“Wolves Will Thrive Despite Recent Hunts”

Mentalism isn’t name-calling; but try explaining it to one who is…., and the screaming begins.

good article

Just like they always were..

That picture has been floating around awhile. It seems nothing can be verified about it.. The author of the article below has always been credible, I did try to contact Don for more info about this story but he had been sick, and recently died.. The wolf to me only looks to be about 130-40 pounds, I had a German Shepard that size or larger.. I am six foot tall, 195 pounds, and athletic, and I have killed 180 pound deer, and I could not hold them like this guy is holding this 180-or-197 wolf.. BS. Maybe with help getting it up off the ground I could, dead bodies are really hard to pick up..

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20090623.htm

Jes, thanks. i hadn’t seen any of these before. Wolf lovers Suck.

I’ve been over at the MISCONCEPTIONS blog again, that place is great for laughs..But sometimes it can make you down right sick, here is the comment by the Southwest Director of IDFG,

Mark Gamblin (IDFG) Says:
November 17, 2009 at 9:25 PM
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/montana-wolf-hunt-to-end-today/#comment-92683

There are several important misconceptions in this thread:

“…Idaho’s Fish and Game Commissioners are thinking of being duplicitous and extending the wolf season in some parts of Idaho’s already overlong season.”

There is nothing duplicitous about considering or acting to extend the wolf hunting season. This statement misses the point. The Fish and Game Commission is the decision making body with authority to manage the state’s wildlife resources – in this case wolves. The management objective for this hunting season is the harvest/kill limit, apportioned among the wolf hunting zones – not the length of the season. Those management objectives are unlikely to be met by a large margin in several wolf management zones. Far from being duplicitious, the Commission would be consistent to those management objectives and it’s responsibilities to consider extending the season to achieve the objectives.

“If Molloy allows the delisting to stand the future seasons will be harsher in both states. They’ll have free rein over the wolves and that will be the end of the them, period.”

Of course, if Idaho and Montana retain management authority for wolves, those populations will continue to thrive, as they are now. It is not in any state’s interest to see a species return to ESA protected status and both states are solidly committed to managing for vibrant, healthy wolf populations in their respective borders. The size of those wolf populations, balancing the benefits of wolves with the benefits of other wildlife resources and private property for society is the dynamic process we are really discussing.

“If the hunt is extended and if the numbers are somehow manipulated to mean a larger number of wolves will be shot, there’s your bad faith…”

Extending the season to achieve the harves/kill limit objectives for key wolf management zones is the only potential change on the agenda for the Commission meeting this week.

“So with more elk today than ever, and fifteen years of 200+ lb., killing machine canadian gray wolves it seems your hunting opportunities havn’t been reduced too much.”

Hunting opportunities for the Idaho public are indeed being reduced by wolf predation in important portions of the state. The Commission and IDFG are balancing the needs and desires of Idahoans for hunting and wildlife veiwing opportunities with balanced wolf and other big game management plans.

“It’s called a “trophic cascade”. I’m not making this stuff up….here’s an aritcle by Oregon State researcher Cristina Eisenberg, who’s been tromping around the North Fork studying wolves for years. She states that aspen ecosystems are some of the richest song bird habitat anywhere. Wolves increase biodiversity, that’s a fact. Her research may change everything, especically the way the wolves and other predators are “managed”.”

Trophic Cascade as a theory has it’s origins in the discipline of aquatic ecology. While the theoretical concept of trophic cascade is widely accepted, the application of the theory to predict or identify the effects of one species (wolves) on a ecosystem is not. There is no research that I am aware of that provides a compelling argument for wolf benefits for aspen communities. YNP research has measured riparian vegetation responses, but not for aspen stands – that I know of. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe the OSU research has been written up, peer reveiwed or published yet. It is especially problematic to argue trophic cascade benefits for wolf introductions where top predators (mountain lions, bears, humans) have exerted profound influences on elk and other large ungulate populations for hundreds of years – outside of the National Parks. Broad, universal ecological benefits of wolf introductions is simply a theory at this time.

“It’s just not only about hunting anymore. Wildlife viewers have as many rights as hunters and we like our wildlife living and breathing.”

It has never been “just about hunting”. It’s been said numerous times in recent threads – contemporary hunting and hunters, through the North American model of wildlife conservation are more responsible than any other segment of society for the recovery and continued wealth of wildlife enjoyed by all Americans and Canadians – including non-hunters. Those healthy wildlife populations (today including wolves, bears, mountain lions and other predators) will continue to provide sustainable benefits for diversity of Idahoans and other citizens of our country.

The wolves will move to the citys soon enough, the Depression is just getting started, the currency has yet to finish it’s collapse, the food shortages, and complete breakdown of services will cause chaos, and death, some violent, some from starvation, sickness, disease. And the wolves will feast on the flesh of the dead as they did in WWII in Russia..

The only citizens capable of doing so are doing so. The city dwellers, I believe 98% of the population would starve to death if they had to go hunting.

Jim, I think the majority of what we call Americans, today, (considering the majority voted for Obama…) would starve themselves down to a respectable weight, if not to death, if they had to fix their own food from scratch….If they had to hunt or grow their own, most would starve.

As usual you ask dumb questions of no value. All citizens could never fill their freezers with elk and deer, we don’t have 300 million deer, and we don’t have 300 million elk. It simply could not happen at all.. Obviously you are the exception, you own a 30-06, you have a deer outside your kitchen window, you could not kill that deer on any day of the year, that would be unethical, and once you do whack a deer near your house the other deer are going to leave and not come back as often thus limiting your shot opportunity out your kitchen window.. Once the majority of the population finally recognizes what is happening to them in this Nation, Which is the post industrial age and return to wilderness projects of agenda 21, this plan includes genocide, which can go off in many ways, dehydration and starvation, once these “citizens” get it, they will be to far gone to have the energy to hunt.. They will die in riots, and fights over livestock, cattle, sheep, horses, and even dogs, eventually all wild game will be gone, including your predators..This is the insanity you support, known as environmentalism with a liars twist disguised as Conservation, Conservation had been perfected compared to this ESA-Agenda 21 United nations Trojan horse Sustainable Development FOREIGN FOX IN THE HEN HOUSE bunkum crap. You will likely luck out and miss the big chaotic show coming to these lands, But it is coming Barbara, The elites wish to cut the US population by 50% minimum by 2050, FACT. They have started the process.

Why do you use Barb Rupers at Maughans blog but here you use Lee, I’ve asked you this before and you blew it off, whats up with that Barbara ?

More like Trivial Pursuits.

I used my middle name on this hunting blog which is patronized predominantly by males.

Early in my life I decided that it would be preferable to be male. How many of you writing to this blog would chose to be a female? Speak up, please!

While in high school I was denied the option of taking certain classes because I was female – engineering drawing and agriculture classes for example. I was required to wear dresses every day (Incuding for the next 20 years regardless of my employment position). In the four years that I was in the Girl’s Athletic Association at Moscow High School we had one “field day” to Lewiston, Idaho (about 40 miles from Moscow) to play volleyball (we won the tournament). Boys were bussed all over the area to various sporting events – I judged it not fair.

Being the first female to graduate from the College of Forestry at the University of Idaho I know there is a lot of discrimination directed toward females especially during the dark ages of the 1950s in a society dominated by males. Originally I had planned to major in wildlife management but soon realized that the prospects for employment in that area was virtually nil so I switched to the chemical wood utilization option. There were no females employed by the USFS (United States Forest Service) in Idaho as “foresters” when I graduated.

As a result of discrimination in Maine (we won’t hire a female for this position) I started teaching at a rural school in Maine.

So, yes, Greg I am currently retired and emptying the coffers of Oregon’s retirement system; another leach that is worthy of bashing.

Well, that should give you plenty of ammunition with which to ridicule me again.

Greg

No commeny yet about my perspective regarding the dark ages for female?

I guessed you would do that, use your middle name. I read your comment. I understand as I watched my mother who is your age go through this nonsense as well. I can not make a judgment on the female versus male position based on having to choose one to stand in. I was raised in a family unit, but mother pursued her goals, Artist, Biblical Scholar, she even built homes, as a building contractor, and she was encouraged to do those things, I grew up sharing all the duties of running a functional house, still do. Unfortunately many who come behind you and I will find a different struggle, which I fear will be far worse than ours has been. You enjoyed Liberty, and success, had you not struggled for it you would appreciate it less. It appears to me you have won.