Time to get a wolf gun.


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
December 21, 2011, 04:45 PM
.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45751709/ns/us_news-environment/




Western gray wolves coming off endangered list

Decision reflects trend of giving authority to states; some question timing


updated 12/21/2011 1:13:51 PM ET

ATLANTA, Mich. The gray wolf populations in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin have recovered from near extinction and as a result will be removed from the endangered species list, the Obama administration announced Wednesday.





They said they they are coming of the ES list on January 27th and might have a season in MN by this Fall. I figure a .223/5.56 AR15 will work fine on wolves albeit trapping will probably be more effective.



Has anyone on here shot a wolf? Do you know what caliber will work best of wolves?

.

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to get a wolf gun." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ben86
December 21, 2011, 04:55 PM
I'd want something with a little more authority than .223, perhaps .308 or 30-06 instead. Wolves are pretty big critters compared to coyotes.

It will be interesting how this new development effects the gun market. Wait and see, as there are rifles marketed as coyote/varmints rifles there will be "wolf" rifles.

usmarine0352_2005
December 21, 2011, 05:01 PM
.

I agree.




I suppose they could take the AR10's in .308 and call them the "Predator" or something like that.




Perhaps 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel or Creedmoor could also be good for wolves.

.

JustinJ
December 21, 2011, 05:30 PM
An animal is off the endangered species list and your first thought is how you can blow it away? I enjoy hunting for food but pity people who have no other way to enjoy nature. But isn't there a hunting forum for a reason?

Bobson
December 21, 2011, 05:36 PM
Agreed, idk why this wasn't posted in hunting.

Side note, are animals automatically allowed to be hunted once removed from the endangered list? as a result will be removed from the endangered species listBecause this doesn't say anything about being added to the list of legal game.

Trad Archer
December 21, 2011, 05:47 PM
I live in Minnesota and hunt the north country. I've seen first hand what these wolves have done to the deer populations as well as peoples pets.

I commonly seen packs averaging 4-7.

These animals need to be thinned out and a hunting season I believe would be the best way to do that.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 21, 2011, 05:49 PM
JustinJ, You may want to educate yourself a little bit on the nature of Wolves and the problems that they cause with the Deer species. Wolves, since the idiots in the DNR decided to repopulate them into Yellowstone, have caused EXTREME damage to the Elk and other Deer families. They procreate pretty heavily and they NEED to be controlled or you will start to see Elk, White-Tail, Mule Deer, and pretty much every other Cervidae where they roam, decimated!

While yes the Wolves are bigger than yotes, they are pretty much just as easily killed as the song dog. Every Wolf I have taken has been with a .220swift except for a couple that presented themselves when I was hunting Caribou and they were dispatched with a .30/06. The .223, while you will be more range limited than you would be with a .308, is plenty of cartridge for the Wolf. The 50gr Varmint Grenade, The 55gr V-Max either one would put the drop on a Wolf very easily. I have yet to have one take more than a couple of steps after being hit with my .220swift loaded up with 55gr V-Max. They are also really good pelt savers as well. Small entrance and rarely an exit. Turn the insides into mush!

buck460XVR
December 21, 2011, 06:10 PM
Since folks have been killing wolves with the guns they have for hundreds of years, so I'm thinkin' I'm just fine with what I have on hand. Since for me the hunt is more important than the kill, I'd probably use a handgun of some kind. That is is I ever get lucky enough to draw a kill permit. Since the kill goals for each of the Midwest states is probably in the low hundreds and permit applications will be in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, odds will be pretty slim. Once the overall numbers get to where each state wants them, kill goals will probably be even lower. I doubt that in my lifetime, we will ever see unlimited over the counter tags for wolves here in the Midwest.

Ben86
December 21, 2011, 08:54 PM
An animal is off the endangered species list and your first thought is how you can blow it away? I enjoy hunting for food but pity people who have no other way to enjoy nature. But isn't there a hunting forum for a reason?

I take it you have never experienced the thrill of predator or dangerous game hunting.

Once the overall numbers get to where each state wants them, kill goals will probably be even lower.

I've read it's the opposite. The kill goals are way higher than the amount of people actually going wolf hunting can even achieve. That's why they have lowered the cost of non-resident licenses and tags.

What Freedom says is true. These animals left with unchecked populations will cause other species to be endangered and also threaten livestock and eventually even human populations if there numbers get way out of control.

bad_aim_billy
December 21, 2011, 09:31 PM
I'd want something with a little more authority than .223, perhaps .308 or 30-06 instead. Wolves are pretty big critters compared to coyotes.

Why. The average wolf isn't even as big as an average mule deer out here. I guess I'd better break out the .416 for wolf hunting, wait, no, I'll opt for something with a little more authority, .600 NE

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 21, 2011, 10:49 PM
LOL I know Billy, I guess since they have teeth and weigh over 100 pounds (Actual average weight of over 30 that I've taken has been just over 100 pounds) they think they need a Howitzer to take it down! The Biggest one I have ever taken was an Alaskan Wolf that was over 140 and the .220swift loaded with 55gr V-Max dropped him like a bag of hammers hit him. While they may weigh as much as an average southern white-tail doe, they are nowhere near as densely boned. While their fur coat is thicker, their skin and fat content under the skin is about half that of a white-tail. All in all they are fairly easy to kill, just hard to find for the most part. Unless you are hunting the tundras or the open fields from high up, you generally will not spot them over 200 yards. They tend to stick to heavy cover then break out after their prey.

caribou
December 22, 2011, 12:35 AM
Where I live, withopen country and suck, Fur Hunters use FMJ's for minimal pelt damage and most use .30 caliber quite successfully.
I use an M-39 Mosin to great effect for long range running shots...... :D

Heres a couple vids on the long ranges .30 cal can give you on a Wolf.
When you come onto a pack, they will split up and run different directions. If you have alotta gas, track 'em, outflank 'em and get em at a stedy lopeing speed. If you dont, get comfy and quiet and Howle now and then, and they will come to you.
Once wolves are spooked, they DO NOT take a 'Last look' or stop for anything. They will circle back, but howling will let them think they are joining up again.

Ive posted these vids before, so watch em for amusement and know that Wolf Hunting is fun and profitable.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g71/edwardhailstone/th_BlackWolfApril10.jpg (http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g71/edwardhailstone/?action=view&current=BlackWolfApril10.mp4)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g71/edwardhailstone/th_Wolf.jpg (http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g71/edwardhailstone/?action=view&current=Wolf.mp4)

Dmitri Popov
December 22, 2011, 01:08 AM
First 4 or 5 minutes of "Enemy at the Gates" will show exactly how to deal with wolves...

DM~
December 22, 2011, 11:23 AM
An animal is off the endangered species list and your first thought is how you can blow it away?


YES, and i do every chance i get!

Wolves are killing machines, and DO kill much more than they can eat. I wish you could have seen them do some of the things i have seen them do, you may then think differently...

They decimate the game herds every place they go, then move on to do it all over again...

DM

BikerRN
December 22, 2011, 12:08 PM
In my world the only good wolf or coyote is a dead one.
Therefore I will use whatever I have at hand to kill them even if it's not the most effective and causes them to run off and die a miserable death days later.
Clean and ethical kills are for animals I respect.

Biker

Dr.Mall Ninja
December 22, 2011, 01:19 PM
In my world the only good wolf or coyote is a dead one.
Therefore I will use whatever I have at hand to kill them even if it's not the most effective and causes them to run off and die a miserable death days later.
Clean and ethical kills are for animals I respect.

Biker Unless a Wolf ate your first born child, I have no idea how you could hate an animal that much.... Why?

walking arsenal
December 22, 2011, 01:32 PM
An animal is off the endangered species list and your first thought is how you can blow it away? I enjoy hunting for food but pity people who have no other way to enjoy nature.

I agree. It's pure ignorance that fuels these people. I would be willing to bet most have never actually caught a wolf in the act. They see dog tracks in the live stock pen and think wolf so that's what they kill.

What we do have issues with are the packs of wild dogs here in Mn thanks to the dog owners letting their widdle kujo run wild. They are far more dangerous than wolves and are the real reason I carry a gun when I'm out in the woods.

I'll shoot a loose dog faster than you can blink but I've never seen a wolf get after anything but their normal prey. I let them go. Yeah they eat deer but that's what they do.

We have a pack of Wolves on our land that has been there for some time. They've never bothered anything, not even the milk cows, and they keep the deer heard healthy.

Coyotes are a different story though. It's a shame the farmers around here can't tell the difference.

BikerRN
December 22, 2011, 01:34 PM
I hate wolves for what they do to livestock.
There is no place for the wolf in the lower 48 as far as I'm concerned. I also hate them for thier decimation of deer and elk herds, animals I enjoy hunting.

Biker

Dr.Mall Ninja
December 22, 2011, 01:44 PM
Hunting is one thing, but the animal is a natural predator just like you and me. I dont understand how you can HATE based on nature.

creativetownsman
December 22, 2011, 02:01 PM
In my world the only good wolf or coyote is a dead one.
Therefore I will use whatever I have at hand to kill them even if it's not the most effective and causes them to run off and die a miserable death days later.
Clean and ethical kills are for animals I respect.

Biker
Totally offensive, ridiculous comment. Good luck with a good psychiatrist. You're blocked.

BikerRN
December 22, 2011, 02:04 PM
Hunting is one thing, but the animal is a natural predator just like you and me. I dont understand how you can HATE based on nature.

Go back and read the first sentence of my post.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 22, 2011, 02:40 PM
I agree. It's pure ignorance that fuels these people. I would be willing to bet most have never actually caught a wolf in the act. They see dog tracks in the live stock pen and think wolf so that's what they kill.

In my case sir, you would lose that bet! I have SEEN what they do. I, and most real outdoorsmen that I know, can easily tell the difference between a Wolf track and a feral dog track. I sat up on a hilltop and watched as a pack of 9 Wolves trailed, circled, then brought down 3 Elk, 2 cows and a a yearling calf. They ate one ham out of one of the Cows, both hams out of the other, and less than half of the calf before they trotted off. I also have seen many ranchers that have been having problems with Wolves in Montana taking down calves. An adult Wolf track is, at minimum, twice as big as a Coyote track as well as MOST feral dogs so they know it's Wolves.

Walking_arsenal, creativetownsman, And JustinJ, before you pipe up and spew your own brands of ignorance about a subject, bone up on some facts please. Those of us in the real world that actually DO have experience with these animals may just know quite a bit more than you guys reading animal digest for your knowledge base.

BikerRN, in one way I have to agree with what they said to a degree. NO animal deserves an inhumane death. Except maybe the Human animal that rapes and molests children. THEM I would agree deserve as slow and painful a death as possible. But no animal deserves that. Wolves are following their nature. They are predators and are VERY good at what they are designed for. They do need to be controlled so that their nature does not decimate the deer herds. BUT they do not need to be wiped out completely. They are part of natures population control and should always be respected.

BikerRN
December 22, 2011, 02:45 PM
BikerRN, in one way I have to agree with what they said to a degree. NO animal deserves an inhumane death. Except maybe the Human animal that rapes and molests children. THEM I would agree deserve as slow and painful a death as possible. But no animal deserves that. Wolves are following their nature. They are predators and are VERY good at what they are designed for. They do need to be controlled so that their nature does not decimate the deer herds. BUT they do not need to be wiped out completely. They are part of natures population control and should always be respected.

Freedom Fighter in IL: We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on what wolves deserve. :)

BikerRN

Dr.Mall Ninja
December 22, 2011, 03:01 PM
Walking_arsenal, Dr.Mall_Ninja, creativetownsman, And JustinJ, before you pipe up and spew your own brands of ignorance about a subject, bone up on some facts please. Those of us in the real world that actually DO have experience with these animals may just know quite a bit more than you guys reading animal digest for your knowledge base

FreedomFighter: I admit I'm from the city of St.Louis and have never even seen a wolf in the wild. I never said that hunting a wolf is wrong, I'm not on expert on the problem with livestock and such, but if they need to be controlled so be it.

Yet you said I was spewing ignorance. I think that you don't have to be an expert on wolves to know it is wrong to wish an inhumane death upon an animal. It is also absurd to hate something based on it's nature.

Just to clarify once more
Wolf hunting=OKAY
Wishing them to suffer=Wrong

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 22, 2011, 03:16 PM
Just to clarify once more
Wolf hunting=OKAY
Wishing them to suffer=Wrong

Agreed there, My apologies there Doc. I went back and reread what all you all said and noticed my mistake in putting you in that list.

elkdomBC
December 22, 2011, 03:27 PM
here in NE British Columbia wolf populations have exploded, although there is open season all year with some restrictions, few are killed by hunters,an overpopulation of wolves is having a very negative effect on moose, elk, caribou, wild sheep and deer ,Government wolf reduction is on standby because of general public attitudes(The Disney Concept) that wolves can get along in nature without wolf numbers control programs, not true!

I will include a couple pictures of some "good wolves",,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The Red Hot Rider
December 22, 2011, 03:36 PM
The wolves were here loooooong before we were. I think the attitude of "they don't deserve to be here" is the same attitude of "manifest destiny". These people/animals don't fit my idea of what this land should be like or about, so let's kill 'em by any means necessary. Let's start with some nice smallpox-infested blankets...

Don't get me wrong. I'm far from being a tree hugger. I'm actually a life-long hunter and shooter, which means I've killed many an animal....but always humanely and quickly...even rats.

When people say asinine statements like "In my world the only good wolf or coyote is a dead one.
Therefore I will use whatever I have at hand to kill them even if it's not the most effective and causes them to run off and die a miserable death days later.
Clean and ethical kills are for animals I respect."

...it makes me want to post disclaimers stating, "...this person's views do not in any way represent those of the hunting/shooting community-at-large".

If the wolves need to be culled for their own good or the good of the prey species, fine. I'm all for that. However, for God's sake, do it right...do it humanely. Do it in a way that shows you are more advanced than the animals you are culling.

creativetownsman
December 22, 2011, 03:43 PM
FreedomFighter: I admit I'm from the city of St.Louis and have never even seen a wolf in the wild. I never said that hunting a wolf is wrong, I'm not on expert on the problem with livestock and such, but if they need to be controlled so be it.

Yet you said I was spewing ignorance. I think that you don't have to be an expert on wolves to know it is wrong to wish an inhumane death upon an animal. It is also absurd to hate something based on it's nature.

Just to clarify once more
Wolf hunting=OKAY
Wishing them to suffer=Wrong
Yeah, I don't object to the hunting. I just don't think it's ethical or humane to torture any animal, especially if they're doing what comes natural. Besides, man's greatest friend would not exist were it not for the wolf.

Let's not do the macho, sadistic view of animals who are only doing what they do because it's in their nature. Besides, we moved in on their habitat.

These type of comments only help the anti-gunner movement. Grow up, fellas!

walking arsenal
December 22, 2011, 05:34 PM
Before you pipe up and spew your own brands of ignorance about a subject, bone up on some facts please. Those of us in the real world that actually DO have experience with these animals may just know quite a bit more than you guys reading animal digest for your knowledge base.

Ha ha! I live in Northern Minnesota and have volunteered at two wolf research centers tracking and tagging them. Its an area of study for me. I'd say that's pretty real world.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 22, 2011, 06:23 PM
Ha ha! I live in Northern Minnesota and have volunteered at two wolf research centers tracking and tagging them. Its an area of study for me. I'd say that's pretty real world.



Sure not evidenced by your highly uneducated comments in saying that most of us could not tell the difference between Wolf and feral dog tracks. Also not evidenced by your extremely uneducated comments alluding that the Wolf population does not endanger cattle. Let me educate you there young man. When that pack of yours starts getting low on deer, which will happen in a short period of time, the cattle around you will start experiencing Wolves in all of their glory. I do not, nor would I ever, advocate extermination of a species (except wild hogs but thats a different subject all together) but I do advocate the CONTROL of Wolves as I have seen first hand the damage that they pose if left unchecked. Just take a look at Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho's Elk population since the Wolf was reintroduced! One thing about math, it can not lie!

Art Eatman
December 22, 2011, 06:37 PM
For those who don't think wolves are a problem for ranchers, consider that the original reason for eradication was their depredation upon the cattle herds in the early years of northern-state ranching in the west. Remember, the buffalo were replaced by cows--as well as sheep.

Livestock losses in New Mexico are well established, as noted in quite a few articles at http://www.rangemagazine.com. Check the archives. Quite a few first-hand reports.

Regardless of hunting or not hunting, "balance" or eradication, the restoration of wolves is a feel-good deal. Wolves or grizzly bears, they are not needed for us to survive as a species--with plenty of meat for us to eat as well as our having wool sweaters and leather belts and shoes. If people are going to impose their own notions of righteousness upon others, they bear the responsibility for the problems they cause.

In the meantime, I'd suggest a bit more cartridge than a .223. :)

caribou
December 22, 2011, 06:57 PM
Here in Alaska, there are plenty of Wolves, Game and few people.

The southern 49 is not in a natural balance at all. Herd animals such as elk, Buffaloe and such were decimated years ago with Fences, loss of habitat and cattle/pigs competeing in that habitat.
Wolves do not decimate herds, people do by taking over lands and "Man-ageing things to our emotions and belifes.

If left alone in a natural world, there is always a balance struggle, but we as Humans, being top predators often see wolves as compitition.
Poor Hunters often find a reason for their lack of sucess, and blaming Wolves is getting popular.
Try blaming people for taking up habitat and installing competitive animals that we value as $$ and it gets bad. A deer eaten by Wolves go's un-noticed, but a Cattle is rightaway.

Here in the Arctcic The wolves and their pray are and have been in balance, what you see down south is NOT a balance, and if man keeps interfearing, it never will be.

Hunt Wolves, Hunt Deer, Hunt Elk, be sure to the predator you are and respect them for the predator they are .

Look at he game populations since europeans came over, first decimating the East of Buffaloe, then the plains, the they worked out The Wolves and the naturall balance went to ****.

Imagin if 60,000,000 Buffaloe were reintroduced? Then the Wolves would be at their natural food source, herd animals.

No, we managaed the Buffaloe nearly outta existance. Fact is man has screwd it up, not The Wolves.

o Unforgiven o
December 22, 2011, 07:03 PM
Great post caribou.

BikerRN
December 22, 2011, 07:32 PM
Fact is man has screwd it up, not The Wolves.

That I agree with, but for man to attempt to "restore" the balance that was is folly at best. There is no longer a place for the wolf in the lower 48 as far as I'm concerned and animals like cattle, sheep, elk, and deer have a place far above the wolf in my book.

Biker

elkdomBC
December 22, 2011, 10:43 PM
the Island Province of Newfoundland Canada has 0 wolves and moose populations are incredible, about 150,000 moose ! and in spite of very generous tag allotments(30,000) per year, the moose population thrives,,, NO wolves in Newfoundland ! hmmm??

how about NewZealand ? NO wolves there !, but ungulate populations thrive to the point, Wildlife Land Managers resort to poisoning ungulates to curb ungulate populations, residents hunt as many ungulates in most regions of NewZealand as they wish and tags are basically NO Charge !, again NO Wolves in NewZealand !


here is a picture of carcass of mature cow moose (about 800-900 pounds live weight) less than 12 hours after a 6 pack of timber wolves took her down, not much left!

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 22, 2011, 11:24 PM
ElkdomBC, Caribou is correct to a point. Man is to blame for the problems we have here in the lower 48. Hell, man is to blame for 99.9% of the problems in nature on the whole planet. But you also have to look at it like this, while yes we have caused problems in nature, we can at least TRY to make up for it and try to adjust the populations of animals that we do still have and keep their environment healthy by keeping them in numbers that the current environment will sustain. Wolves used to be natures balancing tool and were damn good at their jobs. BUT since we have already decimated most of the Wolves natural prey, it is just not feasible to reintroduce this killing machine to areas that will not truly sustain it's predatory nature. By it's very nature, it will turn to our cattle which makes for an easy prey. Wolves up in Alaska have MUCH more territory, MUCH more game to hunt, and, if you think about it, there really isn't anything else that they need. You don't have cattle grazing in Alaska to worry about. Nature is MUCH more in balance up there and thankfully it's one place man has not completely screwed up. But comparing Wolf populations of Alaska to the lower 48 is like apples to oranges. Completely different areas and no comparison can truly be used. HOPEFULLY it will remain so and man will not completely hack that wonderful place up like he has everywhere else.

walking arsenal
December 22, 2011, 11:53 PM
Let me educate you there young man.

No. I don't think I will.

memphisjim
December 23, 2011, 12:33 AM
ive heard the inuit used to freeze blood on a razor blade attached to a stake and the wolf will lick the blood then cut its tongue and keep licking its own blood and die
not advocating this practise but if they needed wolves dead that bad maybe they are bad crittters

caribou
December 23, 2011, 01:20 AM
Eskimo valued the furs of Wolves for their propertys in below Zero weather. Ice will not stick to Wolf, Wolverine or Polar Bear fur. Such is used as a trim on fur garmets because the edges are where sweat vapors are emerging into the cold and freezing to fur, and brushed off easily. If the Warm Caribou hide has ice on its hairs, they must be thawed or pulled out. Thats why Wolf pants and Mukluks were desirable, so a man could sit and not "stick' to the ice while waiting for a Seal and such. Light weight skins to boot.

My Fatherinlaw used "Whale bone traps" , long , folded and tied with sinew, sharpend at both ends. Bowhead Whale Baleen was made into such and frozen into a chunk of meat , and apon digestion would unfold and straighten, peircing organs and killing the Wolf, Fox, polar Bear fairly quickly , and tracking these animals down was the way of the day. He did this on Kobuk River , Kotzebue sound and up along the Beufort sea when he was young.
There are no Old Inupiaq Eskimo stories about wolf attacks , except against Dog teams. A fire or an alert man would easily scare the Wolves away. The Father in law said Wolves were never a problem for him, unless he was trying to hunt them, then they were too smart :D...He was better a trapper than a wolf shooter. For him, the big deal was Ferral dogs, "The Ultimate disaster" who would go to camps and attack people and eat them and other dogs. If wolves were forming up on a man travling by Dog team, hed drop of and wait, letting his wife carry on. Often you wait untill they are 50 or less feet away before shooting the rear most ones, but you have to be ver still and lying straight on tawrd them, looking small. Good shots are right where the hole allready is under the tail on the Wolf running away from you ~~LOL!!~~

I do belive that unnatural reintroduction isnt very smart.

average_shooter
December 23, 2011, 01:29 AM
I wonder how many understand the missions of the various land management agencies when they start complaining about wolves.

A popular example is the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. The National Park Service has a mission to preserve the natural state of things as best they can while providing for access by the public to experience the natural wonders of nature, for generations to come. The NPS does not exist to provide breeding grounds so hunters have unlimited amounts of deer and elk to take to the slaughterhouse. They are attempting to restore natural populations within the parks as closely as they can to what was there before European expansion and settlement.

I don't see how anyone can complain about the wolf, elk and deer populations in a National Park, by and large there's no hunting within National Parks anyway. (Preserves and rec areas are managed differently.) And any wolf on private property outside a park is pretty much fair game.

People like to say that wolves and coyotes will eat all the elk and deer. Funny, wolves, coyotes, elk, moose, deer and everything else maintained a decent ebb and flow balance for eons before our interventionism took over. Wolf populations are likely to increase while other populations decrease, then the trend will reverse. Over time (not just a couple years here, over a longer time) a balance will be seen.

Flipside example; I worked for a brief period in CO with the US Forest Service. I heard a fair bit of talk about folks complaining that Aspen was losing all its Aspen trees (in general CO's Aspens are in a poor state of affairs). There's a couple reasons for that, one of which is that there's so many elk in CO they nip all the seedlings before they can mature into trees to replace the old trees that are dying . But elk hunting is a big draw and money game for the state, so people would bitch if they lowered elk tag prices and took out a significant chunk of the population. No-win situation there.

So adding wolves to the mix could help restore a more natural balance and also benefit the forest lands. But wolves will kill all the elk, but we want our forests to maintain a balance, but we want to eradicate wildfire completely, etc. Guess what, you can't have it all. Appropriate and effective management utilizes all available resources, natural and man-made, including original species.

Frankly, if there's more wolves here maybe we'll have less deer road kill and lower insurance premiums. MN born and raised I'd say probably about half the people I know have hit a deer at some point.

Really I don't care if people want to hunt wolves. Do it. We hunt everything else. But to say that they deserve to die horrible deaths and have no business here is truly ignorant. It's like the people in the new subdivisions complaining about the coyotes killing pet Fufu, which they let run loose in coyote habitat.

In the end it's all a money game, and I think that's a shame. People don't want competition because there's money to be made in ranching every inch of land, farming every inch of land, bulldozing and developing every inch of land, and hunting every inch of land. Then people want their children to be able to go someplace to understand what nature was like before we screwed it up. But don't put all the native animals back on that educational land, we don't want our kids to know there used to be wolves and coyotes here. :rolleyes:

memphisjim
December 23, 2011, 01:32 AM
caribou nice story any knowledge of my razor blade story?

caribou
December 23, 2011, 04:16 AM
No, Memphisjim, I havent heard of such around here on the Alaskan NW side.
Myself, I think a Wolf would balk at the slightest sting in the tounge, thay do , after all crunch bones and deal with them for a living.
prehaps razor sharp "whalebone traps" where the baleen stabs the throat, stomach, wherever it opens is the reference, They would , indeed , swallow their own blood in such a case.

DM~
December 23, 2011, 09:51 AM
I don't base my opinions on what i read on the net, or what i saw in a book, OR what i saw on the disney channel.

I lived in Alaska for 25 years, and not in town either... I've seen what wolves can do, and what they are like.

I've seen wolves kill caribou after caribou in the artic. Kill them, and run after the caribou herd, killing another and another... WAY more than they could/did eat.

I've seen them pull down a cow moose, rip her belly open, pulling the unborn calf out of her, eating SOME of the calf, and leaving the cow to bleed to death! (how's that for a painful death?)

AND YOU GUYS are worried about a wolf not having a painful death????

You guys need to live with them for years, like i did! Perhaps you would have some "first hand" info on wolves, instead of what you read/saw on TV/was told/ or dreamed!

Our forfathers had it right the first time!

DM

elkdomBC
December 23, 2011, 10:20 AM
I have seen wolves eating the moose calves as the cow moose was giving birth, and found evidence of the same on domestic cattle.

my neighbor, has lost 18 mature head of cattle to wolves, out of 200 cattle in his pasture this fall,


we will continue to shoot as many as possibly can, poisoning is not allowed by law, the cattle association has bounty of $100 per dead wolf head,

a local woman suggested that we live trap these wolves and sterilize them,,,??? ***?
that pretty much demonstrates the mentality of the average "wolf-hugger" :banghead:

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 23, 2011, 10:23 AM
average_shooter, your points are valid and understandable. One problem I have with them though, is you spoke of the reintroduction of Wolves in Yellowstone and why we would have a problem with that since it's a national park. Well, here's the problem. They didn't STAY in that national park! Yes we have screwed up the natural order of things and yes it's partially about money and land. Hell it's MOSTLY about those 2 things. Thing is, man has changed the natural order of things to better suit his needs and wants. Cattle farming is this nations primary meat source. Now, what do you think a Wolf is going to go for, a hard to catch white-tail or Elk,,, or a nice easy fat cow? They are VERY opportunistic and will always choose the easy meal over the hard one. Typically they are very shy creatures and a good couple of herd dogs will be able to protect cattle herds. BUT, once their natural source of food is limited, I.E. Deer or Elk, them herd dogs will be killed quicker than you can blink and you will start losing cattle. It's that simple.

Wolf reintroduction into areas where cattle farming is the number one source of income is just retarded to say the least. These are the same morons that thought the reintroduction of Coyotes was a good idea. Look how that turned out! Wolves are an Apex Predator. Nothing on this continent will mess with a pack of Wolves. Not even a Brown Bear. Reintroduction of them into populated lands is just simply idiotic, foolish, retarded, short sited and whatever else you want to call it.

average_shooter
December 23, 2011, 01:49 PM
Well, here's the problem. They didn't STAY in that national park!

Well, like I said, on private property shoot what you want. You can't shoot the elk in the park either, but you can once they leave the park.

As an aside, I've personally witnessed a pack of coyotes taking down a wolf. In Yellowstone National Park. So saying nothing messes with wolves is bogus.

"Short sighted" is hunting animals to near extinction in the first place. If we had been smart 200-300 years ago we would have domesticated the buffalo, leaner meat, locally available and easier on resources.

Many issues resource management agencies run into stem from the attitude that, "This is the way it's been done for years / decades / generations." Well, times change. The farmer that didn't change with the times is now sitting on a plot of burned out topsoil that won't grow anything but cacti. Or more likely, the property became bank-owned.

Reintroduction of them into populated lands is just simply idiotic, foolish, retarded, short sited and whatever else you want to call it.

As far as I'm aware, they've never been introduced into populated areas. If they had been I'm positive they would have been shot right away, legally or otherwise. And I would be really hard-pressed to see how you consider Yellowstone NP and the surrounding area "populated." Could you even find an area less populated? Wyoming and Montana have the fewest people per square mile, excluding Alaska. It's not like they released a breeding pack of wolves in downtown Boston, though that might be a fun experiment...

I'll probably never understand the wolf debate. As best as I can tell it's always been legal to shoot anything harassing your livestock. If you want to set snares around the pens, go for it. I'm not saying a wolf should never die. But again, to call for extermination is really short-sighted.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 23, 2011, 02:01 PM
Human population low, cattle farms HIGH. Lots of beef is raised in the Montana and Wyoming territories. I, and most others, call that populated. And as far as your statement about domesticating "Bison", if we domesticated it, it's naturally leaner nature would disappear quickly. Wild game is generally leaner because of it being wild. Proof is, go to the store and get you some of that farm raised Bison. You will see a higher fat content in it than you would from a wild Bison.

Man is a stupid, short sighted, and selfish creature no doubts about that. We have generally ruined the Earth and all of her majestic qualities. Soon enough, old mother nature will say enough and shake the fleas known as man from her back and correct the problems we have created. Until then, all we can do is TRY to correct some of our mistakes. Reintroducing the Wolf would be fine for natures rules but for mans rules, it just doesn't click. Plain and simple.

average_shooter
December 23, 2011, 02:06 PM
Until then, all we can do is TRY to correct some of our mistakes. Reintroducing the Wolf would be fine for natures rules but for mans rules, it just doesn't click.

See, this is what I really don't understand. Your two sentences there seem to completely contradict one another. I do not understand how you rationalize that.

Of course, I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and I understand we're not going to succeed in changing opinions. But if we're going to try to correct our past mistakes, there's not much point in going at it half-assed.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 23, 2011, 03:28 PM
It's simple average. We have dominated the Earth and screwed it up. But the fact is, no matter how hard we try, we can never completely undo all the damage we have done. Not as long as humans inhabit the earth now. SOME damage we could fix, but most damage is irreversible as long as we are alive and rely on our technology for comforts. So, with that in mind, think about it. We can not fix most things by natures rules because as long as we exist and advance, natures rules do not fit OUR rules. So we have to fix things to a degree that is acceptable by us and OUR rules. Introducing the Wolf with the already dwindling Elk populations is basically the same as putting a live grenade into a bunker. It's going to get messy and everything is going to die. Wolves, by their very nature, seek and destroy. It's what they were designed by nature to do. Period.

bad_aim_billy
December 23, 2011, 09:59 PM
Could you even find an area less populated? Wyoming and Montana have the fewest people per square mile, excluding Alaska. It's not like they released a breeding pack of wolves in downtown Boston, though that might be a fun experiment...



Have you been in the Yellowstone area? Ever? Know how many people live here, travel here, hunt here? There are over 300 million people here in the US, it's not the 1820's anymore, just fyi. Grizzlies and wolves don't do well with people, and know what we have a lot of in the US? Oh yeah, people.

average_shooter
December 23, 2011, 11:02 PM
Have you been in the Yellowstone area? Ever?

That's funny, yes I have been there. Multiple times. I've been to many national parks, forests and refuges. And I've seen how well the BLM grows shot up appliances. Having lots of tourists doesn't change the fact that MT and WY are the least populated states in the lower 48.

I work in the natural resources field, so I guess I'm biased. Yeah, I get bitched at by ranchers for doing my job. Apparently eating cold canned soup or MRE's for lunch on a regular basis and a 2001 model year vehicle that I paid roughly half my year's take-home pay for means I'm getting rich off my job.

The NPS does a good job of attracting people to the parks. You know what those people want to see? Because I spent a week in Glacier National Park just a few months ago and about every other person I met on the trail was asking me if I'd seen any Grizzlies or other (mainly predatory) wildlife while they were holding their cameras in hand. They were not asking so they would know where to stay away from, they were asking specifically where they had the best chances of seeing this stuff.

They want to see bears, cats and yes, wolves. They're not there to see the squirrels and chipmunks. Collectively tourists are spending thousands of dollars a day, supporting local economies, spending money in small-town gas stations and hotels, to see the wildlife they don't get to see any other day.

You ever want tourism dollars in your state? National Parks are big draws for domestic and international tourists alike.

I didn't see a single bear or wolf. I did have two deer accost me at a back country campsite because people keep feeding the damn things. I also saw a fox chasing mice behind one of my campsites and came face to face with a cow elk on a trail coming out of the back country. Then there was the bighorn sheep eating shrubs and snorting at the tourists along the trail in the Grinnell Glacier area. All this in an area with a wolf population.

People are paying just as much money for those experiences as they are to shoot elk. (okay, so they don't typically hire expensive guides and outfitters like the hunters do.) The way things have gone with, from what I hear, hunter numbers declining in recent decades, I'd venture to guess more people are scenic tourists than traveling hunters.

Grizzlies and wolves don't do well with people, and know what we have a lot of in the US? Oh yeah, people.

So yeah, every now and then some guy thinks he has become part of the pack and gets himself and his girlfriend eaten by bears. Every now and then a stupid tourist tries to get a picture riding a bison and get his guts strewn across the western states. But if you do not allow for someplace for these animals to be, they've got nowhere.

300 million people in the US, yeah, mostly along the coasts and in the east. There's roughly 6 billion (with a 'B' and nine zeros) people in the world. I guess I don't see where you're going with that. If you want to talk carrying capacity there's plenty of research suggesting humans are at roughly double the planet's carrying capacity for the species.

Art Eatman
December 23, 2011, 11:45 PM
People being able to look at wolves and bears in parks is wonderful. I'm all for it. Just one leetle problem, said Columbo.

Critters don't know where park boundaries are, and so they wander out and go to eating cows, sheep, horses and puppy dogs, just doing what comes naturally.

Those responsible for reintroduction or protection of wolves and grizzly bears don't want to pay for the damage they do. Kinda like not carrying liability insurance on your car. Same sleazoid cheapskate motivation.

So, conflict.

At least a .243, I think oughta work okay. Bigger, I doubt you'd need more than 150 grains of anything. :D

ArtP
December 23, 2011, 11:53 PM
I can't be absolutely certain of the authenticity of these pictures, specifically where these wolves were taken. But the pictures came from someone I trust very much who says these wolves were taken in Idaho.

What I find spectacular is the size of the heads and attached jaws.

I'd certainly want something more than a 223.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7174/6562579251_2fb143e302_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6562579145_c8ce7a2072.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6562579119_66197e5a04_z.jpg


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6562579217_f7cb25ddf9_b.jpg

caribou
December 24, 2011, 12:18 AM
My First Wolf was big enough that I could not pick up his floppy slick body and get it up 2 feet and into my sled, so I put a noose round his neck, lifted his head into the sled, tied him down and then lifted the rest of 'em into the basket ~~LOL!!~~
The lower Black Wolf pix looks sceptical, at first, but the different guy holding the same rigurmortised body looks right.

Ben86
December 24, 2011, 12:19 AM
Why. The average wolf isn't even as big as an average mule deer out here. I guess I'd better break out the .416 for wolf hunting, wait, no, I'll opt for something with a little more authority, .600 NE

LOL I know Billy, I guess since they have teeth and weigh over 100 pounds (Actual average weight of over 30 that I've taken has been just over 100 pounds) they think they need a Howitzer to take it down!

I guess we have varying degrees of margin of error, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable hunting wolf with .223. Mainly because of my goal of a quick clean kill for humane reasons, and my wish not to have to track far. They still seem a bit big for .223. I own dogs, (every heard of a Great Pyrenees?), that are large enough for me to want something bigger than .223 if I were hunting them. Not saying it doesn't work, but I just feel like it's a stretch.

Girodin
December 24, 2011, 02:20 AM
I get a kick out of hunters who in one breath talk about the importance of hunting to manage deer, elk, etc populations and in the next breath cry about wolves effectively doing it (so there is less need for people to do it).

I appreciate the strain they can put on ranchers. I have little sympathy for someone complaining about their sport hunting being affected.

Art Eatman
December 24, 2011, 08:22 AM
Girodin, a seriously large number of hunters shoot deer, elk and moose for the meat--so it's an impact beyond "just sport hunting for the sport of it". It's direct competition for food: Just like me'n Ol' Wily for blue quail.

Knowledgeable folks here or at TFL say that a typical wolf pack seems to be around six animals. I'm working on the assumption that a wolf's metabolism is about like that of a cougar; they're about the same size, anyway.

So a pack is gonna do in a couple of deer a week, or an elk a week, as a reasonable basic number. 100 deer or 50 elk in a year, per pack of wolves. Okay, divide six into however many wolves are estimated, and then multiply by the number of deer or elk. That's a reasonable guesstimate on the depredation number. As near as I can tell from behind a keyboard, anyway.

Girodin
December 24, 2011, 10:16 PM
I know a lot of people myself included who eat animals they shoot. I do not know anyone who truly relies on hunting to sustain life. In fact most of my hunting friends spend a good deal more on gear, tags and travel than what it costs to just buy food. I'm certain that there are people in the country who have more of a need for it. I'd imagine they are a minority.

jgiehl
December 25, 2011, 09:02 AM
I love this place, where else can a bunch of people get together and completely dodge a person's question with absolutely no regard as to answer it?
Only a few have actually answered his question. Everybody else is just pissing and moaning.
"I kill wolves any way I can."
Really?
Really?

I'd be utterly ashamed to say something like that. Something is fundamentally wrong with that statement.


And just to finish this post, I know quite a few who have used a 150 grain 30 caliber to do the job with excellent results.
Hope I was of some actual help.

RevGeo
December 25, 2011, 11:11 AM
Just a couple of thoughts from wolf-ravaged North Idaho -
'Man' didn't screw up the earth, civilization did. If we would have remained aborigines we wouldn't have been able to increase our population to the extent we have with the resultant effect on the earth. Personally I think we went wrong with the invention of agriculture.

Next, I think wolves should be in our mountains and hunted (managed) like any other game animal. In the long term I think it would balance out.

Freedom Fighter is correct IMO - the old planet will shake the fleas off and go onto another phase, whatever that may be.

I believe I have discovered the solution to the political problems of this county: CARIBOU FOR PRESIDENT.

And finally, if I go wolf hunting I will undoubtedly carry the same rifle I use to hunt deer, elk, bear and moose - my 31-40 Ackley Improved. If I were to buy a new rifle specifically for wolf hunting I think I'd try to find an old Savage 99 in .250-3000... just because.

Art Eatman
December 25, 2011, 11:43 AM
jgiehl, if you think of a wolf from the standpoint of somebody repelling predation, would you expect concern about "moral and ethical"?

Snakes, chicken-house predators, herd predators: Do you really care about anything other than actual results?

I don't see that effort as being anywhere near what we in modern parlance call "sport hunting", where morals and ethics play a major role. When you're protecting your billfold or your food, all bets are off.

KodiakBeer
December 25, 2011, 02:35 PM
The season on wolves is open in the western states, and the same thing is about to happen across the upper midwest, so go shoot your wolf. An unchecked wolf population is a problem, but now that it's a game animal the problem is over.

Most livestock in the west are on public lands, so those people should just accept the wolves (as they do coyotes) as the price of admission. I do think private landowners should have an exemption and be able to shoot wolves on sight. Wolves are smart enough to learn the lesson and avoid such places.

elkdomBC
December 25, 2011, 02:45 PM
a rancher friend of mine has killed/shot about 20+ wolves near his winter feed lot over the last 3 or 4 years, in around where he keeps his Black Angus cattle ,,,

apparently SOME wolves are taking A LONG TIME learning to avoid "such places",,,,,,,,,,,

redneck2
December 25, 2011, 02:57 PM
FWIW....Deer hunting a couple of weeks ago on our farm in very north central Indiana (South Bend area). Deer come busting out of cover, and a couple hundred yards behind is what appears to be a large coyote. I take a crack at it (full run) with my muzzle loader but just skim over it's head.

A few minutes later a huge "coyote" follows up. This thing has to be 70# plus. Later I tell this to the owner of the LGS. Now, this guy is not a BS'er. Says he shot one that scaled 82#. DNR sent in a hair sample and confirmed his was a wolf. Part of the strain that is in Minnesota. Several others have also been verified.

KodiakBeer
December 25, 2011, 03:28 PM
The "Eastern Coyote":

A study showed that of 100 coyotes collected in Maine, 22 had half or more wolf ancestry, and one was 89% wolf. The large eastern coyotes in Canada are proposed to be actually hybrids of the smaller western coyotes and wolves that met and mated decades ago, as the coyotes moved toward New England from their earlier western ranges.[24] Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources research scientist Brent Patterson has revealed findings that most coyotes in Eastern Ontario are wolf-coyote hybrids and that the Eastern wolves in Algonquin Park are, in general, not interbreeding with coyotes.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote

Though coyotes are often mistaken for a domestic dog hybrid, recent genetic research has attributed the eastern coyote's larger size and unique behavioral characteristics to interbreeding with Canadian gray wolves.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Wildlife_profiles/profile_eastern_coyote.htm

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
December 25, 2011, 07:29 PM
Very interesting study there Kodiak. I always just attributed the larger size to more abundant, and easier to hunt, deer in the North Eastern coyotes. More food plus easier to get food usually equals larger sized predators.

caribou
December 25, 2011, 07:46 PM
"a rancher friend of mine has killed/shot about 20+ wolves near his winter feed lot over the last 3 or 4 years, in around where he keeps his Black Angus cattle ,,,

apparently SOME wolves are taking A LONG TIME learning to avoid "such places",,,,,,,,,,,"

That would be 'Flipped' as we say here, or the 'other way around', elkdom, if your Rancher friend has killed the Wolves that arrive to his cattle, theres no learning curve for the Dead, but there is something hanging around "such places" and thats the Cattle that is attracting Wolves to an easy, cant runaway kill.

Now if a repeatedly wounded Wolf kept returning, that would be somthin'........

Wolves "Learn" individually, they do not pass on information to other Wolves that are not visually watching them nor out of howling range.......no internet, no reading/writing, not even a specific vocabulary, they use site, example and scent to comunicate with other Wolves and teach their young.


Wolf Specific rifle? No need if you have a good Deer rifle...... anything at 2,550 FPS, 150grn. .30 cal , and for Wolf Fur, FMJ's ROCK!

elkdomBC
December 25, 2011, 09:38 PM
wolves killed in and around these particular cattle feed lots are only a portion of large numbers of wolves,that move down from the foothills, along with the elk,the moose, and the range cattle,
the wolves we have educated(dead wolves) do seem to exhibit SOME ability to learn not to return !,,, the other wolves that haven't sucked up a 180 gr btsp ,seem to have NO respect for a loud noise or their team mates dropping dead beside them,

oh well, back to loading bench, there is always another day

caribou
December 26, 2011, 12:10 AM
""oh well, back to loading bench, there is always another day ""


Right on!:D Get some!

The Wolves will always go for the food, especially if they know its not going anywhere, they will return till they do get it.

Loud noises dont seem to bother Arctic wolves, but then again, during cold spells, we have alotta "Crack"ing going on with our surface tension on permafrost, one big crackling ice cube. I will drop a couple Wolves at a kill, and if I've shot the Alpha and Beta, I can always get the young ones that return for the easy feeding with snares and leg holds, but the two oldest wont return, nor the pack If i shoot a couple while they feed.

elkdomBC
December 26, 2011, 08:31 PM
yes caribou; the wolves always go for the food, local domestic cattle start calving here in January and February, easy pick-nik-ins for wolves

my house is about 200 feet from the lake shore, when the ice cracks during very cold weather, the sound is near deafening, shakes the house and ground like an earthquake, the wolves will sometimes stop their howling festival for few minutes after an ice thunder, but are soon back at their howling in minutes,

I agree on the younger wolves being dumb, the mature ones have lots of smarts,

caribou
December 26, 2011, 10:12 PM
Owoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Try Howl them in, if you can. I catch about 1/2 my Wolves here in the Polar dark with a shotgun, 00buck and howeling them in. I like highground above a wide spot inna river. A lake does very nicely too, they will approch from the open.
Wolves are gonna come down and checkout/mate/eat the strange Wolf they think is in their terrritorry.

Howling just like you hear it on a Cartoon, no electronics needed.

When Howling them in , be sure to be intermmitten, too much will make em think twice and hesitate, if they think your not a Lone Wolf.

elkdomBC
December 27, 2011, 09:38 AM
in order to " howl like wolf ",,,,,,,,,,,,,

I have to HIT my thumb with a hammer ! Owooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh !!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to get a wolf gun." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!