Drive By: Wolves in the News

[gapper]

If one is a thrill killer, one kills ONLY for the thrill of the kill, and does not go to the effort of processing the meat after a kill.
If one does not see a valid reason to be thrilled by one's own successes, I can only imagine it is because they have had few if any successes to be thrilled about.

[Lucy]

Wolves do thrill kills. Advocates claim they don't, but this is verifiable.

Teenage boys do thrill kills as well. I think we have too many of them. Can we have open season on them also? In addition, I'm afraid they will prey on my daughter. I know it's normal for teenage boys to pursue teenage girls, sometimes just for sport, but it may affect my family. I've also heard that some teenage boys pursue farm animals. So to protect families and farmers, I suggest we cull the teenage boy packs. Maybe shoot them down from helicopters, that's real sport. Or, we could always poison them and let them suffer a painful death.

If and when teenage boys do thrill kills of livestock, which BTW is private property then yes they should be locked up. Who said anything about an open season on wolves? Or shooting them from helicopters or poisoning?
There is now regulated hunting and trapping to control the wolf population and as soon as the quota is met the season will be suspended.
Wolves populations need to be controlled like any other animals that now coexist with humans. .

IMO your comparison between wild predatory animals and Juvenile humans beings is just silly.

I was actually thinking of teenage boys who do thrill kills of humans. Like those 'children' in Oklahoma the other day.
People have been waiting for any excuse to hunt wolves into extinction. No one here said anything about hunting wolves from helicopters... yet. Some people seem to think that is necessary in Alaska. No one said poisoning wolves, but no one talks about the ranchers that do poison predators.
There is a huge difference of opinion when it comes to what a controlled wolf population looks like. Many think one wolf is too many. Maybe we really need more wolves.

[Prospector]

The event in Oklahoma was truly a tragic occurrence. Most times when I hear of a "thrill kill" it involves small animals, dog, cat, or small live stock.

There use to be "thrill hunts" in certain States, one I knew of was in Texas, for exotic game, but was shut down because of illegal operations, waste meat, licensing, etc. plus they were driving the animals through ravines for hunters to shoot, no sport there.

Hunting should be that. Hunt! No dogs, no stands, no bait. You, the elements, and the game. You hunt in season.

[tvguy]

Wolves do thrill kills. Advocates claim they don't, but this is verifiable.

Teenage boys do thrill kills as well. I think we have too many of them. Can we have open season on them also? In addition, I'm afraid they will prey on my daughter. I know it's normal for teenage boys to pursue teenage girls, sometimes just for sport, but it may affect my family. I've also heard that some teenage boys pursue farm animals. So to protect families and farmers, I suggest we cull the teenage boy packs. Maybe shoot them down from helicopters, that's real sport. Or, we could always poison them and let them suffer a painful death.

If and when teenage boys do thrill kills of livestock, which BTW is private property then yes they should be locked up. Who said anything about an open season on wolves? Or shooting them from helicopters or poisoning?
There is now regulated hunting and trapping to control the wolf population and as soon as the quota is met the season will be suspended.
Wolves populations need to be controlled like any other animals that now coexist with humans. .

IMO your comparison between wild predatory animals and Juvenile humans beings is just silly.

I was actually thinking of teenage boys who do thrill kills of humans. Like those 'children' in Oklahoma the other day.
People have been waiting for any excuse to hunt wolves into extinction. No one here said anything about hunting wolves from helicopters... yet. Some people seem to think that is necessary in Alaska. No one said poisoning wolves, but no one talks about the ranchers that do poison predators.
There is a huge difference of opinion when it comes to what a controlled wolf population looks like. Many think one wolf is too many. Maybe we really need more wolves.

Well your remarks were kind of all over the place and I was left to guess at your meaning.


The opinion in Idaho is that 15 packs is enough wolves. I assume that is a number decided by wildlife experts and not hunters or anti hunters. Anymore and the populations of deer and elk are reduced too much. This has already happened and now wolf hunting is necessary.

[csrowan]

Not that I have any data on the matter... but are the populations of deer and elk reduced "too much, period" or "too much to allow people to hunt them"?

[tvguy]

Hunting should be that. Hunt! No dogs, no stands, no bait. You, the elements, and the game. You hunt in season.

You think it should be fair and the animal should have a chance. But what if you are hunting a nocturnal animal that Wildlife officials desperately need to have their numbers reduced?
What if your restrictions end up giving the animal such an advantage that hunters can't find and kill enough to reduce their populations?

Even with trapping allowed not enough wolves are being taken in Idaho. Game needs to be managed and if it can't be done with the restrictions you listed then I don't really care how they kill the wolves as long as it gets done.

[tvguy]

Not that I have any data on the matter... but are the populations of deer and elk reduced "too much, period" or "too much to allow people to hunt them"?

Not yet. But the numbers of deer and elk are definitely less than they should be. The excess wolves also kill livestock.

Idaho is one of two states with authority from the federal government to manage wolf numbers using public hunts. Federal officials require Idaho to maintain a population of at least 150 wolves and 10 breeding pairs.

Idaho’s wolf managers estimate there are 500 to 600 wolves roaming the state, down from the more than 1,000 when the 2011 hunting season opened in August

OSEPH -- Gray wolves have played a dramatic role in a 20 percent reduction of Idaho's elk herds over the past 15 years -- and that could be an omen for eastern Oregon's 60,000 Rocky Mountain elk in the Blue Mountains.

Idaho elk numbers have fallen from 125,000 to 103,000 since about 1997 to the dismay of hunters, professional big game outfitters and small businesses that depend on seasonal revenues from hunters.

Habitat changes and heavy feeding by bears and cougars spurred the elk decline before wolves came on the scene, but state and federal wildlife research now links the continued drop in some areas to the increased activity of wolves, said Craig White, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game biologist in Boise.


http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northw...rienc.html

[csrowan]

And, under "ideal" conditions, what's the annual number that humans are allowed to bag?

I've got a feeling that there could be a higher number of wolves permitted, if people were more willing to let the wolves take some of what's been reserved for people.

You'd still have to keep them in check, but predator species don't number nearly as high as prey. And that means fewer hunting licenses and fewer hunters and less income for everyone involved, even if it means less human killing of animals.

[charger]

Ahh.The liberal view. Let the predator out number the prey. Good choice.

[csrowan]

Not at all. Just let the natural predator do the preying and only hunt the natural predator to manage both the prey and predator, rather than hunting both the predator and they prey.

Or at least hold the predator numbers down based on their impact on the prey population without trying to leave a set amount of prey for humans.

Besides, if you count humans among the predators, we already outnumber the prey. So much so that many prey species have gone extinct because of us. Maybe we should try animal management on humans.

[tvguy]

And, under "ideal" conditions, what's the annual number that humans are allowed to bag?

I've got a feeling that there could be a higher number of wolves permitted, if people were more willing to let the wolves take some of what's been reserved for people.

You'd still have to keep them in check, but predator species don't number nearly as high as prey. And that means fewer hunting licenses and fewer hunters and less income for everyone involved, even if it means less human killing of animals.

OK but why?




Hunting , guiding, outfitting, pack mules, gear and of of the money spent on anything associated. Car rentals, motels food both canned goods and restaurants.

There is an industry built around all of this. It attracts people and money to Idaho. Pays for schools and all kinds of good things


So yes Rowan you are correct. If less people hunted deer and Elk LESS they experts probably would have allowed more than 150 wolves.

There are already way more wolves then they planned for. Why let this sustainable hunting economy suffer just to have more wolves to kill more deer more elk more livestock??

In a nutshell if we are going to manage wildlife then manage it with a business sense and not with emotion.

[csrowan]

Or manage it with the goal of keeping human involvement to a minimum. We're one species. Just because we have the ability to screw everything up doesn't give us the right to.

[csrowan]

I mean, if we're really going to manage wildlife as a business, why allow wolves at all? They just cut into the profits.

[gapper]

Or manage it with the goal of keeping human involvement to a minimum. We're one species. Just because we have the ability to screw everything up doesn't give us the right to.

What's missing in your plan, in my opinion, is the fact that funding for wildlife management comes from fees for hunting licenses and the taxes assessed on outdoor recreation equipment.

Even if the public would stand for getting hunters out of the equation, would they stand for the general public being taxed to manage wildlife?

Further, again in my opinion, our very existence here has "screwed everything up" from a wildlife perspective. Actually, hunting is one of the lessor "screw ups" in terms of wildlife and in fact is the tool used, in part, to try to mitigate from the screw ups we've created.

[charger]

Right. No management is better.

[csrowan]

Right. No management is better.

Which is not something I ever even implied.

[csrowan]

Or manage it with the goal of keeping human involvement to a minimum. We're one species. Just because we have the ability to screw everything up doesn't give us the right to.

What's missing in your plan, in my opinion, is the fact that funding for wildlife management comes from fees for hunting licenses and the taxes assessed on outdoor recreation equipment.

Even if the public would stand for getting hunters our of the equation, would they stand for the general public being taxed to manage wildlife?

Well, they stand for us having the largest military budget in the world, larger than all other industrialized nations combined. Maybe we could take some of that and stop shooting as many people, too.

[gapper]

Or manage it with the goal of keeping human involvement to a minimum. We're one species. Just because we have the ability to screw everything up doesn't give us the right to.

What's missing in your plan, in my opinion, is the fact that funding for wildlife management comes from fees for hunting licenses and the taxes assessed on outdoor recreation equipment.

Even if the public would stand for getting hunters our of the equation, would they stand for the general public being taxed to manage wildlife?

Well, they stand for us having the largest military budget in the world, larger than all other industrialized nations combined. Maybe we could take some of that and stop shooting as many people, too.

Yeah, well good luck with that.
I won't be selling my hunting gear anytime soon, expecting your suggestion to become a reality.

[charger]

Or manage it with the goal of keeping human involvement to a minimum. We're one species. Just because we have the ability to screw everything up doesn't give us the right to.

What's missing in your plan, in my opinion, is the fact that funding for wildlife management comes from fees for hunting licenses and the taxes assessed on outdoor recreation equipment.

Even if the public would stand for getting hunters our of the equation, would they stand for the general public being taxed to manage wildlife?

Well, they stand for us having the largest military budget in the world, larger than all other industrialized nations combined. Maybe we could take some of that and stop shooting as many people, too.

Don't think wildlife management and the defense are tied together.

[csrowan]

I wasn't suggesting it would become a reality, only sharing what I would prefer to be a reality.