wolves

Status
Not open for further replies.
TimSr, staying with predators, the thread's general subject, Texas law allows hunting them any hour of the day or night, no limit, all year around. All that's needed is the regular hunting license.

So, yeah, it's up to the individual.

The cougar population is expanding, and there is no shortage of coyotes and bobcats.
 
Predator definition

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/EDUCATION-1000246.aspx

This probably doesn't affect most people, but in Wyoming a predatory can be hunted without a license but that only applies to these animals:
Coyote, jackrabbit, porcupine, raccoon, red fox, skunk or stray cat; whereas bobcat, linx, weasel, wolverine, etc. are under different categories like protected or furbearing animals and either can't be hunted or have a special license. So just because the animal eats meat in Wyoming doesn't mean it can be hunted as a predatory animal. I saw an old "B" horror movie about killer jackrabbits, so that is probably why they are classified under the predatory animal category.

I agree with Buck again. Just because you don't like an animal or it is your competition for turkeys or something, doesn't mean you can go postal on them. Lucky for me stray cats are a no limit animal. If you want to see an ecological disaster, follow around a stray cat for a little while. Barn cats are good, though. Back on track here...There are limits and seasons for a reason. I trust the biologists and wardens to keep the balance. In all these safety classes they say there wouldn't be a regulation unless something went wrong, so they made a rule to prevent it in the future. The way they say it has more of a ring to it. The same thing applies to hunting I think.
 
Same with the wolves killed in my group. They were with a permit. Matter of fact Montana FWP took DNA samples for whatever.
 
Originally posted bybcarver:

some of your comments made me reread mine. You changed "not sure" to "don't care". And I remind you while not even knowing the regulations I still have never violated them. What comment labeled me as a poacher. Was it simply not knowing the regulations?
Click to expand...

So........if you found out you were in violation of the law, would you have told us? The time to know the regs is before you pull the trigger, not after. Sorry, there is no legitimate excuse for doing otherwise. Not knowing IS not caring, altho, no-where in my post did I say you did not care or did I call you a poacher. Not knowing is irresponsible and not the image we as hunters should want to portray. Your being legal was purely a matter of luck, not from being responsible. Tell me how it was any other way. It is the responsibility of any hunter to know the regs before they hit the field. To argue and justify any thing else is ridiculous. Took me less than a minute to go to the Mississippi website and find regulations for Bobcat and raccoon. Less than a response to this thread took.
 
Originally posted by ZeroJunk: Same with the wolves killed in my group. They were with a permit.
Click to expand...


......as it should be. Legal and responsible. Wolves DO need to be controlled. But the average poster on a gun forum is not the one to determine quotas and seasons, nor should they recommend or condone to others to. Wildlife biologists, whether you agree with them or not, determine these by facts and known numbers. Not by barroom and internet batter. Not by emotion and anger, but with clear heads and a goal that is best for the most folks, not just one individuals hunting success. For everyone out there that wants to shoot an elk, there is someone out there that wants to see/hear a wolf in the wild. They have just as much right to this as the hunter and in many cases spend just as much money for the opportunity.
 
Wildlife biologists, whether you agree with them or not, determine these by facts and known numbers
Click to expand...

I have a degree in Biology from UNC . These are the same biologists who were 50% off in their estimates of the Bob Marshall elk herd for about twenty years ? It is not an exact science and don't think they are not influenced by their feelings same as you.

For everyone out there that wants to shoot an elk, there is someone out there that wants to see/hear a wolf in the wild
Click to expand...

Right ?. Yes. But, do you think several thousand men are going to pay $5000 in to the Montana economy year in and year out to hear a wolf ?
Why do you think Montana has decided to kill the things ?
 
Back ten or a dozen years ago, USF&WS gave cost figures for re-establishing the Mexican wolf into New Mexico. A full effort would cost twelve million tax dollars per year. A minimum effort? $8 million.

The do-nothing option would have cost $4 million per year. One wonders at the infinite wisdom of these professional wildlife biologists and their ability to spend $4 million per year doing nothing. But I found it to be rather underwhelming.
 
Montana Tourism

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wolf-economic-impact.htm

I am not sure I agree with all of the numbers being directly from wolf impact, but he is a doctor. At least some numbers to look at. Also, now there are outfitters for wolf hunting. Pretty much the best way to get a wolf is with a guide I think, unless you are out in the field 180 days a year or more like they are. That would be nice. Cougars hunters need hounds and wolf hunters need snowmachines and a lot of time looking.

I am pretty jealous of someone spending $5000 a year on hunting. I would love to do that just one year. I am also a big fan of the Bob. We spent a couple of nights there two years ago on a trip to Glacier NP. I don't know of a better definition of wilderness that the big expanse around the Bob. I need to take a trip up there again.

oops sorry about the double post there. fat fingers you know
 
It doesn't matter what a person's credentials are their study is going to find exactly what they were looking for to start with. Few if any are immune. We see it all the time in all fields.
 
Can of Worms/Still on the fence

Research bias is a whole other can of worms. I am sure that you learned in your biology classes how to eliminate bias when doing research. http://tigger.uic.edu/~lwbenn/jacswcourses/socw360/week14.htm

The title of the group the doctor was with (forwolves) was a good indicator which way he was leaning. This article seemed pretty well rounded especially the comments section.
http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/reference/montanaChallenge/vignettes/wolf.html
http://www.oregonwild.org/fish_wild...lves-misunderstood#wolf-recovery-has-positive
These ones probably have a political bias because they can't very well say oops we screwed up and put ranchers in an even worse position.

http://www.realtree.com/hunting/art...oor-news/anti-wolf-hunters-feel-the-rmef-pain The RMEF is clearly against wolves and actually show numbers to back it up. But then you have to look at what could be their bias. They (I should say we to identify my own bias as a member) have spent millions to get access and improve habitat in places like the Bob and the wolves are pushing the elk to lower and private grounds making their access less valuable.

We could all probably agree on how old the earth is before we all agree on the wolves topic. They are here for better or worse. It is pretty disquieting to hear them howl outside your back door, but seeing that easy lope for mile after mile in the snow is pretty amazing, too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top