Speedo66
Member
Well balanced article and video on the Idaho wolf hunt in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/11wolves.html?hpw
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/11wolves.html?hpw
Nice Article and Video On Wolf Hunt
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
Fryerpower
Member
That was the NY Times? You would have never guessed it by just reading the article. Maybe after the scandles of recent years they have finally decided to get serious about their reporting. It was well written and addressed multiple sides of the issue.
Well done!
-Jim
Well done!
-Jim
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Wow, that IS a nice balanced article.
Couple thoughts.
--9mm strapped to thigh? What's that gonna stop?
--Don't know how to hunt them? My guess is just like yotes - make small rodent in distress sounds with a little moving decoy.
--Hooray for this victory for state's rights and a sensible judge
--OK, the limit is 220, but you have 24 hours to report your kill. When the 220th one is killed, the questions become (a) in what manner does the wildlife dept *communicate* to all the hunters that their tags which they paid for are now no good, and to immediately stop hunting? (b) assuming every hunter gets the communication, there are still some in the field - let's say 4 more kills come in in that 24 hour period - all 4 were made prior to the communication that the limit is reached, so the total harvest is now 224 - what then? Will the enviro-whackos then sue to shut it down because it went over the limit?, (c) the even bigger practical concern along the same lines - regardless of what method of communication is used, suppose there are 5 other hunters (in addition to the 4 above), who made their kill AFTER the communication to stop, but their defense is "I didn't know; I was out in the boonies in a tent with no radio and no tv" - so now you've overshot the quota by 9, regardless of whether you cite/fine these 5 or not. The REASON for all this is the greedy wildlife department who decided to sell tags to just *any* tom dick or harry who paid the money rather than having a draw-in hunt. I mean I like the idea of anyone being able to do it without being drawn, but IF the enviro-whackos ARE able to successfully sue and shut it down next year based on the scenario I describe, then you can directly place the blame on the government's greed, it seems to me. Plus, the reality is that if those 5 come back to civilization and find out the 220 has been reached, and it's been more than 24 hours since the communication, then they're just gonna triple-S it and not report it rather than checking it in, which is thus creating a situation which *encourages* unlawful activity, which is pretty stupid.
Couple thoughts.
--9mm strapped to thigh? What's that gonna stop?
--Don't know how to hunt them? My guess is just like yotes - make small rodent in distress sounds with a little moving decoy.
--Hooray for this victory for state's rights and a sensible judge
--OK, the limit is 220, but you have 24 hours to report your kill. When the 220th one is killed, the questions become (a) in what manner does the wildlife dept *communicate* to all the hunters that their tags which they paid for are now no good, and to immediately stop hunting? (b) assuming every hunter gets the communication, there are still some in the field - let's say 4 more kills come in in that 24 hour period - all 4 were made prior to the communication that the limit is reached, so the total harvest is now 224 - what then? Will the enviro-whackos then sue to shut it down because it went over the limit?, (c) the even bigger practical concern along the same lines - regardless of what method of communication is used, suppose there are 5 other hunters (in addition to the 4 above), who made their kill AFTER the communication to stop, but their defense is "I didn't know; I was out in the boonies in a tent with no radio and no tv" - so now you've overshot the quota by 9, regardless of whether you cite/fine these 5 or not. The REASON for all this is the greedy wildlife department who decided to sell tags to just *any* tom dick or harry who paid the money rather than having a draw-in hunt. I mean I like the idea of anyone being able to do it without being drawn, but IF the enviro-whackos ARE able to successfully sue and shut it down next year based on the scenario I describe, then you can directly place the blame on the government's greed, it seems to me. Plus, the reality is that if those 5 come back to civilization and find out the 220 has been reached, and it's been more than 24 hours since the communication, then they're just gonna triple-S it and not report it rather than checking it in, which is thus creating a situation which *encourages* unlawful activity, which is pretty stupid.
Last edited:
caribou
Member
I LOVE to hunt Wolves.'Nuff said
slabuda
Member
That link is highjacked!!! Takes me to and "anti-virus" site saying my computer is infected and click ok to scan.
Be CAREFULL!!!!!
Be CAREFULL!!!!!
usmc1371
Member
The link worked for me.
I can't believe that was in NY times, it was alomost like some one wrote a nice piece with out injecting a load of personal BS or political spin.
As far as hunting them I think I would go with a calf elk call.
I can't believe that was in NY times, it was alomost like some one wrote a nice piece with out injecting a load of personal BS or political spin.
As far as hunting them I think I would go with a calf elk call.
- Status
