Vote YES!!! Important Wolf Issue!!!

[Gatekeeper]

Thanks Kingstaken for adding the link.

Yes 74%

[Brian Krebs]

its 75% now.    

[Keefer]

74% now

[Tav]

Even though I love the wolves I voted yes with you guys. The grizzly bears are also doing a number on the moose and elk.  More than you think.  I was told that the reason the moose are practically gone in Yellowstone is because of grizzlies and not the wolves.  The wolves primary diet consists of elk.  And the vast majority of wolf kills end up in a grizzly's belly.  So when a bear isn't killing a moose or elk they are eating a moose or elk that the wolves killed.  We also need to shoot the bears.

[cacciatore]

Done,we need to stay at the top of the food chain!

[Frank V]

74% yes, I am, however, really sceptical that the polls actually do any good. Where do they go? Who sees them? do lawmakers actually pay any attention to these cyber polls? Hope I'm wrong, but I do wonder.
Frank

[Dry Creek]

75% YES

[Danny Rowan]

Just voted and it said 65% yes and 25% no, what gives, how does it go from 75% yes to 65% yes????

[gobblegrunter]

Just voted. its at 75% yes. I kinda wonder the same thing as Frank V ...hope we're wrong though!

Of course I voted yes, but I wonder if these divisive issues are not brought out in front of elections, just so we all take our eyes off of other things.  Things seem to show up for political debate that concern everyone than nothing gets done for the better afterward.

[Ray_G]

I don't know if the polls on the web or newspapers, like in this case, have much impact on the politcos but both of Montana's senators (Democrats) and both of Idaho's senators (Republicans) have submitted (or about to) separate bills in the US Senate to remove the Canadian Gray Wolf from the US Endangered Species Act.  The affected states want to manage ALL game animals inside their borders.  The Idaho senator's bill goes beyond Montana's by additionally including management in Utah, Oregon and Washington by their respective game departments - the wolves are spilling into the other states and their affect will be felt.

The county in Idaho where I used to live, has declared a state of disaster due to the damage that wolves have done to the economy there.  Idaho County used to have one of the best elk hunting in the US but in some game units there, elk number 1 per square mile.  The previous count in those units before wolves was 8 per square mile.  Imagine what deer hunting would be in your state if 84% of your deer were consumed by predators.  Idaho County is very dependent on elk hunting for the revenue brought in from outfitting, groceries, hunting and camping stores, fuels, etc.  let alone the people who feed their families from hunting.  Now tags are limited.  Our Fish & Game surveyed former non-resident hunters and found most were not returning due to the huge increase in the wolf predation.

Like most things, this management needs to be done by the state.  The Canadian Gray Wolf is not endangered in North America - just lives up North now.  The problem with management is that those that want the foreign wolf here, keep upping the total population numbers.  The original plan called for 300 wolves.  We are way, way beyond that.  Now some of them are saying we will sit down and agree to stop the lawsuits if you will settle at our new request for 1200+.  How about "I don't think so!"  Hunters from other states should be contacting their senators to have them support these bills.  Plans by the wolf folks are already being made to introduce these buggers wherever they think that they historically roamed - even East of Big Muddy.  Before they get a foot hold in your back yard, get your senators to vote to remove them from the ESA.

[tawster]

Curious. Isn't it the scientific community that should determine the proper sustainable number of wolves? I.e., politicians and random people voting seems... odd to me.

I don't mind sharing the woods with bears, big-cats, foxes, and wolves (critters that compete with me). I *want* the woods to be as primeval as possible. Are wolf populations truly sustainable now? What do the rangers, naturalists and scientists say? In the end, they have an interest in ecological balance, rather than hunting or ranching.

I'm a beekeeper. Bears can do heavy heavy damage to hives. Do I want them wiped out? No. It's the nature of the business and we do the best to keep them from the hives, but... sometimes... ol' bear outsmarts you. Of course, hunting to a sustainable population, I'm of curious a fan.

Hmm... I should hunt around beehives.

[Ray_G]

Todd,

It is the scientific community, i.e. our Wildlife Managers and Biologists in the Fish & Game Department that are proving the detrimental effect that the unmanaged, imported wolves are having on our game populations.  There are many posts in this forum relating that.  In our state, the Fish & Game Dept. is mandated by legislative action to maintain healthy and sustainable game herds for it's citizens.  Using polls and comments on web sites is today's version of a town meeting, sitting around the General Store or the tree in the common.  We as citizens of a representative republic have the right and obligation to make our opinions heard.

Most of the hunters that I know are not opposed to predators of any type in our environment and we have lots of variety of them in Idaho.  We believe that they should be managed like all other game animals.  Bears and lions in Idaho were once considered varmints but now are managed as game animals and are thriving.  In some parts of the state, a hunter can kill two each per season because there are larger than minimum numbers.  

Prior to the importation of the Canadian Gray Wolf, Idaho had resident wolves.  Knowing the nature of the packed up Gray wolves, our resident wolves are probably exterminated, as the Gray's do not tolerate other canids.  How does that fit with the Endangered Species Act?  It is my understanding that no one is monitoring for them or concerned about them.  The mention of them was hushed up as the import plan came to be.

In truth, the "enviromentalist" crowd wanted a large population of wolves in the Rocky Mountain Region to fit their model of a corridor that would have all sorts of animals in it.  I have watched them speak on PBS tv about limiting human influence in this corridor stretching down from Canada to Mexico.  Their utopian world would eliminate hunting in the corridor.  

As I stated above and perhaps insufficiently, the original Federal plan called for ten breeding pairs of Gray Wolves in Idaho.  Pack sizes would be larger than that and would total from 100 to 300 wolves.  The "preservationists", for hunters are the "conservationists", keep pushing for higher numbers of wolves, going way beyond the original agreement with the Federal plan.  Their current proposal is for a wolf population of 1200!  I have heard that we are past that number, perhaps as high as 1500 and we see the results of that!  Currently, there is no ecological balance for all users with the lack of management of the imported Gray Wolf.  

Ray