Wolf Strategy. Why It Is Time To Change

[Swede]

I check several forums each day to see what is being discussed in the broader hunting community. They all have threads complaining about the wolves, or rather wolf management. There is much griping, complaining, and ridiculing. It may feel good to vent to friends, but it is not going to help. The pro-wolf folks are really not stupid.
They know we are complaining because we want to kill and eat the same game the wolf will kill and eat. We want the game to ourselves, and the other side thinks we should share. Some go farther and want no compromise. We will never change their minds.
We will never win even the moderates over if they do not trust us. Posting how uninformed, stupid and reckless they are is a losing strategy. Getting them to trust professional wildlife managers is the best option we have in my opinion. It will never get us the whole pie. The wolves are here to stay.

Other thoughts on the subject?

[Lefty]

As a trapper we were always running into ANTI trapping nuts
Trappers needed to promote the science and facts louder than the anti groups.
If the fedss run the endangered species act numbers need to be done as ecosystems not per state.

The whole wolf and grizzle thing problems are because groups never expected recovery. Artificial wildlife numbers revolved with anti groups finding idiot judges. There is a whole lot more to habitat and study areas.
Last Saturday my wife and I came across a grizzlies track in an area there "arent any grizzlies".
I reported over and over the wolves in Craters of the moon. But the answer kept coming back those are black coyotes. Hmm The three of us that saw them really do know the difference between a 110 lb "black coyote and a coyote.
Some may remember the black-footed ferret . When biologist had the last remaining 22 ferrets my brother spotted 12 ferrets from one location on a dog town they were killing. 100 miles from where the "last: ones in existance.
We need biologist that know something not wannabes. Ran into a moron checking on sage grouse one morning. he gave me some real lame numbers that existed in the region. I offered to show him that many looking through a spotting scope at one time. Of course me never having completed a biology degree didnt know what some 22 year old from the east knew about sage grouse

Facts need to be used. the bunny huggers need to know real life doesnt work their way.

Last month when my wife and I were in Yellowstone we got to hear how the wolf population brought back the beaver population because the elk(deer according to the BBC ) made the rounds and how the bison would be controlled.
Wolves would never control a bison population (duh) but would be hard on elk. Science knew that Real game managers know that
Biologist know that ,..

Otters were brought back to Iowa. Turkeys to nearly ( maybe all now) every lower 48 That was done by hunters and trappers
What we really need to watch out for is lynx introduction, The freack wanted to even prevent snow sking and driving on roads


I gotta stop my blood pressures going up
We need to promote real wildlife science put it out there first and formost.

[Swede]

Most people do not know the difference between a wilderness and a wood lot. If you did a survey of every person in the Country, I suspect 90% would say they want to have a healthy population of wolves in the wild. The same could be said for just about any other native wildlife species. If you asked if they would like to see the populations managed by professionals so that wolves, deer, bears, elk, etc. would coexist in healthy numbers, the answer would be "yes".
I believe we need to demonstrate that proper management by the appropriate wildlife agencies is the best means for achieving the outcome they want, and at the same time minimizing damage to ranchers and other property owners.

[saddlesore]

Proper management is never going to happen, because the people who want and are successful at wolf introduction rely on the ill informed urban dwellers to get their agenda pushed and be successful. There are no professionals involved. It has been proven in Colorado with first the ban on leg hold traps, then a ban on spring bear hunting, then a ban on hunting bears with dogs. All came about by antis getting enough signatures to put these things on a ballot for the general public to vote on. CPW had no say on it. None of theses have had a positive outcome on wildlife. In fact we see many more human/bear conflicts today because of over population and poor success in hunting due to the restrictive regulations

The wolf reintroduction in the NW is same thing. Federal F&W approved it when the anti hunting crowd lobbied for it The states had no say in it.Same for the desert wolves in AZ and southern NM. Originally the plan called for 200 wolves max and a max of ten breeding pairs in Yellowstone. We all know how that turned 0ut

The only thing positive thing that has happened recently is CPW refused to consider a ban on trapping bobcats that the Peta types had gain enough support to put it on the commission meeting agenda this past week .

Believe it. These people are anti hunting ,not conservationist that want a diverse population of wildlife. The younger people who are employed by BLM , FS, and to some extent fish and wildlife agencies in the states are much happier if they can find ways to keep the general public off public lands.

[Lefty]

Unfortunately ; accurately stated

Proper management is never going to happen, because the people who want and are successful at wolf introduction rely on the ill informed urban dwellers to get their agenda pushed and be successful. There are no professionals involved. It has been proven in Colorado with first the ban on leg hold traps, then a ban on spring bear hunting, then a ban on hunting bears with dogs. All came about by antis getting enough signatures to put these things on a ballot for the general public to vote on. CPW had no say on it. None of theses have had a positive outcome on wildlife. In fact we see many more human/bear conflicts today because of over population and poor success in hunting due to the restrictive regulations
The wolf reintroduction in the NW is same thing. Federal F&W approved it when the anti hunting crowd lobbied for it The states had no say in it.Same for the desert wolves in AZ and southern NM. Originally the plan called for 200 wolves max and a max of ten breeding pairs in Yellowstone. We all know how that turned 0ut
The only thing positive thing that has happened recently is CPW refused to consider a ban on trapping bobcats that the Peta types had gain enough support to put it on the commission meeting agenda this past week .
Believe it. These people are anti hunting ,not conservationist that want a diverse population of wildlife. The younger people who are employed by BLM , FS, and to some extent fish and wildlife agencies in the states are much happier if they can find ways to keep the general public off public lands.

[Swede]

That really is not accurate. Most non-hunters are not anti-hunting. Most folks working for land and wildlife management agencies are not anti-hunting. Many are not hunters. Their interest is in other things. In my opinion anyone thinking we will see a return to a time when the wolf was eradicated from the western land is not dealing with reality. I dealt with a lot more anti-timber harvest people that anti-hunters when I worked in timber management for the Forest Service. There were people convinced that hunting and trapping needed to be regulated more for various reasons. Some of these folks were conservatives, and not conservationists. These people crossed the ideological spectrum. Anyone thinking they were uninformed, inarticulate or stupid would do well to reconsider.
Some believing in more hunting restrictions had college degrees in natural resource management. Others were professionals in other sciences. Some were loggers and that type too. The complaints on trapping that I heard was based on certain species and certain types of traps. It was a small discussion compared to the hunting one.
Just my thoughts.

[saddlesore]

Most non-hunters are ambivalent about hunting,they do not have a hard opinion either way ,but are easily swayed by misinformation. and the anti-hunting, pro wolf proponents are very good at disseminating that misinformation ,especially to people in urban areas that haven't a clue. .Big difference between stupidness and ignorance

College degrees do not necessarily transfer into sound big game management practices. It is what those people's personal agendas are.What I stated about those in BLM, FS, and other agencies is accurate in Colorado

Point of fact.Every state that has had wolf recovery or introduction forced upon them has suffered severe big game and domestic cattle, or sheep depredation. These people that want wolf introduction or reintroduction share none of the cost, yet the hunters, in Colorado at least , carry the total burden of wildlife management by their purchase of hunting licenses and taxes paid for the P&R funds. If it were not for hunters we would not have 250,00+ head or elk in Colorado.Every big game hunter should oppose any wolf recovery plan on all fronts.

[RAMMONT]

I honestly don't care if or how wolves are reintroduced in to the ecosystem, but I know that it has happened and it wont stop and feel that it's most likely that it will be handled very badly by the scientific experts - whatever you want to call the experts; biologists, game managers, wildlife managers, etc..

I know that when the experts told us that the "science" proved that it would be a good thing to protect mountain lions in California, it resulted in too many mountain lions that are such a problem that now they hire professional (spelled EXPENSIVE) hunters to kill them off rather than have regular hunters pay the state to hunt them.

I know that when the experts told us that the "science" proved that it would be a good thing to protect the grizzly bears in several states because they would never recover without their management, it has resulted in lots of bear problems to include more dead or injured people, now most states want to hunt the grizzly because it's the most reasonable way to control their overpopulation and territorial expansion. Their estimates on bear population growth was completely wrong and they were wrong on how bears will spread to new territory.

I'm pretty confident in saying that basing our decisions on good solid science is a good idea, unfortunately the so called scientific experts aren't really using science to decide what to do, they are influenced by their political and social ideas - the observers are influencing the data to match up with their preconceptions. One example is the recent debate I read about here in Montana. Evidently there is or was or may still be a debate over how to define security cover for elk. All the anti-hunters and a lot of the game management people demanded that we stick with the scientific way to define security cover, I guess it's defined as something like 80% of an elk being obscured by the flora and fauna at a something like 100 yards. The problem is that it seems that this has been the accepted standard for a long time, maybe 60 years or more, but there seems to be a new breed of animal biologist that says that this is how humans perceive security, not the elk. I guess they have data that seems to support the theory that security areas ingrained in to an elk when they are young and that even if you clear cut the trees from a security zone, the elk will still go there when they are pressured by hunters. Don't ask me for the details because I really don't care, I'm just an observer of human foolishness and I read things like this and just shake my head, it doesn't matter to me how game animals are managed because I can't control it, I have no real effect with my input and I'm just a victim of the poorly run system like the rest of us. But it is fun to watch all the experts be wrong so often.

[Swede]

The mid and upper management of the natural resource agencies has changed a lot in the last 30 years. It is due to affirmative action. The farm kid that used to go to work at the ranger station and stay there has taken a lesser role. A few get a summer job and fight fire or work on some other crew, but they rarely last. Now it is the college grad coming from who know where. She is not much interested in hunting. I suspect most of your rangers in Colorado are women now. They have a different mind set than the farm kind had. I would not call them ambivalent. They have a strong opinion but different than ours. They have no interest in doing any hunting themselves. They don't care if you or I do, but we must protect what they value. Their perspective is that hunting is a privilege that the State allows.
I have literally been in that debate. Their point was that the State should charge hunters more because they were providing for our entertainment much like the Denver Nuggets do. The game belongs to the State and they could do a better job of wildlife management with more funding. The consumers (hunters) should pay more was the argument.
Anyway good point Vince.

[Swede]

Rammont: I agree with your take on the "experts". Some are really trying, and admit they do not know all that they would like to understand. Some like one I was talking to with the Forest Service told me "I am a biologist, take my word for it." Another biologist would ask things about elk and freely admitted I was more informed on them than she was.
BTW: The one that said "take my word for it" did not get away with that foolish remark. He was informed that his recommendations were going into a public document. His write-up needed to be supported by facts, and also had to be written so the public could understand what he was recommending and why. I sent his work back for a complete redo.

[saddlesore]

I had two rangeretts, as I call them, that were going to cite me for destruction of resources for a few willow sprouts that the mules had broken off when I led them down to a stream to water. 50 yards further down, moose and elk had worn a path 8 foot wide getting to the water. I finally got to their supervisor and the real problem was a local resident didn't want me camping there ,but it was perfectly legal. So they thought they could hassle me and pressure me to leave. The supervisor told me to stay. Another camp ground rangerette was going to cite me for having horses in the camp ground when there was clearly corrals to keep them in.This spot was heavily used by dirt bikers that she preferred ,although there were signs all around prohibiting them.

At the CPW commission meeting this week when the bob cat trapping ban agenda came up,the Commission chairman spoke out and said he wanted to hear from, youngters, women, and people of color not older whitemen. Luckily other commissioners prevailed and decline the ban.Our openly gay, liberal new governor has publicly supported the wolf introduction agenda and has declined any resumes for new commissioners that he appoints that do not support it.

These are things we face in Colorado now days

[Swede]

Saddlesore, there seems to be something wrong with your story about any confrontation with the female F.S. employees. Since you refer to them as "rangerettes", I understand that to mean they were rather young. #1, It must have been a perfect day in every way to get two young females out of the office. Sightings of them are rarer in the woods than sasquatch sightings. There are rare, but documented sightings of them being seen in herds. #2, It is unthinkable that they would be away from their truck in a simple pair. #3, They never confront men. Men are dangerous. I am sorry I am just not buying your story.

[saddlesore]

These were two women, late20's I would guess. One was pregnant even and would not walk off the road.Every one I know refers to women forest rangers as rangeretts. This was along a Forest Service road, so they did't get off it at all.You get a look at some of these women and they could probably take you down by themselves.They sure are not Victoria Secrets run way models by a long long shot. Some of them even shave I think. Most of them appear to be in the persuasion of not liking men.

[Swede]

We had all sizes and shapes, but none that had any raingear that I ever saw in the field.

[saddlesore]

I figure the fight against wolf introduction is the same as the fight against gun control. Never give an inch.The antis always talk about compromise, but it is always all take and no give.,

[Lefty]

I know that when the experts told us that the "science" proved that it would be a good thing to
I'm pretty confident in saying that basing our decisions on good solid science is a good idea, unfortunately the so called scientific experts aren't really using science to decide what to do, they are influenced by their political and social ideas ,,,,,,,.

Science and statistics are always bias.
We as hunters need to use "our information, scientific facts and stats.

But the whole political judge thing is tough to beat. So as outdoors man we need to be pursuing the lawsuits and creating the law

While in Yellowstone you cant believe what some "researchers" do and say to make their side known as fact. Doesn't matter if they are grizzle, bison or wolf freaks.
I listened to one fellow who attracted a Montanan on social media who killed a "Yellowstone wolf" Miles outside the park. He tried to persuade the Montana Fish and Game to file charges because that wolf "never left the park.
Another was going on how 3 Alpha wolves were killed from three packs by three different hunters outside the park And how was that possible,..

[saddlesore]

I never seen a study yet that the folks doing it did not have an agenda or a per-concieved notion of how it was suppose to turn out

[ishy]

For all the talk there is one group that is making a real difference. Any one that hunts or hopes to have hunting around for our kids and grandkids should look into this. We can all help with this program whether you live in wolf central today, or Florida you can contribute in what ever way you can. They are endorsed by Idaho Fish and Game and the RMEF.
https://www.foundationforwildlifemanagement.org/

[Swede]

I never seen a study yet that the folks doing it did not have an agenda or a per-concieved notion of how it was suppose to turn out

That has not been my observation with Forest Service wildlife studies. It appeared to me that there were people and groups interpreting the studies to promote their own agenda. Most studies only showed where things stand as best they could tell, and came with rational recommendations. It was others that called for extreme measures that precluded everything they were not interested in. I suspect the F.S. today is much more inclined to go along with the tide of environmentalism at the extreme. It was not that way in the past.

[saddlesore]

Unfortunately we are tied to the present.What happened in the past is not relative.Get out and about and interact with the new breed of forest employees and you will see the difference. Most are more than happy to figure out ways to keep the public off public lands so their job is easier.

Anyone can pretty much pick out the agenda of any study just by what questions are asked and how they are asked either to the general public or the agencies employees themselves.

Forest Service does not do wildlife studies , the Wildlife Divisions do , at least in Colorado.The only thing the forest service is involved regarding wildlife in is issuing outfitter permits, grazing permits, camping on forest service land.They sure as heck don't do much trail maintenance or much road up keep any more

[Swede]

Maybe you are right about the change. I have been gone over 16 years now. Even then the F.S. was not what had been in the past. Remember the Spotted Owl and the Marbled Marlette? The F.S had biologists studying them in the NW and several other species so the management programs would enhance, or at least not further endanger them. We use to have biologists studying/looking for the Canadian Lynx and Pine Marten.