BigGameHoundsmen.com

check this site out

For all you wolf haters out there you've got to see this website.

http://www.saveelk.com/

Well,Well,Well - it's about time for something like this to get started!

BTT

It's sensational, but certianly not scientific. I call BS on 90% of what they have posted, and I dislike the excerpts they pull from the biologists papers. It looks more like PETA's tactics than a real science website.

BTW- I'm not a wolf lover, (at all) I just think this website is rediculous.

WAcoyotehunter wrote:It's sensational, but certianly not scientific. I call BS on 90% of what they have posted, and I dislike the excerpts they pull from the biologists papers. It looks more like PETA's tactics than a real science website.

BTW- I'm not a wolf lover, (at all) I just think this website is rediculous.

I'm not sure why you think it's rediculous? Science is what got us those mangy bastards to start with, and science is what keeps us from getting a handle on them. Any real science was supressed, and it's already been proven that the info given to Congress was editied before they got it, by the wolf lovers. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when it comes to what's going on here in Idaho, unless you live it, see it, and spend some time in the woods. You have no idea.
More people claim to see Bigfoot than biologists.

Not to get into a pissing match, but science is not the reason behind the wolves mismanagment, emotions are the reason we're not hunting them. The biologists are the ones that drafted the plans to hunt and manage the wolves, the politicians are the ones that shot that down.
Don't blame the biologists for this mess, they're job is to look out for the good of the wildlife, and whether we like it or not- wolves are wildlife.

BTW- I'm a professional wildlife biologist, a hound hunter, archer, and I'm indifferent about wolves. Place the blame where it belongs- the antis and the politicians not listening to good science. It's not the wolves fault.

The website is inaccurate at best- and sensational anti wolf lies.

WAcoyotehunter wrote:Not to get into a pissing match, but science is not the reason behind the wolves mismanagment, emotions are the reason we're not hunting them.

how do you figure that? if they were never re-introduced back into the park by the biologists, then we wouldnt have to worry about managing this out of control situation. i think your indifferent about wolves because they arent over running your state. try droppin your dogs in wolf countyr, have em get ripped to shreds, then see how indiffernt you are about them

A big AMEN to what Montana native said.

Don't worry guys, I live right on the Border of Idaho/Washington, and they got em, and they will get nothing but worse there, just the same as everywhere else. Except for the fact the mis-managed Whaitetail deer population, "Due to sound Biological studies" has expoded, while their Elk numbers have fallen to extreme lows from allowing more cow permits in areas than that same number of cows even exist! Within the next ten years, they will have a problem that will exceed every nighmare they could have imagined.
As far as what a biologists job is, I think you're right, it's about WATCHING.

Hell even the Boys from back East feel bad for us, and you live over here and take the wolves side?

Oh, I haven't yet spoken to a Warden from Washington that believes they have Wolves at all yet, because their biologists told them so.

Did you happen to work on the Lynx study over there wa-yote hunter? you know, the one where the biologists purchased hair from a taxidermist out of state and submitted the samples for their studies? That was some fine work I tell ya.

Here is a statement from the owner of this site, that I found odd, I'm assuming It was a blast email sent out that I was copied on. I've since replied him back an Email regarding his statements and how I disagree with his support in NV.
In a Nut shell telling him that I don't agree with his statements about NV and Putting Bounty prices on Couagars, that is just asking for trouble with the ANTI's later in life. We should be "Managing Predator population", Key word is Manage.. not bounty hunt, and Not extermination. There should be a plan to manage them. That's is somewhere between protection and bounty.. A system that allows us to enjoy hunting them.. Just like every other Big Game species..

I know some may want them exterminated.. but look what mess and "ammunition" that theory has given from the ANTI's.. If we give them a reason to "protect" these critters, it's a Long hard fight to get them back in Check...

I would like folks to email him and let him know your thoughts regarding his email. He has a Good Idea, It's good to have folks like this that are fired up... we just need to help him direct his passion in the right direction.. Otherwise he's just the other extreme Nut case group that wants to Exterminate all the predators..

tmayer@saveelk.com



His Email regarding a news article.
_____________________________________________________

Interesting that Nevada is finally taking this bolt step. I think its Idaho’s turn to do the same for Wolves.
Tony
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle:
"Mountain lions vs. deer:
In Nevada, deer populations have plummeted from 240,000 to 108,000 in the past 10 years. Scientists attribute the decline largely to mountain lion predation. So Ken Mayer, former big game coordinator in California and now the director of Nevada Department of Wildlife, has ordered a major program to shoot mountain lions.
The intent is not to eliminate predators, Mayer said, but rather to reduce them so deer herds can rebuild. He said the program will be based on wildlife science and the predator-prey relationship.
Some people think that the relationship between mountain lions and deer is self-governing. So when the deer are about wiped out, the mountain lion population then naturally goes down to form a "balance" and the deer herd will bounce back.
That is not what happens. When there are few deer left to eat, the mountain lions then wander into the backyards of homes and ranches and eat whatever they can catch, then return afield to clip off the fawns. Their favorite food other than deer appears to be house cats, but they'll take dogs, sheep, llamas, calves and about anything else when hungry enough, including people occasionally.
Many wildlife experts believe we need Mayer back in California to do the same thing here. In the past 50 years, the population of deer in California has dropped from an estimated high of 2 million to fewer than 450,000, because of mountain lion predation and habitat loss in the Sierra foothills."

I agree species should be managed. But I do not agree that a non-native species should be managed. I think at this point it's like someone having your arm behind your back and trying to make you say "Uncle". We are expected to leave them alone completely, with no management, even though they don't belong here to start with. When you introduce a non-native species that wipes out biggame herds by 70% plus, in 12 years, there will never be success.

As far as the lions being put on bounty. I personally don't think it's a good idea at all. The bounty would exist until the population dropped to the extent that no hunting of them was allowed at all. Just going by typical management plans so far.

montananative wrote:

WAcoyotehunter wrote:Not to get into a pissing match, but science is not the reason behind the wolves mismanagment, emotions are the reason we're not hunting them.

how do you figure that? if they were never re-introduced back into the park by the biologists, then we wouldnt have to worry about managing this out of control situation. i think your indifferent about wolves because they arent over running your state. try droppin your dogs in wolf countyr, have em get ripped to shreds, then see how indiffernt you are about them

I thought it was pretty clear how I figured that- the biologists have clearly supported management and hunting. The feds have killed lots of wolves that have caused problems; science is on the side of management, emotions and politcal bs have been the reason the hunting seasons have been axed....not biologists. It the biologists job to make the plan (they did) introduce the wolves (they did) and implement a management plan (they tried...twice) So, to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the biologists is innaccurate. The ESA (federal law) required them to do all of those things.

We could support a handful of wolves if we increased the carrying capacity of the land. Go spray some weeds and help do somthing to increase the value of the habitat so it will support more elk and deer, then we can have both. As it is, we (WA, ID, MT, WY) are sort of bent over a barrel regarding wolves.

No, I wasn't part of a lynx conspiracy. I don't really know what you're talking about there. There are lynx in WA and they have always been here. They have collared (native) animals that are being studied now. Why would they buy hair?

si would sure like to have a look at those managment plans the biologst came up with. cuase from what i see there managment plans are letting them run wild. your right the governmnt has killed problem wolves. they use our pivots many times for landing base, you always knew if they got somthing if u seen the cargo net hanging from the chopper. i seen many dead wolves come though. but one fed. employee flying around in a chopper didnt cut it, epsecially if there is not a collared bitch in the pack. they move so fast and far, you absolutly need a collared dog, the trapper made that clear many times.

one year, he killed a pack of six, and 6 mo. later 13 more moved in. and he was chasin that pack for over a yr and neve got em all. do you know how much money that is filling up those choppers with fuel, paying the piolet, and the guy doin the shootin. it ads up damn fast. adn it aint the biologists footing the bill, its all the taxpaters. what a waste of money. and all cause the biologists put them back in the park, there is no way to argue that, PERIOD!!!!. if they were serious about managing them they should have said, "we wont re-introduce them unless you implement such and such management plan." i dont buy in to the bull s#$%.

also, the elk were doin fine before the wolves come along. there is plenty of freakin grass for them now as there was 20 years ago. that has nothing to do with the herds getting thinned out. if they think the elk need more grass, they should have took money from their wolf re-introduction plan and used it to spray all the knap weed, leafy spurge, and the plethora of other noxious weeds that are takin over. not filling up choppers to chase down a bunch of renegade wolves. im done for now

Wacoyotehunter, I don't blame biologists solely for what is going on but I do have a lot of blame directed towards them for what you said the biologists did their jobs by INTRODUCING the wolves. INTRODUCING NOT REINTRODUCING there is a big difference. It was a non native aggressive animal that they introduced and an uncalled for bunch of BS.

Jesse Minish wrote:Wacoyotehunter, I don't blame biologists solely for what is going on but I do have a lot of blame directed towards them for what you said the biologists did their jobs by INTRODUCING the wolves. INTRODUCING NOT REINTRODUCING there is a big difference. It was a non native aggressive animal that they introduced and an uncalled for bunch of BS.

You're right they did introduce a different sub...that was a bonehead move. Unfortunately they couldn't get the native sub because they're all but gone. The introduced sub is only slightly larger (not 50lbs like the save our elk folks say). The natiev wolves were totally capable of taking elk and bison in the west. They didn't eat like a coyote (as the save our elk floks will tell you), they were a paramount predator also.

MontanaNative- if you read the reports you'll see the biologists do advise management. It was always part of the plan, now the courts have screwed it up. Again, they bios know the wolves need managed, that was never a question. You do have a great point about the habitat. If we would spray the weeds and enhance the range, we could have enough elk to share with some wolves.