longcruise
70 Cal.
With all due respect, I believe GM boy was the first to be subjected to personal attack.
Wolves?
- Thread starter Pete Gaimari
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Pete Gaimari
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,545
- Reaction score
- 11
Greenmtnboy said:
Last edited by a moderator:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 90
Mort Scott: Please understand that I am not challenging the claims of members who actually live out in the area, about the presence of wolves. I am concerned whenever someone bases their claim on "tracks", when they make further comments that indicate they simply don't know how to go about distinguishing one species' tracks, from those of another species. When someone talking about a member of the Canine Family begins talking about large Cat prints, :idunno: a big WHOA leaps to my lips. :shocked2: :thumbsup:
I learned a long time ago that whenever anyone in our Federal government is put in charge of some " program", it tends to get screwed up royally.
We have reports here, in East Central Illinois, periodically about "Black Panthers" scaring the residents. Now, this has been going on and off for more than 40 years, and we have yet to see a picture, or tracks that confirm that these big cats exist here.
We NOW have some mountain lions living in Far Southern Illinois, in the Shawnee National Forest area. There has been a small indigenous population of mountain lions in the back country of Missouri for years, and, apparently, the cats have worked their way across the Mississippi River into Illinois. But, we have no good reports of the lions here in East Central Illinois. The country is too flat, here, for the kind of denning they prefer- which is rocky bluffs and outcrops. We have an occasional Bobcat that comes into the area- usually from Indiana, and may den in an old tree, but they generally don't stay very long- one season at best.
I hope both the State Game Departments and the Federal officials will listen to the local hunters, and outfitters, and begin to issue permits to take wolves, so as to restore a balance between wolves and Elk. This is the sensible way to manage our wildlife. :hatsoff:
I learned a long time ago that whenever anyone in our Federal government is put in charge of some " program", it tends to get screwed up royally.
We have reports here, in East Central Illinois, periodically about "Black Panthers" scaring the residents. Now, this has been going on and off for more than 40 years, and we have yet to see a picture, or tracks that confirm that these big cats exist here.
We NOW have some mountain lions living in Far Southern Illinois, in the Shawnee National Forest area. There has been a small indigenous population of mountain lions in the back country of Missouri for years, and, apparently, the cats have worked their way across the Mississippi River into Illinois. But, we have no good reports of the lions here in East Central Illinois. The country is too flat, here, for the kind of denning they prefer- which is rocky bluffs and outcrops. We have an occasional Bobcat that comes into the area- usually from Indiana, and may den in an old tree, but they generally don't stay very long- one season at best.
I hope both the State Game Departments and the Federal officials will listen to the local hunters, and outfitters, and begin to issue permits to take wolves, so as to restore a balance between wolves and Elk. This is the sensible way to manage our wildlife. :hatsoff:
I have no idea what subspecies they may have been but, I saw tracks, poop, and heard wolf howls back in 1980 or 1981 in northern Idaho near the Kootenai, as well as on the north fork of the Coure d alene, and on the Clark Fork all through the 80s.
Wolves in Idaho isn't news to me.
Wolves in Idaho isn't news to me.
I would think that the powers that be would have learned a lesson when they introduced the subspecies "Muzzleloader Modernitus Ignoramus Patheticus" twenty or thirty years ago but often govermental organizations are slow to learn.
Pete Gaimari
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,545
- Reaction score
- 11
KHickam said:
We're talking about Grey Wolves. A much bigger wolf than what used to be in Idaho.
Key words being "used to be"
JMinnerath
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 787
- Reaction score
- 0
When the whole BS about planting wolves in the park first got started the country around here swarmed with "wolf experts" looking for proof there were any left in these mountains.
The valley I live in is just a few ridges south of the park.
There always were a few small packs in some isolated places and all who knew about them agreed that we'd never tell the Feds where they were.
A few rumors got out about them, but those people they had out looking for them never had a clue about finding them.
Finally they issued a blanket statement that there were none!
We all know what a boondoggle this thing has turned into.
The FWS people around here who are trying to keep track of them will admit they don't have any idea how many there really are now or even where they've extended their range to.
The population is exploding and they're seen everywhere around here.
They're causing big problems for stockmen and also the wild game herds.
I know personally some of the movers and shakers of the NRDC and the GYC, a bigger bunch of arrogant prima donnas you can not imagine.
We can only hope that before too much longer a hunting season will be opened up and they can legally be shot to begin getting the numbers down.
Add in an exploding grizzly bear population, they're protected too, and a huge increase for some reason in the number of mountain lions and the poor old coyote is way down on the list of problem predators.
The valley I live in is just a few ridges south of the park.
There always were a few small packs in some isolated places and all who knew about them agreed that we'd never tell the Feds where they were.
A few rumors got out about them, but those people they had out looking for them never had a clue about finding them.
Finally they issued a blanket statement that there were none!
We all know what a boondoggle this thing has turned into.
The FWS people around here who are trying to keep track of them will admit they don't have any idea how many there really are now or even where they've extended their range to.
The population is exploding and they're seen everywhere around here.
They're causing big problems for stockmen and also the wild game herds.
I know personally some of the movers and shakers of the NRDC and the GYC, a bigger bunch of arrogant prima donnas you can not imagine.
We can only hope that before too much longer a hunting season will be opened up and they can legally be shot to begin getting the numbers down.
Add in an exploding grizzly bear population, they're protected too, and a huge increase for some reason in the number of mountain lions and the poor old coyote is way down on the list of problem predators.
All the guys from northeast missouri and southeast iowa in my muzzleloading club routinely see mountain lions and get them on game cams all the time. We even have them in Hancock County in certain parts along the river and in the far southeastern part of the county in the creek bottoms. I hunt in this region but have yet to see them.
I'm somewhat glad this thread came about because I thought the wolves planted in the rockies are native but are actually different. Not to steer the thread away but I saw Paul V is getting involved and some other guys from Illinois. What species of wolves used to live in Illinois? I've heard people say grey wolves and some say red wolves but I don't know which.
JMinnerath
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 787
- Reaction score
- 0
All the Northern wolves are Grey Wolves. Even the wolf biologist argue about sub species and different geographical location races.luie b said:
The ones planted in Yellowstone weren't native, but were just northern cousins.
"
You mean just like the elk in AZ were not the same as the elk that were introduced there from Yellowstone.
Nor the turkey just about everywhere they have been introduced, and many other species"
You might want to start a seperate thread about the other introduced non native species and all the problems that they have caused if it bothers you so much and leave this one to the Wolf issue, that is usually how things work around here.
You mean just like the elk in AZ were not the same as the elk that were introduced there from Yellowstone.
Nor the turkey just about everywhere they have been introduced, and many other species"
You might want to start a seperate thread about the other introduced non native species and all the problems that they have caused if it bothers you so much and leave this one to the Wolf issue, that is usually how things work around here.
Brent
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 96
No, not really. The issue is the same is it not?
The fact is the wolves in YNP and the northern Rockies is about as much like that wolves that were there before as the elk in AZ are like the elk that used to be in AZ. Somehow the wolves are "wrong" and the elk are "right" Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
The fact that the Rockies are missing a major predator is a fact. The wolves they have now are either the same as, or damn near the same as the extirpated wolves of the region. Eastern timberwolves are MUCH different from that, not that hunters, as a rule regard them any better in their place than they do the western wolves.
The point is that functional system is what one strives for in management. That they are closer to this now than they were is indisputable (of course you can call white black I suppose, but nto creditably).
The bottom line is that hunters, by and large, simply want a target-rich environment. Because that is what wildlife means to too many of them. Targets. And that is sad.
Hunters used to respect nature. Today, that seems to be slipping, apparently even here in the traditional muzzleloading world - one of the last bastions of traditional values. I find that very sad and depressing.
Brent
The fact is the wolves in YNP and the northern Rockies is about as much like that wolves that were there before as the elk in AZ are like the elk that used to be in AZ. Somehow the wolves are "wrong" and the elk are "right" Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
The fact that the Rockies are missing a major predator is a fact. The wolves they have now are either the same as, or damn near the same as the extirpated wolves of the region. Eastern timberwolves are MUCH different from that, not that hunters, as a rule regard them any better in their place than they do the western wolves.
The point is that functional system is what one strives for in management. That they are closer to this now than they were is indisputable (of course you can call white black I suppose, but nto creditably).
The bottom line is that hunters, by and large, simply want a target-rich environment. Because that is what wildlife means to too many of them. Targets. And that is sad.
Hunters used to respect nature. Today, that seems to be slipping, apparently even here in the traditional muzzleloading world - one of the last bastions of traditional values. I find that very sad and depressing.
Brent
". I find that very sad and depressing."
Yes indeed you are, and missing the point as well as near as I can tell from the general concensus of the forum, you are not playing the apples and apples game, I am done listening and responding to such nonsense, I hope the others do the same.A very important fact you omitted is that some large predators no longer will fit in the numbers and areas they once did, wolves and the big bears being two such animals, for you to sit in judgement of the hunting ethics and mindsets of those on this forum is ridiculus, I smell a troll in the breeze.
Yes indeed you are, and missing the point as well as near as I can tell from the general concensus of the forum, you are not playing the apples and apples game, I am done listening and responding to such nonsense, I hope the others do the same.A very important fact you omitted is that some large predators no longer will fit in the numbers and areas they once did, wolves and the big bears being two such animals, for you to sit in judgement of the hunting ethics and mindsets of those on this forum is ridiculus, I smell a troll in the breeze.
Pete Gaimari
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,545
- Reaction score
- 11
Going back to the days of the muzzleloaders we shoot now.
If there was a wolf problem. They'd shoot them and not ask permission from anybody.
Now we have the touchy feely type who for some stupid reason stops that from happening.
We're at the top of the food chain, but it's sure hard to see that sometimes.
If there was a wolf problem. They'd shoot them and not ask permission from anybody.
Now we have the touchy feely type who for some stupid reason stops that from happening.
We're at the top of the food chain, but it's sure hard to see that sometimes.
JMinnerath
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 787
- Reaction score
- 0
Not much sense in replying to someone in Iowa telling us in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho that the predator/prey relationship is now in balance and it's the hunters, and I suppose the Stockmen too, who are at fault and how we should do things.
Sounds like the drivel coming from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem types up in Bozeman.
Sounds like the drivel coming from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem types up in Bozeman.
