Here is an article about our wolves here in Idaho. I still think carrying a sidearm or rifle even just to scare off an animal that is to aggressive can save a person from injury.

This fella sounds like he got lucky.



Challis man says he was stalked by wolves

April 3, 2006 12:32 PM

The Associated Press

CHALLIS, Idaho A Challis man out searching for shed antlers says two black wolves stalked him as he retreated to his vehicle.

Daniel Woodbridge says he charged the two wolves and threw stones and yelled to scare them away.

But he says the two wolves stayed within 20 yards until he was able to get out of sight behind a ridge and run for his truck.

He says the two wolves were out to get him, snarling and trying to get behind him.

Jason Husseman of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game says the two wolves were part of the Morgan Creek Pack.

He says the wolves might have a den in the area.
(Idaho State Journal)

Lucky for sure. We read about dog attacks quite frequently. Granted the dogs doing the attacking were bred originally for either fighting or protection but what was a wolf "bred" for? Survival. It's only a matter of time before these hand raised "wild" dogs known as wolves decide that 2 leggers offer a prime oportunity for an easy meal. Well it sounds like they have already.

I wonder if the Department of Interior or whoever oversees the wolves is ready to anty up when one of their precious puppies kills some granola munching, tree hugging, hiker with less sence than God gave a grapefruit gets attacked and eaten.

We've all been educated on what to do if a bear charges, but I wonder what you do if you are "charged" by a pack of wolves? If you've ever been threatened or worse attacked by a dog, then you have some idea what it would be like. I still have the scars from my little episode when I was 9. Took 17 stiches to patch the holes.

Even here in NW CO I don't think we are immune from the threat of haveing the same situation as happened near Challis. It's in the near future I'm sure.

Just one more reason to keep that shovel, bucket and axe handy when you're in the woods.

RJ

This is the second time in the last couple of months that wolves have scared the dickens out of someone. Down in California the cougers have killed a couple of folks in the last year or so.

With the increase in wildlife and the trend towards thinking their just pretty animals someone is going to get hurt in the near future.

As our forests open up this spring and more folks go into the woods I just hope no one gets hurt or killed. This is not just a wolf problem. A cow elk, or a deer can be just as dangerous if approached to closely and it has no way to escape.

There's just two many folks with the bambi movie inmage of wild animals. I just remember the cute little squirrel I picked up a bunch of years ago. It took seven stitches to sew up the bite between my thumb and first finger. Believe me I never looked a a squirrel the same after that.

Hi Faucettb,
Let me tell you the rest of the story. I talked to this young man last saturday when I was up there steelhead fishing. He has lived in that area all his life and has encounterd them before hunting horns. The Fish & Game boys that investigated this one said that it was a legal wolf shoot!!! he did not have a weapon.
Early in the day I was over in Salmon fishing in the Wagonhamer area. My dog barked and the hole other side of the hill went off in wolf howl. I can't believe how fast things have changed up there.

It is just a matter of time I am afraid. The big trouble.

Hi Faucettb,
Let me tell you the rest of the story. I talked to this young man last saturday when I was up there steelhead fishing. He has lived in that area all his life and has encounterd them before hunting horns. The Fish & Game boys that investigated this one said that it was a legal wolf shoot!!! he did not have a weapon.
Early in the day I was over in Salmon fishing in the Wagonhamer area. My dog barked and the hole other side of the hill went off in wolf howl. I can't believe how fast things have changed up there.

It is just a matter of time I am afraid. The big trouble.

Thanks for the update tybo. I'll bet he starts carrying at least a revolver after this encounter. Up in our area the 41 mag goes with me anymore when I'm in the woods. Last hunting season we had wolf tracks in the camp every morning and could hear them gathering every evening while we sat around the campfire. This was just a few miles out of Pierce Id.

Here is the latest news about our wolf problem. It will be interesting to see if this goes thru or not.

Idaho asks federal government for authority to kill wolves


April 4, 2006 4:55 PM

The Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho Idaho wildlife officials today formally asked the federal government for the O-K to kill up to 43 wolves in a pack that the state says is wiping out an elk herd in a popular hunting area.

The U-S Fish and Wildlife Service says it will now conduct a scientific review of the state's plan to kill 75 percent of the wolves roaming the Lolo Pass region near the Montana border in northcentral Idaho.

Idaho Fish and Game's Jim Unsworth says killing most of the wolves in the Lolo area is critical to reviving the elk herd population there.

But Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife says the state does not have the scientific data to back up its claims that wolves are causing unacceptable mortality rates among the elk.

The group maintains that poor habitat is the primary culprit in the decline of the Lolo elk herd.

___

On the Net: Idaho Wolf Management http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/

Bob, isn't this an instant replay from Feb? How many more months do they need to study this. I know Susanne Stone is with the defenders of wildlife, but someone set me right. Has she ever been elected to a post in our Idaho Government?
Ron

Bob, isn't this an instant replay from Feb? How many more months do they need to study this. I know Susanne Stone is with the defenders of wildlife, but someone set me right. Has she ever been elected to a post in our Idaho Government?
Ron

Funny how the habitat that supported such a good elk herd prior to the wolf re-introduction program got so poor since the wolf population grew isn't it.

As far as Ms. Stone and the defenders of wildlife I can't emagine many elk hunter are part of their supporters.

This is good and bad news. Original request was to eliminate 52 wolves and Idaho Fish & Game (IFG) was expecting over 6 months before a reply from the feds.

tybo is very right. Neither the “Defenders of Wildlife” (more like eradicators) nor the “Anti-Wolf Coalition” (many of whom are very much pro our native wolf) should have any official voice. If the political groups and political appointees would stand aside, I would be happy to go with whatever our IFG biologists say. They are very dedicated and knowledgeable people, who love both the wild and our culture; and got their education to serve both.

On topic: I have observed that the .41 magnum seems a bit more efficient with handy, short barrels than other revolver cartridges; just looking at manuals. But a high capacity, staggered, 10 mm is looking better by the moment. I’ll stick with .44 magnum, what I know and what I like.
As the federal government, and “odd” groups, begin to press against what we have; I’m starting to feel like a Southerner circa 1851.

On topic: I have observed that the .41 magnum seems a bit more efficient with handy, short barrels than other revolver cartridges; just looking at manuals. But a high capacity, staggered, 10 mm is looking better by the moment. I’ll stick with .44 magnum, what I know and what I like.
As the federal government, and “odd” groups, begin to press against what we have; I’m starting to feel like a Southerner circa 1851.

I've been a revolver hunter for around 30 years now and used mostly the 44 magnum. Over the past five years after being disabled and unable to climb around the mountians like I used to I've went back to rifle hunting.

I just sold my 7.5 inch Super Redhawk and my 5 inch Redhawk 44's over the last month. I purchased a 4 inch 41 mag stainless Taurus Tracker last year and at 34 oz is a dandy carry on the hip in the woods gun.

I wouldn't have a problem taking a deer with this revolver, but mostly it's just there "in case". Hopefully "in case" will never happpen, but you can see from the news reports that you never know.

Being retired I do spend more time in the woods, but don't get very far from the camper or the road anymore.

Bob - my 3-screw BH with a 6" bbl and chambered in .41 RM has done a good job on mountain lion. Would imagine it is equally effective on wolves.

Bob - my 3-screw BH with a 6" bbl and chambered in .41 RM has done a good job on mountain lion. Would imagine it is equally effective on wolves.


When I was into revolver hunting I started out with a Smith 29 then added a Smith 57. I picked up a 7.5 inch Blackhawk in 41 mag along the way. To be truthful in the 19 black bear killed with these three I couldn't tell any difference in perfomance between the 41 and the 44.

I was using cast bullets in all three and loads in the 1300 fps area for all of them.

I used to carry a little Rossi 4 inch stainless 22 lr all the time, but with the importation of grizzlys from yellowstone and our growing wolf population the stainless tracker is near the same weight as the 22 and gives me plenty of power.

I was careful about shot placement and range. I emagine even a .357 mag would have worked on most of my shots. Just liked the bigger bores better.

I've got to admit I'm not interested in the new super cartridges that have come out. I always figured if I needed more power than a 44 mag I'd take a rifle.

Was not knocking anyone’s choice of cartridge, just noting that in a light and handy revolver, the .41 magnum seems to make more sense then most other options (less powder and pressure for the same velocity, in about the same sectional density) and that the larger capacity of the 10 mm seems to make sense if one is possibly to run into a pack of wolves. I’m old, and set in my ways, main reason I carry a .44. Have to get old and set, to really appreciate other options.
Will also note that the .357 magnum seems to be enjoying a resurgence of popularity out here. One of the all time best bite to bark ratios. Should be classed with the .22 in the underrated department.

On wolves, you other Idaho guys, got any idea how long before I have to deal with them coming after my stock? Ain’t seen a bear in a coon’s age, and lion sign is in decline; but something has my deer spooked. Were wolves back here, think I’d have heard. If our natives have moved back here, I’ll do what I can for them, short of letting them take any of mine. Maybe just things have shifted, have noticed birds changing ranges, why not the rest? Still, has my teeth on edge.

Silvertipmo,
No idea how long before - or if - the wolves will make it down your way in SE ID, but if I had to guess, if we go another season without any wolf control, you'll probably see them next winter. With spring coming on and animals moving into the higher country, you may have avoided problems this year. Given the relative sparse population of people down that way, I'm surprised you haven't seen them yet if you're out much.

One of our local weekly papers just today had an article on a possible single "charcoal" wolf residing in a side canyon on the edge of Hailey. One lady reported it "playing with her dogs in her yard". Hmmmm, a "taming" wolf. Our local F&G officer watched it through binocs and said it had "wolf characteristics", and a track 4" wide, and 4 1/2" long.

By word of mouth, a local rancher in the Challis area said he usually has 75-100 elk on his property this time of year. This year there are 5 cows, and no calves.

Bob,
"Funny how the habitat that supported such a good elk herd prior to the wolf re-introduction program got so poor since the wolf population grew isn't it."

Yes, strange, isn't it?!! The pro-wolf advocates always pick and choose the "factors" to suit their position.

Shawn

Most groups pro something bend statistics to their favor, even some of the groups I am in favor of. Just seems like that is the way of things anymore.

I grew up in this area and have hunted since the early 60's for elk and deer here in this part of Idaho. Over the past five years I've never seen the elk hunting so bad. Be it wolves or habitat there is something really wrong here that needs solved.

I hope our fish and game can do it. I would really like to see the elk hunting come back to the way it was in the late 60's and early 70's

I can remember driving up the middle fork in the early spring and counting elk by the hundreds on the hillsides. Alas that sure isn't happening now.

Did a search on Valerius Geist. Something I don’t recommend unless you have some hours to spare. That man is interesting!
One of the things I learned was the long term damage to deer (largest sense, including elk) from just being stalked. Wolves don’t have to take deer to reduce their numbers and rate of reproduction!
Neither do people. We all know better than to let our actions disturb them during stress periods, but was reminded about how subtle differences in our actions can have effect on them. Had to digress on that point as I suspect his insights are of interest to those here.

Point is that the wolf kills don’t tell the story, just the introduction. Seeing only a few cows, with no calves, is an indication of damage from stalking. Nothing like wolf packs to remove prime habitat from elk’s range.

From: Volume 22 | Issue 3 | May/June 2005
The Journal of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
“When asked how he would like to be remembered, the man who has been compared to Olaus J. Murie, Ernest Thomas Seton and Aldo Leopold had a concise reply: “As an honest scientist . . . that’s all.””

We need more honest scientists.

Got to agree with you about the stalking thing. This is the first year I've hunted the back country (I was camped in there for three weeks) and never saw one elk.

Even the deer we saw were skittish as the dickens. We would sit around our campfire every evening and listen to the wolves gather no more than a mile from our camp. Their voices are distintive and unlike coyotes once gatherd they shut up and went to work. Usually you could only hear them for 20 minutes to half an hour and then dead quiet.

when we got up next morning there was usually wolf tracks around the camper. This year I left my camp dog at home. No use providing them with a meal.

Did a search on Valerius Geist. Something I don’t recommend unless you have some hours to spare. That man is interesting!
One of the things I learned was the long term damage to deer (largest sense, including elk) from just being stalked. Wolves don’t have to take deer to reduce their numbers and rate of reproduction!
Neither do people. We all know better than to let our actions disturb them during stress periods, but was reminded about how subtle differences in our actions can have effect on them. Had to digress on that point as I suspect his insights are of interest to those here.

Point is that the wolf kills don’t tell the story, just the introduction. Seeing only a few cows, with no calves, is an indication of damage from stalking. Nothing like wolf packs to remove prime habitat from elk’s range.

From: Volume 22 | Issue 3 | May/June 2005
The Journal of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
“When asked how he would like to be remembered, the man who has been compared to Olaus J. Murie, Ernest Thomas Seton and Aldo Leopold had a concise reply: “As an honest scientist . . . that’s all.””

We need more honest scientists.

Also read Dr. Albert Kay. I thought that was an eye opener to.
Another point that is really starting to get to me is checking up on this Rickman-Prockman act. We pay all this tax money on our hunting and fishing gear threw this act to the Federal Government. And then they team up with defenders of wildlife to reintro the wolf. They have us comming and going.
Another thing I find interesting, there has been 2 wolf encounters in the last week. On Fish & Game updates their is no word about either one. If you have wolves chaseing people shouldn't they be giving some warnings?

This brings a new meaning to the term "Dances With Wolves".

Along with the shovel, bucket and ax,I'll take a pick too. the ground might be hard. :D


I make light of the situation but you all know what I'm going to do if I'm feeling threatened, you just won't hear about it.

Also read Dr. Albert Kay. I thought that was an eye opener to.
Another point that is really starting to get to me is checking up on this Rickman-Prockman act. We pay all this tax money on our hunting and fishing gear threw this act to the Federal Government. And then they team up with defenders of wildlife to reintro the wolf. They have us comming and going.
Another thing I find interesting, there has been 2 wolf encounters in the last week. On Fish & Game updates their is no word about either one. If you have wolves chaseing people shouldn't they be giving some warnings?

Your absolutly right, I think I'll give fish and game an email asking about warning citizens. Two in a row in the last week should be ringing someones bell.

I think I will spend my time out east where all I have to worry about is big coyotes and black bears. Man, you guys got it rough.

Question for anyone that knows. I read it some place and can't remember. Does a wolf wait for its prey to run beofore it attacks?
Ron

I grew up in this area and have hunted since the early 60's for elk and deer here in this part of Idaho. Over the past five years I've never seen the elk hunting so bad. Be it wolves or habitat there is something really wrong here that needs solved.

Bob,
You probably know that I used to hunt the N Fk of the Clearwater. Last I hunted there was '97 I think. That previous winter was a hard one; trapped a lot of elk and approx. 50% winter kill. Our crew normally had about 80% success on elk, and that year 12 of us only got two elk. Had to go into the deepest nastiest hole to even find any elk. That's when we began hunting down here in S. ID. It wasn't the wolves that were the problem then, it was the bears. The F&G did a study and (if I remember correctly) the bears (well, OK, predators) were taking approx. 50-60% of the elk calves. Now they have the wolves to contend with too, along with considerably reduced logging that produced prime elk habitat. The elk got a quadruple whammy (winter kill, bears, wolves, reduced habitat) in a matter of a few years. No wonder they're suffering.

I can't fault F&G; they have too many hoops to jump through to respond effectively with too many armchair biologists (i.e. animal rights activists and politicians) with their agendas in the mix.

One of the things I learned was the long term damage to deer (largest sense, including elk) from just being stalked. Wolves don’t have to take deer to reduce their numbers and rate of reproduction!
Neither do people. We all know better than to let our actions disturb them during stress periods, but was reminded about how subtle differences in our actions can have effect on them. Had to digress on that point as I suspect his insights are of interest to those here.

Point is that the wolf kills don’t tell the story, just the introduction. Seeing only a few cows, with no calves, is an indication of damage from stalking. Nothing like wolf packs to remove prime habitat from elk’s range.

This is exactly right. Aside from the bitter extended cold spells in Jan & Feb, March and April in my area is the toughest on our elk (and probably deer too). South facing hills are burning off, but the few green grass shoots coming up have no nutrition in them. Those open slopes make for better chasing for predators, and the north facing slopes are crusted over - they don't support deer and elk, but they do wolves and coyotes. And anyone out hiking the hills and disturbing the animals only causes them to burn more energy that they are already short on after all their fat reserves are gone from the winter.

faucettb,
I know what you mean. Have come out to find grizzly tracks, a few feet from where I’d slept peacefully, a number of times. That was back before we “officially” had any to speak of.
Was having lunch with a friend in Boise last month. After his latest reloading problem, the discussion turned to wolves. He is wanting to carry a pistol now. Asked about what he’d seen. Said: “I’ve never seen a wolf.” Seems last few times he has camped out he has had wolves IN HIS CAMP, howling. He stayed in his tent until morning. He is thinking something to shoot in the air to frighten them away. I am thinking more directed fire may be needed.

tybo,
Thank you for the recommendation.

recoil junky,
This talk of breaking the law (re: reporting a killing in self defense, even if it bankrupts one) is giving us a bad odor. Following the law, and procedure, is the best way, in the long run, to change a bad situation. In the short run, is the best way to maintain our moral fiber.

Would like to direct everyone’s attention to how the Aryan Nations was done in. Realize, that just because we were in the same state doesn’t mean we were in the same time zone (literally) or that there was a way to get there from here (also literally). What I am thinking is that it is just a matter of time before someone’s child is done in by wolves planted by the federal government, with the “expert” support of groups like “Defenders of Wildlife”. Then, those same tactics, mostly civil, might be very effective in removing these enemies of all that is good. If we open our pockets to the grieving parents, as well as our hearts.

Tonyo4011,
One makes choices, with up sides and down sides.
I converse with wild creatures every day, as well as work in high tech things. Have had an eagle land beside me, on my back yard fence. Have both the experience of nature and the grind of our modern technology. Can see all sorts of things, drive to wild places in a few minutes; be alone in God’s greatest cathedral… or with some well chosen company.
Can’t always get fertilizer when planting my garden (for years I’d complained that I couldn’t get **** out here, then found that to be literally the case), no proper book store and have had cougar on the back porch and black bear on the front.
You’se makes your bed, and you’se sleeps in it.
Some really neat things about your area I’d like to check out (talking nature things) but…. I’ve made my bed; and I’m good with that.

Problem being others, who want to re-make it for me.

Mr. Stanton, moderators and forum members, my most sincere and humble apologies for offending anyone here on this forum. It is not my intent at all. People who really know me, know better than to accuse me of willingly breaking the law or trying to cover up mistakes. I was just trying to get a chuckle, but it appears I went a little too far.

As I stated before, I have been on the recieving end of dog teeth. It was one of the most frightening experiences of my life and I hope and pray that NO ONE, especially a child, ever has to go through that.

Again my apologies. This is too good a place to visit that I would mess it up by purposely offending any one. I may not agree with everything that is posted here, but I can offer my opinion.

Recoil, I am not offended. That is why we debate. I just pray we can all get together and get this issue figured out for the good of all of us. This is having a very large effect on all of us that love our way of life.

I will try and post it later, I see the Montana shooters ***. just come up with a petition for Montana. After reading it I like it.
Ron

RJ -

Didn't see anything offensive, or that really anyone would take offense over.

No apologies necesary.

recoil junky,
I didn’t see anything warranting an apology either. Was just voicing a different view, at least that’s all I was intending to do. I’m sorry if I came on too strong, or chose my words poorly. Hate to give offense unintentionally, and I had no intention of criticizing you or your post. Only to explain why I think we must stay within legal procedure, even when it is frustrating.

What I’m meeting with the petition is leading me to suspect that it will take a pack attacking one of our communities to get people to accept that there is a problem; that government isn’t taking care of, and that the purported “experts” are telling a false tale. A few people being killed isn’t going to budge their view, will take something spectacular. Is a sad situation.

originally posted by silvertipmo
recoil junky,
This talk of breaking the law (re: reporting a killing in self defense, even if it bankrupts one) is giving us a bad odor. Following the law, and procedure, is the best way, in the long run, to change a bad situation. In the short run, is the best way to maintain our moral fiber.

I might have read it wrong too. I thought it was directed at me. Last thing I want is to be the cause of a bad odor :o

Most of you know I was raised on a fair sized cattle ranch in MT and sometimes I revert to my "rancher's way of thinkin' ". Although we never had any wolf depredation, we had plenty of coyote incidents. From a livestock producer's standpoint I can see where some small producers would rather do the dirty and say nothing than risk the wrath of the Department of Inferior or their state Fish and Game Commission. These were the people that fought the wolf reintroduction from the getgo and imo are the first ones that are going to get hurt when el lobo gets hungry enough and cocky enough to start eating next years wages. It's from this point of view that I guess I get my "three S's" way of dealing with it.

I will not argue the fact that following the letter of the law is the best way to go.

recoil junky,
That part of my post was obviously directed at the part of your post suggesting not following the law in reporting a wolf kill.
With what has happened to Tim Sundles out here, what is happening with the federal blockage of Idaho’s attempt to manage wolves, and the general attitudes; frustration is building. I was trying to say why it is not the way to go. Have responded the same way to other such posts. We carry guns; also carry extra responsibilities.
I in no way meant to offend you or attack you; just voice my opinion. It appears that I have, and I am very sorry for that. Please forgive me, and accept that it was not my intent. Please, also accept my right to disagree.
Out here, el lobo is getting cocky enough to consider people as cuisine. Is just a matter of time before someone’s child falls victim to the “defenders of wildlife”.

Silvertipmo, You are way right, El lobo is getting way to cocky. But then it is real nice being able to run around, eat anything you want to and not worry about no one getting in your way.

I forgot, the other day you was wondering how close the wolf was getting to your area. REAL CLOSE. Last fall during hunting season Art Williiams from Blackfoot had wolves in there gut pile on Trail Creek Bridge area. That is about 25 miles above Blackfoot. The way the crow flies up there that is not all that far from your area. If I remember right the saw 7.
That was last fall!
Ron

Just to clarify, when the above posters are writing "El Lobo" they are referring to the wolf, not Beartooth member El Lobo.

Today, I had a couple of starts. Went out to spoil horses, and they went on point. Low Life thought he was a dog when I got him (heals, points, retrieves and tracks) but Sweet Cheeks (really admire a big butt on a horse) only humors me, as she has given up on getting me to do things right and accepted my low life ways.
I followed their point, and saw three brown things moving through the sage. Really gave me a start. Turned out to be a neighbor’s sheep. Not mountain maggots (have to see them cover a mountainside to realize that is descriptive, not a shot) but exotics.

So I drove over to my neighbor to help. Not having any of it (sheep, not neighbor), these specific exotic sheep is pretty wild. Tried to get Low Life to join in, has really good cutting instincts. When we finally got him on board, was only 20 seconds before they was back where they was supposed to be. He figured as he had shown us how, and went back to Sweet Cheeks. Sheep came back over, soon as he was gone. Tried to explain to him that while sheep herding was below the dignity of a cow horse, he really don’t have all that much dignity, to speak of (talking a horse eats chocolate, drinks beer and plays harmonica; how I got him).
But we got to talking. Has been a wolf seen in our area, and there is a K-9 deer kill just outside my pasture. Was too winded trying to help with the sheep to go up and investigate.
Point is that wolves are here. In a few months, all those people thought they were 50 miles away, going to realize that we got ourselves a problem; too late.
Aside about the sheep. My neighbor’s sheep got way more flavor, and less down side, than regular sheep. Talking two sons, whose mothers raised them on sheep.

My boss came out to help. Have to understand he is an Idaho farm boy got hisself an education, and set out to use it to the public good. But he misses the farm, sneaks in to visit my horses when I’m not around. Got to talking about what I’d learned. He didn’t think wolves could bring down healthy elk. See what we’re up against here in Idaho?

Got this in an e-mail from “back home”:
“A second "wolf " has been hit by a car just last week here in Central IL. article said it was probably part of the pack from up by Chicago.”
Have to explain that the existence of the Central Illinois cougar population was proved by those that got hit by trains.

Good morning Silver. Man you got to quit this, I can't take this much humor this early in the morning. Darn near choked reading your post. Spit cocoa all over my key board. Now I gotta go get a rag and clean it and the puter desk off.

My late mother in law was a wool spinner and ended up with about 20 head of various flavors of sheep on their ten acres. Every time they wanted to go on vacation I ended up being a sheep herder for a week or two. I eventually came to the conclusion them sheeps wern't the smartest animals in the world.

They lived on the outskirts of Lewiston and dogs were the problem. They finally got a couple of them great Piranese (know thats spelled wrong). Big white dogs the size of elk that eat their wieght in dog food darn near every day. Anyway they wouldn't let the local dogs eat anymore of grandma's sheep.

We havn't had any wolf sightings here where I live, but ten miles away around Dwarshak lake they were eating the local cattle this fall. Got friends whom run bear and cat hounds. Seems those dogs are a gormet meal for the wolves.

Nearest IDFG can tell is there is close to a thousand now residing in the state. Looked up the Friends of the Wolf sight and liked the photo on the opening page of the cuddly wolf lying on its back like a dog wanting it's belly scratched. Sure don't seem to be many elk hunters in that bunch.

Speaking of wolf sightings, Ron Gillett called me last night. Said the neighbor lady of his had 4 wolves in her yard yesterday in Stanley. Don't look to me like the got much fear of people any more. Wonder what they was huntin?
Ron

Just an update for you Idaho. Been collecting signature's in Blackfoot today. a lot of people told me to be there tomorrow so they could tell everybody. I got around 100 today.

The bigger thing is the wolf stories I heard today. I just found out there were wolves about 7 miles away from my house and I have been all over Lemi and Custer counties checking on the encounters. Getting awfull close to home guys.
Ron

Sent the Fish and Game an email asking what could I do if I felt threatened by wolves when I was in the woods. They gave me this

Check the wolf management information online at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/.

idfginfo

It leads to their website and does not answer my question. I'm sure there having as much difficulty as the rest of us in dealing with this problem.

One of the big items discussed in this thread is doing things legally and I'm all for that. I think that I wouldn't probably kill a wolf unless threatened, but I not sure how I would decide what that threatening would be.

tybo,
Great to hear you’re getting so many signatures! I’ve given “packets” to people have requested them in several towns out this way, but meeting a lot of resistance here from people I wouldn’t expect when they ask me why I want wolves reclassified. They seem to believe the “defenders of wildlife” at face value and time and again I hear “If there is a problem, the government will take care of it.”
Have heard of wolf seen a lot closer than 7 miles from my house, but not clear whether it was part of a pack or a lone wolf just passing through. Had natives passing through that close before the exotics were brought in. We could shoot them and they behaved themselves in respect to us, so we didn’t have to.

faucettb,
Last post, was just trying to explain the unexpected scare I got and how I learned more local wolf information, wasn’t trying to be funny, sorry about your cocoa.
“One of the big items discussed in this thread is doing things legally and I'm all for that.”
One of the best examples of why we should follow the law, procedures and good management practices, is the USFWS’s great disregard for all three. Kind of problem we got now is what results from not following the laws, procedures and practices.

Predators,drought limiting browse,destruction of habitat,too many people in the area can have impacts on populations.A man in SD told me about the 3 S's when it comes to self preservation from protected species.As far as carrying a handgun I like my S&W Mod 19 6" target 357m and my Sig P220 in 45acp using Corbon +P 165gr HP ammo. wildlifebio

Hi guys,
Just thought I would give you an update in my area on the signatures for the anti-wolf petition.

IN Blackfoot I have got about 450 so far. But! what I find completly amazing, it is the older guys that are comming in. The are They are buisness owners Dr.s Lawyers. My question is where are the young fellers that are comming up who will be affected by this problem?

Speaking of which handgun I will carry, it will still be the old 1911 45acp. For one big reason,,,,,, The Feds will know if they are in its range, I was in big trouble.

I wonder if they will head northward?

Would like to thank tybo for all his effort and accomplishment with this petition. He has truly rendered public service to us all.

My efforts, while not a pimple on a backside compared to his, have found different results. Party affiliations don’t signify. In proportion to their numbers in our population, have more Democratic signatures. Ranchers of course are wanting not just to sign, but also to circulate the petition. Beyond that, most success is young mothers, everything else irrelevant; young mothers want to sign. Republican notary interested to read the petition would not sign or even notarize my signature (as circulator), explained his reasons. Democratic notary against the petition (and very knowledgeable about the predators, like cougars and coyotes, wandering our fair city [I use the term loosely]) more than happy to notarize my signature.
Democratic Party and Committee member opposed to the petition has discussed it with me very civilly and not even said a word as others signed it in their presence. I have not pushed it, but asked if one would want to sign; given an opportunity, not a spiel. Those opposed who have asked why I was circulating it, I have discussed it with. All of these have been very civil discussions. Tybo, above Democrat not who you might think (not that high).

I ain’t affiliated with either party and don’t like to see either taking undeserved cheap shots at the other. Am ticked at the exotic planting; breaks every rule I’ve learned about ecology since the 1960’s. Of course I’m ticked about what it’s done to our area, but; am really ticked about what it’s done to our native wolves (suffered from it more than any other species); my emotional bias, really like our natives. And now, I am labeled not just a wolf hater, but a hater of all endangered species.

They seem to be heading south, filling up Idaho and going into Utah.

. He has truly rendered public service to us all.
.

Not all of us.

Silvertip,

Thank you for your very kind words. You did just fine! You have to remember, I am disabled so I have a lot more time than you do. Don't sell yourself short my friend.

boreal, sorry I didn't know you were an Idaho voter, I would have brought you a petition.
Ron

Interesting points of view here on this issue. The anti-wolf initiative is, after all, a CITIZEN's initiative, only seeking to get the issue on a ballot where CITIZENs of the state can simply vote on it. Seems democratic enough. More consideration than we got when the whole issue began.

Shawn,
I prefer to think of it as a pro-native initiative (alternately anti-exotic) rather than anti-wolf. Have met quite a few others were aware of our natives, and liked them; very few anti-wolf people.
The issue of replacing a native species with an exotic species being side stepped by those who did so by denying the existence of the native. We believe our eyes over so called experts, especially when their smoke gets too black.
One of the first orders of business for the exotics was to go after our natives. The initiative would remove most of the pressure from what remains of our natives. Am getting tired of being called anti-wolf, especially by pseudo-experts. Today was the last day for the initiative and I am tired of the flack, though I suspect most of it is meant good natured. Not aimed at you, Shawn, just venting.

boreal,
I’m confused by your last post. Had understood from your previous posts that what is on the initiative was the plan you favored. Please clarify, just what do you favor?

Shawn,
I prefer to think of it as a pro-native initiative (alternately anti-exotic) rather than anti-wolf.

Well, you're right; that's how I think of it too. Will be interesting to see if Mr. Gillette (and many other hard workers) met the 43,000 signature requirement. It sure was a tough hill to climb in only 6 weeks.

boreal, sorry I didn't know you were an Idaho voter, I would have brought you a petition.
Ron

Nice of you to think of me. Don't know what your petition says. Didn't know it was for Idaho voters. Can't find anywhere in this topic (until number 46) that defines either. Just didn't want someone speaking for "all of us."
Happy to hear the wolf pop. is expanding well and supplimenting the few genetically identical strays from Canada that Idaho had.

Good day!

boreal,
I’m confused by your last post. Had understood from your previous posts that what is on the initiative was the plan you favored. Please clarify, just what do you favor?

I don't know what is on the "initiative." I "favor" having managed populations of wolves on public lands. I like wild places. Wilderness should be, and used to be, defined as places where man does not tamper with nature. We need to put things right, the balanced natural way, in places where it is reasonably possible. I am willing to share prey animals with large predators. I would rather be in (and hunt in) a wilderness with few game animals (if that were the case) than in a place where the system is under strict management by man. Harvesting game is not the thrill I seek. What I seek are wild places. I don't buy the claim that wolves will "destroy everything good". Wolves get along very well with people. Predictions from many westerners about how bad the wolves will be are nothing but hogwash. Rumors and falsehoods are running rampant on forums like this one. That's how I get into these "discussions." I don't care all that much about how this will all come out. I just can't stand it when someone says something that is totally false. I like seeing both sides presented. I want folks to know that there are some hunters/shooters who want wolves in our wild places.

What I said in previous posts was that if you (westerners) don't want wolves, then the Wyoming plan is the way to go. Go ahead and kill them all in most places. I would rather it be up to locals, not me. Just keep your hands off the national parks. They were set up for the animals, not humans.
I'm waiting for what the populations of Idaho and other western states are going to do, now that they are getting management control. Do they really want fewer wolves? Are you really speaking for the majority? I don't know, but I guess time will tell.

Good day!

Keeping all the wild critters roaming national and state parks free from hunting pressures is a fine idea. I would be very interested in knowing just how keeping them on park lands will be accomplished.

When the time comes to live trap or cull the excess of any one group of animals due to overpopulation more than the ecology can support, where do the excess go after being trapped? What happens to the carcasses of those culled?

When man and predator begin to vie for the same territory, rightfully the predator is on the losing side. Human life is far more precious than that of an animal - don't care WHAT type of animal it is!

originally posted by kdub: Keeping all the wild critters roaming national and state parks free from hunting pressures is a fine idea. I would be very interested in knowing just how keeping them on park lands will be accomplished.

Shock collars and electric fences :rolleyes: I have a feeling if there gets to be too many people hurt or more livestock killed, concerned citzens with rifles will show wolves where the boundarys are and what will happen if they cross it. JMO

It's a delicate situation no matter how you approach it. The national parks belong to everybody but the people that live nearest the park are the oness who have to put up with the mistakes made by the few do gooders that don't have a clue of the concequences their actions have brought on the "natives". Maybe they should have to pay for the livestock the wolves "eat" instead of the Fish and Game.

tybo good luck with your petition.

RJ

Maybe they should have to pay for the livestock the wolves "eat" instead of the Fish and Game.
RJ Now that would generate much wailing and gnashing of the do-gooders' teeth ... they are of the ilk that spend other peoples' money so much better than their own :o.

Keeping all the wild critters roaming national and state parks free from hunting pressures is a fine idea. I would be very interested in knowing just how keeping them on park lands will be accomplished.

What happens in state parks should be up to the state. National parks should be managed by the federal government, for the majority of US citizens, under well established use guidelines, and in the spirit of the Parks' establishment. Large parks, like Jellystone can, by their size, generally self control dispersion of a species. There will still be contact with animals in their home ranges if near the "boundaries" and there will be contact because of dispersal. If you don't want the animals outside the protected area, then kill them. The Wyoming plan would pretty much do that. Hunt them, poison them, I don't care what you do to control them. I think that a well-managed wolf population would be easy to live with outside of most parks. We do it here in Minnesota. We had the same agument here that you folks are having now. The same! But if the citizens of Wyoming or whereever don't want wolves, then control them. Just keep your hands off the national parks. The majority of US citizens have deemed it.

Silvertipmo asked me what I would "favor". I would favor consolidating federal lands whenever feasable to better provide large contiguous areas, managable for large predators without human interference. Areas around some of our largest public ownership could be expanded through purchase and land trades. The public would have to pay well for the move. The public should make it extra-worthwhile. Say, pay folks double what their land is worth and giving an acre free for every acre (or whatever) that is sold. Ranchers could buy land for half its value and actually take ownership, instead of paying high grazing fees with constant government interference with their grazing practices. Important habitat like low elevation elk wintering grounds could be purchased from land owners. Most would sell if we made it worthwhile. I would "favor" having a completely depopulated (of humans) east slope of the Rocky Mountains, where buffalo, wolves, elk, antelope, etc. could roam freely without fences from Canada to Mexico. I would "favor" that I was the only one allowed to go there and hunt to my heart's content. In fact, I would "favor" it being about 300 years ago, and I was the first mountain man. Heck, I would "favor" if I could pick up all beautiful, red-haired, green-eyed, 25 year-old women. But I'm fifty something, and I feel pretty good when a 25 year old,.... will even talk to me!
But, getting back to reality; of course we can't have large predators on all federal lands, and I can't have ownership of the west. I just want our country to have a few places where nature can just do what it is supposed to do, without our constant manipulation and interference. I want a few places where large predators can live without our persecution, where animals like wolves can form family groups, raise their offspring and please me by their presence.

When the time comes to live trap or cull the excess of any one group of animals due to overpopulation more than the ecology can support, where do the excess go after being trapped? What happens to the carcasses of those culled?

Why would that happen? We are not an essential part of nature.

When man and predator begin to vie for the same territory, rightfully the predator is on the losing side. Human life is far more precious than that of an animal - don't care WHAT type of animal it is!

We can exist together. Its not us or them. The Alaskans do it. They have lots of game. Minnesotans do it. We have lots of game. Canadians do it. They have lots of game. I feel that it is likely that the west can have wolves without life as we know it being doomed. But hey, the feds are handing wolf management over to you guys now. Lets see what you do with it. [/QUOTE]

Junky and Loco,

I have my own problems with radical protectionists, but I'll never say they don't pay their way. Here is just one example.

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/intermed/inter_mgmt/defenders_compensation.asp

Also, just know that the more I read some of your name-calling and speaking ill of the "do-gooders", the more it turns me left on the subject. I have a really hard time accepting that my fellow hunters and shooters are so vindictive as to act so. So many get on forums like these and group-talk against another group, some of whom would like to be friends with you and participate in outdoor-related disscussions without being put down by a few who act like they are speaking for the group. Do you really want me (and others like me) to change our minds on the wolf subject? Do you want us to turn completely against you? Kinda makes me want to revisit federal laws about use of federal land. Kinda makes me want to change the grazing rules. Kinda makes me want to expand the parks, so wildlife has protection "from the likes of" you do-badders! SSS? It doesn't help to hear things like that. But, maybe you don't care.

OK, rant over. Just pretend I don't exist.

Keeping all the wild critters roaming national and state parks free from hunting pressures is a fine idea. I would be very interested in knowing just how keeping them on park lands will be accomplished.

What happens in state parks should be up to the state. National parks should be managed by the federal government, for the majority of US citizens, under well established use guidelines, and in the spirit of the Parks' establishment. Large parks, like Jellystone can, by their size, generally self control dispersion of a species. There will still be contact with animals in their home ranges if near the "boundaries" and there will be contact because of dispersal. If you don't want the animals outside the protected area, then kill them. The Wyoming plan would pretty much do that. Hunt them, poison them, I don't care what you do to control them. I think that a well-managed wolf population would be easy to live with outside of most parks. We do it here in Minnesota. We had the same agument here that you folks are having now. The same! But if the citizens of Wyoming or whereever don't want wolves, then control them. Just keep your hands off the national parks. The majority of US citizens have deemed it.

Silvertipmo asked me what I would "favor". I would favor consolidating federal lands whenever feasable to better provide large contiguous areas, managable for large predators without human interference. Areas around some of our largest public ownership could be expanded through purchase and land trades. The public would have to pay well for the move. The public should make it extra-worthwhile. Say, pay folks double what their land is worth and giving an acre free for every acre (or whatever) that is sold. Ranchers could buy land for half its value and actually take ownership, instead of paying high grazing fees with constant government interference with their grazing practices. Important habitat like low elevation elk wintering grounds could be purchased from land owners. Most would sell if we made it worthwhile. I would "favor" having a completely depopulated (of humans) east slope of the Rocky Mountains, where buffalo, wolves, elk, antelope, etc. could roam freely without fences from Canada to Mexico. I would "favor" that I was the only one allowed to go there and hunt to my heart's content. In fact, I would "favor" it being about 300 years ago, and I was the first mountain man. Heck, I would "favor" if I could pick up all beautiful, red-haired, green-eyed, 25 year-old women. But I'm fifty something, and I feel pretty good when a 25 year old,.... will even talk to me!
But, getting back to reality; of course we can't have large predators on all federal lands, and I can't have ownership of the west. I just want our country to have a few places where nature can just do what it is supposed to do, without our constant manipulation and interference. I want a few places where large predators can live without our persecution, where animals like wolves can form family groups, raise their offspring and please me by their presence.

When the time comes to live trap or cull the excess of any one group of animals due to overpopulation more than the ecology can support, where do the excess go after being trapped? What happens to the carcasses of those culled?

Why would that happen? We are not an essential part of nature.

When man and predator begin to vie for the same territory, rightfully the predator is on the losing side. Human life is far more precious than that of an animal - don't care WHAT type of animal it is!

We can exist together. Its not us or them. The Alaskans do it. They have lots of game. Minnesotans do it. We have lots of game. Canadians do it. They have lots of game. I feel that it is likely that the west can have wolves without life as we know it being doomed. But hey, the feds are handing wolf management over to you guys now. Lets see what you do with it. [/QUOTE]

boreal,
That is the point out hear in the West we are trying to make! There is NO CONTROL RIGHT NOW. the Federal Government says NO. By the time we get it into the States hand's we are in deep trouble. You read anything you want in the newspapers. They have not handed anything over to the States. when the State of Idaho made a recommendation to the Feds they said they needed6 months to do a study on it. I can tell you how much that helps us.
Ron

boreal,
That is the point out hear in the West we are trying to make! There is NO CONTROL RIGHT NOW. the Federal Government says NO. By the time we get it into the States hand's we are in deep trouble. You read anything you want in the newspapers. They have not handed anything over to the States. when the State of Idaho made a recommendation to the Feds they said they needed6 months to do a study on it. I can tell you how much that helps us.
Ron[/QUOTE]

Where did I say that the process is complete? I said they are HANDING it over to you. What the **** is wrong with you people? I'm outa here.

boreal,
That is the point out hear in the West we are trying to make! There is NO CONTROL RIGHT NOW. the Federal Government says NO. By the time we get it into the States hand's we are in deep trouble. You read anything you want in the newspapers. They have not handed anything over to the States. when the State of Idaho made a recommendation to the Feds they said they needed6 months to do a study on it. I can tell you how much that helps us.
Ron

Where did I say that the process is complete? I said they are HANDING it over to you. What the **** is wrong with you people? I'm outa here.[/QUOTE]

boreal,
there is not a **** thing wrong with us people. DO YOU HAVE A CLUE WHEN THEY ARE HANDING IT OVER? All the places you mention have some kind of control, we don't!
Ron

Jist of the initiative was to reclassify wolves as unprotected predators; that was not mentioned on this thread previously.

I said that tybo has truly rendered public service to us all, which he has. Didn’t even imply that all had the wit to recognize it. Said it here, rather than a pm, because I wanted to say it in front of others. I appreciate his efforts and wanted to acknowledge that before others.

To say that the exotic wolves “gifted” us are the same as our natives is like saying that Dobermans and mini-pins are the same breed (related, I’ll grant). To buttress such a statement by process, backed by credentials; is to discredit both. Nothing discredits boreal more than his own posts.

For those of you innocent of ecology 101, a basic insight is DO NOT INTRODUCE EXOTIC SPECIES. Those of you familiar with island habitats already know that; examples way too many. Exotics do not go away. An example of our wondrous government’s record in Idaho is planting carp in Idaho’s rivers and streams as a “game fish”.

For the federal government to foul things up beyond all recognition, then offer to turn the mess over to us (but not do so) is way too foul to mention in this company.

USFWS currently wanting to take some of the “problem grizzly bears” from Canada to relocate them in Idaho (thought our illustrious governor had nixed that).

A civilization ain’t got itself no wilderness basis, ain’t got my respect. You want to run stock, got to take the wilderness and predators into account. That’s just business. We had us a goodly population of native wolves, was expanding; and a few too many cougars. Then the exotics were deported here. Our native wolves been scarce since; and our cougars are in decline (my area). Any guess what’s replaced them? Something that don’t belong here, perhaps?

boreal,
there is not a **** thing wrong with us people.

Then why do some of you continue to misrepresent what I write?
DO YOU HAVE A CLUE WHEN THEY ARE HANDING IT OVER?
Yes, I have several clues. Thanks for the insult. By the way, I haven't read a newspaper in a long time. The feds are handing wolf management over to "you" right now. "Handing", with an "ing", implies a process that is ongoing. "Handed", with an "ed", implies that the process is complete. Pretty basic, really. Idaho is testing the limits of its authority right out of the box, rather than going slowly. I wish them well, but the feds probably have to think about letting Idaho slaughter the majority of wolves in an area, right off the bat.
All the places you mention have some kind of control, we don't!
Yes, I realize Idaho does not have FULL authority at this moment. Baby steps. The feds have actually put you on the fast track, if you didn't know. They usually take much longer to change. With the appointment of Idaho's ex-governor as secretary of the interior, Bush is continuing the fast track process.Ron

Tybo,
Perhaps you could research something for me right now. What ever happened to the federal court case that was appealed. It found that the feds had to remove all the introduced wolves because there had been at least one wolf in the area (probably a Canadian stray) before the introduction. It was appealed by the feds to a higher court. That wolf mated and formed a pack with one of the intrduced, collared wolves. I have not found out if a decision has been made. Would probably have genetic info that would solve the "native" question.

To say that the exotic wolves “gifted” us are the same as our natives is like saying that Dobermans and mini-pins are the same breed (related, I’ll grant). To buttress such a statement by process, backed by credentials; is to discredit both. Nothing discredits boreal more than his own posts.

For those of you innocent of ecology 101, a basic insight is DO NOT INTRODUCE EXOTIC SPECIES. Those of you familiar with island habitats already know that; examples way too many. ?

Balderdash! Did you hear that from the guy you know who works at a hunting preserve and says red wolves don't kill deer? :D :D
And you are absolutely, completely discredited in my eyes. The introduced wolves are not an exotic species, so your points are moot.

boreal, you take everything I say as an insult!
Thanks for the insult. By the way, I haven't read a newspaper in a long time.

I don't cry and ball everytime you insult me.
Ron

Well I think this one has gone far enough.