KXLY.com: First kill reported in Idaho wolf hunt

[Predicto]

Hunting isn't necessarily senseless or a way for a "man to feel like a man". There are plenty of people that hunt species like deer and eat the meat. It can be hypocritical for one to say that it is wrong to kill a defenseless creature, but then turn around and eat a cheeseburger.

In fact, the deer that is killed by a hunter gets more humane treatment than chickens that are tortured before death. Have you ever eaten an animal that was killed so that you can eat it? Isn't that just as senseless?

I think that is why he said "if it meant providing food."

We are not talking about hunting for food here. Everyone in the thread has made that distinction clear.

[Predicto]

For some unknown reason,that part from Poltergeist comes to mind right now.

you ****

[ljs]

I thought ranchers were reimbursed for wolf kills. Or is that only adjacent to Yellowstone

Not that I know of- and looks like PSC is familiar with the Yellow stone ones.

There is a DFW working guy near my gf's family ranch. They border a National forest. They are absolutely not allowed to kill the wolves. They run the cattle up the mtn in the spring- and run them back down about end of Sept. They have ranch hands who watch the cattle (I know, you think of Brokeback mtn..lol) One already lost his dog- and they have seen the wolves first hand-but can't do anything. Their ranch itself is technically not in one of the "kill zones." They are right on the edge. They could get a tag and hunt though on the NF land. (or until their own land area is open for hunting)

If you are curious for more information, check out this site. Rules and regulations. So far- 3 wolves have been killed.

http://www.huntwolves.com/idaho-wolf-season

They can't use dogs, can't trap and are asked to avoid wolves with radio collars (not sure how they can, must be big enough to see or something)

This map shows you where they can hunt- and each area has its own specific limit. For example, the Lolo forest can only harvet 27 wolves. That way not one pack, or area is desimated.

[JonsieRB34]

I think that is why he said "if it meant providing food."

We are not talking about hunting for food here. Everyone in the thread has made that distinction clear.

Maybe the post would have better directed at posts 8 and 9. The distinction was possibly made, but there's still room for interpretation. I think there are people out there (and on this thread) that would kill an animal if his/her family was starving, but still think it's wrong to kill an animal for sport EVEN if you eat the meat. He/she may not enjoy killing, but to say it's wrong and to eat processed meat is hypocritical.

[SnyderShrugged]

Maybe the post would have better directed at posts 8 and 9. The distinction was possibly made, but there's still room for interpretation. I think there are people out there (and on this thread) that would kill an animal if his/her family was starving, but still think it's wrong to kill an animal for sport EVEN if you eat the meat. He/she may not enjoy killing, but to say it's wrong and to eat processed meat is hypocritical.

Most hunters do it for the conservation value rather than food.

Face it, if animal populations were allowed to go unchecked, we would have a mess.

[paredskinsfan]

I don't understand why someone would want to kill something as beautiful as a wolf. Lots of hunters have simple blood lust, I'm convinced.

And the answer to the livestock problem is simple. Dogs. That's what folks did for centuries.

.....

Agreed 100%, if they are not eating these wolves they kill to survive then they have no business shooting them.

[Commander PK]

Most hunters do it for the consewrvation value rather than food.

Face it, if animal populations were allowed to go unchecked, we would have a mess.

Agreed, and I'm no hunter...but don't let the facts above get in the way of a good cultural joke about Elmer and his twef gage shotgun huntin some wabbit.

[No_Pressure]

I don't get why anyone enjoys killing anything they can't eat, but that's a different question.

I don't know why anyone would enjoy killing anything. Need to kill is the only real good reason I can think of. You need to protect a bunch of livestock so you kill a wolf. You need to eat so you kill a deer. You need to keep animal populations low so you thin the ranks. I don't understand sport hunters. Yeah they eat the animal often and thats good, but whats the point of hunting deer or something to eat when you could buy food. Don't tell me it's free either, I know an avid hunter who spends a lot of money on his hobby so it all evens out, some people just feel big by ending an animal's life.

My friend tried to explain to me the respect for the hunt and the animals one time. It made no sense to me, he was basically saying we respect these animals therefore they must die. Weird ****.

[JonsieRB34]

Most hunters do it for the consewrvation value rather than food.

Face it, if animal populations were allowed to go unchecked, we would have a mess.

I don't know if the word "most" is accurate. I personally hunt for the sport and the meat, and although population control is important, it's not why I go out there.

That said, I agree with the wolf hunts especially w/ a quota. Maybe only those that directly suffer from the wolves (i.e., farmers) should be allowed to hunt them?

And I don't agree with throwing the dogs to the wolves (pun intended). Maybe it's effective, but I'd rather shoot a wolf than watch my dog get ravaged by a pack of belligerent wolves.

[zoony]

And I don't agree with throwing the dogs to the wolves (pun intended). Maybe it's effective, but I'd rather shoot a wolf than watch my dog get ravaged by a pack of belligerent wolves.

You should learn a little more about wolves.

(especially if you want to shoot one)

[JonsieRB34]

I don't know why anyone would enjoy killing anything. Need to kill is the only real good reason I can think of. You need to protect a bunch of livestock so you kill a wolf. You need to eat so you kill a deer. You need to keep animal populations low so you thin the ranks. I don't understand sport hunters. Yeah they eat the animal often and thats good, but whats the point of hunting deer or something to eat when you could buy food. Don't tell me it's free either, I know an avid hunter who spends a lot of money on his hobby so it all evens out, some people just feel big by ending an animal's life.

Case in point, predicto. Nothing wrong with not wanting to hunt, but it's wrong to say that killing a deer and eating the meat is worse than letting someone kill an animal for you, so you can eat the meat.

[karmacop]

And I don't agree with throwing the dogs to the wolves (pun intended). Maybe it's effective, but I'd rather shoot a wolf than watch my dog get ravaged by a pack of belligerent wolves.

Not just any dog can be used to protect a flock against wolves. But if you get the right kind of dog, bred for the job, they shouldn't be killed by the wolves, at least not very often. And those dogs do a good job at keeping wolves away. There are also plenty of other non-lethal methods to protect flocks (barriers and fences, noise machines and alarms, more human rancher presence, etc.).

Our reflex shouldn't be just to shoot them, particularly when they are an endagered or threatened species.

[Commander PK]

I don't understand sport hunters. Yeah they eat the animal often and thats good, but whats the point of hunting deer or something to eat when you could buy food.

Just sayin..even though I eat grocery store food everyday...I can clearly see why some people would want to eat food they prepared from the kill to consumption themselves. They have a vested interest in making sure it's done right. The grocery stores have a vested interest in making money. Do you trust everything you buy in the store?

It's a rough day when you can't even put peanut butter on your kids sammiches without worrying about them dying from E-Coli bacteria. Remember?

[zoony]

Maybe the post would have better directed at posts 8 and 9. The distinction was possibly made, but there's still room for interpretation. I think there are people out there (and on this thread) that would kill an animal if his/her family was starving, but still think it's wrong to kill an animal for sport EVEN if you eat the meat. He/she may not enjoy killing, but to say it's wrong and to eat processed meat is hypocritical.

I don't think there's anything in the world wrong with hunting. However I have a simple rule... the same one my dad taught me. If you're man enough to shoot it, you dam well better be man enough to eat it.

I really don't care for the taste of wild game, so I don't hunt. But I respect the hell out of those that do.

However, I have absolutely no patience for the human trash that likes to just go out in the woods and kill ****, just 'cause they can. And before you accuse me of stereotyping, don't. I know the difference.

I guess technically you could eat a wolf, but why in God's name would you want to? Like I said, simple blood lust. Look at the photo of the guy in the OP, I think that tells you about all you need to know.

[JonsieRB34]

PSC- these are more than wolves killing chickens. And my g/f dad does have dogs- the wolves killed 2 of them this year, and one last year

I would buy that if ljs's family's dogs weren't the right kind...

[Enter Apotheosis]

Face it, if animal populations were allowed to go unchecked, we would have a mess.

Technically speaking, if they were allowed to go completely unchecked things would eventually work themselves out. The problem is that there's absolutely no chance in hell of that happening as we pretty much have to keep populations in check to maintain our own massive population.

Maybe only those that directly suffer from the wolves (i.e., farmers) should be allowed to hunt them?

Probably better that they don't as I would imagine they would be the most apt to go overboard.

[JonsieRB34]

I don't think there's anything in the world wrong with hunting. However I have a simple rule... the same one my dad taught me. If you're man enough to shoot it, you dam well better be man enough to eat it.

I really don't care for the taste of wild game, so I don't hunt. But I respect the hell out of those that do.

However, I have absolutely no patience for the human trash that likes to just go out in the woods and kill ****, just 'cause they can. And before you accuse me of stereotyping, don't. I know the difference.

I guess technically you could eat a wolf, but why in God's name would you want to? Like I said, simple blood lust. Look at the photo of the guy in the OP, I think that tells you about all you need to know.

Completely agree with all of the above!

[karmacop]

Non-lethal methods of deterring wolves work. Case in point:

Boise, ID -- Local ranches partnering with Defenders of Wildlife and wildlife agencies to expand their use of non-lethal wolf control measures experienced no wolf-related livestock losses this grazing season. Lava Lake Land and Livestock, which grazes sheep on the Sawtooth and Salmon-Challis National Forests, made use of a new type of electrified fladry called "turbofladry" to create highly portable night corrals, while The Lazy EL Ranch in the Absaroka-Beartooth foothills in southern Montana began a successful range rider program to protect grazing cattle herds. Both ranches experienced zero known livestock predations to wolves and credit this success to a collaborative and non-lethal conflict management approach.

http://www.defendersofwildlife.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2006/10_25_2006_successes_in_nonlethal_wolf_control.php

There's no need to kill wolves to prevent livestock losses.

[zoony]

And for those claiming population control, please don't. Especially when dealing with wolves, who have an ultra-complex hierarchy within their packs. You shoot one of them, you could have disastrous results.

Not to mention the most effective population control is the culling of the sick and the weak and the old (what wolves do with caribou, etc.)... not shooting the biggest healthiest one you can spot thru a scope at 200 yards to mount in your living room.

[zoony]

ljs, just curious, what kind of dogs did you have that were killed by a wolfpack?

Were they great pyrenees? Farmers around here have them to protect goats and sheep... NOTHING gets past those dogs. Absolutely nothing. Black bears, coyotes, etc.

(though we don't have wolves)

....

[Enter Apotheosis]

And for those claiming population control, please don't. Especially when dealing with wolves, who have an ultra-complex hierarchy within their packs. You shoot one of them, you could have disastrous results.

Kind of curious as to what the disastrous results would be. I don't think the loss of a a single pack member (regardless of stature) would really throw off pack dynamic in any significant way.

[zoony]

Kind of curious as to what the disastrous results would be. I don't think the loss of a a single pack member (regardless of stature) would really throw off pack dynamic in any significant way.

If it is the alpha male/female

[Commander PK]

Kind of curious as to what the disastrous results would be. I don't think the loss of a a single pack member (regardless of stature) would really throw off pack dynamic in any significant way.

What happens when they keep reproducing, and run out of food? Yeah, I don't think it would be better to not shoot any for fear of killing the alpha-male in a pack of 100 wolves.

[MadiSkins]

I think the problem with most people in this thread is that they don't understand wildlife management. Those who live in places where wildlife populations aren't prevelant don't necessarily understand population control because its not something they've had to deal with.

I hunt for sport and usually kill 2 deer a year to keep the herd on my families 30 acres in check. In Highland Co. VA, where I hunt, more deer are struck by cars than in any area of the state and that area isn't even heavily populated. Herds also have grown large enough in that area that in years with poor food supply for the animals, they become diseased or starve. Taking a large buck or doe every season also allows younger animals to grow to potential as with the alpha male and female around, even deer are territorial enough to run members away from the group.

Those who respect the hunt and go by the laws established by the Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries are honorable hunters. People you hunt with lights at night and out of season or take smaller animals just to kill are the ones who should be questioned. I also agree with those who have said that you can't question hunters for killing animals honorably if you eat prepackaged beef and poultry because of how those animals are raised. My family also raises and butchers our own beef and pork, and no, I don't consider myself a hick from the sticks.

Edit: When I say hunt for sport, I mean for the enjoyment of nature. I do eat the meat. Every bit of it that I can harvest. No sense in wasting anything.

[Enter Apotheosis]

If it is the alpha male/female

Yeah... I don't really think that would be disastrous. Another wolf would just step up to fill the role.

What happens when they keep reproducing, and run out of food? Yeah, I don't think it would be better to not shoot any for fear of killing the alpha-male in a pack of 100 wolves.

Starving populations of animals aren't necessarily a reason for us to go on the hunt, IMO. Unless we're directly responsible for the food shortages (which may still be the case more often than not), we should probably just let things work themselves out.