“Beloved” Wolf Killed Outside Yellowstone

[MtnOyster]

Sad to see this pop up in the news... not because a “beloved” wolf died. Sad because this is the world we live in.

'''Beloved''' wolf killed just outside Yellowstone renews debate over buffer zones | Fox News


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aaawwwww...........poor whittle thing.................(grin)

so the ole mut got a little fire spit at it............I hope it died SCREAMING!!

 

[Don Qui Puncher]

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.

Did you join Rokslide just to comment on this post?? Just a warning your going to have a less than captive audience here.

 

[Okhotnik]

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)

So you're aware that Minnesota, Wisconsin Michigan Oregon Washington are over populated with wolves and will not allow the managements due to constant lawsuits from the very wealthy and well -funded anti hunting/anti gun groups and the ungulate herds have been greatly affected in a negative way.

and whoops Im responding to a troll lol

 

[spike camp]

Aaawwwww...........poor whittle thing.................(grin)

so the ole mut got a little fire spit at it............I hope it died SCREAMING!!

Really...screaming?
No wonder, there is an ever increasing disdain for hunters.

 

[Ridgerunner27]

So you're aware that Minnesota, Wisconsin Michigan Oregon Washington are over populated with wolves and will not allow the managements due to constant lawsuits from the very wealthy and well -funded anti hunting/anti gun groups and the ungulate herds have been greatly affected in a negative way.

and whoops Im responding to a troll lol

I am aware of the wolf populations , but “over populated” is a relative term as some feel one wolf is already too many , where others think if it makes it slightly harder to tag an elk that is too many , while others think too many is based on the carrying capacity of an eco system . That term is hard to agree on since the definitions vary so much by person.

 

[Ridgerunner27]

Did you join Rokslide just to comment on this post?? Just a warning your going to have a less than captive audience here.

I guess I’m just trying to add an alternative perspective to a topic I care about. And I’m not looking for an audience but want to listen to others opinions too so I can learn.

Both sides of this issue (and really any other issue) tend to sit in their own echo chambers. While this helps to confirm our biases it just serves to deepen divides.

 

[BuzzH]

Aaawwwww...........poor whittle thing.................(grin)

so the ole mut got a little fire spit at it............I hope it died SCREAMING!!

Every once in a while, and not often thankfully, I see a post that takes stupid to places its never been. Really confirms that I don't, and won't, "stick together with all other hunters". I will never support this type of "hunter", it doesn't do anything positive or constructive to the over-all support of hunting. It does the opposite, and I don't want to be lumped in with any asshat that would say something like that.

I've shot/trapped a shit ton of animals in my life, more than a vast majority of hunters. Every once in a while, you spine a deer, elk, pronghorn, coyote, etc. and have to walk up to them and shoot them again . They vocalize sometimes and I've never thought, "good, die screaming!"

The idea that someone would hope that another living animal would die screaming, is just plain off the charts stupid. There's no place for that kind of stupidity.

As for the wolf in question, its a wolf, it was killed legally via a State approved Management plan. No different than a hunter shooting a deer, elk, bear, lion or a trapper legally taking a mink, otter, beaver, marten, bobcat, etc. Don't see the problem with any individual animal being taken legally under a State Management plan, whether or not its "named" or "famous", as long as the over-all population remains viable.

The goal of management is not to protect the individual animals, but ensure the long term survival/health of the population as a whole, the intact ecosystem as a whole.

 

[MtnOyster]

The only Ass hats on this site are the ones that can’t disagree respectively by attacking posters with insulting answers directed at individuals they don’t agree with.

It really is a high level of cowardness when we see people attacking other people that disagree, shows their real character and indicates how quiet they would be if standing in front of that person.

As for the wolves I wouldn’t care if they were totally gone, I really don’t care who likes or dislikes it...moving on..

 

[BuzzH]

The only Ass hats on this site are the ones that can’t disagree respectively by attacking posters with insulting answers directed at individuals they don’t agree with.

It really is a high level of cowardness when we see people attacking other people that disagree, shows their real character and indicates how quiet they would be if standing in front of that person.

As for the wolves I wouldn’t care if they were totally gone, I really don’t care who likes or dislikes it...moving on..

I think your real character is on display in your last post...as well as this one.

What you did get right is you don't care enough about the sport you claim to be a part of, the animals you claim to care about, the habitat they live in, to represent it in a way that makes hunting acceptable to those that will determine its fate.

Instead, rather than admit the error of your ways, you double down on the tough guy act.

Self reflection isn't your strong suit.

 

[Okhotnik]

I think your real character is on display in your last post...as well as this one.

What you did get right is you don't care enough about the sport you claim to be a part of, the animals you claim to care about, the habitat they live in, to represent it in a way that makes hunting acceptable to those that will determine its fate.

Instead, rather than admit the error of your ways, you double down on the tough guy act.

Self reflection isn't your strong suit.

Another fantastic lecture from Buzz the intellectual genius/tough guy/bully.

How's your friend Charles Post doing Buzz?

Buzz according to your resume you were paid by The Ted Turner ranch. Ted Turner has given millions to anti hunting and anti gun groups. And he has killed a lot of of game owned by the state with his fences.

Interesting a supposed conservationist like you support Billionaires, many of whom want. to end hunting, ban firearms, are moving into western states buying millions of acres and fencing it off. Previously many locals and even out of state had access to these ranches before the billionaires came in and bought up and banned hunting and ruined local economies. Oh you can hunt some of the billionaire ranches for 15,000 to 20,000 or if you buddy up to them and control and support their propaganda at state legislatures and hunting forums. . And their fences are often blocking historical game migration and they are fencing off game for themselves creating private zoos for themselves and super wealthy friends. Amazing you can come here and post with a clear conscious.

I used to fly fish the ruby river, below the high water mark, until I was constantly run off and threatened by Turner's ranch hand thugs. Amazing you can own a river and shut out the public.

"Miller defended the state land swap, saying it gave Turner 6,000 acres of state land scattered throughout Flying D, but in return the state received 11,000 acres from the Snowcrest Ranch, plus 1,100 acres at Ulm Pishkun, one of the largest prehistoric Indian buffalo jumps.
Commercial elk hunting on the Flying D has also raised concerns about privatizing wildlife. Fairhurst said Turner opened the eyes of Montana ranchers to how much money could be made from private hunting and locking out the public.
Miller responded that in the 22 years Turner has owned the Flying D, about 650 hunters have paid to hunt bull elk. The ranch takes only 35 hunters a year, who pay around $13,000 for the privilege. Revenue from those hunts barely offsets the value of the grazing the ranch provides to wildlife, Miller said.
In 22 years, the Flying D invited 8,500 public hunters to hunt cow elk. The special late-season hunt ended after a disagreement between the ranch and the state FWP. Miller said the agency wanted the public to hunt at the same time as the private hunters, but that wouldn’t have worked.


Buzz aren't you constantly blaming the over harvest of cow elk and not wolves for the elk problem? As long as your billionaire buddies do it you don't say a peep. Amazing but am sure the money is good.

The billionaires throw a few pennies to locals for positive press and keep buying up more land behind their backs and shutting more people off the lands where generations grew up.


Bravo to you Buzz for aiding the sell out of the west and its game to the highest bidder!!

Ted Turner’s buffalo fences cause stir at Robb Creek

No one will ever know for certain what killed the elk whose bones lay bleached on a ridge that separates a parcel of state land from the Robb Creek Wildlife

helenair.com

 

[Okhotnik]

Buzz remember when your buddy Ted Turner gave a billion dollars to the United Nations?

Sign the Petition

United Nations: BAN Trophy Hunting. END Export/Imports. PRISON for Poachers.

www.change.org

 

[Okhotnik]

Hows your buddy Blake doing buzz? Remember the anti gun video he and Charles Post posted on instagram? Sitka ended up schitcanning Post because of this. lol


Follow the money not the lies and propaganda posted on here. He comes on here with his condescending posts and thinks were all a bunch of rubes to be educated by him.

TOMS founder Blake Mycoskie donates $5million to gun control groups

Blake Mycoskie announced the largest corporate gift to the cause of ending gun violence during an appearance on NBC’s Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon on Monday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Squamch]

I guess I’m just trying to add an alternative perspective to a topic I care about. And I’m not looking for an audience but want to listen to others opinions too so I can learn.

Both sides of this issue (and really any other issue) tend to sit in their own echo chambers. While this helps to confirm our biases it just serves to deepen divides.

Stop saying that nature will balance itself. It doesn't.
Humans, through management, try to balance it. Naturally, we see ebbs and flows in populations.
Ungulate herds are decimated by wolves, until there isn't enough left to support the wolves. Then the wolves move on to decimate another population, or die off. Ungulates are able to recover at this point.
Eventually, the wolves come back for another bust cycle on the ungulates.

Lynx and rabbit are another boom and bust predator/prey cycle. Not a balance. More of a pendulum.

So, to maintain huntable populations of ungulates, we shoot predators. To protect livestock, we shoot predators. To protect pets, we shoot predators. To protect humans, we shoot predators.

You see, humans are at the top of the food chain. We get to do whatever is necessary to stay here. Just like a wolf pack kills a solo wolf, or a coyote, or digs out a bear den to protect their food sources...we do that with wolves.

 

[BuzzH]

Another fantastic lecture from Buzz the intellectual genius/tough guy/bully.

How's your friend Charles Post doing Buzz?

Buzz according to your resume you were paid by The Ted Turner ranch. Ted Turner has given millions to anti hunting and anti gun groups. And he has killed a lot of of game owned by the state with his fences.

Interesting a supposed conservationist like you support Billionaires, many of whom want. to end hunting, ban firearms, are moving into western states buying millions of acres and fencing it off. Previously many locals and even out of state had access to these ranches before the billionaires came in and bought up and banned hunting and ruined local economies. Oh you can hunt some of the billionaire ranches for 15,000 to 20,000 or if you buddy up to them and control and support their propaganda at state legislatures and hunting forums. . And their fences are often blocking historical game migration and they are fencing off game for themselves creating private zoos for themselves and super wealthy friends. Amazing you can come here and post with a clear conscious.

I used to fly fish the ruby river, below the high water mark, until I was constantly run off and threatened by Turner's ranch hand thugs. Amazing you can own a river and shut out the public.

"Miller defended the state land swap, saying it gave Turner 6,000 acres of state land scattered throughout Flying D, but in return the state received 11,000 acres from the Snowcrest Ranch, plus 1,100 acres at Ulm Pishkun, one of the largest prehistoric Indian buffalo jumps.
Commercial elk hunting on the Flying D has also raised concerns about privatizing wildlife. Fairhurst said Turner opened the eyes of Montana ranchers to how much money could be made from private hunting and locking out the public.
Miller responded that in the 22 years Turner has owned the Flying D, about 650 hunters have paid to hunt bull elk. The ranch takes only 35 hunters a year, who pay around $13,000 for the privilege. Revenue from those hunts barely offsets the value of the grazing the ranch provides to wildlife, Miller said.
In 22 years, the Flying D invited 8,500 public hunters to hunt cow elk. The special late-season hunt ended after a disagreement between the ranch and the state FWP. Miller said the agency wanted the public to hunt at the same time as the private hunters, but that wouldn’t have worked.


Buzz aren't you constantly blaming the over harvest of cow elk and not wolves for the elk problem? As long as your billionaire buddies do it you don't say a peep. Amazing but am sure the money is good.

The billionaires throw a few pennies to locals for positive press and keep buying up more land behind their backs and shutting more people off the lands where generations grew up.


Bravo to you Buzz for aiding the sell out of the west and its game to the highest bidder!!

Ted Turner’s buffalo fences cause stir at Robb Creek

No one will ever know for certain what killed the elk whose bones lay bleached on a ridge that separates a parcel of state land from the Robb Creek Wildlife

helenair.com

Not sure what your point is...but I'll answer a couple of your questions, some you're going to have to ask others...as I have no idea what your whining about.

1. I have no clue who Charles Post is, never heard of him. I have no idea who "Blake" is, and its none of my business who Ted donates money to, its his to do with as he chooses.

2. I worked for TEI via a contract as a State of Montana employee. I worked almost exclusively on that contract as a PM for about 2 years of the 3.5 I worked for the State. I also worked on several other contracts for various Tribal, State, Federal and Private Landowners. Did a fair bit of work on the upper Clark Fork doing riparian mitigation for that mess (largest superfund site in the world).

So, if you want to be schooled and put in your place, with direct knowledge of what I did, and what was going on between 1999-early 2001 on the places I worked, be more than happy to share what I did and why. Nothing to hide and it was very rewarding work. One of the things I learned early on, was there is a lot of plain BS that gets spread around about what goes on with Turners ranches.

Just from the few comments you made here, there is no doubt you're just flat wrong...exaggerating the reality is a polite way of saying you're a liar. You have a real penchant for bad mouthing others, stirring chit, and when your bluff is called, you run for cover, it gets old.

That's about all I'm going to say about it, unless you want to start another thread, because its really not pertinent to this one.

Your move chief...

 

[BackcountryBloodline]

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.

Hmm you literally just said we should see them as brothers. Your first comment tells me you've been very selective with your research on the topic. The native american tribes that didn't actively trap wolves were few and far between and there is significant evidence to this fact. The vast majority had deadfall traps set along every river system in their territory, both intertribal warfare and the trapping/hunting of 4 legged predators were practiced in order to manage resources almost universally. Sure there were exceptions but that's exactly what they were, certainly not the norm. Nature only truly balance itself with us keeping count, we are part of nature in case you didn't notice...in the absence of us there are generally large swings and crashes on either side of a predator/prey relationship, that's not balance in my opinion. Have you ever seen a wolf doing aerial surveys on caribou herds or sheep counts in order to determine how many of each sex can sustainably be harvested? That isn't because they're inherently evil but simply because they can't. Do you happen to have any sources for the scientific literature indicating such in depth knowledge of self regarding wolves? One would think if they were that self aware they would also be aware that eating something alive is very painful and attempt to kill them as quickly and cleanly as possible, humans are one of the few predatory species with that line of thought though. Are you aware with the current situation with the Selkirk caribou herd in BC and the wolf population in that area? Some people here in BC felt we should see grizzly bears as "brothers" and allow them to balance themselves out, that was just a few years ago and people are already learning just how "brotherly" those silvertips are! Science is fully on the side of regulated wolf hunting, nobody wants to see wolves extinct but if you have an issue with quota based wolf hunting you are most certainly on the side of emotion and not science.

 

[ewade07]

Man, there are some dudes on here that truly hate wolves. @MtnOyster Thats some pretty f'd up stuff to say about a living, breathing animal. I agree With @BuzzH on that one, really shows your true character as a hunter. No respect.

 

[ewade07]

Aaawwwww...........poor whittle thing.................(grin)

so the ole mut got a little fire spit at it............I hope it died SCREAMING!!

If you don't like the wolves stay in Kentucky. Sheesh.

 

[Bubblehide]

I am aware of the wolf populations , but “over populated” is a relative term as some feel one wolf is already too many , where others think if it makes it slightly harder to tag an elk that is too many , while others think too many is based on the carrying capacity of an eco system . That term is hard to agree on since the definitions vary so much by person.

Over populated is not a relative term at all, it is a scientific term utilized by the scientific community of wildlife biologist employed by Fish and Wildlife agencies. The only people attempting to make the term relative are those employed by supposed conservation organizations that twist and distort things to suit their agendas. mIt has everything to do with carrying capacity as it directly relates to healthy sustainable populations.

You mention that some think "one wolf is already too many"., Yet you fail to recognize the other side of the coin; some think there can not be to many wolves. As such the only approach to wolf management is that of the F&W biologist that takes into account that healthy sustainable factor in which those that think there can't be to many are so willing to decimate the ecosystem.

 

[bsnedeker]

I guess I’m just trying to add an alternative perspective to a topic I care about. And I’m not looking for an audience but want to listen to others opinions too so I can learn.

Both sides of this issue (and really any other issue) tend to sit in their own echo chambers. While this helps to confirm our biases it just serves to deepen divides.

Bottom line: You are being ruled by your emotions. Explain to me why a wolf is different from any other game species in this country other than the fact that they kind of look like our pets? Why do they deserve some special treatment above every other game animal in this country? You don't seem concerned about elk, deer, or moose...they don't have any feelings? What about cats and bears? Are they are "brothers" too, and if so, why?

If there was a region on this earth that was full of wildlife but completely devoid of human beings I would be all for letting it "naturally" manage, but understand that "natural" only means "without people" (note: no such place exists on this earth). My biggest problem with this mindset is the idea that if people are involved it is somehow no longer "natural". When did human beings become something greater than/outside of nature? We are a part of the natural order just as much as any other animal on this planet and we have just as much of a right to it's resources as any other living being on the planet. The only difference is we are the one species that limits ourselves as a whole based on the availability of any given resource based on SCIENCE.

Now look: I'm about as pro-wolf as any real hunter can be. I think they are cool animals and should be on the landscape. The difference between us is that I feel they need to be managed by hunting just like every other game animal in this country and you are making the case that wolves are some kind of special snowflake that needs to be protected because you have anthropomorphized wolves to a ridiculous degree (go back and read your first post if you don't agree).

 

[tdot]

Accidental post