laufer303

Yep!

BareBack Jack

Why is it the West that suffers,I'm tired of the wolf debate.Yes wolves did once roam this great land but not just the west.How about the east,Maine,Vermont,Massachusetts and so on.
You never see law makes propose wolves to help curb the exploding deer population in the east and the suburbs.You never hear the law makes say"Hey let's put wolves in Florida or the Cariliona's" why not they roamed there at one time.Cause they don't wan't a potetialy dangerous animal in their back yard.You know I'm shure a pack 10 wolves could find something to eatin New York or D.C.,they could curb the rat population,and while were at it add a few Grizzly bears.

Why don't we just fly up to Canada and trap 2000 wolves and release them equaly in every state east of the big river.

You know what a better plan would be,how about capturing a 100-200 head of elk a year and release them into states that are trying to build a elk population.I'm shure Kentuckey,Tennessee,Mighigain,Wisconsin, would be glad to have a free range herd.How about you southern folk wanna put some elk in Lousiana,Alabamma,Arkansas and anybody else that wants some.Why don't we ship some over to Iraq for some much needed R&R hunting for our boys over sea's.
But a better answer would be lets kill'em and ship the carcasses to a food bank some where and bring in a predator that nobody wants but the Tree Hugging,The way It was Society(THTIS or I like ti call it $HITT).
Well I will get off my soap box.
BBJ

early

thank's for the post.
i emailed the link you provided with my concerns.
sincerely
early

smokeman

Brilliant politicianswhen it comes to others peoples money to do something people would love to pay and do....Maybe if they start thinking that if it was their money,They might have some intelligent ideas like sell tags and make money and save theirs..... Idiots.....[:@]

feddoc

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?052606/052606_acuna_elk&Population%20Control&FNL& amp;What%27s%20being%20done%20to%20control%20risin g%20number%20of%20elks%3F&National&-1&Population%20Control&Video%20Launch%20Pa ge

Here is a link to a video on fox news. Typical response of someone who wants to introduce wolves.

huntingson

"Why is it the West that suffers,I'm tired of the wolf debate.Yes wolves did once roam this great land but not just the west.How about the east,Maine,Vermont,Massachusetts and so on."

That is a good point, however, here in Ohio they actually encouragebowhunting for does on many of the parks.All you have to do is sign up andshow them you can shoot a bow and bingo, go hunt. I guess that level of common sense is lost in the less dense air atelevation .

There are so many problems with the debate that it is maddening. We have set up management policies that do not account for the existence of a pure predator like a wolf pack. There need to be serious changes one way or the other if the wildlife and the ecology are to continue to exist. Hopefully, the west won't become managed by wolves and not hunters anymore. Scary thought, but realistic if the fanaticals get their way.

ironranger

That is exactly what the tree huggers want. If they introduce wolves and lower the population there won't be any need for hunting. Believe me, once you get wolves in your state, it will be a struggle to get them delisted so they can be managed. Minnesota has been talking about it for a few years now as we've got too many wolves up north. You can bet the biologists counts are probably about half of what really exists. I would imagine the anti's are using the courts and/or government to slow the process up or halt it all together.

MinnFinn

From someone living in a state, Minnesota, that has had Timber Wolves all along, I have a perspective to share. These are my observations and opinions of what can and can't be done to limit wolf population growth in your states.

Minnesota always has a population of Timber (Gray) Wolves though limited mostly to northeaster MN in the 1900s until put on "Endangered" listed early 1970s. Many in northern MN in the 70's through today have raise many concerns about increased wolf pop., due to them being protected, some valid, like livestock kills and over predation of deer and moose herds and others less likely.

Those of us who've lived in northern MNhave witnessed game populations in those areas with high pop. of wolves fluctuation greatly. During harder winters, deer and even moose numbers have dropped to the point where we rarely saw deer or moose. It's taken nearly a decade for whitetails pop. to get back to huntable numbers due to milder winters and some leaving off of wolves. The wolf pop. is back on the rise now. It is becoming very common to see not only single wolves all around where my family lives inland North of Lake Superior, but packs of 7 or more. Multiple that all across the north 1/3 of our state and there are many thousands of wolves now, in spite of what "experts" who live in D.C., St. Paul or wherever say.

I don't think that you'll be able to stop them from coming back or being reintroduced to your states, in spite of all your lobbying. Greenies and people obsessed with see number of wolves "re-introduced" (artificially of course) have powerful allies in D.C.. Because wolves have been designated "endangered" or "threatened" at the federal level, even your state wildlife agencies are limited in what they can do to prevent this from happening.

I think that the best you can do is to push your state legislatures, governors and federal reps/senators to put a plan in place to control, not eliminate wolves. It needs to be a plan that will allow controlling wolf numbers based upon certain "triggers" (no pun) like lower elk and deer number/reproduction allowing greater wolves to be taken.

I hope for the best for you all who are going through what we've experienced for decades. We're still fighting for more state control to limit wolves’ numbers. Like a fellow I once knew said, "the people in the cities and areas that don't have wolves won't understand the problems with large wolf pop. until it's their animals (i.e. pets, horses, etc.) that are killed by them."

gselkhunter

If you are hunting on it, it isn't a national park. TR set it up so there would be no hunting on national parks, so big game would always have a safe place. And it is very safe, the elk have no fear you can walk right up to them. If hunters would be allowed to hunt the park the job would be very easy. No camo, no scent control, just pick a bull and walk up and shoot it from 10yds. There are some big ones by the way. And who said the wolves would stay anyway, the amount of human traffic is more than wolves might put up with. Or if they stay the chance of them losing their fear of man and becoming a big issue in the park is real. But one thing is real, if the population isn't reduced by management soon mother nature will do it for us and that won't be pretty.
Gselkhunter

oldelkhunter

Doesn't the herd in RMNP migrate out of there in Winter? If they introduced wolves there they would just follow the Elk out of the park and create mayhem. French Poodles and Humans could be substituted for Elk and they put up less of a fight. I am thinking CO could make a bundle selling limited permits(ARchery and Muzzleloader) for this hunt. The Feds would save a bunch not having to bring sharpshooters. Sharpshooters though are the PC solution and that is sickeningand just shows you were this ship is headed.