Wolf hunting in the US.

[plblark]

YES

[LarryFlew]

YES

[Pat]

Yes, but...

A healthy population of top line predators is a good sign that nature is in balance. That being said, I don't like the idea of wolves and cougars potentially threatening house pets and small children. However, wolf and cougar both taste crappy, regardless of how much hot sauce yoou use.

[justaguy]

I live in the burbs and will believe what the people with boots on the ground are telling me. Which is they are killing a lot of big game.

Pat try crock potting them. It really brings out the flavor.

[Pat]

I live in the burbs and will believe what the people with boots on the ground are telling me. Which is they are killing a lot of big game.

Pat try crock potting them. It really brings out the flavor.

[Sipowicz]

I said it before and I will say it again, I'm not opposed to population control, but control isn't eradication. Nor is control using the inhumane tactics that are still occuring in Alaska of aerial hunting. I'm really not opposed to hunting anything, regardless of how cute, cuddly, or whatever it may look or be. It's the manner in which it is done where I have the problem; Irealize there has to be a control of the population though. A bounty is the road to extinction which is certainly not right. That said, this problem as is most problems with any wild animals is US invading where they lived first. Yes, being at the top of the food chain (us) gives us the ability to do that, but that doesn't grant a right to eradicate anything and everything in our way.

As for wolves killing because they want to, all I can go on is the scientific research books and articles I have read that suggest otherwise. I have not had personal experience so I can't attest as many here say they can based on experience. What I can say though is that these (or any hunting animal) weren't trained in any special way - it's how they are programmed from creation (or whatever you believe started this ball in motion).

[Rem700]

[quote="Sipowicz"]I said it before and I will say it again, I'm not opposed to population control, but control isn't eradication. Nor is control using the inhumane tactics that are still occuring in Alaska of aerial hunting. I'm really not opposed to hunting anything, regardless of how cute, cuddly, or whatever it may look or be. It's the manner in which it is done where I have the problem; Irealize there has to be a control of the population though. A bounty is the road to extinction which is certainly not right. That said, this problem as is most problems with any wild animals is US invading where they lived first. Yes, being at the top of the food chain (us) gives us the ability to do that, but that doesn't grant a right to eradicate anything and everything in our way.

How is aerial hunting inhumane as compared to hunting them on the ground?
Maybe I am confused with aerial hunting, What do they do take the wolves up in a plane and then push them out the door to there death?

[Sipowicz]

Maybe I am confused with aerial hunting, What do they do take the wolves up in a plane and then push them out the door to there death?

Aerial hunting is chasing the animal (specifically wolves here, but could be any animal) in a helicopter all over the place until it is exhausted, landing the chopper, then walking up to the animal at point blank range and shooting it.

Another inhumane method of wolf eradication is putting a container releasing toxic gases in the wolf den, essentially performing a Hitler-esque gas chamber. Any that happen to survive stumble out and are killed by the bear traps placed outside the den (not hidden, because there is no need to when the animal is stumbling in sheer stupor due to the toxic fumes).

[jac714]

How is aerial hunting inhumane as compared to hunting them on the ground?
Maybe I am confused with aerial hunting, What do they do take the wolves up in a plane and then push them out the door to there death?

I want to be there to see someone load a small plane up with wolves and try to take off. I cannot imagine many places worse for continued survival than being in a small box with a bunch of scared pissed off wolves.

I doubt the plane would make past engine start without the wolves freaking out.

Be interesting to watch.

[EJSG19]

How is aerial hunting inhumane as compared to hunting them on the ground?
Maybe I am confused with aerial hunting, What do they do take the wolves up in a plane and then push them out the door to there death?

I was really hoping that they mount an overgrown potato gun on the plane. Then its all Civil War cannon crew from there. Swab the barrel, ram some powder in, then cram a wolf down the bore. Get the thing all Roostered and ready to go, then blast the sucker. Going for accuracy and best distance of course.

Thats my idea of shooting wolves from planes.

On another note. Aerial hunting = chasing them till they're tired, then shooting them point blank? I'm afraid I might have to lay BullPlop on that one. Wolves are the endurance kings of nature. If I hunted one, it would be from a healthy distance. If offered the chance to go shake hands with a Timberwolf, I'll be saying "Thanks but no Thanks, that is why I have a rifle you Effing idiot."

[justaguy]

Maybe I am confused with aerial hunting, What do they do take the wolves up in a plane and then push them out the door to there death?

Aerial hunting is chasing the animal (specifically wolves here, but could be any animal) in a helicopter all over the place until it is exhausted, landing the chopper, then walking up to the animal at point blank range and shooting it.

Another inhumane method of wolf eradication is putting a container releasing toxic gases in the wolf den, essentially performing a Hitler-esque gas chamber. Any that happen to survive stumble out and are killed by the bear traps placed outside the den (not hidden, because there is no need to when the animal is stumbling in sheer stupor due to the toxic fumes).

As long as the kill is quick it is not inhumane. Is it inhumane to kill cattle for beef? They bring them into the butcher house and shoot a rod into their skull. Little to no suffering.

The gas chamber example might be inhumane depending on how quick the kill is. I have never looked or care to look into your gas chamber claims, but.....Who would set traps outside a den with wolves just inside, and then throw some kind of gas into the den? Then wait for dazed and confused, possibly pissed off wolfs to stumble into traps?

Sipowicz, if you really want to be put in a bad mood look up the hunting regs. on feral hogs in TX. Inhumane and sporting are two different things.

[R.E.T.]

I said it before and I will say it again, I'm not opposed to population control, but control isn't eradication. Nor is control using the inhumane tactics that are still occuring in Alaska of aerial hunting. I'm really not opposed to hunting anything, regardless of how cute, cuddly, or whatever it may look or be. It's the manner in which it is done where I have the problem; Irealize there has to be a control of the population though. A bounty is the road to extinction which is certainly not right. That said, this problem as is most problems with any wild animals is US invading where they lived first. Yes, being at the top of the food chain (us) gives us the ability to do that, but that doesn't grant a right to eradicate anything and everything in our way.

How is aerial hunting inhumane as compared to hunting them on the ground?
Maybe I am confused with aerial hunting, What do they do take the wolves up in a plane and then push them out the door to there death?

When I flew into the BWCA (yes that was some time ago) the pilot said they hunted wolves in the winter time. They had a shotgun hooked up to the landing gear and would chase the wolves out of the woods onto the lake ice where they were not able to maneuver very well and shoot them.

[Pat]

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/ ... est/12739/

Wolf Hunts to Open, Judge Eyes Injunction Request

By Matthew Brown, Associated Press, 08-31-09
MISSOULA – Gray wolf hunting was set to begin in the Northern Rockies, even as a federal judge eyed a request to stop the killing of the predators just four months after they were removed from the endangered species list.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said Monday he would rule as quickly as he could on a last-minute injunction sought by environmental and animal welfare groups opposed to the hunts in Idaho and Montana.

Hunters were poised to head into the field Tuesday in Idaho, where a quota allowed as many as 220 wolves to be killed. Montana's season is set to begin Sept. 15, with a quota of 75 wolves.

Missoula hunter Mac McLaughlin attended Monday's court hearing then left to buy his hunting tag, saying he was tired of the wolves attacking elk. He intended to use an elk call to lure wolves.

"If the opportunity comes up, you bet I'll shoot one," he said. "There's got to be a balance and our game populations have taken a terrible beating."

More than 9,000 hunters in Idaho already have bought tags allowing them to kill a wolf. Tags went on sale Monday in Montana.

Wolves were removed from the endangered species list in Idaho and Montana in May, with management of the animals transferred to the state wildlife agencies.

Doug Honnold of the environmental law firm Earthjustice said wolves remained at risk because the states had insufficient safeguards to ensure their safety.

"It's the endangered species that need to be protected, not the states' rights to kill wolves," Honnold said during the hearing.

Michael Eitel, representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency would keep monitoring the wolves and step in to return the species to the endangered list if warranted.

"The Northern Rocky Mountain wolves are doing very well," Eitel said. "Yes there might be wolves that are killed, but that will not affect the population in Idaho and Montana."

Wolves once roamed North America but by the 1930s had been largely exterminated outside Alaska and Canada. An estimated 1,650 of the animals now live in the Northern Rockies — the result of a contentious $30 million reintroduction program that began in 1995.

Today, the debate centers on whether that population will remain viable if hunting is allowed. That population is now five times the original recovery goal set in the 1990s.

Wyoming was carved out of the territory where wolves were removed from the endangered list.

That prompted Honnold to claim the government had "flip-flopped" on a prior policy against making endangered species decisions based on political boundaries.

In court, Eitel acknowledged his agency changed its position on the issue but urged Judge Molloy to accept its latest interpretation of the law.

Molloy appeared doubtful. "How am I supposed to make judgment as to which of their positions to give deference to?" he asked.

Molloy gave no indication how he might rule on the injunction request. State wildlife officials said the hunts would proceed pending the ruling.

Last year, Molloy sided with environmentalists in a similar case.

As a result, the federal government kept about 300 wolves in Wyoming on the endangered list.

[DeanC]

The way to ensure a stable wolf population is to allow limited hunting, charging large fees for the permits and dedicate those revenues to wolf management.

...and free kickass wolf shirts for everyone!