# Self Sufficiency/Living off the Land or Off the Grid > Hunting & Trapping >  Wolf Population Management Plan- Your Opinion

## Gray Wolf

On March 28, 2008, gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains were removed from the federal endangered species list, and management of wolves within Idaho passed to Idaho Fish and Game. *Wolves will be managed as a big game species* under the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan adopted by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission March 6 and under the states earlier Wolf Conservation and Management Plan approved by the Idaho Legislature in 2002.

Delisting includes gray wolves in *Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah*. About 13 years ago, 66 gray wolves were reintroduced to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.

----------


## trax

My opinion is that the wolves should have been left alone in the first dam place but it's probably necessary now for a bunch of propellor heads to try to re-adjust nature and a bunch of salivating gun nuts who think hunting means "have a rack of antlers to hang your 47 caps on" to be loading up and piling onto their Honda 4x4's and shooting everything in sight with grey fur.

They have a tourist season, why can't I hunt tourists?

----------


## Rick

Actually, it has been returned to protected endangered status via an injunction. 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/

That aside, there are estimated to be about 1500 gray wolves in the wild. That's not a huge number to be messing with in my opinion.

----------


## Gray Wolf

Yes, but with a catch:

Wolves have reverted to management under a section of the Endangered Species Act known as the 10(j) rule, which was revised in January. 

Simply put, the 10(j) rule allows states and tribes with approved wolf management plans to manage these wolves to ensure the health of wild elk and deer herds and to protect private property. *The rule also allows individuals on private or public land to kill a wolf* that is in the act of attacking their stock animals or dogs, except land north of Interstate 90 in Idaho, or land administered by the National Park Service, and *provided there is no evidence of intentional baiting, feeding or deliberate attractants of wolves.*

*Right* :Mad:

----------


## Sourdough

Solution is move 50% of the wolves east of the Mississippi River, everyone happy for 10 years.

----------


## BraggSurvivor

Were they not Canadian wolves sent down in the first place? Send them back.....I'll take six.   :Wink:

----------


## Sourdough

Nope: they were from the Great State of Alaska, and we do not want them back, unless they and tanned and made into parkas...... :EEK!:

----------


## BraggSurvivor

> Nope: they were from the Great State of Alaska, and we do not want them back, unless they and tanned and made into parkas......


Hmmm, I thought there wolves sent from Alberta to Montana a few years ago.

----------


## trax

You're right Bragg, there were, it was all over the news at the time.

----------


## BraggSurvivor

Yea, here is a good write up: http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/wolves_canada_alberta.htm

----------


## trax

> Nope: they were from the Great State of Alaska, and we do not want them back, unless they and tanned and made into parkas......


Don't like wolves,don't go where the wolves live. They don't come to your house. (they can't operate door knobs for one thing)

----------


## Gray Wolf

> we do not want them back, unless they and tanned and made into parkas......


AAWWW even this one?  :Frown:

----------


## trax

that's an adorable little fella alright GW, nice to think that he's going to grow up to be one of the most effective killers on the planet  :Big Grin:

----------


## nell67

oh,he/ she is beautiful!!

----------


## BraggSurvivor

A couple weeks ago my daughter sighted a lone pure black wolf behind my barn when she was doing early morning chores. (one I haven't seen before) The slaughter of a couple of my beef steers could have attracted him. I spent the day cleaning up and hot liming/tiling the soil where I slaughtered the steers. No sign of him since.

What gets me is where were my dogs...... :Mad:

----------


## Rick

Not to dispute your word but I went back and read the whole thing. I must be a complete idiot. Wolves can be "lethally" controlled if they impact ungulate populations. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! For cryin' out loud. We manage ungulates instead of letting nature takes it course like she's done for oh, I don't know, millions of years. Hello? I don't understand this. There must be something seriously wrong with me.

----------


## Gray Wolf

> nice to think that he's going to grow up to be one of the most effective killers on the planet


Yea, right behind humans...  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Sourdough

I love the wolves. I have had more wolves trot into my camps than likely anyone on this forum has. And yes they all trotted away unharmed. I just feel if you hire biologist to manage fish and game, they should do that not a judge in the judicial system.

----------


## Ole WV Coot

What's the big deal ? We "imported" coyotes here, anacondas in Florida and started with sparrows years ago. Anyone that don't agree that our government could screw up a two car funeral given the chance? They know what's best for us, why not animals? Need I mention the green shrubbery that is choking every tree in Appalachia?

----------


## skunkkiller

wolves are good they keep down the pop. of deer and elk .we have woves east of the mississippi but you can send more if you like.

----------


## RangerXanatos

Am I the only one seeing the governments position?  The more wolves we have, the harder they can blow.  The harder they can blow, then less piggies will have a home.  With less homes for the piggies, we just may have a bacon scarcity!   :EEK!:   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## crashdive123

So that's what has caused the housing crunch.

----------


## DOGMAN

I live smack dab in the middle of the area that all this is taking place in, and I remember when they were brought down from Alberta and released. My property borders National Forest that connects directly to Yellowstone and we are about 24 miles of continuous wilderness, North of the park boundry. My dogs and the wolves regularly howl back and forth at one another, and I see wolves on a fairly regular basis. My neighbors have had calves killed by them, and I have seen a couple of wolves take down a cow elk first hand.

My feelings on this are there are just too many damned people!  We (I) am encroaching on wolves, grizzlies, elk, buffalo, etc...So, I think we should realize we are emposing on the wildlife, not the wildlife emposing on us and adjust our lifestyle to fit in- not try to limit the wolves and bears. Cattle can be raised other places, so can sheep. But, wolves need Wilderness and there ain't much left!  I think defense of Wolves and Wilderness is imperative.

----------


## Gray Wolf

Well said Jason. People forget humans killed the wolves on to the protected list. That changed the natural order of things. Seems like we did the same to the Native Americans when we wanted their wilderness too.

----------


## Sourdough

Jason Montana, That is well said, and I agree 100%

----------


## crashdive123

Well said Jason.  There just seems to be something inherently wrong with killing anything just to “manage” the population.  Man has tried it with other men and eventually there was an outcry, albeit late.  Hopefully there will be here as well.

----------


## wareagle69

we have a healthy population of wolves here on the north shore estimated at about 3000 which we need because we have about 30,000 deer and the idiots that go hunting can't manage the deer most won't go in past a couple of miles most drink and party the whole time and most can't shoot a barn 200 feet in front of them, i say bring back open season on tourists live and let live(or die) is the way it should be why is it a couple of guys get a degree (from idiots to start with) now they think they know whats best for everyone, i say they all go get jobs like us "normal" people here and just leave it all to nature.

----------


## TrappinGal

i think if they migrated back in on their own fine. Reintroducing them ,imo, isnt the brightest thing to do.

i wont  be able to try and catch one like i was hoping come October when i go out there to trap.

----------


## Riverrat

Introducing no, reintroducing, to me is a differant thing. We (humans) killed them off, so what is wrong with trying to put this right?

----------


## RBB

Though we used to shoot timber wolves in Minnesota when I was a kid, I kind of like having them around.  There was always a lot of griping that they were killing off the deer herd.  We now have more wolves than we've ever had  - and more deer than there've ever been - even before white contact.

I like hearing them howl.  There are only about three thousand wolves in 485 packs here, most of them right in my neck of the woods, and that's not too many.  Reminds me I live somewhere semi-wild.

----------


## Rick

Somewhere a pack of wolves is laying by a stream. 

"Dog! Have you ever seen so many people."
"Not since I was a pup. Why, I remember..."

----------


## klkak

It's a fine day when I find a wolf in one of my traps  :Big Grin:  Of course that didn't happen last year  :Frown:  There is always this coming winter to look forward to.  :Smile:

----------


## TrappinGal

Good Luck on that. I dont have a death wish for all wolves but id love to catch one, if only to say i did it.

----------


## Pict

Wolves only live about 7 years in the wild.  Think about it, there isn't a wolf alive today that was born before the year 2000.  In many places where wolves live you might very well be the first human they have come across.

I'm going to take the minority opinion here. Personally I don't have a problem with hunting canines (including wolves) to control the population in areas where their population is growing.  Their natural cycle is to grow to the point that they seriously affect the numbers of caribou and moose and then they begin to starve as heard levels drop.  As the wolf population drops off the herds recover and the cycle continues.

Once cattle and sheep are introduced to an area you have a whole new prey species thrown into the mix.  In the past the attitude of ranchers was to just shoot off the entire population of wolves and and proceed to raise livestock.  I see very few people advocating that these days.  

I would like to see the same people who advocate wolf reintroduction also pony up some cash to compensate ranchers for lost livestock. That would take some of the pressure off the wolves as the ranchers wouldn't be incurring a financial loss personally for the reintroduction.  Just telling them to go out of business and stop ranching land they've been working for generations isn't viable.  Essentaillly we're telling them we are going to allow vegans to shoot their cattle without compenstaion.  I doubt anyone here would allow a rancher to raid their paycheck, but we tell them we are going to allow unrestricted hunting of their livestock and they have to bear the cost.

Human agriculture upsets the balance of nature like little else.

In Alaska many people live a subsistence lifestyle and excess wolf populations directly compete with that.  Keeping predator/prey populations stable is a good thing.

We had a similar situation in PA with red fox and phesants.  You can't stock hunting land with phesants and not control the fox and coyote population or you just stock feed for an ever expanding population of wild canines. Mac (donning nomex and kevlar)

----------


## FVR

I've always liked wolves, don't think I'd ever kill one unless it needed it.  The reintro. sounded like a good idea, but you always have to look ahead.  I do believe that if a reintro. species kills off livestock and a persons personal critter, they should be reinbursed for the kill.  If not, then the ranchers have the right to just kill them, don't mess with a man's livlyhood.

As far as hunting, if the pop. and local laws allow it, so be it.  

I don't hunt squirrels, because I don't like the meat.  I don't hunt coyotes, because I don't eat them or sell the hides, this goes for many critters.  It's just my way, but that is just it.

It's my way, not yours.

----------


## wildWoman

IMO the one and only animal on this planet that needs to be managed is us humans. Nature holds itself in balance and we are too ignorant and limited in our understanding to do anything management-wise that benefits an ecosystem. Other than removing human infrastucture and a few billion peole, I mean.

----------


## BraggSurvivor

As Pict points out wolves only live about 5-7 years in the wild. There is a wolf on my property I see 4-5 times a year. I have gotten as close as 15 yards from him and each year a bit closer. I've spotted this lone wolf year after year for going on 12 years. 

It will be a sad day when I fail to spot him next year.  :Frown:

----------


## TrappinGal

> I do believe that if a reintro. species kills off livestock and a persons personal critter, they should be reinbursed for the kill.  If not, then the ranchers have the right to just kill them, don't mess with a man's livlyhood.
> 
> As far as hunting, if the pop. and local laws allow it, so be it.



i agree.



have you ever seen firsthand how mother nature deals with species over populations? mother nature is far more harsher when it comes to population control of animals than humans could ever be.

have you ever seen a coon with dstemper or a coyote with mange.I have and it aint pretty.

a bullet is a lot less cruel than the suffering involved with either disease,imo.

----------


## Rick

Ranchers do receive compensation for a lost animal. It's a tax deduction. I'm not advocating the loss of a herd and a farmer certainly has the right to protect his/her property but the loss of an animal through any means is a deductible operational expense. And since many farmers are corporations today that means a business deduction. 

Deer populations have exploded in Indiana because there are no natural predators (cars aren't natural or at least weren't) other than coyote. A few years ago the DNR allowed deer kills in a couple of the state parks because over population meant over grazing and starvation/disease for the deer. 

I believe in the natural cycle but with our intervention, intended or not, the natural cycle has been inexorably altered.

----------


## Fargus

Hasn't anyone read about Ted Turner's plans for the midwest U.S.? LINK. I believe he is now the largest private land owner in the world (surpassing the Catholic church) in terms of total acreage.

As far as reintroductions go, I am a firm believer in them. They can work. I recently encountered a transplanted panther in the Everglades, just magnificent. I met some officials later who told me it was probably a female with two cubs that was known to frequent the area where I was poking around. They asked me for the data from my GPS and her rough bearing for help tracking her and the cubs progress.

----------


## DOGMAN

I am for wolves and Ranchers.  But, I am not for hand-outs.  Many Ranchers feel a sense of entitlement, and feel they are owed a pay-off for a Wolf attack. In many cases that is complete bullsheet.  Some places in the West ranchers have leases on National Forest and BLM lands, and they may not check their cows for weeks at a time.
Then they cry foul when there is a wolf kill. That is just pure political muscle being flexed by the livestock industry.  What other business can leave an asset unattended for days on end than get reimbursed when that asset is "lost".
Even on their own grazing land they'll leave cattle unprotected for weeks and weeks then cry when one gets attacked.  In the past humans and wolves lived together- but, livestock growers had guard dogs, and they kept watch of their herds.  

Bankers don't leave their assets just laying around for predators- and if they did they'd go out of business. Why can Ranchers do it, and feel they should be reimbursed?
Its all about "Personal Responsibility".

----------


## crashdive123

Very well said Jaon.

----------


## Beo

Jason that was great. I agree totally.

----------


## Ole WV Coot

We don't have any that I am aware of so I can't comment on them. We've screwed up nature to the point that deer will and are considered a pest around here. We've messed it up. Folks leave the cities, can't blame them for that but they buy a few acres, fence it, clear cut everything for a 2 acre lawn, and since they can buy a gun or two or three and get rid of every animal that "trespasses" on their property just to practice with their new toys. Same with ATVs in some places, it's their property and they can do anything they want on it. Wolves or coyotes I would shoot around the house if it came to my beagle or them. I guess I would make it hard on a human if they tried to kick the little fellow also.

----------


## Rick

> What other business can leave an asset unattended for days on end than get reimbursed when that asset is "lost".


Actually, any business can. Crash could leave his business truck unattended for a week and then file a police report once he finds it's stolen. He'll write it off as a business loss. Any business can do it, even ranchers.

----------


## gourdhead1997

> Actually, any business can. Crash could leave his business truck unattended for a week and then file a police report once he finds it's stolen. He'll write it off as a business loss. Any business can do it, even ranchers.


I agree but a tax write-off is different than an actual reimbursement. A write-off is a loss in tax revenue whereas a reimbursement is actually coming from the tax base that we pay. Don't get me wrong. I believe there should be some federal help for our food providers. Just pointing out the difference.

----------


## DOGMAN

> Actually, any business can. Crash could leave his business truck unattended for a week and then file a police report once he finds it's stolen. He'll write it off as a business loss. Any business can do it, even ranchers.


Totally different situation. Writing off a business loss is not what they are doing. There are funds that are set aside that Reimburse them.

----------


## DOGMAN

Don't get me wrong- I don't have anything against ranchers.  I went to a land grant/ag college, and most of my friends from college are all ranchers.  My very closest friend in life runs his families enormous cattle ranch in northeastern Montana, and we argue about this stuff every time we get together.

But, cattle ranching in the arid American west is a losing proposition- it is a very, very inefficiant place to raise cattle.  The amount of resources that are used to get one pound of table ready beef is astronomical.  The only way ranchers in the Rocky Mountains make it in this day and age is through government help, real estate development, and tourism.  It is damn near impossible to make a "working" cattle ranch in this area profitable without other sources of income.

But, the livestock industry has enormous political clout- and so all Americans are basically supplementing the western cattle industry because a few old western families want to continue to play cowboy.  The entire industry is based on sentimentality and nostalgia- not profit.  It's sad really- tax payers are all having to pay to keep these traditions going, when in a true free market capitalistic society they'd have almost all already gone belly up and found other ways to make a living.

----------

