What's new
By:

do u liek wolfs?

As someone who lives in Montana, there are a lot of Wolves here. A lot. I've seen a few in person, but typically I just hear them or see evidence of them (tracks). Since they're nomadic, they're hard to track down good numbers for, but a good rule of thumb is that there's more than what they count.

If you get wolves in, you'll see that money paid back in hunting revenue. I know montana makes a good amount on hunting wolves. First state in the lower 48 to de-list a grizzly is gonna make a pretty penny as well. Anyways, wolves are pretty destructive. They've changed a lot of things around here. I'm not a fan.
 
In their environment wolves are apex predators.





No point, just wanted to type apex.
 
apex

apex

apex

apex

apex

apex

apex

apex

apex
 
LogGrad98 said:
In their environment wolves are apex predators.





No point, just wanted to type apex.
Click to expand...

As they should be. They are the natural balance, and have lived in Harmony with the Elk and Bison that have roamed these plains since before Columbus arrived, let alone the idea of a republic should exist here. Hunters should welcome them. Wolves go for easy meals. Easy are the weak. If the weak are gone, all that's left is big, beautiful racks. The only way they're real competition is if they sprout opposable digits, and are given guns. Ranchers might have a claim here, as they'll sell or eat beef any way they can. But shouldn't they want a healthy pack too? As the pack gets stronger, predators will die off due to lack of food, and your heard will become stronger for a few years, and the cycle will continue.

But again, less about woofs, more about due process and true democracy being trampled over.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
I'm not going to go so far as to call BS, but I'm extremely skeptical of such claims. I've spent a lot of time in Idaho/Montana over the last 10 years, and if you were to believe the people who live(and more importantly, hunt/ranch) in those states, they are overrun with wolves just waiting to eat everyone's children. In all that time, I have seen one single solitary wolf myself. There are obviously a decent number of wolves in those states, but the fear mongering has gotten to be a bit ridiculous. Truth be told, there is an absolute paranoia among hunters and ranchers(hunters especially), and they will go to extreme lengths to spread their propaganda. The goal of most of these people is to convince the public that they are such a threat, that they should be legal to shoot on sight and wiped out again, and there's no doubt they have infected other states that they will be next to be invaded by the furry menace. Sorry folks, but I'm not buying it. I have no doubt that wolves might cross into Utah from time to time, but when you start hearing about packs of wolves living around strawberry, I gotta raise a brow.
Click to expand...


Interesting, you are skeptical that an animal known to be elusive and far ranging could travel so far as Strawberry even though one was killed in Beaver and it was identified as the same wolf that was seen in the Grand Canyon. https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...-killed-utah-same-grand-canyon-rare/23233065/


While at the same time you believe that the multiple reports from amatuer outdoorsman about seeing wolves around strawberry were mistaken and they actually saw house pets that were abandoned or somehow escaped, living in a pack and in the wild, in the winter? None of those behaviors are typical of house pets.

Personally I can't confirm or debunk either version, but the first one seems much more plausible to me.

I absolutely agree with your skepticism based on the maneuverings and political motives of people. That is why I suggested the DWr was behind the move to delist the wolf so that they can protect the deer and elk they claim as their own revenue generating resource. Although they are not the only power player that would have an interest in delisting the wolf, there are others with economic motivation too. However, The farmers and ranchers are not the economic engine to make such a political move. They simply provide a convenient, sympathetic story to help sway public opinion and divert attention from the real players....at least in utah.
 
Last edited:
ElRoach0 said:
As they should be. They are the natural balance, and have lived in Harmony with the Elk and Bison that have roamed these plains since before Columbus arrived, let alone the idea of a republic should exist here. Hunters should welcome them. Wolves go for easy meals. Easy are the weak. If the weak are gone, all that's left is big, beautiful racks. The only way they're real competition is if they sprout opposable digits, and are given guns. Ranchers might have a claim here, as they'll sell or eat beef any way they can. But shouldn't they want a healthy pack too? As the pack gets stronger, predators will die off due to lack of food, and your heard will become stronger for a few years, and the cycle will continue.

But again, less about woofs, more about due process and true democracy being trampled over.
Click to expand...

Lol at wolves being good for hunters.
 
Didn't read the OP and I'm not sure what this thread is about, but I'd like to say that The Call of the Wild is an excellent book.
 
Howard said:
As someone who lives in Montana, there are a lot of Wolves here. A lot. I've seen a few in person, but typically I just hear them or see evidence of them (tracks). .
Click to expand...

Where do you live? I lived in the bitterroot and Missoula for 12 years, and only moved away a year ago. My home in the bitterroot was back in the sticks outside of Victor. I've seen every type of wild animal on that property, except wolves, and I've never heard them around there at night. That property has wilderness behind it for 15 miles into Idaho, where I would hike frequently. Never saw a single wolf there. The only one I ever saw was crossing the road up near Lolo pass. I've heard them once in the big hole area, and I have no doubt there are areas where there are a lot of Wolves, but I have heard so many claims like yours that there a lot of wolves, and yet I just don't see the evidence. Mostly just frustrated hunters who are assuming if they don't see any elk, they must all be eaten by wolves.
.
People can explain not seeing them because of their shifty nature, but you can't explain not hearing them at night. If you're in an area with a lot of wolves, you will hear them. I've just never seen or heard evidence of the wolf population being what hunters claim it is.
.
Edit: I've shouldn't say every type of wild animal, as I've never seen a cougar. Just the same, every winter there are cases of cats coming down and killing pets or livestock. Honestly, I've seen more evidence of cats than wolves.
 
Howard said:
Well you made one hell of a poor one.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced I agree or disagree. People smarter than I will be glad to dispute whether they're good for hunters or not.

But I can channel my inner Kaptain Kool Kapitalism for a moment

Franklin said:
It may be bad for hunters getting food, but it's fantastic for hunters out for sport
That doesn't account for the way the moon effects wolves in the third phase
And what about when wolves eating children is used for public benefit
Click to expand...
 
Southwestern montana. Sister and Her husband live in Hamilton though, so that's pretty close to Victor.

I have heard and seen wolves chasing cows along the Big Horn River, that was pretty terrifying. Seen tracks half a mile from my parents house, which is in a valley where wolves typically don't go. There were a couple killed not too far from where I live.

The thing with elk isn't necessarily that they're killing and eating them (which they are), but that they're stressing them out and causing aborted calves basically. It's just frustrating they introduced a non-native species to this area.
 
Howard said:
Southwestern montana. Sister and Her husband live in Hamilton though, so that's pretty close to Victor.

I have heard and seen wolves chasing cows along the Big Horn River, that was pretty terrifying. Seen tracks half a mile from my parents house, which is in a valley where wolves typically don't go. There were a couple killed not too far from where I live.

The thing with elk isn't necessarily that they're killing and eating them (which they are), but that they're stressing them out and causing aborted calves basically. It's just frustrating they introduced a non-native species to this area.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they'd enjoy their land free of non-native species as well.
 
Found this interesting:

https://www.wildearthguardians.org/...rities_wildlife_war_wildlife_livestock_losses

•In comparison, only 220,000 cattle losses stemmed from livestock predators or 0.23% of the total cattle production over the year. Cattle predators counted by NASS included: coyotes, cougars, bobcats, lynx, dogs, wolves, vultures, bears and “others.” Predation by native carnivores really only amounted to 170,800. That is because dogs killed more livestock (21,800) than any other species except coyotes (116,700). “Unknown” predators killed 27,300 cattle. Wolves reportedly killed 8,100 cattle, while felids (pumas, bobcats, and lynx) killed 18,900 cattle.
Click to expand...

So yeah, probably a better idea to go after Coyotes than Wolves, if you are going to "hate" on anything at all.
 
ElRoach0 said:
And what do you consider thriving? I'm not sure 109 between two states(Arizona/New Mexico area) is considered thriving yet. Nor does a Doctor(Ph.d, not a pansy MD) who champions conservancy in the west.

But I don't think you grasp the gravity of what's really being said here. I blame myself, and my haphazardly jocular thread title, but I assumed people would "catch what I'm throwin". So perhaps I should illuminate my concerns:

1. There is an animal that DOESN'T LIVE IN UTAH, that UTAH TAXPAYER DOLLARS funded to de-list, so we can kill them
2. The wording of the "grant" given originally stated that the money would be provided upon completion of "lobby"
3. It also stipulated that no further money would be needed after the initial $800k
4. CHRIS F***ING BUTTARS helped champion it through the first time
5. This year, an additional $500k was slipped into the budget day of or day before the budget was signed
6. As of this year, no additional review and no additional debate about more funding happened
7. No plan for the money, or plan on how to use the money was submitted before money was sent out
8. No plan for the money, or plan on how to use the money, or breakdown of how the money was used was submitted, ever
9. Kirk Robinson, Ph.D., executive director of Western Wildlife Conservancy has documented, respected data that shows allegations that led to the funding of this lobbyist to be "Pants on fire" levels of false.
10. To round it out, no other state has spent a dime on the de-listing

Does that more accurate sum up my concern? Anyone else have something?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I like wolves. I'd say, though, that the money spent lobbying for delisting wolves in Utah or any other state is worthwhile, and I'll vote for that legislator.

I don't respect ideological extremists like the Western Wildlife Conservancy, and my expectation of a Ph.D lie Kirk Robinson would be a relentless crusade based on any convenient lies he could find helpful to the cause.
 
babe said:
Like I said, I like wolves. I'd say, though, that the money spent lobbying for delisting wolves in Utah or any other state is worthwhile, and I'll vote for that legislator.

I don't respect ideological extremists like the Western Wildlife Conservancy, and my expectation of a Ph.D lie Kirk Robinson would be a relentless crusade based on any convenient lies he could find helpful to the cause.
Click to expand...

https://distractify.com/jason.mustian/how-wolves-change-rivers/

The documented history and changes to Yellowstone National Park will disagree with you. Bringing wolves back not only brought back vegetation, trees, bushes and berries(from killing some of the deer, elk, and bison), but also brought back more rabbits and marmots(because wolves will kill coyotes), which brought back the birds(since they have more mice and rabbits to hunt). After bringing back the vegetation and trees, the soil stayed put more often, making more sturdy river banks and allowing pools to form, which in turn produced more places for wildlife to visit and drink from.

So you can take your "That Ph.d guy don't know jack" and shove it, champ. Science, backed by results, says your opinion is idiotic at best, bulls*** being a more realistic description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top