Wolfs

[bodine11]

Most people think wolves are cool. Check out this link and I'll bet it will change your mind: [url "http://www.saveourelk.com/"]http://www.saveourelk.com/[/url] This is all in Idaho
[signature]

[Mojo1]

While I am no fan of wolves, this slideshow is total BS. Almost all of those dead critters were winterkilled, not killed by wolves. Most of them had bee torn up by crows, eagles, magpies, and in some cases coyotes. Many of the pictures were taken before wolves were stocked in Idaho, as part of an effort to expand cougar hunting in the Clearwater area. I have spoken at length with the IDF&G biologist that has been tasked with dealing with the wolves, and he is quite familiar with the pictures and the guy that took them.

Spreading untruths (or even partial truths) doesn't help anyone's case. The best thing we can do is stick with the facts on wolves. I suggest you talk to the experts, the biologists that spend all their time working on this situation. You will get a ton of great information, maybe not as shocking, but every bit as valuable.
[signature]

[bodine11]

I'll have to do that. I was just passing on something that was emailed to me I thought was interesting.
[signature]

[iliketofish]

Nope I still think wolves are cool. I don't completely agree with that site, or with the pro wolf people either for that matter. I've taken classes on this topic an others like it, and it seems to me that the most acurate story is somewhere in the middle. What I'm trying to say is, I'm glad they reintroduced them, but I'm also glad they were delisted off of the ESA. I'm all for hunting them, or doing what is needed to keep them in check, but all in all I'm glad they're back. Thanks for posting that site and bringing up the topic, it was certainly interesting.
[signature]

[poky-mon]

My friend had a salmon area hunt this year and didn't get his elk but he did see tracks and heard some wolfs and another guy said while he was fishin a couple deer came plowing across the river and right behind them were the big bad wolf on their tail
[signature]

[ReelLady]

I agree with you...somewhere in the middle. The one e-mail that gets circulated that I hate is the photos of a wolf bringing down a deer, taking what he wants and leaving the deer alive. They use terms like "cruel" about the wolf, who is just behaving the way nature intended. They call it a waste of meat when a wolf leaves a carcass, but I guarantee that there will be other critters around finishing it off. Nothing gets wasted. But wolf numbers do need to be controlled.
[signature]

[hookedlikeu]

I was fishing on the ice in the canyon at Big Elk last winter with Southforksly and we had three wolves come out of the trees maybe a hundred yards from us. There was no doubt what they were. I've seen plenty of coyotes and these were substantially larger. We were a little nervous to say the least as we were not armed. They just played around on the ice for ten minutes and disappeared back into the trees.
[signature]

[jacksonlaker]

We have an great thread on wolves on the WY board right now. I attended the Game and Fish meeting on Wyoming's plan on wolf management. Wolves have far exceeded the recovery goals set forth by the USFWS. To think that wolves would stay in the parks or wilderness areas is just naive. As I stated in one of my posts on the Wyoming board, there have not been wolves in Wyoming for 75 years, do you think WY or Idaho looks the same as it did 75 years ago?? Wolf populations need to be controled. Wy game and fish killed 60 wolves last year alone. I hope the management plan goes through, and you know who is paying for it ?? Yep, hunters and fishermen thru our license fees. I dont see Peta, or Defenders of Wildlife or any other pro-wolf org writing a check. Well, I was in good mood LOL
[signature]

[duksnfish]

60 wolves, I have a hard time believeing that in one year. That would be about a big hit on the overall population wouldnt it. Seems a little exagerated to me. And ya, things have changed but, dont the wolfs have a place in nature also, its not just man to controls the wildlife and shouldnt be.
[signature]

[lunkerhunter2]

Things have changed. You said it yourself. The wolves HAD their pace atop the food chain 100 years ago, but this is 2008. Things have changed dramaticly since then. There are too many predators already for the populations at present including humans. Just because it was here first doesn't mean it should be here again. Look at Bill and Hillary, it sounded like a good idea, but look what happened. "I did not".[]
[signature]

[duksnfish]

I think you took my reply out of context. I said things have changed, but, wolves like us have a place in the environment. I didnt say they were there first or because they were there first that they should stay, all im saying is that they have the same right to be in the environment as a predetor as we do, and I didnt say they were or should be at the top of the food chain. Im just saying, that it is hard to believe F&G in wyoming killed 60 wolves last year. Being in the neighboring state of Idaho, I think some thing this big would have been on the forefront of the wolf issue.
[signature]

[BrianID]

I wouldn't doubt there were 60 wolves killed in Wyoming last year. 43 wolves were killed by the government in Idaho in 2007. There were another 7 killed by ranchers protecting their livestock. Another 26 were died of natural mortality, poaching, road kills, etc. Keep in mind there were likely many other wolf deaths that were not reported.

Even with this much mortality in one year the wolf population in Idaho is still growing at an exponential rate. The current population estimate is 730 wolves. That is just an estimate. The actual number could be much higher. Currently there are 43 confirmed breading pairs. Again, the actual number is likely higher. The goal was 10 breading pairs.

Unfortunately our fishing/hunting license dollars are going to be paying to manage wolves when wolf management is turned over to the state. IMO wolves should be managed close to original goal of 10 breading pairs. Wolves should also be limited to onlyn areas of the state where they have enough space to roam so there is less human/wolf conflicts.
[signature]

[Mojo1]

Interestingly enough, the reason Idaho has not been able to assume management of the wolves in our state is because Wyoming refuses to comply with the Federal Governments requirements for de-listing the wolves. Idaho and Montan have both been in compliance since 2004 or 2005.

If Wyoming would just have filled all the squares, the states would have been managing the wolf populations internally, and saved the taxpayers millions of bucks so far. I believe Idaho has a good plan, I just wish they could impliment it.

Brian, There is no feasible way to limit where wolves roam short of shooting them. We cannot limit them to areas where they have room to roam, because they will continue to expand their territory until they are thinned out again. Once they start getting shot at regularly, they will retreat to the less inhabited areas. I'm assuming this is what you were talking about.
[signature]

[lunkerhunter2]

I agree they have a place, but they need to be held in check. It is almost the same as bucket bios putting fish where they don't belong.
[signature]

[BrianID]

I would agree there is no way to completely limit where the wolves will go. I actually like the Wyoming plan. Make them a varmit with no protection in areas they do not belong. That isn't going to happen though. Even if Wyoming did have an acceptable plan state management would probably still be held up in the courts.
[signature]