PEAX Equipment

Wolves RFD-TV Big Game Forever Colorado

Plenty of people getting it done? There are also plenty of people who aren't getting it done directly because of the 'lovable' wolf and those who foolishly introduced a non-native subspecies to an area it was never in previously. By what standard of yours must a hunter be 'man enough' to get it done? My wife shot 3 elk out of the North Yellowstone herd many years ago and that herd fed many familes for years. It is now at about 10% population of what it used to be. Was it over it's target back then? Sure. But not by that much and wolves were not needed to fix the issue. Instead now we have greatly reduced opportunity for many to fill their freezers because the wolves are reducing tag availability tremendously with their well documented 23 elk per year per wolf take.


https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_44b86caf-db36-57b4-9624-4fad1d19490c.html Summary- northern herd @ 10,000 from the high of 19,000 in the 90's.

https://billingsgazette.com/outdoor...cle_785d9693-3d3b-5d50-9775-bbc53653f063.html Summary - bull numbers up to a whopping 7/100 from the low of 3/100 outside the park. Bull numbers @ 16/100 in the park. Largest outfitter in the area outraged that FWP is infringing on their opportunity by restricting general harvest during last two weeks of the season to permit only.)

My take-away.- Wolves have an effect. Hunters have an effect. Grizzly bears have an affect. The high numbers of elk in Yellowstone during the 90's were unsustainable. The high bull harvest during our 6 week general season with heavy snowfall driving up hunter success during the later parts of the season is unsustainable.

Using wolves as an excuse to continue unsustainable hunting practices is not a workable solution. Expressing outrage that the fruits of unsustainable management and hunting practices is exacerbated by growing predators numbers of grizzlies and wolves isn't going to change reality.

We can expect continued mismanagement until hunters stop demanding "opportunity at any cost" and start demanding that FWP manage for the health of the herd. Hunters in areas of declining elk numbers ignore the effects of poor human management and scream, "Big, Bad Wolf!" while being ignored by FWP who are compelled by legislative requirements to kill more elk in over half of the state. FWP is directed by the legislature which is controlled by ag interests in this state.

Expect to continue to be ignored until we come up with an effective lobby to represent our interests that goes beyond complaining about wolves. The ones screaming the loudest aren't doing squat to change the status quo.
 
I’m not going to waste 30 minutes of my day watching Joe Balyeat.
 
Too conservative for you, is he?

No, I think he’s a nut and not good for sportsmen.

For the record, I’ve met conservatives, moderates, and liberals who I’ve found to be extremely intelligent and conservation minded. In the alternative, I’ve found some of these same to be quite lacking in either intelligence and or conservation mindedness. Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plenty of people getting it done? There are also plenty of people who aren't getting it done directly because of the 'lovable' wolf and those who foolishly introduced a non-native subspecies to an area it was never in previously. By what standard of yours must a hunter be 'man enough' to get it done? My wife shot 3 elk out of the North Yellowstone herd many years ago and that herd fed many familes for years. It is now at about 10% population of what it used to be. Was it over it's target back then? Sure. But not by that much and wolves were not needed to fix the issue. Instead now we have greatly reduced opportunity for many to fill their freezers because the wolves are reducing tag availability tremendously with their well documented 23 elk per year per wolf take.


https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_44b86caf-db36-57b4-9624-4fad1d19490c.html Summary- northern herd @ 10,000 from the high of 19,000 in the 90's.

https://billingsgazette.com/outdoor...cle_785d9693-3d3b-5d50-9775-bbc53653f063.html Summary - bull numbers up to a whopping 7/100 from the low of 3/100 outside the park. Bull numbers @ 16/100 in the park. Largest outfitter in the area outraged that FWP is infringing on their opportunity by restricting general harvest during last two weeks of the season to permit only.)

My take-away.- Wolves have an effect. Hunters have an effect. Grizzly bears have an affect. The high numbers of elk in Yellowstone during the 90's were unsustainable. The high bull harvest during our 6 week general season with heavy snowfall driving up hunter success during the later parts of the season is unsustainable.

Using wolves as an excuse to continue unsustainable hunting practices is not a workable solution. Expressing outrage that the fruits of unsustainable management and hunting practices is exacerbated by growing predators numbers of grizzlies and wolves isn't going to change reality.

We can expect continued mismanagement until hunters stop demanding "opportunity at any cost" and start demanding that FWP manage for the health of the herd. Hunters in areas of declining elk numbers ignore the effects of poor human management and scream, "Big, Bad Wolf!" while being ignored by FWP who are compelled by legislative requirements to kill more elk in over half of the state. FWP is directed by the legislature which is controlled by ag interests in this state.

Expect to continue to be ignored until we come up with an effective lobby to represent our interests that goes beyond complaining about wolves. The ones screaming the loudest aren't doing squat to change the status quo.

Thanks for the update in numbers there, Gerald Martin. Last I'd heard that herd was down around or below 2000 animals. That's good to hear they are bouncing back.
 
I'm all ears. What do you know about him that concerns you?

Maybe you should have asked that question instead of asking if he was too conservative for me.

I’ve met Joe, and talked to him while he was still a senator in Montana. I can’t recall too many political issues centered around wildlife where I really agreed strongly with him. More often the contrary.
 
Maybe you should have asked that question instead of asking if he was too conservative for me.

I’ve met Joe, and talked to him while he was still a senator in Montana. I can’t recall too many political issues centered around wildlife where I really agreed strongly with him. More often the contrary.

Perhaps...

I'd still like to specifically know what positions of his you dissaprove of.

He sponsored the Montana constitutional amendment in 2004, that my wife's family was very happy to see put in place before Montana got completely run over by (often) out of state liberals, that made hunting constitutionally protected. One way to think of constitutional rights is that they are there to protect the minority from the majority... Seems like a good thing.

I'm reminded of the old quote attributed to Ben Franklin, which shows the issues with completely majority ruled democracy: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

I've seen nothing else in the above interview or a quick search on line that shows me that I would have an issue with his wildlife conservation, but I'm intrigued by what I have seen of him. So, enlighten me.

Many unknowingly and some (environmentialist groups) knowingly conflate the terms and meanings of 'preservation' and 'conservation'. Preservation meaning 'no use' and conservation meaning 'wise use', to put it simply. This is done by these groups to confuse the unknowing public, which they have been very sucessful at. Many of these environmental groups use the term conservation, when they really mean preservation. Both are needed, depending on the situations, but it's laughable for most of these envrionmentalist groups to call themselves conservationists. But it sure sounds good.
 
I understand conservation, preservation, and the politics involved quite well.
 
jmden: you lost me in your rant about liberals and that wolves are invasive and non-native. wildlife issues are not political to me. I can only imagine where you got your "invasive, non-native" labels for wolves. I am pretty familiar with wolves- you are in Washington and I am in Wisconsin. I am happy they are around. They add another element to the hunt that I enjoy. Sorry you do not feel the same. Also, spewing propaganda and misinformation on the internet probably won't get you too far
 
jmden: you lost me in your rant about liberals and that wolves are invasive and non-native. wildlife issues are not political to me. I can only imagine where you got your "invasive, non-native" labels for wolves. I am pretty familiar with wolves- you are in Washington and I am in Wisconsin. I am happy they are around. They add another element to the hunt that I enjoy. Sorry you do not feel the same. Also, spewing propaganda and misinformation on the internet probably won't get you too far

I'm kinda starting to think you prefer to be lost on this issue.

If that is the limit of your understanding on the issue then there's more understanding for you to get. For a start, watch the three videos linked to above in the thread...there's over 2 1/2 hours of good information from another side of the issue most rarely hear and less understand as it's drowned out by the liberal fakestream megaphone.

The wolves are here, but they need to be managed in every conceivable way. They are very unique top predators. What other top predator has multiple broods of 6-7 pups per year, expands into new territory and travels as much as wolves do and travel in packs like wolves do. No other North American predator is as efficient at killing as a pack of wolves to the point that they often kill just for fun. Studies have shown that wolves tend to increase their populations at over 30% per year even when every effort (hunting, trapping with no seasons) is made to curtail their populations. This information alone is of concern.

Just more spewing of propaganda and misinformation, though, so you can disregard.
 
The wolves are here, but they need to be managed in every conceivable way. They are very unique top predators. What other top predator has multiple broods of 6-7 pups per year,

Whoa, there boy! You are losing your grip with reality right off the bat.
 
The wolves are here, but they need to be managed in every conceivable ey are very unique top predators. What other top predator has multiple broods of 6-7 pups per year
Where did you find this tidbit of information? BrentD beat me to it.mtmuley
 
Whoa, there boy! You are losing your grip with reality right off the bat.

You know, BrentD, when you put together a string of words that makes enough sense and includes clear subject matter while clearly articulating your postion, maybe there'd be something to reply to. Until then, why don't you keep it to yourself? You are adding nothing to the discussion.
 
You know, BrentD, when you put together a string of words that makes enough sense and includes clear subject matter while clearly articulating your postion, maybe there'd be something to reply to. Until then, why don't you keep it to yourself? You are adding nothing to the discussion.

Let me make it clearer for you. I'm calling bullshit on your statement.
 
Multiple broods of 6-7 pups per year???? They population increases 30% every year with no hunting/trapping??? No way any of that is true, you must be getting info from LoboWatch. I'm done here. This thread and the information posted on it is worthless, should be locked
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,034
Messages
1,944,420
Members
34,976
Latest member
atlasbranch
Back
Top