Grizzly / Wolf question

Bullcan

New Member
Oct 6, 2016
25
4
I personally support the natural expansion of these species and even introduction in areas ( not just the west either ) that make sense and where states are allowed to manage them thru hunting and other means. As eveyone here knows the problem is that the state wildlife agencies are limited in how they can manage them because of various lawsuits.
I never put much thought into who is initiating these lawsuits. Does anyone have any insights into who these groups of people are and more importantly why they care so much about these large predators ?
 

AKaviator

Veteran member
Jul 26, 2012
1,605
526
Anchorage Alaska
In my experience, there are several well funded groups that push their agenda and initiate lawsuits. Activists for many wildlife causes. Friends of Animals, PETA, Green Peace and others. They solicit money from people by advertising with heart touching photos of starving animals or a wolf in a trap, etc. They take in some big money and I believe that it's just a big business to the upper end of the organizations.

The organizations are generally made up of some pretty radical anti-hunters but they also oppose whaling and take-on environmental issues that they disagree with. Some of the things they stand for I agree with, but I never support their organizations due to the hardcore anti-hunting stance.
They do push their agendas worldwide. When Alaska's Game Board would address some wolf related issue, we would receive thousands of form letters in opposition to wolf management, from all over the U.S. and foreign countries. Often the propaganda that they pushed was completely false but it stirred the emotions and got donations from a lot of well meaning, but mislead people.

These organizations are a big reason why hunters/trappers, etc. need to be doing things ethically and smart. It's also why I join more science based organizations like the Elk Foundation, SCI and some others, that are not based on emotion and some cherry-picked photo of a starving wolf in a trap.

Now, on the idea of introducing apex predators into areas that don't have them, I don't support it. I prefer natural territorial expansion and active management, but that's just me.
 

Hilltop

Veteran member
Feb 25, 2014
3,071
477
Eastern Nebraska
I can't think of a single good reason to introduce apex predators into areas where they don't currently reside. I'm also against allowing them to expand out of the areas they currently inhabit. A single wolf will kill between 12-25 elk per year. Let that sink in. 1200 wolves can kill as many elk as 50K hunters do yearly in the state of Wyoming. That's only one wolf per 81 square miles in Wyoming.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
4,816
2,139
53
idaho
I can't think of a single good reason to introduce apex predators into areas where they don't currently reside. I'm also against allowing them to expand out of the areas they currently inhabit. A single wolf will kill between 12-25 elk per year. Let that sink in. 1200 wolves can kill as many elk as 50K hunters do yearly in the state of Wyoming. That's only one wolf per 81 square miles in Wyoming.
which is exactly why wolves are being introduced . it is not that libs love animals . it is that libs hate hunters because they tend to lean conservative.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
4,816
2,139
53
idaho
I personally support the natural expansion of these species and even introduction in areas ( not just the west either ) that make sense and where states are allowed to manage them thru hunting and other means. As eveyone here knows the problem is that the state wildlife agencies are limited in how they can manage them because of various lawsuits.
I never put much thought into who is initiating these lawsuits. Does anyone have any insights into who these groups of people are and more importantly why they care so much about these large predators ?
they care nothing for these predators!!!!!

they are simply a means to an end . that means ,ultimately is to achieve total control over all who disagree with their agendas .

hunters tend to be the hard working, love the constitution type ,who choose to use hard work and the law rather then riots and begging to advance their goals or agendas . therefore they and their way of lives must be exterminated by any means. liberals simply can not tolerate anyone who is capable of a rational thought.

I fully realize that some don't agree . some will even " choose" to be offended by this but it really is exactly that simple.


the irony is ,these folks despise the very people that make their existence possible.
 
Last edited:

JimP

Veteran member
Mar 28, 2016
4,526
2,092
67
Gypsum, Co
The bigger problem as I see it is that the wolves that are being introduced into the lower 48 are different than the wolves that inhabited these areas before they were exterminated. The wolves that are here now from I understand are a larger and more aggressive wolf than those way back in the 1800's.

Then there is the problem that these groups want them brought back but refuse to fund any of the research and restitution cost to ranchers for lost livestock. This all falls back to the state that dumps it into the states game and fish department which is already strapped for cash in most instances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: idcwby

dan maule

Very Active Member
Jan 3, 2015
510
242
Upper Michigan
My take on this is very simple. Our forefathers eradicated them for a reason and I do not believe they were stupid people. Man has replaced the need for these apex predators to control the population of game species. The only reason to reintroduce them is if you want to remove Man from control of wildlife populations, and when the predators are finished with the game species they will target the livestock even more than they currently are. Throw in all the political BS, no thank you! Wolves have devastated the deer hunting in some areas of Upper Michigan.
 

HuskyMusky

Veteran member
Nov 29, 2011
1,142
53
IL
I can't think of a single good reason to introduce apex predators into areas where they don't currently reside. I'm also against allowing them to expand out of the areas they currently inhabit. A single wolf will kill between 12-25 elk per year. Let that sink in. 1200 wolves can kill as many elk as 50K hunters do yearly in the state of Wyoming. That's only one wolf per 81 square miles in Wyoming.
I really think a "bring the grizzy back to California" could get some traction..... I know there is a sports team in cali....named the grizzlies....which team that is.... is slipping my mind atm...
 
  • Like
Reactions: THelms

Bullcan

New Member
Oct 6, 2016
25
4
My take on this is very simple. Our forefathers eradicated them for a reason and I do not believe they were stupid people. Man has replaced the need for these apex predators to control the population of game species. The only reason to reintroduce them is if you want to remove Man from control of wildlife populations, and when the predators are finished with the game species they will target the livestock even more than they currently are. Throw in all the political BS, no thank you! Wolves have devastated the deer hunting in some areas of Upper Michigan.
Being from MI also I know all about this. I just want to be clear I am only for introductions if and only if states are allowed to manage them including hunting without having to worry about lawsuits ( yeah, a pipe dream I know )
 

Hilltop

Veteran member
Feb 25, 2014
3,071
477
Eastern Nebraska
Being from MI also I know all about this. I just want to be clear I am only for introductions if and only if states are allowed to manage them including hunting without having to worry about lawsuits ( yeah, a pipe dream I know )
The problem is even if they are given the right to manage them in the beginning, those right can be taken away at the federal level as soon as the wrong judge gets the right case. No thank you.

In all seriousness, why would you want them introduced to begin with, even if states could manage them? Adding even a small number into areas will have negative impacts on big game populations causing fewer tags available for hunters. Point creep is bad enough as it is. There are way more predators currently (people) than there is available game. In rare areas where there is population issues due to under hunting, it is a hunter access issue 99% of the time. In all but a few of those instances, the private landowners would end up controlling the predators on their own anyways. The bottom line is adding predators removes opportunity for hunters, costs taxpayers heavily, and removes funding from state management agencies that are already strapped in most cases.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
4,816
2,139
53
idaho
The problem is even if they are given the right to manage them in the beginning, those right can be taken away at the federal level as soon as the wrong judge gets the right case. No thank you.

In all seriousness, why would you want them introduced to begin with, even if states could manage them? Adding even a small number into areas will have negative impacts on big game populations causing fewer tags available for hunters. Point creep is bad enough as it is. There are way more predators currently (people) than there is available game. In rare areas where there is population issues due to under hunting, it is a hunter access issue 99% of the time. In all but a few of those instances, the private landowners would end up controlling the predators on their own anyways. The bottom line is adding predators removes opportunity for hunters, costs taxpayers heavily, and removes funding from state management agencies that are already strapped in most cases.
I would agree with all that but compromise is pc ,unless of coarse you are of the left . ;)
now we need to hear from the pro pred crowd to enlighten us with their poppycock spiel
 

cacklercrazy

Member
Feb 24, 2011
82
15
I can't think of a single good reason to introduce apex predators into areas where they don't currently reside. I'm also against allowing them to expand out of the areas they currently inhabit. A single wolf will kill between 12-25 elk per year. Let that sink in. 1200 wolves can kill as many elk as 50K hunters do yearly in the state of Wyoming. That's only one wolf per 81 square miles in Wyoming.
Don't forget what they can do to livestock and pets in rural areas. No they need to be controlled and a lot better than what's going on now.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
4,816
2,139
53
idaho
personally ,I would find it hilarious to see wolves in Beverly hills , ripping fluffy out of the handbag of some actresses(or actors) hand bag.
 
Last edited:

Bullcan

New Member
Oct 6, 2016
25
4
It is not that I would like to see them introduced everywhere, just in areas where they might make sense. It would take away some tags, but also introduce new hunting opportunities for these large predators. I do realize this is unrealistic though as if they were introduced our rights to manage them would most definitely be reduced due to various lawsuits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidoggy

Yell Co AR Hunter

Very Active Member
Dec 10, 2015
507
189
Yell County Arkansas
My take on this is very simple. Our forefathers eradicated them for a reason and I do not believe they were stupid people. Man has replaced the need for these apex predators to control the population of game species. The only reason to reintroduce them is if you want to remove Man from control of wildlife populations, and when the predators are finished with the game species they will target the livestock even more than they currently are. Throw in all the political BS, no thank you! Wolves have devastated the deer hunting in some areas of Upper Michigan.
I like your thoughts. Problem is it is the truth, and the groups we are up against care nothing about the truth. That is why we are fighting a battle we can not win.
 

Baron

New Member
Jul 6, 2020
1
0
Miami. FL
I guess the only person who does not understand the real purpose of these PETA type organizations existence is Greta Thunberg and even she's starting to realize how the world works