52 Wolves in First Day

Wolf, Coyote, Fox, Cats, Callings, Behaviors, Hunting Stories, Pictures, Tactics, Q&A.
User avatar
ThePreBanMan
500 Club
Posts: 2147
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:36 pm
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby ThePreBanMan » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:05 am

I don't understand the point of the cull.. Wolves, as a species are down to less than 10% of the range they had prior to humans hunting them... This is a species that is titering and flirting with extinction. Why are we killing them? Trump removing them from the endangered species act in his final weeks as President, after having lost the election, just stinks of dirty politics and political payback... Kind of like the rush of pardons every President does on his way out.. It's so politically toxic that they can only do it when they've got nothing left to lose.

Conservation is one area I deeply depart from the Republican party on.... I know I'm not alone, especially in the coastal areas of the country... Conservatives around here lose a lot of votes because of it... There are states with Democratic governors right now, by way of the Rs being so poor when it comes to environmental and conservation concerns.


Drich
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:39 am
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Drich » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:27 am

ThePreBanMan wrote:I don't understand the point of the cull.. Wolves, as a species are down to less than 10% of the range they had prior to humans hunting them... This is a species that is titering and flirting with extinction. Why are we killing them? Trump removing them from the endangered species act in his final weeks as President, after having lost the election, just stinks of dirty politics and political payback... Kind of like the rush of pardons every President does on his way out.. It's so politically toxic that they can only do it when they've got nothing left to lose.

Conservation is one area I deeply depart from the Republican party on.... I know I'm not alone, especially in the coastal areas of the country... Conservatives around here lose a lot of votes because of it... There are states with Democratic governors right now, by way of the Rs being so poor when it comes to environmental and conservation concerns.


If any group wishes to put forth the money and effort to relocate wolves to the 90% plus of their range that they believe they should occupy, then I say let that group do it. So far no one has been willing to relocate them to their own backyards. So instead those that are in the less than 10% area that have to deal with the localized issue of an overabundance of a species are left to deal with them as they see fit. Like hunting them.
User avatar
ThePreBanMan
500 Club
Posts: 2147
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:36 pm
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby ThePreBanMan » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:40 am

Drich wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:I don't understand the point of the cull.. Wolves, as a species are down to less than 10% of the range they had prior to humans hunting them... This is a species that is titering and flirting with extinction. Why are we killing them? Trump removing them from the endangered species act in his final weeks as President, after having lost the election, just stinks of dirty politics and political payback... Kind of like the rush of pardons every President does on his way out.. It's so politically toxic that they can only do it when they've got nothing left to lose.

Conservation is one area I deeply depart from the Republican party on.... I know I'm not alone, especially in the coastal areas of the country... Conservatives around here lose a lot of votes because of it... There are states with Democratic governors right now, by way of the Rs being so poor when it comes to environmental and conservation concerns.


If any group wishes to put forth the money and effort to relocate wolves to the 90% plus of their range that they believe they should occupy, then I say let that group do it. So far no one has been willing to relocate them to their own backyards. So instead those that are in the less than 10% area that have to deal with the localized issue of an overabundance of a species are left to deal with them as they see fit. Like hunting them.



That's not possible... Humanity has torn down the forested land and built cities and suburbs... You know that... The word "overabundance" in your claim is false as well. The state's target population is measured in the low hundreds.... state-wide...

You benefit from having one of the few areas left in our country with large tracts of uninterrupted forested land. That does mean sharing that land with the wildlife that also occupies it. If you have such a hatred for the species of wildlife you live in proximity to, maybe you're living in the wrong part of the country... Food for thought... :think: There are plenty of other areas of the country devoid of native and indigenous species, complements of human activity... You have options... No need to expand upon the eradication of indigenous animals. We're not talking about overpopulation problems here.
User avatar
Dewey
Moderator
Posts: 32966
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Online

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Dewey » Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:03 am

ThePreBanMan wrote:
Drich wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:I don't understand the point of the cull.. Wolves, as a species are down to less than 10% of the range they had prior to humans hunting them... This is a species that is titering and flirting with extinction. Why are we killing them? Trump removing them from the endangered species act in his final weeks as President, after having lost the election, just stinks of dirty politics and political payback... Kind of like the rush of pardons every President does on his way out.. It's so politically toxic that they can only do it when they've got nothing left to lose.

Conservation is one area I deeply depart from the Republican party on.... I know I'm not alone, especially in the coastal areas of the country... Conservatives around here lose a lot of votes because of it... There are states with Democratic governors right now, by way of the Rs being so poor when it comes to environmental and conservation concerns.


If any group wishes to put forth the money and effort to relocate wolves to the 90% plus of their range that they believe they should occupy, then I say let that group do it. So far no one has been willing to relocate them to their own backyards. So instead those that are in the less than 10% area that have to deal with the localized issue of an overabundance of a species are left to deal with them as they see fit. Like hunting them.



That's not possible... Humanity has torn down the forested land and built cities and suburbs... You know that... The word "overabundance" in your claim is false as well. The state's target population is measured in the low hundreds.... state-wide...

You benefit from having one of the few areas left in our country with large tracts of uninterrupted forested land. That does mean sharing that land with the wildlife that also occupies it. If you have such a hatred for the species of wildlife you live in proximity to, maybe you're living in the wrong part of the country... Food for thought... :think: There are plenty of other areas of the country devoid of native and indigenous species, complements of human activity... You have options... No need to expand upon the eradication of indigenous animals. We're not talking about overpopulation problems here.

I think if you lived in wolf country you might have a totally different viewpoint. This might give you some insight to why wolves have become such a problem in WI.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Wildlif ... /maps.html

If you read those yearly depredation reports you will see we obviously have big problems here that needed to be addressed. You say our target population is in the low 100’s. That’s laughable because we passed that target DECADES ago. Seems we are easily able to justify a wolf season after all. It’s a science based approach unless of course you don’t believe in such a thing.

It’s nothing political on Trumps part. Actually it’s false that he removed them from protected status AFTER he lost the election. This was passed in October before the election so no dirty politics like you said. Some may say he did it for votes. You can believe what you want on that but this hunt has been on the back burner for a lot of years. Even CNN agrees with the date when this was passed then not surprisingly they turned it political at the end of the article.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/politics ... index.html

If you researched it you would see that the first wolf seasons we had actually happened smack dab in the middle of Obama’s terms in office 2012-2014 but then the anti’s got it shut down again till now. Was it dirty politics when the hunt was passed during the Obama Administration? :think:
User avatar
ThePreBanMan
500 Club
Posts: 2147
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:36 pm
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby ThePreBanMan » Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:30 am

Dewey wrote:I think if you lived in wolf country you might have a totally different viewpoint. This might give you some insight to why wolves have become such a problem in WI.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Wildlif ... /maps.html

If you read those yearly depredation reports you will see we obviously have big problems here that needed to be addressed. You say our target population is in the low 100’s. That’s laughable because we passed that target DECADES ago. Seems we are easily able to justify a wolf season after all. It’s a science based approach unless of course you don’t believe in such a thing.

It’s nothing political on Trumps part. Actually it’s false that he removed them from protected status AFTER he lost the election. This was passed in October before the election so no dirty politics like you said. Some may say he did it for votes. You can believe what you want on that but this hunt has been on the back burner for a lot of years. Even CNN agrees with the date when this was passed then not surprisingly they turned it political at the end of the article.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/politics ... index.html

If you researched it you would see that the first wolf seasons we had actually happened smack dab in the middle of Obama’s terms in office 2012-2014 but then the anti’s got it shut down again till now. Was it dirty politics when the hunt was passed during the Obama Administration? :think:


Looks like you're right on the date he removed it. My mistake, by less than a week. I don't know how you could have had a hunt lined up during Obama's term. They were still a protected species. They had been listed for 45 years prior. That seems odd and it makes sense it didn't happen as it would seem to violate Federal law.

It does look like they've killed a couple of cattle and a couple of pets over the last year, and a horse. I'm still yet to be convinced that required an assault on the species that are dancing with extinction. As for the target population number for the state, I'm basing it off of an ABC report which lists it as 350 state-wide...

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory ... s-76115840

...and a local news station in the state which also reports the state's target as 350..

https://www.local10.com/news/national/2 ... 0-animals/

...not exactly a huge population...
VilasCo
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:11 am
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby VilasCo » Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:43 am

ThePreBanMan wrote:
Drich wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:I don't understand the point of the cull.. Wolves, as a species are down to less than 10% of the range they had prior to humans hunting them... This is a species that is titering and flirting with extinction. Why are we killing them? Trump removing them from the endangered species act in his final weeks as President, after having lost the election, just stinks of dirty politics and political payback... Kind of like the rush of pardons every President does on his way out.. It's so politically toxic that they can only do it when they've got nothing left to lose.

Conservation is one area I deeply depart from the Republican party on.... I know I'm not alone, especially in the coastal areas of the country... Conservatives around here lose a lot of votes because of it... There are states with Democratic governors right now, by way of the Rs being so poor when it comes to environmental and conservation concerns.


If any group wishes to put forth the money and effort to relocate wolves to the 90% plus of their range that they believe they should occupy, then I say let that group do it. So far no one has been willing to relocate them to their own backyards. So instead those that are in the less than 10% area that have to deal with the localized issue of an overabundance of a species are left to deal with them as they see fit. Like hunting them.



That's not possible... Humanity has torn down the forested land and built cities and suburbs... You know that... The word "overabundance" in your claim is false as well. The state's target population is measured in the low hundreds.... state-wide...

You benefit from having one of the few areas left in our country with large tracts of uninterrupted forested land. That does mean sharing that land with the wildlife that also occupies it. If you have such a hatred for the species of wildlife you live in proximity to, maybe you're living in the wrong part of the country... Food for thought... :think: There are plenty of other areas of the country devoid of native and indigenous species, complements of human activity... You have options... No need to expand upon the eradication of indigenous animals. We're not talking about overpopulation problems here.


The obvious point of the wolf hunt is to reduce the numbers of wolves in Wisconsin. I live in northern Wisconsin and I have witnessed a wolf walk down my road at 9 am. I will go out on a limb and say wolf and coyote numbers in my county are near equal and I can easily show you where several wolf packs regularly hunt. The species is far from flirting with extinction. The statement that wolves only occupy a small percentage of their range is true, but the same could be said about many different species. For example, elk only occupy a small portion of their native range, but they are still hunted and managed differently based on the region they currently live. The only part politics comes into play is the fact that liberal groups filed lawsuits to shutdown management plans made up by professional scientists and game agencies. These same liberal groups will continue these lawsuits until they run out of money, no matter how many wolves are on the landscape. The wolf repopulation is a great success for my home state and the wolf is here to stay. Most reasonable hunters will concede that wolves belong, but should be treated like all of our other animals.
User avatar
Dewey
Moderator
Posts: 32966
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Online

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Dewey » Sun Feb 28, 2021 12:17 pm

ThePreBanMan wrote:
Dewey wrote:I think if you lived in wolf country you might have a totally different viewpoint. This might give you some insight to why wolves have become such a problem in WI.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Wildlif ... /maps.html

If you read those yearly depredation reports you will see we obviously have big problems here that needed to be addressed. You say our target population is in the low 100’s. That’s laughable because we passed that target DECADES ago. Seems we are easily able to justify a wolf season after all. It’s a science based approach unless of course you don’t believe in such a thing.

It’s nothing political on Trumps part. Actually it’s false that he removed them from protected status AFTER he lost the election. This was passed in October before the election so no dirty politics like you said. Some may say he did it for votes. You can believe what you want on that but this hunt has been on the back burner for a lot of years. Even CNN agrees with the date when this was passed then not surprisingly they turned it political at the end of the article.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/politics ... index.html

If you researched it you would see that the first wolf seasons we had actually happened smack dab in the middle of Obama’s terms in office 2012-2014 but then the anti’s got it shut down again till now. Was it dirty politics when the hunt was passed during the Obama Administration? :think:


Looks like you're right on the date he removed it. My mistake, by less than a week. I don't know how you could have had a hunt lined up during Obama's term. They were still a protected species. They had been listed for 45 years prior. That seems odd and it makes sense it didn't happen as it would seem to violate Federal law.

It does look like they've killed a couple of cattle and a couple of pets over the last year, and a horse. I'm still yet to be convinced that required an assault on the species that are dancing with extinction. As for the target population number for the state, I'm basing it off of an ABC report which lists it as 350 state-wide...

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory ... s-76115840

...and a local news station in the state which also reports the state's target as 350..

https://www.local10.com/news/national/2 ... 0-animals/

...not exactly a huge population...

Couple cattle and a couple pets over the last year? Are you reading the same depredation reports I am? :? Try looking at the 2020 reports. That’s quite an extensive list. Can you honestly look at this and still say we don’t have a problem here? This lists are getting longer each consecutive year.

Here is the full year for 2020...

Image

Image

Image

Image




Wolves were delisted in 2012 for 3 years. A simple internet search will show that. Everything was legal and Wisconsin did not have an illegal hunt.

Image

The WI DNR estimates our current wolf population was at 1195 before the season that just closed. Anybody that lives in the areas where the packs were counted will tell you they’re WAY low on those estimates. What was killed this past week will be quickly replaced after breeding this year.
User avatar
Bowhuntercoop
500 Club
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:02 pm
Location: SC
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Bowhuntercoop » Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:08 pm

I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.
User avatar
ThePreBanMan
500 Club
Posts: 2147
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:36 pm
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby ThePreBanMan » Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:44 am

If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k
Carpkiller02
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 5:43 am
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Carpkiller02 » Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:04 am

ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k

I live in the northeast corner of the state. I put on countless miles walking and driving scouting for deer. In my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, the wolf population is grossly underestimated. I probably see 3 sets of wolf tracks for every set of coyote tracks I come across. Three of the wolves the dog guys got in the area had mange, typically a sign of overpopulation. The bear hunters lost 9 dogs in the area this summer and it didn’t really surprise me cause these tracts are basically void of deer. The wolves are getting hungry.
User avatar
Dewey
Moderator
Posts: 32966
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Online

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Dewey » Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:34 am

ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k

Do you have any actual firsthand experience with wolves or are you just going by what you read on the internet or watch on YouTube? :think:

Comparing wolves in WI to the Yellowstone ecosystem is completely laughable.

You seem to be just going off your own personal opinions with no real world experience. I find it crazy that you come here as a MA resident with no knowledge whatsoever of what we’re dealing with here in WI and basically tell us that we’re doing it all wrong by legally managing wolves. Having no clue about what happens in your state I could never tell anyone how to manage wildlife there. Just out of my realm of knowledge so I would have no opinion.

I provided nothing but facts above in my prior post. Not sure how anybody can argue that we don’t have a real problem here. Good to hear your finally swinging in favor of having a hunt.

Believe it or not the real world isn’t a Disney movie where all animals live in complete harmony. When there are huge predation problems on livestock like shown obviously there needs to be some kind of balance. Try telling these farmers in historically wolf free areas that there isn’t a problem. Very few want the wolves completely eliminated. We just want an even predator/prey balance that’s healthy for our state and not based off personal feelings by others who only go off emotion.
User avatar
john1984
Posts: 4316
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby john1984 » Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:48 am

And what about the Snowshoe Hare ???? People said years ago they used to be all over the northwoods. But as the wolf population increased the Hare population declined. Now we have no more white rabbits to chase cuz of the wolves :cry:
User avatar
Tim H
500 Club
Posts: 2487
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:37 am
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nomadicbeastwi
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Tim H » Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:03 am

john1984 wrote:And what about the Snowshoe Hare ???? People said years ago they used to be all over the northwoods. But as the wolf population increased the Hare population declined. Now we have no more white rabbits to chase cuz of the wolves :cry:


It has a lot to do with the bobcat population. The wolves definitely contribute to it though. Overall we just have too many predators in the north part of the state.
User avatar
purebowhunting
500 Club
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby purebowhunting » Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:16 am

Tim H wrote:
john1984 wrote:And what about the Snowshoe Hare ???? People said years ago they used to be all over the northwoods. But as the wolf population increased the Hare population declined. Now we have no more white rabbits to chase cuz of the wolves :cry:


It has a lot to do with the bobcat population. The wolves definitely contribute to it though. Overall we just have too many predators in the north part of the state.


We do have a huge predator problem, including owls and hawks which there is no answer to. Ruffed Grouse is being lost also. A lot of species with a very dark future ahead that need a lot of attention.
User avatar
stash59
Moderator
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:22 am
Location: S Central Wi.
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby stash59 » Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:20 am

Dewey wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k

Do you have any actual firsthand experience with wolves or are you just going by what you read on the internet or watch on YouTube? :think:

Comparing wolves in WI to the Yellowstone ecosystem is completely laughable.

You seem to be just going off your own personal opinions with no real world experience. I find it crazy that you come here as a MA resident with no knowledge whatsoever of what we’re dealing with here in WI and basically tell us that we’re doing it all wrong by legally managing wolves. Having no clue about what happens in your state I could never tell anyone how to manage wildlife there. Just out of my realm of knowledge so I would have no opinion.

I provided nothing but facts above in my prior post. Not sure how anybody can argue that we don’t have a real problem here. Good to hear your finally swinging in favor of having a hunt.

Believe it or not the real world isn’t a Disney movie where all animals live in complete harmony. When there are huge predation problems on livestock like shown obviously there needs to be some kind of balance. Try telling these farmers in historically wolf free areas that there isn’t a problem. Very few want the wolves completely eliminated. We just want an even predator/prey balance that’s healthy for our state and not based off personal feelings by others who only go off emotion.


That video is just another liberal propaganda film. Not denying the elk numbers in Yellowstone Park were too high. And a few other forms of wildlife benefited from the wolves being there again. But you heard no mention about the Shiras moose population from that area. In that "educational" film. Yellowstone used to be one of their strongholds. Shiras moose are all but gone now. In the entire greater Yellowstone area. Not just inside the Park. Believe it or not. Moose are an easier prey for wolves. Unlike elk are typically loners or hang in small groups consisting of a cow and it's calves. And never existed in numbers even close to elk. I agree that some stream damage was done because of higher elk numbers. But claiming that, that had a major influence on the quality of the city of Billings drinking water is hilarious. And I never heard about it being a major threat to the fish either. The quality of the fishing never had any complaints. Like I said propaganda. In care of the liberal bunny huggers. Which is crazy cause wolves really like to eat bunnies!!!!!
Happiness is a large gutpile!!!!!!!


  • Advertisement

Return to “Predator Hunting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests