Post by: jackelope on December 17, 2013, 01:52:55 PM
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/17/2931287/fish-and-game-turns-to-hired-hunterpetition.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/17/2931287/fish-and-game-turns-to-hired-hunterpetition.html#storylink=cpy)
The agency previously hired hunter-trappers to kill wolves in the Panhandle Region and the Lolo area in north-central Idaho. But this is the first time it has hired someone to reduce wolf numbers in the land encompassing the Middle Fork of the Salmon River.The decision has a prominent backcountry filmmaker and wolf researcher raising questions about why federal resources are employed to promote predator control in the wilderness."I can understand a reasonable hunting season on wolves, they are considered a game animal in Idaho," said Isaac Babcock, of McCall. "But when Fish and Game hires a bounty hunter to go live in designated wilderness in a Forest Service cabin with the goal of eliminating entire wolf packs — something seems terribly wrong with that."The killing is necessary because wolves and other predators are eating too many elk calves, and the population has not recovered to the agency's goals, said Jeff Gould, Idaho Fish and Game wildlife bureau chief.Sport hunters have a hard time getting into the area, Gould said. They hired hunter-trapper Gus Thoreson, of Salmon, to see if he can be a cost-effective method of population control."The whole goal is to alleviate some of the impacts wolves are having on the elk herds," Gould said. Fish and Game has an official memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Forest Service to use each other's facilities in the wilderness when carrying out their missions. So, Fish and Game asked for permission for Thoreson to use the Cabin Creek administrative site and airstrip on Big Creek in the Payette National Forest. The University of Idaho turned down a similar request for use of its airstrip at Taylor Ranch because that facility is used only for research and education, a U of I spokesman said.District Ranger Anthony Botello Krassel said he authorized the use of the Forest Service sites "strictly for the purposes of managing wildlife.""All of their management has to abide by wilderness management rules like we do," he said. "Usually we don't get involved in the management of wildlife, that's up to them."Thoreson arrived there late last week — flying into the airstrip on Cabin Creek, then flying into the Flying B, where he picked up a horse and three mules to ride into Cabin Creek. Babcock, who was caretaking at Taylor Ranch on Big Creek, met him and rode part of the way to Cabin Creek with him.Thoreson told Babcock he was to focus on the Golden Pack that lives in the lower Big Creek/Middle Fork area, as well as the Monumental Pack that lives 11 miles upstream from Cabin Creek, Babcock said.Babcock was a biologist for the Nez Perce tribe for 13 years, spending much of that time in Idaho's wilderness as he monitored and collared wolves. He and his wife, Bjornen, were featured in a 2012 PBS Nature program called "River of No Return," which they filmed and produced."I've followed these wolves through the re-introduction, delisting and becoming a game animal — and now I'm watching us step back 100 years to see wolves viewed as vermin predators," he said.Fish and Game paid $22,500 for aerial killing in 2012 in the Lolo area that resulted in the killing of 14 wolves. Gould did not know offhand Monday how much the agency would eventually pay for Thoreson's salary and expenses.Fish and Game prefers that sport hunters kill enough wolves to allow the elk population to be productive."If you're looking for cost benefits you remove an entire pack," Gould said. "It's going to have a longer-term benefit than removing members of the pack.""We're trying to stabilize the trend here with the long-term goal of (elk) recovery," he said.In January, Fish and Game estimated Idaho's wolf population at 683, an 11 percent drop from the year before. The highest was in 2009 when it estimated 859 wolves were in the state, also the highest in the northern Rockies.
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/17/2931287/fish-and-game-turns-to-hired-hunterpetition.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/12/17/2931287/fish-and-game-turns-to-hired-hunterpetition.html#storylink=cpy)
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on December 17, 2013, 01:57:16 PM
Post by: C-Money on December 17, 2013, 02:07:43 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2013, 02:13:21 PM
Post by: TeacherMan on December 17, 2013, 02:19:36 PM
Post by: gaddy on December 17, 2013, 03:52:03 PM
Post by: jackmaster on December 17, 2013, 03:56:17 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
pman- you know wash has a permiter around it so that nothing that happens in other states will affect us.
I knew that. It's like a force field, right?
Post by: denali on December 17, 2013, 04:18:58 PM
pman- you know wash has a permiter around it so that nothing that happens in other states will affect us.
I knew that. It's like a force field, right?
a force field of arrogance >:( at some point they will go...huh...those people in the NRM states knew something after all ?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2013, 04:20:27 PM
pman- you know wash has a permiter around it so that nothing that happens in other states will affect us.
I knew that. It's like a force field, right?
a force field of arrogance >:( at some point they will go...huh...those people in the NRM states knew something after all ?
Ha! They'll never admit wrongdoing regardless of how many tags they take away.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 17, 2013, 04:31:04 PM
Washington is going to be in the same boat in a year or two.
Post by: elkrack on December 18, 2013, 09:07:49 AM
Post by: mulehunter on December 18, 2013, 07:41:21 PM
Post by: Huntboy on December 18, 2013, 08:13:06 PM
:bfg: I wish I could join.. :tup::yeah:
Post by: TheHunt on December 19, 2013, 01:45:09 PM
Was this behavior bad? YES illegal but they locals saw the dangers and took care of business by themselves. I am not saying I agree but it shows that no one was talking.
Post by: Dave of TDG-Farms on December 20, 2013, 09:11:19 PM
But you do not hear all the dead wolf and grizzly bears in that unit from the locals. It used to be intesting to get gas in "Not to be named" gas station with posters from LEO's asking for information of the shooting of a grizzly or wolf in this location or the next.
Was this behavior bad? YES illegal but they locals saw the dangers and took care of business by themselves. I am not saying I agree but it shows that no one was talking.
Id do the same. Then again, my right to protect my livestock far outweighs a predators right to try and snack on em :)
Post by: denali on January 07, 2014, 11:25:16 AM
And the lawsuits begin... shocked..shocked I tell ya :bash:
He is not going to "eradicate" wolves, the plan is to reduce the number of packs to increase calf recruitment, not to "inflate" elk numbers for the benefit of commercial outfitters. these people are relentless and never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Post by: Jonathan_S on January 07, 2014, 11:29:20 AM
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/07/64287.htm (http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/07/64287.htm)
And the lawsuits begin... shocked..shocked I tell ya :bash:
He is not going to "eradicate" wolves, the plan is to reduce the number of packs to increase calf recruitment, not to "inflate" elk numbers for the benefit of commercial outfitters. these people are relentless and never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I know, there is not a single person on the planet capable of "eradicating" multiple packs of wolves. Not up in that country anyway.
Mindless propoganda
Post by: AspenBud on January 07, 2014, 04:11:48 PM
the plan is to reduce the number of packs to increase calf recruitment, not to "inflate" elk numbers for the benefit of commercial outfitters.
I'm not sure I agree. Given how economically important elk are to Idaho I'd say it has everything to do with money one way or another. Bearpaw has mentioned countless times on here how many small businesses have suffered from big game declines and that includes commercial outfitters.
The argument really is over whether we manage game and utilize it like a crop or if we say the hell with it and let nature sort it out.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 05:09:13 PM
A letter from the IDFG Director on this issue. Seems pretty reasonable.
Why manage wildlife in wilderness
By Virgil Moore, Director, Idaho Fish and Game
Recent media coverage about Idaho Fish and Game sending an employee to try to remove two of the wolf packs in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness has raised questions and concerns. Many Idahoans have strong feelings about wolves - and wilderness. I've heard from those who believe we should take a hands-off approach and "let nature take its course" in wilderness, while others feel Fish and Game's actions are not aggressive enough to recover elk herds in the area.
Since their introduction into Idaho, we have come to understand that wolves are very prolific at reproducing and colonizing new territory and they can withstand relatively high mortality levels.
In 2002, the Idaho State legislature adopted a state wolf management plan to ensure that Idaho's wolf population would remain on the Idaho landscape and off the federal endangered species list.
Part of keeping wolves in Idaho is managing them to reduce conflicts. Idaho law says that wildlife throughout our state belongs to the citizens and that Fish and Game will manage to preserve, protect, perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.
Wildlife management often involves action: reducing crop damage from deer and elk herds through special hunts, reducing traffic collisions with big game animals, removing mountain lions from cities, preventing nuisance bear behavior by improving public awareness about sanitation, addressing overpopulation by increasing harvest, and recovering populations in decline by improving habitat, and in this case, reducing predation.
Fish and Game seeks to manage large predators (black bears, mountain lions, and gray wolves) in balance with their prey. The pack behavior of wolves is different than more solitary predators. The rapid growth of the wolf population disrupted the predator-prey balance in some areas and is a major factor in preventing some elk populations from rebounding.
The wilderness is a special place but it is different from a national park. Backcountry hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing are treasured opportunities, and Fish and Game has actively managed wildlife in central Idaho since before the area was designated wilderness.
Aerial surveys tell us that in the Frank Church wilderness, elk populations have dropped 43 percent since 2002 and wolf populations are too high in relation to elk numbers. Our research in other backcountry areas indicates that wolf predation is a major factor preventing elk populations from recovering. We know there are at least six documented packs in the Middle Fork Salmon zone, and several more packs throughout the wilderness area. Recent back country wildfires have increased elk forage but may it take a few years for habitat to fully recover.
Wolf hunting and trapping by sportsmen in the Middle Fork zones have not been sufficiently effective in reducing elk predation. Even if successful, this action will in no way come near to eliminating wolves. That is not, and never will be our goal.
More information about the Middle Fork zone elk population trends is included on page 97 of Fish and Game's new 10 year Draft Elk Management Plan posted on the Fish and Game website. Read more here: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324. (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324.)
Post by: JLS on January 07, 2014, 05:18:53 PM
They have scientific documentation of the issue. Elk numbers should skyrocket following a large series of burns, usually about 5-10 years post burn and stay elevated for a number of years. If wolves are keeping the number depressed, then it would be appropriate scientific management to do this.
I think this area is an anomaly because of the sheer remoteness of the Frank Church.
Post by: denali on January 07, 2014, 05:37:06 PM
the plan is to reduce the number of packs to increase calf recruitment, not to "inflate" elk numbers for the benefit of commercial outfitters.
I'm not sure I agree. Given how economically important elk are to Idaho I'd say it has everything to do with money one way or another. Bearpaw has mentioned countless times on here how many small businesses have suffered from big game declines and that includes commercial outfitters.
The argument really is over whether we manage game and utilize it like a crop or if we say the hell with it and let nature sort it out.
AspenBud , we are in agreement, the reason I said that was to show that wolf advocates are distorting the picture buy using the word eradicate and making it sound like the IDFG is doing the dirty work for commercial interests.
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 06:52:18 PM
I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with Idaho doing this. If you want to cite something meaningful for future wolf management in WA, it would be this.
They have scientific documentation of the issue. Elk numbers should skyrocket following a large series of burns, usually about 5-10 years post burn and stay elevated for a number of years. If wolves are keeping the number depressed, then it would be appropriate scientific management to do this.
I think this area is an anomaly because of the sheer remoteness of the Frank Church.
All the range riders on the Diamond M ranch would disagree.
Post by: JLS on January 07, 2014, 07:18:54 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 07:37:13 PM
Post by: denali on January 08, 2014, 07:13:53 PM
info provided to the courts in a temporary restraining order filed yesterday.
Post by: huntnnw on January 08, 2014, 10:03:08 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on January 08, 2014, 10:25:50 PM
Post by: huntnnw on January 08, 2014, 10:33:30 PM
Post by: jackmaster on January 09, 2014, 07:22:52 AM
Post by: JLS on January 09, 2014, 07:30:41 AM
could be..only the hunter may truly know and we will never no how many are killed
If he killed and did not document/report accurately, that would be the stupidest thing he could ever do.
Don't we all ask for honesty and transparency from government officials?
Post by: Northway on January 10, 2014, 09:42:35 AM
could be..only the hunter may truly know and we will never no how many are killed
If he killed and did not document/report accurately, that would be the stupidest thing he could ever do.
Don't we all ask for honesty and transparency from government officials?
Documentation and accurate reporting are not strong suits with a number of agencies that handle wildlife/undeveloped lands. Agencies like Wildlife Services and the BLM can't seem to do either to save their souls. I'm not sure how good IDFG is when it comes to reporting?
Post by: denali on January 13, 2014, 05:42:48 PM
why we manage wildlife in wilderness
By Virgil Moore, Director, Idaho Fish and Game
Recent media coverage about Idaho Fish and Game sending an employee to try to remove two of the wolf packs in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness has raised questions and concerns. Many Idahoans have strong feelings about wolves - and wilderness. I've heard from those who believe we should take a hands-off approach and "let nature take its course" in wilderness, while others feel Fish and Game's actions are not aggressive enough to recover elk herds in the area.
Since their introduction into Idaho, we have come to understand that wolves are very prolific at reproducing and colonizing new territory and they can withstand relatively high mortality levels.
In 2002, the Idaho State legislature adopted a state wolf management plan to ensure that Idaho's wolf population would remain on the Idaho landscape and off the federal endangered species list.
Part of keeping wolves in Idaho is managing them to reduce conflicts. Idaho law says that wildlife throughout our state belongs to the citizens and that Fish and Game will manage to preserve, protect, perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.
Wildlife management often involves action: reducing crop damage from deer and elk herds through special hunts, reducing traffic collisions with big game animals, removing mountain lions from cities, preventing nuisance bear behavior by improving public awareness about sanitation, addressing overpopulation by increasing harvest, and recovering populations in decline by improving habitat, and in this case, reducing predation.
Fish and Game seeks to manage large predators (black bears, mountain lions, and gray wolves) in balance with their prey. The pack behavior of wolves is different than more solitary predators. The rapid growth of the wolf population disrupted the predator-prey balance in some areas and is a major factor in preventing some elk populations from rebounding.
The wilderness is a special place but it is different from a national park. Backcountry hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing are treasured opportunities, and Fish and Game has actively managed wildlife in central Idaho since before the area was designated wilderness.
Aerial surveys tell us that in the Frank Church wilderness, elk populations have dropped 43 percent since 2002 and wolf populations are too high in relation to elk numbers. Our research in other backcountry areas indicates that wolf predation is a major factor preventing elk populations from recovering. We know there are at least six documented packs in the Middle Fork Salmon zone, and several more packs throughout the wilderness area. Recent back country wildfires have increased elk forage but may it take a few years for habitat to fully recover.
Wolf hunting and trapping by sportsmen in the Middle Fork zones have not been sufficiently effective in reducing elk predation. Even if successful, this action will in no way come near to eliminating wolves. That is not, and never will be our goal.
More information about the Middle Fork zone elk population trends is included on page 97 of Fish and Game's new 10 year Draft Elk Management Plan posted on the Fish and Game website. Read more here: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324. (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324.)
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 09:51:40 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 01:55:34 AM
They must be taking some heat to respond ?? - from IDFG web site
why we manage wildlife in wilderness
By Virgil Moore, Director, Idaho Fish and Game
Recent media coverage about Idaho Fish and Game sending an employee to try to remove two of the wolf packs in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness has raised questions and concerns. Many Idahoans have strong feelings about wolves - and wilderness. I've heard from those who believe we should take a hands-off approach and "let nature take its course" in wilderness, while others feel Fish and Game's actions are not aggressive enough to recover elk herds in the area.
Since their introduction into Idaho, we have come to understand that wolves are very prolific at reproducing and colonizing new territory and they can withstand relatively high mortality levels.
In 2002, the Idaho State legislature adopted a state wolf management plan to ensure that Idaho's wolf population would remain on the Idaho landscape and off the federal endangered species list.
Part of keeping wolves in Idaho is managing them to reduce conflicts. Idaho law says that wildlife throughout our state belongs to the citizens and that Fish and Game will manage to preserve, protect, perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.
Wildlife management often involves action: reducing crop damage from deer and elk herds through special hunts, reducing traffic collisions with big game animals, removing mountain lions from cities, preventing nuisance bear behavior by improving public awareness about sanitation, addressing overpopulation by increasing harvest, and recovering populations in decline by improving habitat, and in this case, reducing predation.
Fish and Game seeks to manage large predators (black bears, mountain lions, and gray wolves) in balance with their prey. The pack behavior of wolves is different than more solitary predators. The rapid growth of the wolf population disrupted the predator-prey balance in some areas and is a major factor in preventing some elk populations from rebounding.
The wilderness is a special place but it is different from a national park. Backcountry hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing are treasured opportunities, and Fish and Game has actively managed wildlife in central Idaho since before the area was designated wilderness.
Aerial surveys tell us that in the Frank Church wilderness, elk populations have dropped 43 percent since 2002 and wolf populations are too high in relation to elk numbers. Our research in other backcountry areas indicates that wolf predation is a major factor preventing elk populations from recovering. We know there are at least six documented packs in the Middle Fork Salmon zone, and several more packs throughout the wilderness area. Recent back country wildfires have increased elk forage but may it take a few years for habitat to fully recover.
Wolf hunting and trapping by sportsmen in the Middle Fork zones have not been sufficiently effective in reducing elk predation. Even if successful, this action will in no way come near to eliminating wolves. That is not, and never will be our goal.
More information about the Middle Fork zone elk population trends is included on page 97 of Fish and Game's new 10 year Draft Elk Management Plan posted on the Fish and Game website. Read more here: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324. (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324.)
That is a good statement, I wished WDFW would read and consider what Director Moore said. :twocents:
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 01:05:06 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 29, 2014, 06:19:15 AM
http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/435877/85b41d5ddd/1454001502/4271a9384b/ (http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/435877/85b41d5ddd/1454001502/4271a9384b/)
there pulling him out.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 29, 2014, 10:08:33 AM
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2014, 01:03:26 PM
Idaho official says hunter eliminated two wolf packs
CommentsPrint
Published: January 29. 2014 3:35PM
The state has pulled out a hunter who killed two wolf packs in an Idaho wilderness area.
KETCHUM, Idaho (AP) — A professional hunter has been called out of a federal wilderness in central Idaho because he succeeded in killing all the wolves in two packs, a state agency spokesman said.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game spokesman Mike Keckler tells the Idaho Mountain Express (http://bit.ly/1aHwsQA (http://bit.ly/1aHwsQA) ) in a story on Wednesday that the hunter killed eight wolves with traps and a ninth by hunting.
Gus Thoreson of Salmon started hunting and trapping in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in mid-December as part of a state plan to eliminate wolves to boost elk numbers. The state agency had planned to keep Thoreson hunting through the winter.
“He had been pretty effective early on, but it had been two weeks since he had taken any wolves, so we decided there was no reason to keep him in the area any longer,” Keckler said.
Keckler said the average size of a wolf pack in Idaho is five wolves, so the agency determined it had reached its goal of eliminating the Golden Creek and Monumental Creek packs. Officials announced Monday that Thoreson was coming out.
Fish and Game Director Virgil Moore’s acknowledgment that Thoreson’s hunt relied on the use of the U.S. Forest Service’s backcountry airstrips and cabin had prompted strong emotions, including from wolf advocates who sued in federal court to force him to quit.
Defenders of Wildlife, Western Watersheds Project and Wilderness Watch filed the lawsuit Jan. 6 asking the judge to stop the plan immediately to give the case time to work through the courts. The environmental groups were joined by Ralph Maughan, a former Idaho State University professor, conservationist and long-time wolf recovery advocate from Pocatello.
They lost their initial bid on Jan. 17 when a federal judge rejected their request for a temporary restraining order. The conservation groups argued that Thoreson’s activities violated the 1964 Wilderness Act and other federal acts.
The groups had appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Tim Preso, an attorney for Earthjustice representing the groups, said Wednesday that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game faced a Tuesday deadline to file a legal brief concerning the appeal, but pulling the hunter made that unnecessary.
“Instead they were able to sidestep all that,” he said, adding the groups are considering their next move.
“I am happy that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game has relented, but it is unfortunate that so many wolves have been taken in this senseless plan to manhandle wildlife in an area that Congress recognized as a wilderness,” said Ken Cole, National Environmental Policy Act coordinator at the Boise office of Western Watersheds Project.
Wolves were reintroduced to Idaho in the mid-1990s and have since flourished in backcountry regions, including the Frank Church wilderness.
Last year, state game managers estimated Idaho’s wolf population at 683, an 11 percent drop from 2012. The highest total was in 2009, when it estimated 859 wolves were in the state.
CommentsPrint
User Comments
You must register,login or to make a comment.
Search sponsored by OnlyAg.com
Trending now
Most read
Most commented
Idaho bill would require statewide trich testing ( 69 )
Speeding tree fruit propagation ( 59 )
Bumblebee deaths put Oregon in spotlight ( 56 )
Stricter pesticide labels aid bees ( 46 )
Pesticides get bad rap, expert says ( 40 )
Potato researchers seek new fresh pack varieties ( 26 )
Featured
Top Ads
Livestock & Equipment
Part of the EO MEDIA Group family of products
© 2014 Capital Press, No commercial reproduction without written consent. Electronic reproduction of any kind prohibited without written consent.
State Nation/World Ag Sectors Opinion Special Sections Classifieds Advertising About Subscribe Social Media
Our Media Family
The Daily Astorian |
East Oregonian
| Hermiston Herald
| Eastern Oregon Real Estate
| Blue Mountain Eagle
| Wallowa County Chieftain
| Coast Weekend
| Chinook Observer
| Oregon Coast Today
| Seaside Signal
| Cannon Beach Gazette
| Coast River Business Journal
| Seaside-Sun.com
| DiscoverOurCoast.com
| NorthwestOpinions.com
| FarmSeller.com
| OnlyAg.com
- See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140129/ARTICLE/140129863#sthash.jX346rHx.dpuf (http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140129/ARTICLE/140129863#sthash.jX346rHx.dpuf)
Post by: ironhead14 on February 02, 2014, 11:25:18 AM
Post by: elkboy on February 02, 2014, 11:44:20 AM
Post by: Come Get Some on February 03, 2014, 07:00:58 AM
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/07/64287.htm (http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/07/64287.htm)
And the lawsuits begin... shocked..shocked I tell ya :bash:
He is not going to "eradicate" wolves, the plan is to reduce the number of packs to increase calf recruitment, not to "inflate" elk numbers for the benefit of commercial outfitters. these people are relentless and never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I know, there is not a single person on the planet capable of "eradicating" multiple packs of wolves. Not up in that country anyway.
Mindless propoganda
I know Gus, He is a rank go get em cowboy with no quit. I own one of his mules. Jigger. If anyone can do it it will be Gus, He and his girlfriend spent 3 months from December to February a couple of years ago in that same country trapping cats. He lives for this kind of outdoor activity.
Post by: sagewalker on February 04, 2014, 05:12:24 PM
Post by: deerslyr on February 04, 2014, 06:07:26 PM
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/07/64287.htm (http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/07/64287.htm)
And the lawsuits begin... shocked..shocked I tell ya :bash:
He is not going to "eradicate" wolves, the plan is to reduce the number of packs to increase calf recruitment, not to "inflate" elk numbers for the benefit of commercial outfitters. these people are relentless and never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I know, there is not a single person on the planet capable of "eradicating" multiple packs of wolves. Not up in that country anyway.
Mindless propoganda
I know Gus, He is a rank go get em cowboy with no quit. I own one of his mules. Jigger. If anyone can do it it will be Gus, He and his girlfriend spent 3 months from December to February a couple of years ago in that same country trapping cats. He lives for this kind of outdoor activity.
Gus sounds like a bad ass dude, took 7 wolves out since January, that nuts! I wonder if they let him keep the pelts? That would of given him quite a nice bonus.
Post by: Come Get Some on February 05, 2014, 05:27:09 PM
Post by: Come Get Some on February 05, 2014, 05:42:47 PM
Post by: deerslyr on February 06, 2014, 07:31:00 PM
I just spoke to his mom again. He is out BUT there is serious talk about sending him back in. She said he killed 4 in one day. He has been trapping in the back country there and says there are MANY more wolves than predicted. He said there was a sick cow elk by his camp. The wolves ignored her and kept coming to his camp trying to kill his mules and dog. It did not go good for them.
I hope he filmed this adventure or at least kept a journal!
Post by: Maverick26 on February 07, 2014, 06:46:54 AM
I just spoke to his mom again. He is out BUT there is serious talk about sending him back in. She said he killed 4 in one day. He has been trapping in the back country there and says there are MANY more wolves than predicted. He said there was a sick cow elk by his camp. The wolves ignored her and kept coming to his camp trying to kill his mules and dog. It did not go good for them.
Sounds like he needs some of us there to help pull security, I'll load some mags now just in case he calls. :hello: