Post by: mulehunter on June 09, 2010, 06:21:08 PM
Mulehunter ;)
This wolf was shot near Salmon Idaho.
>
> This is one BIG Wolf....
>
> This is what we are up against in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Oregon, These big wolves are eating everything in their wake and expanding their territory faster than we can keep track of them.
>
> WOW!!!!!!
> Who is afraid of the "Big Bad Wolf?"
> Those wolves don't bother anything or anybody??? Guess again. Wendy who sent me this one lives near Challis.
>
> Heidi Leavitt shot this wolf just outside their home down river at Spring Creek. Heidi was in the store and said that they have had a pack running around their place and decided when they heard about them coming their way again, they would try and shoot one (she did have a tag). So the next time came quickly and while waiting for the pack to get closer, they looked in the woods below them and there was this wolf.
> He weighed 127 lbs and was a collared wolf and by the time they got it to Fish & Game (which is probably an 1.5 hr drive, Fish & Game already knew about the wolf and said they had been looking for him. He is now skinned and hanging at their place.
> The wolf pack had been terrorizing campers lately. Had a couple of guys treed in the cab of their pickup all night at Colson Creek campground. Not afraid of human campsites at all.
>
Post by: markts on June 09, 2010, 06:23:41 PM
Post by: coop2424 on June 09, 2010, 06:25:09 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on June 09, 2010, 06:30:32 PM
thanks wdfw :bash: >:(
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 09, 2010, 06:36:52 PM
Post by: bowhunterforever on June 10, 2010, 12:55:29 AM
Post by: PA BEN on June 10, 2010, 05:36:30 AM
Post by: rasbo on June 10, 2010, 06:01:10 AM
Where's that other picture going around the net. Those gloves look the same.that wolf has been killed so many times in so many places :chuckle:
Post by: D-Rock425 on June 10, 2010, 06:11:12 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 10, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
Post by: PA BEN on June 11, 2010, 06:28:13 AM
http://www.grimsmonstermix.com/old/wolfPhoto.htm (http://www.grimsmonstermix.com/old/wolfPhoto.htm)
Post by: seth30 on June 11, 2010, 06:31:14 AM
Post by: Cascade Hunter on June 11, 2010, 09:02:11 PM
Post by: NWTFhunter on June 11, 2010, 09:13:18 PM
Post by: dirty24d on June 11, 2010, 09:17:32 PM
Post by: Cascade Hunter on June 11, 2010, 09:19:21 PM
Not too many are going to eat a wolf... but they sure as hell are going to eat a hell of a lot of deer and elk if you dont kill em.To me, it's for law enforcement/rangers/government to take care of over-population of wolves. I just don't believe in sport hunting.
Post by: Cascade Hunter on June 11, 2010, 09:26:50 PM
Very Very photoshopped. For one that lady has huuuge hands. 2 if you look closely you can see her left hand which is a mans hand isnt attached to her arm.It's not photoshopped, she is wearing big gloves. You can google the story.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi845.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab17%2FCascade_Hunter10%2Fwolf.jpg&hash=95c8949316524e7583a0c1cb93dd91410fe770f6)
Post by: dirty24d on June 11, 2010, 09:38:34 PM
Very Very photoshopped. For one that lady has huuuge hands. 2 if you look closely you can see her left hand which is a mans hand isnt attached to her arm.It's not photoshopped, she is wearing big gloves. You can google the story.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi845.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab17%2FCascade_Hunter10%2Fwolf.jpg&hash=95c8949316524e7583a0c1cb93dd91410fe770f6)
Oh so because it's on google it's real right? :DOH: You realize google is just a search engine ? Anyone could post pics and a story and when u match a keyword it will pop up.
Post by: Whitelightning on June 11, 2010, 09:42:48 PM
Not too many are going to eat a wolf... but they sure as hell are going to eat a hell of a lot of deer and elk if you dont kill em.To me, it's for law enforcement/rangers/government to take care of over-population of wolves. I just don't believe in sport hunting.
When we can no longer hunt Elk/Deer and Moose because the numbers have fallen for some reason (Wolves) then you are going to wish the law enforcement/rangers and government would have had the foresite to see the Wolves are a bad idea!
Post by: dirty24d on June 11, 2010, 09:43:08 PM
Not too many are going to eat a wolf... but they sure as hell are going to eat a hell of a lot of deer and elk if you dont kill em.To me, it's for law enforcement/rangers/government to take care of over-population of wolves. I just don't believe in sport hunting.
Goverment? :bdid: So leave it in the hands of paper pushers who've never hunted before to take care of an issue they know nothing about. On the advice of a biologist who may have an agenda.. You dont believe in sport hunting but you hunt for the thrill and experience as stated in another post????
Post by: dirty24d on June 11, 2010, 09:48:11 PM
--- Cascade Hunter---
Post by: Cascade Hunter on June 11, 2010, 10:01:11 PM
But I eat what I hunt. I wouldn't eat a wolf. I have smelled dog meat being cooked before in Thailand, and it was NASTY.Not too many are going to eat a wolf... but they sure as hell are going to eat a hell of a lot of deer and elk if you dont kill em.To me, it's for law enforcement/rangers/government to take care of over-population of wolves. I just don't believe in sport hunting.
Goverment? :bdid: So leave it in the hands of paper pushers who've never hunted before to take care of an issue they know nothing about. On the advice of a biologist who may have an agenda.. You dont believe in sport hunting but you hunt for the thrill and experience as stated in another post????
Post by: Whitelightning on June 11, 2010, 10:06:16 PM
The fact is, 99% of "hunters" don't have the skills to actually stalk and hunt game animals. Even the books by "experts" are a big joke, filled with tips on tree stands and ground blinds. They have no idea how to tread quietly through the forest. Nor can they follow animal signs and tracks. It's a lost art, given up to lazy "hunters" who sit in a tree stand and put out a bushel of apples or a salt lick 75 yards away. Then they use their overly powerful super scoped rifle and just wait for the deer to come along. Their success rates reach near 100% every season. My success rate is less than 20%. My success in WA is at 0%. But for me it's about the hunt, the chase, and the thrill of being in the wilderness. I'm a hunter, not a killer. [/color]
--- Cascade Hunter---
Your making a huge assumption as to how we hunt or I hunt. I dont use tree stands or blinds I do walk the woods actually I see no other hunters where I hunt. If you think you are above the mass of the hunters on this site you a mistaken! I eat what I shot with the exception of Dog coyote or wolf.
Post by: Cascade Hunter on June 11, 2010, 10:11:00 PM
I respect that kind of hunting. I also hunt very isolated areas. My comments are directed at the tree stand "hunters."The fact is, 99% of "hunters" don't have the skills to actually stalk and hunt game animals. Even the books by "experts" are a big joke, filled with tips on tree stands and ground blinds. They have no idea how to tread quietly through the forest. Nor can they follow animal signs and tracks. It's a lost art, given up to lazy "hunters" who sit in a tree stand and put out a bushel of apples or a salt lick 75 yards away. Then they use their overly powerful super scoped rifle and just wait for the deer to come along. Their success rates reach near 100% every season. My success rate is less than 20%. My success in WA is at 0%. But for me it's about the hunt, the chase, and the thrill of being in the wilderness. I'm a hunter, not a killer. [/color]
--- Cascade Hunter---
Your making a huge assumption as to how we hunt or I hunt. I dont use tree stands or blinds I do walk the woods actually I see no other hunters where I hunt. If you think you are above the mass of the hunters on this site you a mistaken! I eat what I shot with the exception of Dog coyote or wolf.
Post by: PA BEN on June 12, 2010, 07:12:05 AM
Post by: lokidog on June 12, 2010, 07:43:48 AM
This is the problem with "hunters" like you, you think you are above the rest because you bumble through the woods and aren't very successful. "Oh, those treestand hunters, they're successful so they must not be real hunters...." Do you have to have an empty freezer to be a successful hunter? There is a lot of prep and work put into scouting and figuring out where to place a treestand, especially for bow hunting, in order to be successful.
If you don't like tree stands, don't use one, but shut the F up. We don't need people within our ranks (if you are) adding to the negativity and divisiveness that the anti-hunters feed on.
Sorry for the off-topic rant.
Post by: runamuk on June 12, 2010, 08:21:04 AM
You can choose to not partake of an activity that is legal if you but it doesn't mean you need to belittle those who do use it....
I have discovered I sort of like the predators something about them attracts me and given the opportunity I would wolf hunt in a heartbeat I also support the development of native wolf packs...its these giant canadian wolves that we do not need here The reason Alaska still utilizes airborne predator control (which is NOT hunting) is because the wolves tend to thrive and even in a place as vast and natural as Alaska there is a balance that nature no longer keeps humans are part of nature we must take part in managing it if we want any wildlife left at all....killing predators actually benefits the predators you cannot simply relocate these critters.
The first pics look like that same ginormous wolf with the big gloves thats been all over the net and shot in almost every state in the union :rolleyes: the pics of the gal sitting with the wolf I have not seen and that looks more real....
Post by: NWBREW on June 12, 2010, 08:28:07 AM
Every hunter has the right to hunt what, when and how as long as it is legal to do so. I will always support that....bow, muzzy, rifle, treestand. groundblind, salt lick, spot and stalk or what ever they CHOOSE to do so. It is hunters like you that will help to kill this sport. Hunters cannot be divided.....we must stick together. Just my opinion.....like it or not.
Post by: robb92 on June 12, 2010, 08:57:05 AM
Post by: Bigshooter on June 12, 2010, 01:56:25 PM
Post by: PA BEN on June 12, 2010, 02:39:28 PM
Post by: firefighter4607 on June 12, 2010, 03:06:19 PM
That is HORRIBLE. Who would eat a wolf? (and before anyone says it, it's just my belief. Don't kill anything you won't eat unless in self defense. It's called hunting, not killing)AHHH I found out why you are this way you are from California. :bash: Here in Washington State we have many predators that need to be hunting coyotes, cougars and soon to be wolves. That is life here in Washington hell I have even killed porcupines and skunks, but the heck if I am going to eat them. From your quote I have to ask if you have ever put traps out for mice and if you did, did you eat them??? :dunno: :chuckle:
How many animals have you killed within 20 yds from you???
From Cascade Hunter
I grew up hunting deer in the Greenhorn Mountains in CA.
My grandfather taught me from a young age how to "hunt." He beat into my brain that real hunters never use a tree stand or a blind or a scoped rifle. He taught me how to track deer, and wouldn't let me have ammo for my 30-30 rifle until I could sneak up on a deer and toss a small rock at it and scare it away. It took me my first 3 hunting seasons to accomplish this task. I will never forget my grandfather's words, "If you have to shoot an animal from more than 50 yards, you haven't hunted it, you just killed it."
To this day I carry a Marlin 30-30 lever action without a scope for deer, elk and black bear. Every game animal I have harvested has been from within 20 yards.
I don't use scent covers, attractants or calls and lures. Just simple camo and my rifle.
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 12, 2010, 03:18:57 PM
The fact is, 99% of "hunters" don't have the skills to actually stalk and hunt game animals. Even the books by "experts" are a big joke, filled with tips on tree stands and ground blinds. They have no idea how to tread quietly through the forest. Nor can they follow animal signs and tracks. It's a lost art, given up to lazy "hunters" who sit in a tree stand and put out a bushel of apples or a salt lick 75 yards away. Then they use their overly powerful super scoped rifle and just wait for the deer to come along. Their success rates reach near 100% every season. My success rate is less than 20%. My success in WA is at 0%. But for me it's about the hunt, the chase, and the thrill of being in the wilderness. I'm a hunter, not a killer. [/color]
--- Cascade Hunter---
Was this by you or by CH?
"The fact is, 99% of "hunters" don't have the skills to actually stalk and hunt game animals." Source please? Or are you the source?
Here's a little tip:
If your success rate is around 20% and a bit fat ZERO in WA, perhaps you shouldn't try and lecture anyone on how to hunt or say anything about how others don't know how to hunt. Your numbers alone, prove you don't know jack.
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 12, 2010, 03:20:53 PM
That is HORRIBLE...
...To me, it's for law enforcement/rangers/government to take care of over-population of wolves...
Horrible that she only got one? Sure, I'll buy that.
Good thing it isn't up to you. But just curious, when budgets are already running in the negative or close to it, how do you propose these paid officials are funded to go out and spend countless hours after our over populated wolves? Are you going to pay for it? I'd rather people pay the state to go hunt them on their own.
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 12, 2010, 03:27:18 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi865.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab220%2Fzingyginger%2FI-think-theres-a-spy-among.jpg&hash=3358d78c977430b691bc79808d569fa81165819d)
Have you ever heard the saying "Agree or disagree, we need to accept our differences and stand together." If you truly are a hunter, you should heed that advice and not say how others shouldn't do one thing or another when it is perfectly legal.
Post by: Austrian Hunter on June 12, 2010, 03:35:50 PM
Post by: rasbo on June 12, 2010, 03:44:14 PM
:yeah: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:x2
Post by: MikeWalking on June 12, 2010, 03:49:15 PM
Quote
Not too many are going to eat a wolf... but they sure as hell are going to eat a hell of a lot of deer and elk if you dont kill em.
To me, it's for law enforcement/rangers/government to take care of over-population of wolves. I just don't believe in sport hunting.
Anything is edible with enough Tobasco....Those in charge of Wolf Reintroduction in the lower 48 have already shown no willingness to manage overpopulation, save the Idaho tags.
Post by: 270Shooter on June 12, 2010, 03:59:52 PM
Thats a HUGE load of BS :o :o :o.That is HORRIBLE. Who would eat a wolf? (and before anyone says it, it's just my belief. Don't kill anything you won't eat unless in self defense. It's called hunting, not killing)How many animals have you killed within 20 yds from you???
From Cascade Hunter
I grew up hunting deer in the Greenhorn Mountains in CA.
My grandfather taught me from a young age how to "hunt." He beat into my brain that real hunters never use a tree stand or a blind or a scoped rifle. He taught me how to track deer, and wouldn't let me have ammo for my 30-30 rifle until I could sneak up on a deer and toss a small rock at it and scare it away. It took me my first 3 hunting seasons to accomplish this task. I will never forget my grandfather's words, "If you have to shoot an animal from more than 50 yards, you haven't hunted it, you just killed it."
To this day I carry a Marlin 30-30 lever action without a scope for deer, elk and black bear. Every game animal I have harvested has been from within 20 yards.
I don't use scent covers, attractants or calls and lures. Just simple camo and my rifle.
You use camo during modern rifle season? hmmmmmmm
Post by: firefighter4607 on June 12, 2010, 04:34:39 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2010, 04:53:57 PM
My grandfather taught me from a young age how to "hunt." He beat into my brain that real hunters never use a tree stand or a blind or a scoped rifle. He taught me how to track deer, and wouldn't let me have ammo for my 30-30 rifle until I could sneak up on a deer and toss a small rock at it and scare it away. It took me my first 3 hunting seasons to accomplish this task. I will never forget my grandfather's words, "If you have to shoot an animal from more than 50 yards, you haven't hunted it, you just killed it."
To this day I carry a Marlin 30-30 lever action without a scope for deer, elk and black bear.)
I am almost sure I read this same thing in a book when I was in the third grade, sounds kind of like Davey Crocket but different, maybe Daniel Boone :dunno:
Post by: jdb on June 12, 2010, 04:57:33 PM
Post by: dirty24d on June 12, 2010, 04:59:09 PM
Post by: PA BEN on June 12, 2010, 05:15:09 PM
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 12, 2010, 06:17:22 PM
Post by: Axle on June 12, 2010, 06:41:13 PM
Predator control is necessary but it is not a necessity to eat the damn thing. Do you put slug bait out in your garden? Do the farmers dust their crops and orchards? For crying out loud, do you lock your car and house doors?
The stupidity of anti hunters and anti Americans never ceases to amaze me! Without our help they would die from stupidity real fast.
Post by: bearpaw on June 12, 2010, 07:14:34 PM
Post by: mulehunter on June 12, 2010, 07:35:47 PM
Mulehunter :rolleyes:
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 12, 2010, 09:35:13 PM
He's not going to replay now. :chuckle: No balls.
he's been posting on multiple threads recently yet avoiding this. You were right :chuckle:
Post by: Dustin07 on June 14, 2010, 01:17:34 PM
Not too many are going to eat a wolf... but they sure as hell are going to eat a hell of a lot of deer and elk if you dont kill em.To me, it's for law enforcement/rangers/government to take care of over-population of wolves. I just don't believe in sport hunting.
All forms of hunting in the lower 48 states are sport hunting.
Post by: rasbo on June 14, 2010, 01:50:57 PM
Post by: PA BEN on June 14, 2010, 03:50:52 PM
BTW, he hopes the people on the other site are better then us. :chuckle:
Re: Welcome!!! Please Introduce yourself
« Reply #490 on: June 13, 2010, 09:32:24 PM »
ReplyReply
Hello everyone. I came here after getting booted off a certain other WA hunting forum. Apparently they are against anything that differs from their point of view. I didn't fit in because I had different ideas of ethical hunting, I didn't wish for the death of liberals/democrats/Obama, and I was something called a "wetside tree hugging pacifist."
I hope this place will be more accommodating. I love hunting and fishing. However, I personally only hunt animals I will eat, so I won't hunt wolves, cougars, coyotes, goats or sheep. On a personal level, I believe hunting is about the hunt, not the kill.
I have my own rules on ethics. I don't take long range shots (50 yards or less). I don't use a scope. I don't use baits, lures, decoys, or calls. I don't use tree stands or blinds. These are just my personal rules. Please don't take offense like they did on that other forum.
Thanks
« Last Edit: June 13, 2010, 09:42:09 PM by Cascade Hunter »
Post by: Dustin07 on June 14, 2010, 03:56:04 PM
whats wrong with eating sheep?
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2010, 04:03:34 PM
Maybe he's pissed because I asked about the mice, gophers, flies, and mosquitos he has probably killed and not eaten. :chuckle:
Post by: Dustin07 on June 14, 2010, 04:07:17 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 14, 2010, 06:23:05 PM
Quote
believe hunting is about the hunt, not the kill.
Sounds sporting to me.
Post by: rasbo on June 14, 2010, 06:30:19 PM
well cascade hunter..this site has a lot of the same people on it.and they are among the 99.9 percent that don't know how to hunt,as you stated it,because they use calls,treestands,like hounds,and don't want to trust the government with the wolf situations.Your introduction changed a lot since you got booted.welcome...
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2010, 06:40:03 PM
Post by: Dustin07 on June 15, 2010, 08:30:28 AM
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 15, 2010, 08:40:33 AM
I can't stand PETA >:(
Post by: Dustin07 on June 15, 2010, 08:42:38 AM
PETA's kill rate is far higher than us as hunters. Last year their kill rate was 97%. A whole 97%!
I don't know what that means. :dunno:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 15, 2010, 11:12:28 AM
http://missoulian.com/news/local/art...cc4c03286.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/art...cc4c03286.html)
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and...cc4c03286.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and...cc4c03286.html)
__________________
Post by: Dustin07 on June 15, 2010, 11:14:20 AM
Post by: Dustin07 on June 15, 2010, 11:16:03 AM
Post by: Dustin07 on June 15, 2010, 11:20:45 AM
Quote
"This isn't about wolves and wildlife," said Jerry Black, a retired airline pilot. "This is a mobilization of hostility. You see all these kids with these anti-wolf signs. How do you think they're going to learn to really respect wildlife?"
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 15, 2010, 11:30:18 AM
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d75f1638-789e-11df-8593-001cc4c03286.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d75f1638-789e-11df-8593-001cc4c03286.html)
Dustin..
What do you suppose the chances of Mr Black being a Montana native are? I'd say NOT GOOD!
Post by: bearpaw on June 15, 2010, 11:41:13 AM
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d75f1638-789e-11df-8593-001cc4c03286.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d75f1638-789e-11df-8593-001cc4c03286.html)
100 protest wolves outside federal court hearing
The similarities in the crowd of people gathered on a sidewalk outside Tuesday's federal hearing on wolves were striking.
Anti-wolf signs. Arch rhetoric. Camo shirts.
But once folks in the crowd of about 100 started talking, it was the differences rather than the similarities that proved striking.
"It's very true that we aren't all coming from the same place here," said Casey Richardson, vice president of the Montana chapter of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. "It's like most discussions. You have people out on the fringes and you have people closer to the middle. This group, where we come together is a concern about how wolves are managed in Montana. Where we differ is how that management ought to take place."
Richardson and members of his organization understand that wolves in part of the Montana landscape are good.
"We get that, and we're in support of that," he said. "What we want is some balance so that our populations of elk and deer remain stable. We don't want to see those herds decimated just so wolves can prosper, because in the end, that's bad for wolves, as well."
And then there are folks like Toby Bridges, who runs a website called Lobo Watch, which is decidedly anti-wolf.
"I agree that we are going to have some wolves, but I can tell you that if we have more and more wolves, people are going to start doing something about them," said Bridges. "People are going to take things into their own hands and solve the problem."
Tuesday's hearing inside the Russell Smith Courthouse drew a host of lawyers to argue the merits of relisting the wolf under the Endangered Species Act. That possibility was a galvanizing prospect for protesters gathered outside.
"We're in agreement out here that this is an area where the state of Montana should be managing its own wildlife," said state Sen. Joe Balyeat (R-Bozeman). "The federal government has proven themselves an unworthy partner in management."
While nearly everyone on the downtown Missoula sidewalk favored more aggressive wolf management and hunting, wolves did have a few advocates.
"This isn't about wolves and wildlife," said Jerry Black, a retired airline pilot. "This is a mobilization of hostility. You see all these kids with these anti-wolf signs. How do you think they're going to learn to really respect wildlife?"
Reporter Michael Moore can be reached at 523-5252 or by e-mail at mmoore@missoulian.com.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 15, 2010, 11:49:53 AM
Seeking Balance
Seeking Balance
Crowd gathers prior to Missoula court hearing on federal delisting of wolves
A federal judge heard arguments Tuesday on whether gray wolves in Montana and Idaho should be protected once more under the Endangered Species Act, a case that both sides say could affect how the wildlife protection law is applied in the future.
Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and other wildlife advocates sued the federal government after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service named wolves a distinct population segment and removed them from the endangered species list in April 2009.
The Fish and Wildlife Service turned over wolf management to Montana and Idaho wildlife officials but left federal endangered species protections in place for wolves in Wyoming, where state law is considered hostile to the animals' survival.
The plaintiffs say the government should not be able to split the level of protection between the states, particularly when the wolves in all three states are considered part of the same distinct population segment, attorney Douglas Honnald said Monday.
The Fish and Wildlife Service says it can designate endangered species protections to just that portion of the species' range where it is endangered - and wolves outside Wyoming don't face the same threat as those inside state lines.
"There's no doubt the wolf population is recovered in the northern Rocky Mountains," said Ed Bangs, the Fish and Wildlife Service's wolf recovery project leader.
Wildlife advocates say if the wolves are considered endangered in one significant portion of their range the whole species should be considered endangered - it's a scientific and genetic determination, not a political one.
Both sides say the decision could shape whether the government can use political considerations, such as state laws and boundaries, in choosing how and where a species can be listed under the act.
The plaintiffs also are challenging what the Fish and Wildlife Service determined as an adequate wolf population to consider the species recovered and whether the states have strong enough laws to protect the wolves from dropping back down to dangerously low population levels.
Each side is asking Molloy to grant a summary judgment, which could end the court case before it goes to trial. Molloy is expected to rule later this year.
Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, but following a reintroduction program in the mid-1990s, there are now more than 1,700 wolves in the Northern Rockies
The Fish and Wildlife Service has told each state to keep its minimum wolf population at 150 wolves with 15 breeding pairs or the wolves could go back under federal protection.
At the end of 2009, there were at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming, with more in parts of Oregon and Washington state.
That's too many for some. The population boom has meant livestock losses for ranchers and competition for hunters for big game, such as elk.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission chairman Bob Ream said last month that the commission supports the idea that it's time to decrease the wolf population - the question is how much and how fast.
Montana and Idaho each held wolf hunts last year, Montana's ending with 73 wolves killed and Idaho with 185 killed. Both states are considering expanding their quotas and the tactics allowed for this year's hunt.
Post by: Tony 270WSM on June 15, 2010, 11:50:26 AM
PETA's kill rate is far higher than us as hunters. Last year their kill rate was 97%. A whole 97%!
I don't know what that means. :dunno:
PETA killed 97% of the animals they took in last year, according to their own records. Animals they were supposed to find homes for, but didn't.
Post by: Dustin07 on June 15, 2010, 01:53:57 PM
PETA's kill rate is far higher than us as hunters. Last year their kill rate was 97%. A whole 97%!
I don't know what that means. :dunno:
PETA killed 97% of the animals they took in last year, according to their own records. Animals they were supposed to find homes for, but didn't.
LOL
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 16, 2010, 10:42:55 AM
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_42b40808-7895-11df-8ae3-001cc4c03286.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_42b40808-7895-11df-8ae3-001cc4c03286.html)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 17, 2010, 12:27:18 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Save America's Wolves
Future of Wolves
at Stake
Young Idaho Wolf (www.defenders.org (http://www.defenders.org))
A judge could rule at any time on the future of wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the northern Rockies...but win or lose, our work for wolves will continue.
Help Defenders ensure a lasting future for wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the northern Rockies with a monthly gift of as little as $5 a month (17 cents per day!).
Make a monthly gift for wolves
Dear George,
Thanks to the support of caring people like you, I was at the courthouse in Missoula, Montana yesterday fighting for wolves.
It’s been a long and hard battle -- and the judge could rule at any time on whether to restore vital federal protections for still-recovering wolves in the Greater Yellowstone and northern Rockies region.
Inside the courtroom, each side had 90 minutes to present their case to the judge. Our lead attorney was the first to take the stage, addressing key questions from the judge.
There was even a bit of drama in the courtroom: One of the lawyers fighting for wolves fainted during her arguments to the judge! She's fine -- it just goes to show how hard she's been working to help save these wolves.
Outside the courtroom, anti-wolf protesters made their presence felt with signs saying “Kill Wolves” and labeling Defenders as “terrorists.”
This court battle is pivotal to the future of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone and northern Rockies and a ruling could come at any time. But win or lose, our work to ensure a lasting future for wolves in the West will not end at the courtroom doors.
Please consider becoming a Wildlife Guardian with a small monthly gift to help save the lives of wolves in Greater Yellowstone and the northern Rockies and other wildlife and their homes.
Anti-wolf vigilantes are preparing to take matters into their own hands. A post on one extremist website instructs visitors on how to poison wolves with commonly available products.1 And strychnine-laced sausages -- possibly left for wolves by forest trails -- have already poisoned several dogs in Idaho.2
This charged atmosphere makes Defenders’ work all the more important. We’re not only fighting in court, but we’re also busy on the ground, working to save the lives of the wolves you and I have fought so hard to protect.
Defenders is collaborating with ranchers and livestock producers to reduce conflicts with wolves. We’re countering the anti-wolf lies and extreme rhetoric in the media. We’re mobilizing tens of thousands of activists from across the country. And we’re working to bring lawless wolf poachers to justice.
A lasting future for wolves in the West won’t be made with just one court decision. It will take years of ongoing hard work and determination. Will you help with a monthly gift?
Sincerely,
Mike Senatore
Vice President, Conservation Law
Defenders of Wildlife
P.S. Please become a Wildlife Guardian online today or call 1-877-682-9401 to help provide the vital support we’ll need in the days ahead to save the lives of wolves and other wildlife.
Notes:
1 http://www.keci.com/Anti-wolf-website-angers-conservationists/7465687 (http://www.keci.com/Anti-wolf-website-angers-conservationists/7465687)
2 http://www.krem.com/news/local/Dog-dies-after-eating-sausage-on-trail-92560964.html (http://www.krem.com/news/local/Dog-dies-after-eating-sausage-on-trail-92560964.html)
Defenders Home | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Donate Now
© Copyright 2010, Defenders of Wildlife
Please do not respond to this message.
Click here to unsubscribe.
Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities.
Defenders of Wildlife can be contacted at:
1130 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036