“Beloved” Wolf Killed Outside Yellowstone

[Squirrels]

Moving on from the actual killing of the wolf...

What seems to work so well for the anti-hunters and ARAs is their never-ending energy and willingness to take their offensive (remember that word) to the most effective media sources. I'll give them credit: they may be crazy but they're damned good at pushing their views into mainstream USA. I personally think they're doing a better job of advancing (another word to remember) their cause than we are of defending ours. They're bringing the war to us and to mainstream USA. We're more often playing defense than anything, mainly because we just want to be left alone. At least that's how I view it.

What seems to be missing on our side is an offensive game plan designed to continually hammer back hard at the ARA crowd. If we had as much maniacal energy as they do, we'd be exploiting every piece of their illogical behaviors AND we'd be aggressively advancing our own beliefs. The key to this war is winning the minds of mainstream USA. I don't think we'll get there with a public face of "Go-to-hell....I have a right to hunt!" We DO have the right to hunt, but those rights are getting more and more eroded as public sentiment questions the need to kill certain animals in certain places. What seems missing to me is a 2-pronged approach in which we basically play defense-through-offense, and we logically, tirelessly and steadily advance our causes in ways which make sense and gain the support of those who don't hunt but DO have a say in whether (or not) we keep hunting.

I think the bottom line is winning. One principle is to look at what your enemies are doing and then do it better than them. We're falling short in that regard I believe.

Well put. Their energy and efforts are admirable. I think most of us that defend hunting fall into the conservative realm, where as I think most of the oppositioin falls into the liberal realm. I'll speak more specifically about myself in the next couple lines. I, a conservative, don't have time to make calls, pen letters, attend rallies, and those sorts of things; like the opposition does in most cases. It is a a matter of priority, not that hunting is not important to me, but getting up everyone morning, going to work to provide for the wife and children God has blessed me with ranks much higher in terms of priority. So then when I am not at work I enjoy spending time with that same family, hunting when have the opportunity. Not to mention the other outside work activities that take up time that I must do as a RESPONSIBLE, PRODUCTIVE member of society. In summary, my views are different than theirs. I don't hate them for that although I disagree with them on almost every thing imaginable. Their fruitcakes at best but they are still people. People I'd be willing to help pack and move to another country.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

Moving on from the actual killing of the wolf...

What seems to work so well for the anti-hunters and ARAs is their never-ending energy and willingness to take their offensive (remember that word) to the most effective media sources. I'll give them credit: they may be crazy but they're damned good at pushing their views into mainstream USA. I personally think they're doing a better job of advancing (another word to remember) their cause than we are of defending ours. They're bringing the war to us and to mainstream USA. We're more often playing defense than anything, mainly because we just want to be left alone. At least that's how I view it.

What seems to be missing on our side is an offensive game plan designed to continually hammer back hard at the ARA crowd. If we had as much maniacal energy as they do, we'd be exploiting every piece of their illogical behaviors AND we'd be aggressively advancing our own beliefs. The key to this war is winning the minds of mainstream USA. I don't think we'll get there with a public face of "Go-to-hell....I have a right to hunt!" We DO have the right to hunt, but those rights are getting more and more eroded as public sentiment questions the need to kill certain animals in certain places. What seems missing to me is a 2-pronged approach in which we basically play defense-through-offense, and we logically, tirelessly and steadily advance our causes in ways which make sense and gain the support of those who don't hunt but DO have a say in whether (or not) we keep hunting.

I think the bottom line is winning. One principle is to look at what your enemies are doing and then do it better than them. We're falling short in that regard I believe.

I don't have the source or the figure but I remember the meateater crew talking about public acceptance of hunting be near an all time high. Few people are against folks going into the woods and coming out with a backpack of meat. Fewer people are ok with going into the woods and coming back with a backpack of meat and a bear skull. Why is that? Lets build on the momentum of the people who are ok with example number one and show that example number two is no different.

Anti's have a much easier job than we do. They wait for something to happen then splash pictures up and talk about the bloodthirsty killer who gets his rocks off killing animals. The news mentions a blip about it then the stay at home mom remembers the time she took her kids to the zoo to see the bears, wolves and lions and thinks "we can't allow this to happen, how terrible".

Hunters and conservationist and biologists have to convince that same lady that these animals are being managed for their own benefit and the benefit of the other species they share the woods with. "So you kill them to help them?" she says with an eyebrow raised. "that sounds like the poor excuse a bloodthirsty animal murderer would use. Maybe it would be ok if you didn't stuff its head full of confetti and hang it on your wall. My kids are going to have PTSD is they ever come over and play in your house of 1,000 corpses."

Maybe it doesn't go exactly like that but you get the point. The way we manage deer, elk, bear and wolves is the same. It if perceived very differently. I have hunted all my life for deer and never got a sideways glance from anyone close to me. I had several close friends act disgusted when I told them I've been bear hunting for a few years also. Guess I'll have to start hunting more so I can become a front line advocate.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

Well put. Their energy and efforts are admirable. I think most of us that defend hunting fall into the conservative realm, where as I think most of the oppositioin falls into the liberal realm. I'll speak more specifically about myself in the next couple lines. I, a conservative, don't have time to make calls, pen letters, attend rallies, and those sorts of things; like the opposition does in most cases. It is a a matter of priority, not that hunting is not important to me, but getting up everyone morning, going to work to provide for the wife and children God has blessed me with ranks much higher in terms of priority. So then when I am not at work I enjoy spending time with that same family, hunting when have the opportunity. Not to mention the other outside work activities that take up time that I must do as a RESPONSIBLE, PRODUCTIVE member of society. In summary, my views are different than theirs. I don't hate them for that although I disagree with them on almost every thing imaginable. Their fruitcakes at best but they are still people. People I'd be willing to help pack and move to another country.

Not to side track the conversation but I think you're spot on. There a particularly radical candidate for congress in my area this past midterm and she gained a huge following. I conferred with a bunch of friends and we met several times to discuss how she was becoming so popular. Turns out she had an army of volunteers between 16-30 years old who would canvas all day every day. I'm in the same position as you regarding family and responsibility and I can't counter them at their own game.

One of the reasons people talk about animal rights in this country is because we have it too good. They don't have anything more important or pressing that needs their attention. Imagine a life where a wolf with a name was among the most important things in your life?

 

[Tod osier]

One thing that I haven't seen is that these wolf watchers in Yellowstone are a special breed. They are organized and dedicated far beyond the average animal activist. Every time I've been in Yellowstone there is a hoard of them - they are up before dawn and out until last light, they communicate with each other all day long about what is where and they do a tremendous amount of speaking with the public daily. Sleeping in their car to be in the right spot at the right time, high dollar optics, well organized type of folks. They can quote the pedigrees of the wolves like an British Labrador breeder with a new litter.

These wolves are a special case that makes them especially problematic given the wolf people that spend so much time watching them.

 

[Billinsd]

Not to side track the conversation but I think you're spot on. There a particularly radical candidate for congress in my area this past midterm and she gained a huge following. I conferred with a bunch of friends and we met several times to discuss how she was becoming so popular. Turns out she had an army of volunteers between 16-30 years old who would canvas all day every day. I'm in the same position as you regarding family and responsibility and I can't counter them at their own game.

One of the reasons people talk about animal rights in this country is because we have it too good. They don't have anything more important or pressing that needs their attention. Imagine a life where a wolf with a name was among the most important things in your life?

The hard left aren't really religious in any god, either. Their politics is their religion and they are fanatical about it. They believe in their heart and sole what they are doing is right. We aren't the same, our careers and family come first. A lot of these fanatics don't seem to have jobs, or families. Or at least their jobs and families come after. We are losing, just like we are losing other freedoms and liberties that are much more essential and important, like the 1st and 2nd amendment. The hard left doesn't sleep and they are bringing thousands, and thousands of new voters across the border each day. Look at California, that's the country's future. Sometimes we lose big, sometimes small. Once in a blue moon we win, however, overall we don't ever regain what we have lost. Uncontrolled immigration, out of control government entitlements, the news media, public schools. They win the emotional argument, with emotion and lies, we lose with logic and facts. The public gets dumber and dumber and more and more dependent on the government for entitlements, and think less and less for themselves. Most folks go to work, come home drink a beer, smoke a joint, numb themselves. Most have it real good, got a place to live, cable tv, beer in fridge, hot air fryer, electronic pressure cooker, packages coming in the mail every day. That's me and most other people. That's all most care for, but not me, I'm real different than most, so was my dad and Grandad. Stubborn as hell and have a mind of our own. Don't like to be told what to do, especially by the government, or hypocritical liberal elites. How can we stop this? Same way we turn California around. I got no sucessful ideas.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I always wonder why they don't show these "beloved" wolves when they're ripping the throat out of a deer or elk and the others in the pack start eating the animal while it's still alive?

 

[Muttly]

The only real-world way to fight fire is with fire and water. The trick is knowing which to use, and when to use it.

But use diesel once when water boarding, and everybody thinks yer a dick...

 

[Kevin Dill]

I always wonder why they don't show these "beloved" wolves when they're ripping the throat out of a deer or elk and the others in the pack start eating the animal while it's still alive?

View attachment 82927

For the same reasons we don't push our extraordinarily bloody photos into the eyes of non-hunters. It's shockingly hard to see, and that's why most of the NatGeo stuff you see is sanitized to minimize excess blood, hanging entrails and so on. How many non-hunters have ever seen a mother doe deliberately walk over to a fawn (not her own) and deliver a vicious hoof-strike just because she wants? Even the violent stuff gets portrayed by ARAs as part of the life cycle (we agree) and a necessary thing...good for the animals. Sure....wolves going about their business is not pleasant but...again....the ARAs are ahead of us in getting people to sympathize with ONE thing. Animals. They play us (hunters) as evil and wanton killers versus the planet's animals which are just doing...well...you know how it goes. It's far easier for a non-hunter to emotionally favor a gorgeous wolf versus a man with a gun and desire to kill it.

ARAs aren't winning the head-to-head battle when it comes down to animal rights or our rights to hunt. So they're working the fields of public opinion and gaining ground there, which is precisely how and why we lose entire seasons and species from our hunting opportunities. If they can't get an outright ban on hunting, they'll take us down piece-by-piece. That's how it works. A slow erosion of what we once had has already happened and there will be much more if we don't find more of a unified voice and strategies to counter their long game. History favor hunters and hunting, but it's good to remember history is only an accounting of what used to be.

 

[AndyB]

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/72049/1/Mindbombs of Right and Wrong.pdf

The above paper describes how the antis work, how they managed to change public opinion etc....interesting to see in the conclusion how governments and pro hunters are countering. Tactics we could all use.

 

[5MilesBack]

The above paper describes how the antis work, how they managed to change public opinion etc....

If you tell a big enough lie, and repeat it enough, people will believe it. That's what's been happening all across our nation with the national media, local media, and social media.......that's the day and age we live in. That's not going to change. But people need to start recognizing what the lies are........either by instinct, or by educating themselves. But if it doesn't affect them directly, they really don't care that it's a lie they believe.....they'll just keep believing it because that's easier than doing their own research (kind of like who really pays the taxes in this country). Heck, my own sister even believes that every NRA member is running around with fully automatic machine guns because of what the media would have her to believe.

 

[Rthur]

We're giving the anti's to much credit.
Their true power is in the complicit Media.
We are the side effect to the main objective.
Hunting for at least a part involves guns.
They play on the "feelings" of mostly ignorant target groups to create feelings of remorse.
99.99% have never spent an evening in these predators home ranges.
Most of these "caring" folks live in large cities where the predators have two legs.

R

 

[AKDoc]

Many excellent points being made in this discussion…as a hunter, thank you.

In the spirit to preserve our hunting rights, I think it is also important to keep in mind that we human beings form opinions not only based upon facts and objective analysis of those facts, but also emotion. It is a reality of our existence. Presenting facts about the importance of hunting and predator control to someone when their opinion has been based on being uninformed and/or misinformed by anti-hunting sources is definitely needed and useful. However, presenting facts seems much less useful when an opinion about hunting and predator control has been formed through emotional reasoning and/or social pressure to be against hunting and thus cool in the eyes of their peers. Despite objective analysis, there are some, hopefully not many, who believe that a sow grizzly bear will adopt an orphaned black bear cub, just as there are some who would refuse to believe that the number one predator of bear cubs is a “daddy” bear, or some that believe there is no way “Mr. Chocolate” ate Timothy Treadwell and his tragically misinformed girl-friend, etc.

The point here (of course in my opinion) is that our efforts to preserve hunting for the future and our children should be intentional, focused, and continuous. I strive to be a good example to others of the importance of hunting and predator control, and I am always happy to talk facts and field observations with others…if they are interested. That said, I do not waste my energy nor do I allow myself to get side-tracked into debate with those whose opinions are clearly and primarily emotionally based. When in those moments, and we’ve all been there I’m sure, I simply and respectfully let the person know that for many good reasons I do not share their strongly held opinion, and I also let them know that I have no intention of trying to change or debate their opinion, nor will they change mine…and I move on.

Perhaps one of the many goals we should each strive to reach as hunters is a definite “yes” answer to the following question, “Would a presentation about hunting be welcomed (or even allowed) in your community public schools?” (BTW…Treadwell was presenting in the elementary schools).

 

[Ridgerunner27]

Hey everyone, as someone on the side of being saddened when this wolf was killed I can chime in a bit here and share my own perspective.

I should preface my thoughts by saying I support hunting, hunters rights , and gun rights. And I think first off its important to not create this huge dividing line between people that care about the lives of animals other than our own. We are not all tree hugging hippies who hate hunting and violence and guns, just as many hunters do not fit the stereotypical image some on the far left will subscribe to. I guess my point is half the problem though is that each side likes to view the other side in extreme, where many do not fall into those extremes...at either side. What that does though is prevent any real dialogue or movement and simply leads to lots of finger pointing and everyone sititing in their own echo chambers shaking their heads at the "other side"

Onto Wolves. I suppose my perspective is one shared by my those friends of mine who hunt as well in that they are not cuddly friends. But research has shown wolves are “deeply emotional individuals who care about what happens to themselves, family members and friends" and further a “wolf knows who he is, and sees his packmates as individuals. He has a concept of how his actions are perceived by others. He is capable of empathy, compassion, apology and encouragement.”

Native Americans, for one respected these animals, their family dynamic and hunting prowess. Some tribes viewed them as brothers and sisters and believed hunting them was a great taboo. "The Ojibwe tribes held powerful beliefs when it came to the wolf. They describe them as members of the family, brothers or sisters, and their bonds were that close. It was believed that whatever happened to the wolves would happen to the members of the tribe. Traditional beliefs hold the wolf in high esteem, considering them sacred, able to guide them between this world and the spirit world. So when hunting is brought up, it is as though one has mentioned killing an actual person in their tribe, a cherished family member. They believe in the structure of the pack and how it works. In that context, if something happens to a pack member, the others mourn, and the pack dynamic has to shift to accommodate that loss. This is both a great sadness and a full family upset, so much so that sometimes it has a hard time coming back and working."

These animals only exist in the last wild places on this earth. We should be looking to find a way to let them live their lives as we live ours. Elk herds, after wolves were eradicated were certainly larger, but they were unnaturally larger.

As all of you know, look anywhere in nature and you see systems of balance. Nature is BUILT on balance. ( of course the false mutant Canadian wolf myth that has wolves that kill only for fun and malice and would eradicate all animals and next children refutes this, but science of course refutes this. )

Remove whole pieces from those systems and you are left with unbalanced systems, and unintended consequences. The East Coast where I am originally from, does not have a predator population and I would argue the region is worse because of it. The explosion of the ungulate population has been correlated with an explosion in the tick population. I have had Lyme disease and it is not fun. Well, many places in the East you cannot walk through the woods without exceptional protection from ticks. It is a problem. Every heard of a ghost moose? The moose in Maine have so many ticks on them they lose their fur and slowly die before collapsing from all the blood being sucked out of them. Unchecked prey populations are not the answer.

All of this is in addition to the fact that these animals (should) have a right to live their lives and support their families.

And really, as the most powerful species on this planet by far, we should be protecting them. They have no voice to protect themselves. They hurt, they feel pain, they feel loss, they place family above all else. At one time we saw them as brothers.

There is a thought experiment I like to use as an analogy here. Imagine for a moment one day a race from another solar system arrives on our planet. They are smarter, faster, stronger, and have better weapons than us. They take up residence on the earth. Instead of sharing its resources they kill us. Often mercilessly and cruelly. They poison, trap, run us down with their machines. They make us suffer. We see our family members killed before our eyes. Many of them hate us deeply and take joy in our suffering. What would we think of that species? We would call them monsters.

In the end, I only wish we would see the wolf (and all intelligent animals) as brothers and sisters that we should use our great power to protect. Wolf and bear and man hunting side by side. And where there are conflicts we settle them in a way that considers their lives as valuable and not worthless.

It is a viewpoint the best hunters share, wherein each creature is respected and loved and the wildness is what we all seek to preserve because as we know there is less and less of it out there.

I know these creatures hurt and feel loss and pain and THAT is why it saddens me to see one of these animals die, just as I feel when I know a friend has lost a family member, or when any human dies and others mourn their loss. Or when an elk dies too. The hunters that give thanks when they see the life leave the animal they have killed are the ones often also fall into this category. It is not wolves only, it is the whole of it all.

There is a story of the alpha pair of the first wolf pack in Yellowstone, the Druid peak pack. The alpha male was the patriarch and ruled over a family of almost 40 wolves. He was known for his kind but strong nature. He was a premier hunter, one of the best and helped provide for his pack at all times. He was also kind, he rarely killed another wolf that infringed on the packs territory, choosing instead to chase them off (often over and over again). His partner was killed when she wandered out of the park. Shot by a hunter, and you can imagine (and this is the part that sickens me) the high fives and smiles that this action led to. The male, his partner of many years now dead, spent weeks looking for her, howling in sadness. Until he returned to the spot where they raised their first litters of pups together and laid down there. That was the last spot he was seen. This alpha male who had strongly ruled over one of the largest wolf packs in the lower 48 ever, just gave up. He was found dead, alone, a couple weeks later.

You may say that is coincidence, that this is the time he chose to give up and choose to die. But those of us who have ever lost a love know the feeling of profound loss. I choose to believe what the science tell us that these animals feel joy, and sadness, and anger and loss and grief. I do not presume as a human I am the only species to feel emotions of any kind.

I mourn the loss of these animals, because I believe they have a soul and a spirit as all animals do.

Because I know what is to feel grief and loss. And because I feel sadness for the joy some find in inflicting suffering on another.

In the contentious predator debate, these unquantifiable qualities, the value of the life of a wolf, its soul and spirit, and beyond that how its family members feel when he/she is murdered are almost entirely absent. These animals are not numbers to be managed; they are highly intelligent individuals capable of feeling grief and joy, excitement and sadness, playfulness and determination, compassion and loneliness, and they place family above all else.

Instead of thinking of wolves as numbers or datasets, trophies to be won or targets to destroy — consider them individuals, members of families, the thinking feeling creatures of this earth that they are. Respect their spirit. Leave a place for them in your heart. Start from there and we begin to become the protectors of this planet that in an ideal world we should all hope to become.


Thanks everyone.

 

[Okhotnik]

That comment section is lit! Lots of biologists and ecologists...and nutjobs.


P.s. I hope Yvon Chouinard is weeping over spitfire's "murder"...

Yvonne, a huge anti hunting supporter, is too busy making billions with his Chinese communist slave labor. Amazing he will still be worshipped as an eco warrior and hero after what China did with the wuhan virus that is destroying lives around the world. Did Yvonne, the super hero, retool his plants like many others to help save human lives?

 

[h2so4]

Only about 16 months late...

 

[Ridgerunner27]

I think its important to consider the many people out there like me, who are pro-hunting, pro-conservation, pro gun rights, and pro wolf

 

[Okhotnik]

I think its important to consider the many people out there like me, who are pro-hunting, pro-conservation, pro gun rights, and pro wolf

so you support hunting seasons and permits to be greatly reduced due to wolves? And you you support those who want to ban guns and their close relationships with pro wolf anti hunting funding like Charles Post?

 

[Rich M]

There is nothing deep or nuanced about adults naming a wild animal and acting like they're best friends. That sounds like a mental illness. I, nor any other same person should capitulate and act as if their mentally ill view of the world is correct. Because no matter what msnbc says, its wrong.

NRA hunter magazine had an article in the past year that described how folks see animals. Lots of people see animals as friends, just like they would other people.

Dog and cat owners are a great example. Good luck if you mess w someone's dog. In this case Lotsa folks believe that is their wolf that got shot.

It is a reality that many folks no longer see animals as food or problems. As we go forward that number will increase as hunter numbers decrease.

 

[Ridgerunner27]

NRA hunter magazine had an article in the past year that described how folks see animals. Lots of people see animals as friends, just like they would other people.

Dog and cat owners are a great example. Good luck if you mess w someone's dog. In this case Lotsa folks believe that is their wolf that got shot.

It is a reality that many folks no longer see animals as food or problems. As we go forward that number will increase as hunter numbers decrease.

Hey Rich. That is more of the stereotypical view of those who are pro-wolf. That we think they are cuddly puppies and that we should all hold hands and dance in circles. That is not the case for many of us, it is more again the idea that a long time ago, this world was balanced. Wolves and other predators were not seen as enemies of man, but brothers who hunted for their families as we do.

The idea that there is a great circle of things, and it is wrong to believe we are all that matters.

There are other spirits on this planet that are trying to survive through hunting , make a life for themselves and support their family. That we are not the only thing that matters. Again, from my earlier post: consider them individuals, members of families, the thinking feeling creatures of this earth that they are.

That does not mean individuals that are happy cuddly tail wagging friends, but that they have a SPIRIT and feel pain and loss and suffering and all of that matters, or it should.

 

[Ridgerunner27]

so you support hunting seasons and permits to be greatly reduced due to wolves? And you you support those who want to ban guns and their close relationships with pro wolf anti hunting funding like Charles Post?

Hey Okhiotnik,

yes, although I don't think season being greatly reduced is necessary.

But if that is what is needed to manage healthy ungulate populations I think it is ethical for us to have hunting seasons for humans reduced IF that is what is necessary to protect all the species that call this land home. That being said, we have a right to feed our families just as much as wolves or grizzlies do, and if its my family over a wolf family I will protect my family, But my main point is I do not think it is necessary to choose one over the other.

Nature balances itself....man is a wild card because of our numbers and technology but we can find a balance

Up there in NW Wyoming we have lots of wolves, and many of my friends who are novice hunters almost ALWAYS get at least a single elk. There is not shortage of elk up here. We do not want what the east coast has, which is huge numbers of ungulate, where it is a piece of cake to hunt them since they are so plentiful, not only is that unnatural, it causes unintended consequences (in the east coast case the explosion of tick population and accompanying human diseases)