prey animals are adapted to or can long withstand the additional disease transmission occurring without wolves' prevention.

Not sure about this. They have been doing exactly that when the wolves were removed from these areas. That is a time span of 40 to 50 years. Yes, there have been instances of certain diseases within this timeframe, but nothing that would endanger the entire population of these prey species.


HeadLever: SwiftFox: A sport hunting season is not managing wolves, simply maximizing them. Hello?

We have had this discussion before and as we finally decided there - we will see. I am pretty optimistic that sport hunting can effectively manage these populations. The proof will be in the next few years. So far Idaho's overall wolf population is holding pretty steady over the last 3 years. So far, so good.


Hmm. I suppose it depends on whether "I've got a gout feeling iyt mig

HeadLever: SwiftFox: A sport hunting season is not managing wolves, simply maximizing them. Hello?

We have had this discussion before and as we finally decided there - we will see. I am pretty optimistic that sport hunting can effectively manage these populations. The proof will be in the next few years. So far Idaho's overall wolf population is holding pretty steady over the last 3 years. So far, so good.


Ah, but if I am not wrong, what is the endgame going to be? Further reductions in the number of adult wolves, or trying to tell game hunters to be patient about not hunting and residents to endure extra depredation until the packs have rebuilt sizes and social structures, and their reproduction rate returns to normal?

Michigan's state legislature decided yesterday to approve a wolf hunt apparently just for the heck of it and send i to the governor's desk, n the legislature's lame duck session - which is unlikely to end well WI and MN have dove hunting seasons. In Michigan a vote on a dove hunt lost over 2 to 1 (hunt: 31%) so there may be a voter's resolution foofurall, IIRC hunters in general got the blame for wasting the money on the dove election since their side lost, though it was the state legislature that passed it. I thought it was fun enough to watch at the time to be worth the money. It will be harder this time to argue against a resolution simply because the bill passed changes the law without requiring "sound scientific management" as voters required for all game back in 1996 (Proposal G) to simply "sound management including hunting". Not surprising since the sponsoring senator is also trying to pass a bill getting all mention of and consideration of "biological diversity" period removed from Michigan law and forbidding the DNR designating any land use for that purpose.

This time, though they seem to be betting the Upper Peninsula's deer herd on changing from the current ~7% growth rate of wolf population growth under their own population control (vs 10% growth in whitetail take there) to what hunt proponents say might require removing 50% of the wolves every season. They are openly planning to force quite an artificial increase in the wolf birth rate and pups when fawns are growing up, evidently. 7 times the current rate. Is that an experiment that should even be tried before it is determined what the outcome in Wisconsin may be?
 
2012-12-13 10:44:53 AM  
Ouch. Pardon my stuttering.
 
2012-12-13 10:50:44 AM  

santadog: HeadLever: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not really. Nature did an excellent job of it before humans ever appeared, and had been for a couple billion years. "Manage" means "keeping them where humans desire so we can exploit them as needed".

Nature no longer exists in a vacuum here in the lower 48. Every state has management agencies that manage differing populations with respect to stated goals. in places where there is little development this is easy as it is more of a predator/prey/hunter population balance equation. In areas where you have greater development, wildlife conflict also becomes a major player as well as teh fact that hunting cannot be utilized in the same form for population control.

It is not really exploitation. It is managing populations for the greater good of the entire (including humans) system.

That works until the managers are told to stop. Our DOW (Dept. of Wildlife) Guy that comes to Estes Park is stationed in Longmont.. about a 45min drive. We had bears like crazy this summer. I live on the property of the Elkhorn Lodge. For WEEKS we had numerous bears on the property at any given time or day. We were told by him, that Bear Relocations are no longer an option because of budget cuts. Now, the guy who's suppose to be the Liaison between the bears and the humans.. keep the peace, as it were, has been instructed to kill ANY and ALL nuisance bears.
And here's what you get: Dead Bears
There was a 2nd Bear on the Elkhorn Property. It's not been reported. It was DOW that took him down.. but the "Town" would be more up in arms if they found out there was another death.

No bear proof dumpsters for the Town..they don't want to spend the money, so there bears will keep coming and dying.

That's the management plan.


simpsonswiki.netsimpsonswiki.net

/First thing I thought of
 
2012-12-13 11:06:06 AM  

Glitchwerks: Nature has never existed in a vacuum, never will. Native Americans did just fine with wolves around.


Sure it did several thousands of years ago.

And if you want to go back to the hunting and gathering lifetyle that was Pre-Columbian America go ahead. Just don't expect too many folks to follow your lead. Native Americans did fine with wolves because the entire population in North America at the time was about the same as New York City and thier standard of living not even comparable to what we see today. If you spend all of your time looking back and dreaming of how things were 500 years ago, you are going to set yourself up for failure in the future.

The problem here are the "folks" who have refused to seek a balance, not nature.

Natural cycles are not about a balance. The concept of balance is a current management construct. Natural cycles are mostly dominated by boom and crash cycles as the inverse relationship between predator/prey plays out. Predators don't eat prey by only considering prey populations and balance. They eat prey because if they don't, they die. Conversley, prey does not reproduce with current populations and balance in mind.

Balance is introduced into this system by outside forces that limits one or both of these mehcanisms. Typically, this is done with sport hunting that keeps populations in check. This balance is further complicated by the fact that human hunting is an important element in this management as well. If things are working correctly, you can balance these population swings by emplying hunters and, thus, kill two birds with one stone. That is why it was important to the state agencies to get control over wolf management. While they were listed under the ESA, these balance mechanisms were not avaliable.
 
2012-12-13 11:15:41 AM  

SwiftFox: Ah, but if I am not wrong, what is the endgame going to be? Further reductions in the number of adult wolves, or trying to tell game hunters to be patient about not hunting and residents to endure extra depredation until the packs have rebuilt sizes and social structures, and their reproduction rate returns to normal?


If you are not wrong, then we will likely have to update the management stratagy. Most of the biologist here seem to think that the current plan is the best option, but the next 4 or so years will tell us much more. No doubt about it, we are in uncharted territory with this. It will be a learning process for many.

The situation you describe for Michigan would seem to have a little bit more information avaliable as the situations there is similar to what some Canadian areas have had to deal with.
 
2012-12-13 11:32:26 AM  

HeadLever: Sure it did several thousands of years ago.


You continue to talk about balance, but the fact is that the balance of nature was knocked out of whack when "folks" systematically killed millions of buffalo and wolves in what was basically an attempt at Native American genocide.

HeadLever: f you spend all of your time looking back and dreaming of how things were 500 years ago, you are going to set yourself up for failure in the future.


No one is suggesting living in the past, but instead moving forward and bringing a balance back that has long been missing from nature, correcting one of the most evil events in U.S. history.
 
2012-12-13 11:35:42 AM  
fark hunters.
 
2012-12-13 11:49:13 AM  

Glitchwerks: the balance of nature


Again, nature is not about balance. If you were to define nature accuratly, it would be more along the lines of chaotically dynamic. Balance has nearly nothing to do with it. Don't know why you keep hanging onto a talking point that was never (and still isn't) true. Again, balance is a current management construct.

Ultimately, lamenting the actions of our ancestors and waxing nostalgic about an idealistic past is not going to solve any wildlife issues we face today.
 
2012-12-13 12:33:52 PM  
images.wikia.com
 
2012-12-13 01:23:50 PM  

HeadLever: Ultimately, lamenting the actions of our ancestors and waxing nostalgic about an idealistic past is not going to solve any wildlife issues we face today.


The Yellowstone wolf restoration project has proved that wolves are necessary for a healthy and balanced ecosystem. What you seem to be arguing is one singular view, that of the hunters. You want "folks" to manage the wild life at the expense of everything else.

We're not going to find a common ground here, so I'm going to leave the discussion be. Whatever the case, we won't solve these problems when "folks" kills collared animals that are supposed to helping scientific study and progress.
 
2012-12-13 01:40:06 PM  

HeadLever: SwiftFox: Ah, but if I am not wrong, what is the endgame going to be? Further reductions in the number of adult wolves, or trying to tell game hunters to be patient about not hunting and residents to endure extra depredation until the packs have rebuilt sizes and social structures, and their reproduction rate returns to normal?

If you are not wrong, then we will likely have to update the management stratagy. Most of the biologist here seem to think that the current plan is the best option, but the next 4 or so years will tell us much more. No doubt about it, we are in uncharted territory with this. It will be a learning process for many.

The situation you describe for Michigan would seem to have a little bit more information avaliable as the situations there is similar to what some Canadian areas have had to deal with.


But what does David Mech really imply when he says that Idaho can harvest 50% of the wolves and they will replace the ones removed? Obviously that the wolves can crank up their reproduction so that they will replace 50% of their number removed. Umm... You see a problem with this? He might be answering the question, but it reminds me of having to deal with a customer specifying exactly how things are to be done, and given no choice giving them exactly what they asked for. This is a very nasty way to correct that customer and usually only has to be done once. 

Things are weird in Michigan. They have a set of Senators, John Pappageorge, Arlan Meekhof, Judith Emmons, Thomas Casperson (mainly behind the wolf bill) and Patrick Colbeck who want to pass a law, SB1276, that will prevent local control of biodiversity areas and the state DNR maintaining and regulating them, instead of the federal government and its agreements with the UN.
 
2012-12-13 02:28:24 PM  

SwiftFox: But what does David Mech really imply when he says that Idaho can harvest 50% of the wolves and they will replace the ones removed?


I think that you may be misreading his statment, "In that same declaration, he stated that to just stop the growth rate of depredation could mean eliminating upwards of 50-percent of all wolves in the Northern Rockies."

emphasis mine

Also, not sure if he took into account the nature of these areas where big games herds will winter in rancher's fields and will be somewhat protected as hunter density and access to these areas is much greater. Winter is historically when most of the depredation of elk takes place. Overall, wolves are not dumb. They tend to stay away from hunters and this will help better protect depredation.
 
2012-12-13 02:59:50 PM  

Glitchwerks: The Yellowstone wolf restoration project has proved that wolves are necessary for a healthy and balanced ecosystem.


It was never the Yellowstone wolf restoration project. Yellowstone is only about 15% of the area where wolves inhabit these 3 states.

While you may be somewhat correct about the goals within Yellowstone, you have to realize that management objectives and land uses are quite different here than the remaining 85% of the public land.
 
2012-12-13 03:05:53 PM  

HeadLever: It was never the Yellowstone wolf restoration project. Yellowstone is only about 15% of the area where wolves inhabit these 3 states.


Incorrect.

http://www.ypf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=WHAT_wildlife_wolf
 
2012-12-13 03:20:15 PM  

HeadLever: Glitchwerks: The Yellowstone wolf restoration project has proved that wolves are necessary for a healthy and balanced ecosystem.

It was never the Yellowstone wolf restoration project. Yellowstone is only about 15% of the area where wolves inhabit these 3 states.

While you may be somewhat correct about the goals within Yellowstone, you have to realize that management objectives and land uses are quite different here than the remaining 85% of the public land.


Okay, we get it, humans are the best, we can do everything, fark the wolves and shoot them all.
 
2012-12-13 03:29:01 PM  

Glitchwerks: Incorrect.


Do you think that the reintroduction into these three states was only in Yellowstone? You might want to check up on that because it is false.

I did check my 15% number and I was off on that, though. Yellowstone is only about 4% of the current wolf habitat in these three states.
 
2012-12-13 03:39:13 PM  

HeadLever: Do you think that the reintroduction into these three states was only in Yellowstone? You might want to check up on that because it is false.


I am not referring to other reintroductions. I am referring specifically to the Yellowstone wolf restoration project that was led by Doug Smith.

I am referring to that study alone, please stop telling everyone else they are wrong and stop assuming.
 
2012-12-13 04:33:24 PM  

Glitchwerks: I am referring to that study alone, please stop telling everyone else they are wrong and stop assuming.


Except for when you weren't.

Everyone benefits by wolves coming back, including hunters. The only people who don't are ranchers, and mostly it's because they don't want to bother taking the precautions to protect their herds.

Not much hunting or ranching going on in Yellowstone.

Overall, there is little conflict about what goes on in the park. Nature is to be left to its own devices within those borders and managment is bascially 'hands-off'. I have no problem with that. The other 96% of the land that wolves inhabit in this reigon is a different story, however.
 
2012-12-13 04:37:16 PM  

HeadLever: Except for when you weren't.


You're taking quotes completely out of context at this point. SMH.
 
2012-12-13 05:52:38 PM  

Glitchwerks: HeadLever: Except for when you weren't.

You're taking quotes completely out of context at this point. SMH.


?

Maybe I am misreading your argument, but one second you are talking about the regional issues and the next you are only talking about one specific study in with respect to one small area?

You made mention of this to bolster your argument that I "seem to be arguing is one singular view, that of the hunters. You want "folks" to manage the wild life at the expense of everything else." This study has pretty much nothing to do with any of my arguments made beforehand since Yellowstone is bascially exempt from state wildlife management. Those rules don't apply here and your entire arguemnt is a non sequitur.
 
2012-12-13 11:31:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: fark the wolves and shoot them all.


Strawman argument. I never said that.
 
Displayed 279 of 279 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report