Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Tom O'Riley, Oct 10, 2011.
Would someone please post some pictures of a hunter long arming their Sasquatch kill?
I hear wolves can help with this problem also.
I wish somebody would reintroduce wild boars they would be a good food source for wolves,
I don't have sources for who funds the F&W service besides taxpayers. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that the decision makers are not influenced directly by bribe money from interested parties or indirectly, i.e. if they don't make decisions with a pro-wolf bias they will lose political cooperation from groups such as Oregon Wild and the Sierra Club. Their political support is huge, enough to bias the F&W in my opinion.
........and after 199 posts, the pack finally turns on itself:rofl::rofl::rofl::beathead:
Defenders of Wildlife for one.
The PRIVATE Turner Endangered Species Fund, while not a "wolf special interest group" is funding biologists in Montana.
Not a stretch? I hope you're kidding. It's illegal for any USFWS biologist to take bribes, so if your hunch can be proven, bodies will be fired. I used to work for USFWS and can go upstairs and down the hall and ask the USFWS biologists I know if they know of anyone in MT taking bribes, but I'm pretty sure I'd be wasting my time. More likely USFWS biologists are pro-wolf for the same reason they are pro- most every fish and wildlife species. They are biologists, and they have an interest in wildlife conservation and the restoration of functional ecosystems. Agency biologists have no need for political support; their problem occasionally is with political opposition because fish and wildlife conservation interferes with moneyed interests that have bought and paid for political influence, having seen that myself.
So what? Are they funding USFWS project work? Private interests spend all kinds of money for and against many things, but that's not the same as funding USFWS work. Not all biologists work for USFWS. I was asking for the identity of one or more private interests that supplies funding to USFWS programs because I don't know of any.
You don't have to look far to find photos of rather impressive wolves harvested in the lower 48 (most in Idaho). These are reported to be 170 and 180lbs. Granted not all the Northern/Canadian Gray Wolves in the lower 48 get this big, but, well, these are huge.
I am not sure about the top wold photo you posted, but I am near certain that the lower wolf was shot in the Drayton Valley area of Alberta, as in Canada.
The top one was north Idaho, near Elk city
have talke to a few fellow fishers who hunt the Idaho/Montana area (northern). all have said that deer/elk populations are way down in all areas where wolves have been reported. some of the areas these guys used to hunt are no longer worth the time to go. one area is outside of Macall. salmon river area.
does make me wonder if what they thought was a good idea, is now out of control?
sorta like sea lions were no problem for years, and now look at the mess.
But just think of all of the wonderful fishing opportunities once all of the elk and moose are exterminated by the wonderful wolves. Dontcha know they are destroying all of the riparian habitat by the stream, creeks and rivers in MT,WY,ID,OR and WA? Exploding wolf populations are a win win forWashington fly fishermen. Oh and they only kill sick and diseased animals too.:thumb:
This is why we should start harvesting bull trout again. They just keep eating and procreating. Pretty soon there won't be any salmon and steelhead left.
Hunter success is not a good or unbiased measure of animal abundance. One of the first things that happens with wolf reintroduction (and any predator reintroduction for that matter) is an instantaneous change in prey behavior--the prey alter their behavior to reduce the risk of being eaten. This is well known and published on. For elk and deer, this may mean being more cautious and altering where and how they spend their time. If these changes also make them less available to hunters, well you could easily see a reduction in hunter success without any actual change in animal abundance. This of course isn't to say that there truly is no change in abundance, merely that hunter success is not an unbiased or good measure of animal abundance because of the confounding condition described above.