Predator Contest?

[Elkmagnet]

You really can't see the difference between the polarizing nature of wolves and potential backlash against hunters and fishing? Or a you just trolling for a comment (pun intended).

Honestly Jr it seems like you're trolling every wolf thread lately.

There are a lot of people who are anti fishing tournament because it is mean to fish, as they gain support we will have to start paying special attention to how we publicize such events.

 

[tjones]

Have any fish caught in the contests ever been on the Endangered Specie List?

 

[smarandr]

JR is far from trolling. I look at is as taking a wise step back and considering how the non-hunting public views these kinds of events. Sure hunting wolves and having a contest to hunt/kill them is perfectly legal (and culturally acceptable to most of us locals), but we can't constantly be giving the non-hunting super majority of the public the finger all time. As hunters we are very small minority and need to project the best possible face for our passion. I would wager that most all of us here don't have a problem with this kind of event in principle. The problem is, whether we like it or not, the politics of these events are bad for hunters in the big picture.

 

[muleguy]

Being legal and smart are not always the same thing. It is legal to strap your dead elk to the hood of your car and stop in front of McDonald's for a burger and fries. But, is it smart as a hunter?

 

[jryoung]

Honestly Jr it seems like you're trolling every wolf thread lately.

If I am it is because I am concerned about the future of hunting. Not that I think that hunting will go away anytime soon, but more of the fact that perception of hunting and hunters has seen some good gains lately and I don’t want that to erode. When I see the defense of hunting those defenses are about our contributions to conservation and ethics. I want to hold all of us in high regard, I want all of us to take the high road when it comes to defending hunting, and I want all of us to look at habitat and wildlife holistically.

I can’t change the opinion of an anti-hunter, but what I can do is manage their ammunition. They will continue to take the low road and play the emotion card. Take away their fodder and their support will erode. This event did nothing to help elk and deer, it did nothing for wolf management, it did everything to mobilize support against hunting and give us a black eye. Defenders won’t be sending out an email letting everyone know that no wolves were killed.

We got the right to manage wolves as sportsman, so let’s respect that right, and hold it in high regard and hold all the animals we hunt with reverence. Like the editorial I posted, let wolves live in our wildest of wild places, and let’s manage them as sportsman without a contest or other organized event that is just gas on the fire.

 

[Elkmagnet]

JR is far from trolling. I look at is as taking a wise step back and considering how the non-hunting public views these kinds of events. Sure hunting wolves and having a contest to hunt/kill them is perfectly legal (and culturally acceptable to most of us locals), but we can't constantly be giving the non-hunting super majority of the public the finger all time. As hunters we are very small minority and need to project the best possible face for our passion. I would wager that most all of us here don't have a problem with this kind of event in principle. The problem is, whether we like it or not, the politics of these events are bad for hunters in the big picture.

I fully understand and agree with most of what you are saying about hunting contest. Now my question to you is how will Jr and shoots improve things by arguing their position on this subject over the Internet.

My view is the vast majority of people who are anti predator hunting contest are just flat out anti predator hunting the contest just happens to be highly publicized.

You may think that by getting rid of the contest that you will quiet the anti predator hunting crowd but there will always be something in the news about it these bunny hugging groups will always stir the pot to get their name in the news it's the only way that they can get donations and memberships. I really feel that this is a case of if you give an inch they will take a mile. Now I don't care about the inch all that much but I sure as s*** am not going to give up a mile.

If a bunch of out of touch suburbanites want to get all up in arms about a wolf "slaughtering" contest that kills 0 wolves. Well I am not going to lose too much sleep over that. Trying to be politically correct about predator hunting just isn't going to get you very far.

We both know that predator hunting contest have a negative impact on our ability to manage predators.
I think the difference in our opinions is that you think if you stop predator hunting contest it will make a difference and I do not see the suburbanite saying (well they can shoot puppies as long as its not in a contest.)

 

[Jwill]

From where I sit, it seems the most vocal folks against wolves happen to be simultaneously bad at both hunting wolves and PR. Would be nice to see some improvement in both those categories.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Being legal and smart are not always the same thing. It is legal to strap your dead elk to the hood of your car and stop in front of McDonald's for a burger and fries. But, is it smart as a hunter?

I agree so what do we do about it? Do we make a law? What if said law also outlaws hound hunting for lions? I mean that's not so P.C. lately either. Or we find ourselves in court next year trying to have wolf hunts but the tree huggers got a loophole in there somewhere that they see fit to take and take to the Supreme Court. Sounds ridiculous right? Would that really surprise you?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree so what do we do about it? Do we make a law? What if said law also outlaws hound hunting for lions? I mean that's not so P.C. lately either. Or we find ourselves in court next year trying to have wolf hunts but the tree huggers got a loophole in there somewhere that they see fit to take and take to the Supreme Court. Sounds ridiculous right? Would that really surprise you?

Based on current litigation & the current state of wolf management, yes it would. The only outstanding wolf case I'm aware of that has any legs is the Wyoming case. That won't effect Idaho or any other state.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I can buy most of what you're selling.

Like the editorial I posted, let wolves live in our wildest of wild places.

But comments like this are out of touch. Are you completely against a North American model of Wildlife conservation?
So this ground has been designated wilderness and the state no longer has the right to manage the wildlife on it? In your mind should States be able to manage the wildlife on National Forest ground or Bureau of Land Management ground? Because the state seems to think that this is appropriate management for the general area I happen to agree with it and so do most of the people who actually put boots on the ground here.
I have a feeling that every person I have talked to over the internet that strongly disagrees with this decision has never set foot in any of the drainages that these packs live in.

Political correctness should be one of the very last things considered in wildlife management.

Guess I am just one of those "vocal locals" (derogatory term).

 

[Elkmagnet]

Based on current litigation & the current state of wolf management, yes it would. The only outstanding wolf case I'm aware of that has any legs is the Wyoming case. That won't effect Idaho or any other state.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Your comment was that we might find ourselves in court again trying to keep wolf hunts. That is settled pretty definitively. The only way litigation would move forward regarding removing the ability of the states to manage wolves, then the states would have to abandon their wolf management plans to such an extent that it violates the ESA. I don't see any state moving in that direction despite the constant push of anti-wolf extremists who don't understand basic biology let alone the legal ramifications of the ESA.

Wyoming is still facing a legal challenge to their delisting rule. The plaintiffs might pull this one off based on how the rule was drafted as well as how the DPS was written.

But comments like this are out of touch. Are you completely against a North American model of Wildlife conservation?
So this ground has been designated wilderness and the state no longer has the right to manage the wildlife on it? In your mind should States be able to manage the wildlife on National Forest ground or Bureau of Land Management ground? Because the state seems to think that this is appropriate management for the general area I happen to agree with it and so do most of the people who actually put boots on the ground here.
I have a feeling that every person I have talked to over the internet that strongly disagrees with this decision has never set foot in any of the drainages that these packs live in.

Political correctness should be one of the very last things considered in wildlife management.

And while I'm not JR, I fail to see how this private derby is applicable to the NAM. Here's the link to the "seven sisters," let me know what I'm missing: http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx

This isn't a state sanctioned event, it's a fundraiser & PR stunt for a non-profit. And in all actuality, I'd be pretty surprised if any wolf bites a bullet from this event. So what does it do other than galvanize support against hunters?

 

[Triple BB]

I kinda wondered if that contest was more about generating some money for the local economy with the hopes a wolf would be killed. I hunted elk area 30 the latter half of Nov. In five days of hard hunting which included a lot of glassing, I only saw one set of meandering wolf tracks. I talked with a number of locals who were also hunting the area and had been since the season opened and no one I talked to had seen a wolf...

 

[jryoung]

IBut comments like this are out of touch. Are you completely against a North American model of Wildlife conservation?
So this ground has been designated wilderness and the state no longer has the right to manage the wildlife on it? In your mind should States be able to manage the wildlife on National Forest ground or Bureau of Land Management ground? Because the state seems to think that this is appropriate management for the general area I happen to agree with it and so do most of the people who actually put boots on the ground here.
I have a feeling that every person I have talked to over the internet that strongly disagrees with this decision has never set foot in any of the drainages that these packs live in.

Political correctness should be one of the very last things considered in wildlife management.

Guess I am just one of those "vocal locals" (derogatory term).

What I meant by that comment, and also touched on by the editorial was a reference to the hired gun to kill two packs in the Frank Church. The states have earned the right to manage the populations, and that should be done through sportsman IMO. To me it seems like social management and not scientific. If I could see a report from the biologists noting that it was necessary to the health of the herds future then I would feel differently.

In addition the articles that I read in reference to the hired gun all mentioned a similar component and that was the terrain was too rough and rugged for sportsman to get in there and manage the wolves.....well if they can't get in there to hunt wolves, how can they get in there to hunt elk.

Something doesn't add up.

 

[Elkmagnet]

.

In addition the articles that I read in reference to the hired gun all mentioned a similar component and that was the terrain was too rough and rugged for sportsman to get in there and manage the wolves.....well if they can't get in there to hunt wolves, how can they get in there to hunt elk.

Something doesn't add up.

This statement shows a lack of knowledge for the area and wolf hunting.

There is a huge difference between going in to the Frank in September and harvesting an elk(My opinion of the best time to harvest) and going into the Frank In January /February (my opinion of the best time to harvest) and harvesting a wolf.
We are talking about a very rugged remote area that receives a lot of snow. To steep for snowmobiles if they were allowed which they are not. No roads. no one I know is taking stock animals in there between December and March.
They still haven't found an entire family that crashed a plane there a month ago.

If you have ever been around wolves you would have mucho respect for the guys who actually get one down.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Your comment was that we might find ourselves in court again trying to keep wolf hunts.

You don't agree got it. I hope you're right although when there are smart lawyers and stupid politicians involved nothing surprises me.

And while I'm not JR, I fail to see how this private derby is applicable to the NAM. Here's the link to the "seven sisters," let me know what I'm missing: http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx

I was actually referring to him saying we need to just leave wolves in wilderness areas alone or let them be or whatever he said
We both know that it's the states responsibility to manage the wildlife within its boundaries even if its federal land or designated wilderness.
People seem to only like that idea when the state is doing what they want. I am as guilty of this as the next guy.

This isn't a state sanctioned event, it's a fundraiser & PR stunt for a non-profit. And in all actuality, I'd be pretty surprised if any wolf bites a bullet from this event. So what does it do other than galvanize support against hunters?

. Nothing!
So should we make a new law to appease the do something crowd? I still don't think so.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You don't agree got it. I hope you're right although when there are smart lawyers and stupid politicians involved nothing surprises me.

I'm with you in that there certainly could be litigation, but it's important to realize that there isn't very many avenues for the anti-wolf hunting crowd to pursue that will yield any fruit so long as the states don't alter their management plans significantly. If you can point to a circumstance where you feel that the serial litigants would be succesful, I'd be happy to modify my opinion.

I was actually referring to him saying we need to just leave wolves in wilderness areas alone or let them be or whatever he said
We both know that it's the states responsibility to manage the wildlife within its boundaries even if its federal land or designated wilderness.
People seem to only like that idea when the state is doing what they want. I am as guilty of this as the next guy.

Got it. In that context I certainly agree. Interestingly enough: Wolf harvest in the Bob is low but elk harvest remains high. While a big part of wolf harvest is weather related when you are specifically targeting wolves, the larger harvest occurs during elk season as incidental take. That brings us back to whether or not this derby is effective in anything other than stirring up anti-hunting sentiment in areas of large populations (and subsequently - much larger voting blocks).

As for setting aside areas for wildlife, we do it all the time through places like Wildlife Management Areas, State Preserves, etc. Refugia is a time tested way to conserve wildlife and it certainly fits in with the NAM.

So should we make a new law to appease the do something crowd? I still don't think so

.

I haven't read anything on this thread that suggests we should enact new laws.

 

[noharleyyet]

Next up...baby seal distress calls. Black eye? What say ye Jones?

 

[Elkmagnet]

I haven't read anything on this thread that suggests we should enact new laws.

Yes but if we as hunters publicly condemn this how long until a law is introduced?
Just like the idiot with the elk strapped to his hood you can't make a law to stop every ignorant person and they will always find one to use as a fundraiser.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes but if we as hunters publicly condemn this how long until a law is introduced?
Just like the idiot with the elk strapped to his hood you can't make a law to stop every ignorant person and they will always find one to use as a fundraiser.

How long until one is introduced if we don't denounce it? What is the strategy for killing said bill if the hunting community doesn't denounce derby's like this? How do we kill a political movement that doesn't condone any hunting at all if we don't stand up for the ethical treatment of wildlife?