Wolves

by **BGbowhunters** » 08 08, 2014 • [Post 1]

Wolves have been a growing problem in Idaho and Montana, they have been killing deer, elk, moose, and livestock at a high rate making the population of these animals plummet. Now wolves have crossed over to Oregon and are starting to breed. What are your thoughts on the wolves? Do you think we should hunt the wolves, or leave them be?

by **Eldonvieira** » 08 08, 2014 • [Post 2]

Hunt them

by **Drawnandpinned** » 08 08, 2014 • [Post 3]

Kill em all I'll be buying a tag to help out with conservation I thing fish and game got this wrong there is a reason they were all gunned down in the past that's where I stand sorry if some folks like these animals

by **Indian Summer** » 08 08, 2014 • [Post 4]

It never ceases to amaze me how talk of wolves is always dominated by emotion. One person asks... should we leave them be. Another says kill them all like we did before. But when we talk about elk, deer, and other game we use the word manage.

I've spent a lot of time around wolves. I've enjoyed seeing and listening to them. I've also killed a few. I had a buddy surrounded by 8 of them at last light ten feet away snarling til he had to change his underwear... then they walked away. I've had them run my horses and mules trough the portable electric corral. Watched them run down cattle. Saw where they dragged a hibernating bear from it's den and played tug of war with it until there was nothing left but shreds of hair, scattered bones and blood stains in the snow and had them kill more hound dogs than I care to think about. I've seen them kill elk as well. Where I outfitted in Montana we had unlimited elk and mule deer licenses. 12 years later there were 75 deer tags and 25 elk tags which, with a 10% non-res cap, meant a max of 2 elk tags. They put me out of business.

I've had many people comment to me "Man I guess you hate those bastards huh?" The answer is no, not at all. We need to forget about human emotion. They were not out to get me. They had no intentions of doing me any harm. They were just animals doing what they do which is make a living. Now if you asked me my opinion of the politicians that put them there you'd get a different answer. When does open season start on those a-holes?

Since then things have really turned around and the licenses have even gone back to normal numbers which is unlimited. Actually things were never as bad as many thought. The fact of the matter is that the game biologists exaggerated the situation. It was for a good cause though. They were lobbying for wolf management. Wolf hunting. We had a wolf season one year but then the anti reality people had it cancelled the following year. That's when the biologists used politics to get their way. Bygones.

So to answer the question with lots of experience and a level head on the subject: We don't need to let populations go unchecked. And we don't need to exterminate them. We need to manage wolves like any other animal. Like we do with elk, deer, grouse and rabbits. Like we do with other predators such as bears and lions. Pretty simple.

I can tell you that you'd be pretty lucky to get an opportunity to shoot a wolf. They are slick critters. But if you do go for it and by all means head to the taxidermist because they are a true trophy.

by **TheBuzz** » 08 09, 2014 • [Post 5]

So from state to state or a federal issue. Is there management of wolves and grizzled on the horizon? Or will the pendulum swing and stay were it is? Not a biologist, but I don't think there are too many top tier predictors on Wolfs and grizzles, so other than diseases that effect them. So when is a population enough to satisfy, ranchers, hunters, and animal watchers?

by **mjblowers** » 08 09, 2014 • [Post 6]

I second Indian's response.

Just like any animal, they need regulated. But hearing and seeing them is awesome. I've personally had three encounters with wolves - one that changed my approach to hunting (I never solo hunt the pitch black now

But I believe it would be a sad day when they are no longer a part of the experience - and by that I mean being a legal option to shoot.

by **WapitiTalk1** » 08 09, 2014 • [Post 7]

BGbowhunters wrote:Wolves have been a growing problem in Idaho and Montana, they have been killing deer, elk, moose, and livestock at a high rate making the population of these animals plummet. Now wolves have crossed over to Oregon and are starting to breed. What are your thoughts on the wolves? Do you think we should hunt the wolves, or leave them be?

"Crossed into Oregon, or, re-introduced"? What... did they take a bus from Spokane? That's my first issue with wolves in this day and age. Yes, they are beautifull creatures for certain (in the vast expanses of the NW territories and Alaska, but not in the alder choked draws and public hunting lands of northern US). The problem is that when they "cross into, or, are re-introduced into state X" the plan always fails as it did in MT. Check the original plans and negotiated agreements. There was a specific time line that was agreed upon to let the breeding packs do their thing and at point X, at the latest, year whatever, hunting/population control would be implemented to keep their numbers at an acceptable level so they would not "over do" what they are born to do. That didn't occur in MT and ID because the non hunting, completely ignorant "oh, aren't they pretty" majority (yes, we are the minority as hunters) fought tooth and nail when smart foks tried to de-list them in accordance with the original agreement/plan. Here's the crux of the biscuit folks. You cannot introduce an apex predator into an established ecosystem and expect it to work and make beautiful disney movies. Perhaps we should consider re-introudcing them into the rest of the lower 48 states where they were native 200 years ago? With the leaps and bounds scientist have made with cloning, maybe we should re-introduce sabre toothed tigers and sprinkled around in Texas. I'm sure they'd do fine with the whitetail population.

by **twinkieman** » 08 10, 2014 • [Post 8]

Everything Phantom16 sais X2.
Also,these are NOT the same breed of wolves we had here before, these are Artic Gray Wolves, and not the same subspecies we had 100 years ago. They do not belong in the lower 48, and no part of the original plan has been followed as it was laid out. Idaho was supposed to have 12 breeding pairs, not the 60 known pairs we have now.

by **ishy** » 08 10, 2014 • [Post 9]

TheBuzz wrote: Is there management of wolves and grizzled on the horizon?

They talk about Grizzlies being delisted yearly, but might still be a while they don't hold a stick to wolves can do reproduction wise. Totally different reproduction capabilities between a grizzly and wolves. One article I read said you can harvest 40% of the total wolf population yearly and you won't affect thier over all numbers. So less than 40%...you can see if we don't do our part you will eventually be over run and your predator/prey levels will be completely out of balance. I probably read too much on wolves pre-reintroduction and was totally fancinated and even got to wrangle a couple pure bred wolves on a movie set. I love them and am facinated with them, but like above you look at the numbers and realise we have to do our part to keep things as balanced as we can.

by **Ghost** » 08 11, 2014 • [Post 10]

My biggest issue with the whole wolf fiasco is that the ones they introduced werent the native subspecies to begin with, my buds who have been hunting the selway/church since the 50s saw a few wolves on occasion and according to them they werent near as big as the ones that were placed there. Not to mention the whoe 265 wolves total that they said was the population level they were shooting for.

The wolves will never be in danger of being eliminated from the west, not with the vast wilderness and lack of access, heck we cant even put a dent in the coyote population here in PA and we have roads and access everywhere. They used 1080 to get rid of them last time, and that most certainly is not an option in this day.

Will we be able to control them? doubtful, not without helicopter shooting, almost non of us out of state hunters have wolves as their main focus on a hunting trip, wolves will always be an incidental target. I think the best we can hope to do is hold the line.

On the plus side, with the massive reduction in the elk herd, the habitat should be primed with a huge rebound, just have to keep the wolves from harassing the elk long enough to get the calf recruitment up!

by **Indian Summer** » 08 11, 2014 • [Post 11]

twinkieman wrote:Everything Phantom16 sais X2.
Also,these are NOT the same breed of wolves we had here before, these are Artic Gray Wolves.

Actually I believe they are Canadian Timber wolves.

by **Blackdog44** » 08 11, 2014 • [Post 12]

For the record, these were not arctic grey wolves as mentioned earlier. The Rocky Mountain Wolves that were reintroduced from Canada in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park are the same subspecies of Gray Wolf that previously lived in the Northern Rockies. Stories of 180-pound Canadian super-wolves aren’t true. Of the 188 wolves killed in Idaho last wolf hunting season, the largest wolf killed weighed 127 pounds. The average dead wolf was less than 95 pounds. This claim of a larger and different type of wolf is often used in attempts to discredit the species' reintroduction and has no basis in reality. Regardless of opinions on whether the reintroduction should ave taken place, that myth needs to be clarified.
I do believe that the wolves need to be managed and myself purchase a wolf tag ever season. Just wanted to clarify.

by **Lefty** » 08 11, 2014 • [Post 13]

Ive followed the whole wolf thing in the 70[s and 80's( and now)_
Wolves are not the problem. It is the anti hunting groups. Reintroduction was a well laid plan to reduce or eliminate hunting for the endangered wolf. Ant Hunter biology was the population needed to grow , and hunting took too much of the food base for wolves which would close down big game seasons in many areas.
Fortunately it backfired/ wolves very successfully reproduced exceeding expectations,....
Then the big one. The State of Idaho worked hard and got a season. Completely unexpected by the anti hunting groups. Anti hunting groups expected western states to cower in the corner like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan had done for 30 years

by **Glacier Country** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 14]

Blackdog44, You might have to dig a little bit deeper.The Wolves released into MT ID and WY, ARE a different Sub species of wolf!

Some of us have gone to more FWP wolf meetings than we care to remember! The Environmental groups who wrote the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1974,Changed some of the designations for wolf subspecies ... So they could later try to get congress to put wolves in the US. The cliff note version is....
After many failed attempts in congress. President Clinton took 60 million dollars of Pittman Robertson funds( Sportsman's Dollars!) and Our USFW made 28 trips to Canada.

The gray wolf taxonomy currently recognized by the
American Society of Mammalogists continues to be based on Mech (1974), which identified 32
taxonomic subspecies of gray wolf worldwide, including 24 subspecies in North America. The scientific
community has yet to formally endorse and accept a revised gray wolf taxonomy. The current taxonomy
identifies C. l. irremotus as the wolf subspecies that historically occupied the Northern Rocky Mountain
area. The range of C. l. irremotus abutted the ranges of C. l. occidentalis and C. l. columbianus some
distance north of the Canadian border, and it abutted the range of C. l. nubilus on the east. Under a strict
interpretation of the current taxonomy, wolves that were introduced to YNP and central Idaho were from
founder populations of C. l. occidentalis and C. l. columbianus. I

The professionally sanctioned taxonomy of mammals is published by the American Society of Mammalogists and follows taxonomy in Mammal Species of the World used by the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History.

<CLICK HERE> This Scientific Study proves the wolf brought down from Canada is a DIFFERENT WOLF that evolved Strictly in Canada! (This is a cliff note version of a 6 page document!)

"...occidentalis is a distinctly larger wolf adapted to colder climates..."
"...The Canadian wolf is a larger subspecies adapted to a colder, more northerly climate..."
"...An example of issues potentially created by using the wrong morphological type or subspecies is illustrated as follows: “Bergman’s Rule,” a widely accepted principal of evolutionary selection, has found species and races of homoeothermic animals in colder climates typically have larger bodies than their relatives living in warmer climates (Frings and Frings 1970:282; Welty 1975:130,432). The average weight of male wolves in the northern U.S. Rockies [presumably, occidentalis stock] is 100 lbs, 30% larger than male wolves in Wisconsin..."
"...Finally, the Service has not rigorously explored the biological question and the legality under the ESA of “recovering” a taxon or type by expanding the historic range of a less similar type, when more closely related founder stock still remains available..."

The issue of appropriate subspecies was raised, and the Service responded in the final rule to designate a
nonessential experimental population in the GYA [59 FR 60252; November 22, 1994]:

This was the foot in the door the Enviro's needed, and the Trojan horse so to speak.

Here is a map of DOCUMENTED Wolf Packs in MT... There are way more wolves than that!
http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/manag ... ation.html

I live at ground zero for the whole start of wolf recovery going back to the 1st studies up the North Fork of The Flathead on the West border of Glacier park. Wolves were supposedly "dispersing from Canada" and the govt gave some Wolf lovers a grant to study them. They were not scientists mind you. At the same time a woman was raising wolves up there at about the same time wolves were suddenly "dispersing from Canada." We were set up boys and girls. I can't prove that she was letting those wolves go up there ... But it seems VERY SUSPICIOUS !!! A lot of the locals sure think so! Now you know, The rest of the story!

by **Indian Summer** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 15]

[quote="Blackdog44"]For the record, these were not arctic grey wolves as mentioned earlier. The Rocky Mountain Wolves that were reintroduced from Canada in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park are the same subspecies of Gray Wolf that previously lived in the Northern Rockies. quote]

I have to correct you on that. It is a well known and documented fact that they are NOT the same species that originally lived in the lower 48. Even the anti hunting wolf huggers never disputed that. Not sure where you got your information but you can Google that up very easily.

Or take a minute to read this article from some very well known and respected people including Dr Valerius Geist: http://www.mt-sfw.org/gh/PhotoPage+User ... ies+Title=

Just wanted to clarify that!

by **Lefty** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 16]

[url]The definition of pack is also evolving. So many paired with pups are not "packs" plenty of pairs out there, and lone wolves

Glacier Country wrote: ,...Here is a map of DOCUMENTED Wolf Packs in MT... There are way more wolves than that!
http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/manag ... ation.html
,... At the same time a woman was raising wolves up there at about the same time wolves were suddenly "dispersing from Canada." We were set up boys and girls. I can't prove that she was letting those wolves go up there ... But it seems VERY SUSPICIOUS !!! A lot of the locals sure think so! Now you know, The rest of the story!

Even mor; e we had some fellows escaped from a winter camping trip wolves get away from him,.. wild wolves don't have chips in their neck :evil:

by **Blackdog44** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 17]

Interesting feedback.

"It is a well known and documented fact that they are NOT the same species that originally lived in the lower 48. Even the anti hunting wolf huggers never disputed that"

Just wanted to clarify that as far as an undisputed fact that "wolf huggers" don't even dispute, I would have to disagree. There is plenty of information out there that contradicts that statement. I googled it and found dozens of sites that dispute that fact.The information comes from people with agendas and biases much like most of the information out there on the subject.

I do appreciate reading the various points of view. Gives me different perspectives to chew on.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers... Just wanted to add to the conversation. I'm going to turn my attention to what really matters.... Elk hunting

I think that is something we can all agree on.

by **twinkieman** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 18]

Blackdog44 wrote:Interesting feedback.

"It is a well known and documented fact that they are NOT the same species that originally lived in the lower 48. Even the anti hunting wolf huggers never disputed that"

Just wanted to clarify that as far as an undisputed fact that "wolf huggers" don't even dispute, I would have to disagree. There is plenty of information out there that contradicts that statement. I googled it and found dozens of sites that dispute that fact.The information comes from people with agendas and biases much like most of the information out there on the subject.

I do appreciate reading the various points of view. Gives me different perspectives to chew on.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers... Just wanted to add to the conversation. I'm going to turn my attention to what really matters.... Elk hunting I think that is something we can all agree on.

by **twinkieman** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 19]

twinkieman wrote:Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers... Just wanted to add to the conversation. I'm going to turn my attention to what really matters.... Elk hunting I think that is something we can all agree on.

I'll second that!

by **twinkieman** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 20]

Don't know what I did there, I was trying to agree with Blackdog44!

by **Glacier Country** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 21]

The White Wolf of Standford was killed May 8, 1930. Locals said he was as big as a calf! They thought he was a huge Wolf ... He weighed 83 lbs. At that time he was " THE BIG BAD WOLF"
They are not the same subspecies of wolf! I have friends who have killed wolves over 130 lbs. here in NW MT. The biggest wolf on record is 175 LBS

http://www.russellcountry.com/White_Wolf.html

Now you know... the rest of the story.

by **WapitiTalk1** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 22]

Brings back seriously good memories. Thanks Troy.

by **Ghost** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 23]

The wolf they introduced to Idaho and Yellowstone. http://www.cosmosmith.com/mackenzie_valley_wolves.asp

by **phall** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 24]

wow there are some super smart people... but really does it matter if its gray, white, black, etc.... 70lbs or 170 lbs its a wolf that kills to eat... and unfortunately and unlike many other predatory mammals kills to kill... if it looks like a wolf smells like a wolf and howls like a wolf its a damn wolf... the problem today is our resources aka prey animals and land are limited

by **Indian Summer** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 25]

With all due respect Blackdog... I have been involved with wolves for years. Lived and worked at ground zero and read more documentaries and debates than you could shake a stick at and I have never, not once, heard anyone claim that the wolves introduced were the native subspecies. If that were the case where may I ask did they get them?

Did you bother to read the article at the link I posted? It is one of the most informative out there and the people commenting are very well known authorities on the subject.

"The final EIS opened the way for re-introduction, but not without opposition. The Sierra Club and National Audubon Society opposed the re-introduction plan on the grounds that Experimental populations were not protected enough once the wolves were outside the park. The Farm Bureau's of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana opposed the plan on the basis that the wrong subspecies of wolf—Canis lupus occidentalis (northwestern wolf (Canada)) instead of Canis lupus irremotus (Northern Rocky Mountains wolf) was selected for reintroduction. These objections were overcome and in January 1995, the process of physically reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone began."

"Overcome" as in.... ignored. The wolves were trapped east of Jasper Park in Alberta Canada. And yes there is a difference. For example red wolves subsist on small mammals and rodents the same as coyotes. Bigger hardier Canadian Timber wolves have a bigger appetite for bigger game. Elk & moose. As a matter of fact the elk and moose in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have taken a bigger hit than the deer. The moose of Minnesota the same. Therefore the word introduction is far more accurate than reintroduction.

by **Blackdog44** » 08 12, 2014 • [Post 26]

Obviously touched a nerve. I'm going to let his one go... Let's talk elk hunting

by **ctdad** » 08 13, 2014 • [Post 27]

Talk about wolves and nerves will be touched

by **Indian Summer** » 08 13, 2014 • [Post 28]

ctdad wrote:Talk about wolves and nerves will be touched

Exactly. Forgive me for being a bit touchy on the subject but I have gone rounds with my share of wolf huggers on the internet. Over on Bowsite I went at it with Fawn for about a year when she spewed out "fact after fact" backing up her ideas of supporting wolf reintroduction in Colorado.

Not a very good first post especially with the title Blackdog. Then a PM telling me of the half dozen wolf lover websites where the info came from. The one mentioned, Howling for Justice, had my name posted on their home page for about a year as a murderer of their beloved brothers so yeah, I'm judgmental. Hmm, fox in our henhouse?

by **Blackdog44** » 08 13, 2014 • [Post 29]

Here is the exact personal message I sent to Indian Summer yesterday before his last rant...

Blackdog44 wrote:Hi joe, didn't want to have a potentially negative conversation on the site for all to see. I enjoyed reading the article you provided. The sites where I found conflicting information were on the liberal websites: howlcolorado, living with wolves, the spokesman review articles, howling for justice among others. I am not endorsing their position and don't support them, but there are other opinions on the topic of whether the lupus occidentalis and lupus irremotus bred with each other regularly and were in fact, the same subspecies. That may not be true... My point is that there is substantial conflicting information out there. I'm sure that we have a lot more in common than most and I appreciated your post on separating the human emotion on the subject. I have no doubt you are getting as excited as I am for this year's elk hunt. I wish you all the best.
Cheers, Matt

...fox in the henhouse?? Are you serious? I am an avid elk hunter, support idaho's open hunting season on wolves and simply question whether or not the wolves brought from Canada were truly a separate subspecies given they had overlapping home ranges and more than likely interbred. Guess people with different opinions than your own aren't welcome to post. :?:

My bad.

has been fun chatting with you. I think I'll go back to lurking if you prefer. Btw... I have a black lab named Sam hence the username.

by **ElkNut1** » 08 14, 2014 • [Post 30]

It's funny how these threads in nearly every case turn emotional! I'm not a wolf lover but they are here & now we're dealing with them, it's just another challenge to elk hunting. Let's keep it civil folks! Thanks!

ElkNut1

by **Fullabull** » 08 14, 2014 • [Post 31]

I do not care if there are wolves, my only complaint is how they manage them (or lack there of). Idaho is doing a good job with their management program now. I live in WA and they decided to allow the same breeding pares here as in the other states which makes not sense at all because WA does not have the same game population as the other states for a food source. When I asked about this, they guy danced around the bush for 20 minutes and never answered the question why they decided to use the same as other states. Then, the problem is they wait till way after they have reached the breeding pare goal to do anything about managing them. Wolves are wild animals that require management just like any other. I hope that WA figures it out before it's too late. I know the Deer population in north east WA has really taken a beating since the wolves arrived.

by **toasty tiger** » 08 14, 2014 • [Post 32]

There was a reason that Grizzly Bears and Wolves were erradicated from the lower 48 one time. Give it time, it will happen again. It will not have anything to do with hunting. Apex predators and humans dont play well together. Right now they exist in lower density population areas, as soon as they start showing up in major population areas and do what they do, which is try and survive, the same folks that lobby for their protection will be the first to lobby for the protection of their familes. On another note, Out of state money for outdoor activities in western states is a huge source of revenue. One thing in common between democrats and republicans is the love for free money. Montana is a beautiful example, couldnt sell all their licenses in the draw, I chose to go to Colorado because of the wolves and bears simply because I am not dealing with them. Might be some of the best hunting in the world with the mythical 500" running on every hill. Dont get me wrong, I am not scared of either one of them, it is hard enough to try and figure out where to hunt from a computer screen as it is without trying to figure out which areas have wolf issues or bear issues. I am not a statatician but I will place a bet that in the near future that the number of wolf tags and future grizzly tags will be in direct proportion to the amount of revenue lost because people like me just say to heck with it and go somewhere else.

by **IdahoKel** » 08 14, 2014 • [Post 33]

Wolves are a hot-button issue here in North Idaho, and for good reason. They have proliferated and are having an unquestionable impact in this region. I strongly believe they should be managed individually by each state, and fortunately, Idaho has won the right to do that from the feds in court. They are not endangered here in Idaho, and management should, and does, include lawful hunting. Now, this may be kind of long-winded, but this is a perspective I feel like more people need to hear and understand.

Elk and wolves coexisted here in North America for millennia before Europeans arrived. Up until the early 20th century, elk were hunted almost to extinction (or at least extirpation from its former range). Roosevelt elk managed to survive in the jungles of western Oregon and Washington, but most, if not all, of the rocky mountain elk we have today are descended from a handful of elk transplanted from Yellowstone National Park. Elk actually used to -- and prefer to -- inhabit the open plains and forested areas, but will move into more rugged, steep, and thick country for survival, and are perfectly capable of thriving there. Now, when these transplanted elk began to multiply and repopulate the West, much of their former habitat had been developed and inhabited by people. So they stuck mostly to the wild backcountry of the West, and did very well there. Sound management practices, in combination with efforts of organizations like the RMEF in the late 20th century, contributed to an extraordinary comeback for an animal that was nearly on the verge of extinction.

It just so happens that this recovery in the early 20th century coincided with the gray wolf's disappearance. There can't be any doubt that elk populations would not have recovered as quickly and as well as they did if it had not been for the removal of this predator. Now, here we are in the 21st century, with a prey species recovered, and a predator species being reintroduced. People seem to make the argument that they coexisted for thousands of years before, so why can't they now?

Surely you can see where I'm going with this. Elk recovered and thrived because, though most of their former range had now been inhabited by humans, they had enough wild and mountainous country to inhabit that they were able to make a remarkable recovery. Now, we've reintroduced a devastating predator into these same areas. So in these places where wolves have been reintroduced, and increased greatly in number, elk have become stuck between a rock and a hard place, if you will. They've been run out of the backcountry by predators, but they can't stray too far into the plains and valleys, because it's inhabited by humans. And elk won't live in these populated areas alongside humans the way that deer will.

This, in my opinion, is why open, flat, rural areas on the fringes of wilderness have so many elk, even to the point where we have depredation hunts because some agricultural areas are so overrun. These are the safest areas for them, because they're far enough away from the backcountry that wolves are not as much of a threat, but also a safe distance away from too much human activity. Not to mention that they get plenty of protection from farmers and ranchers (you know - the three S's).

Now, I'm not saying that wolves should be exterminated completely, and I'm also not saying that humans are the ones (directly) responsible for the effects on populations we're seeing right now. All I'm saying is that when this issue arises, most people don't take all of these things into account. They don't realize that the North America we inhabit today is very different from the one that existed before Europeans arrived. Now, don't get me wrong -- besides the overhunting of the 18th and 19th centuries, there's nothing wrong with people expanding westward and developing the land. I'm not some granola crunching hippy telling people they're evil for it. I'm saying that management agencies (especially the US FWS) need to look at our land and resources as they are today, not as how they have been historically, and they need to realize that just because wolves and their prey coexisted in balance historically does not necessarily mean that you can just reintroduce wolves in the 21st century and expect that you're going to have the same balance you did 300+ years ago. It just doesn't work like that.

Just my .02.

by **Blackdog44** » 08 14, 2014 • [Post 34]

We'll said. It goes back to the competitive exclusion principle ... No two organisms can occupy the same niche in an ecosystem. Wolves and humans are both peak predators an we want to be the ones killing the elk, deer and livestock, not them. That's why we wiped them out in the first place. I do enjoy seeing wolves when I''m out in the woods, and would love to harvest one someday. On the contrary, I'd much rather see elk. Not everyone is a predator though

by **Indian Summer** » 08 14, 2014 • [Post 35]

Apologies if they are necessary. Yes wolves are a touchy subject with me. They cost me 6 figures, ruined my livelihood, my retirement, and way of life. I was forced to sell my business and move back east because of them. Can you imagine!!!

As I said way up top... I have no animosity at all toward wolves. But people who promote them are a different story and I guess it is a pet peeve of mine for people to keep the facts straight.

by **zpd307** » 08 15, 2014 • [Post 36]

i am from Minnesota and have seen what wolves will do to a deer population. i used to hunt up north for almost 20 years. every year i heard and saw more wolf sign. i also saw less and less deer every season. i quit hunting up north.... it got to the point where i was lucky to see a deer or two. the best thing that has happened so far is the ability to hunt/regulate them like every other animal we have. i am excited to see how things turn out once the population levels out.
i bought a wolf tag for Idaho and hope to finally arrow a bull so that i have a chance to go after a wolf. mn wolf tags are a lottery for residents and they aren't giving out very many. i see there is a 40 wolf limit in my area of Idaho. we heard them howling at night on our scout trip a couple of days ago....

by **wolfkiller** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 37]

I love wolves, heres some of my pics.

by **wolfkiller** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 38]

some more

by **wolfkiller** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 39]

some more

by **wolfkiller** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 40]

some more

by **wolfkiller** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 41]

some more

by **wolfkiller** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 42]

some more

by **wolfkiller** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 43]

you can see my thoughts on wolves

by **WapitiTalk1** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 44]

Wonder where you get your user handle from Trevor?

Thanks for sharing your success pics..

by **elk.addict** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 45]

Dang Trevor, you're a wolf killin' machine! Nice pics

by **Indian Summer** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 46]

When I saw what year they were from I figured you were north of the border. Wow you guys do some serious wolf hunting. Personal hunting or guiding?

by **wolfkiller** » 08 19, 2014 • [Post 47]

personal hunting, grew up killing wolves, haven't stopped.killed my first wolf when I was 12, hunted and trapped em ever since, and this is why
talked to some a few weeks ago at work, wish I could pack iron at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azjDQbP ... OMolD38nmw

by **zpd307** » 08 20, 2014 • [Post 48]

trevor, how many are you allowed to get a year?

by **wolfkiller** » 08 20, 2014 • [Post 49]

no limits and no tags in alberta. big game season just has to be open , I have damage control permits in order to trap,shoot em in summer time.

by **zpd307** » 08 20, 2014 • [Post 50]

wow, you have a lot of wolves up there.....