« Pink Guns Flying Off The Shelves | Main | Wisconsin Hunter Gets 69 Years in Hmong Killing »

November 27, 2007

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

Discussion Topic: Are You Ready to Hunt Western Wolves?

From an Associated Press story in the Idaho State Journal:

[A] proposed [wolf] management plan, issued Monday by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, . . . recommends using a regulated seasonal hunt as the tool of choice for managing, and in some cases, thinning the number of wolves roaming the state. . . .

It also recommends suspending all wolf hunting activity when there are 20 or fewer breeding pairs left in the state.

''We're focusing on managing conflicts with this plan,'' [IDFG large carnivore coordinator Steve] Nadeau said. ''And clearly, that means population reductions in some areas. Other areas, we'll be looking to stabilize.''

Check out the full story and tell us your reaction.


Dave in IDAHO

I forgot one thing, you want to spend more taxpayers money to collar the wolves? This whole wolf introduction and managing the "problem" wolves, paying for dead stock, and collaring some animals has already cost millions of dollars. We are all paying for this fiasco, when does it end?



When it comes to the fiascos out there, and the way our money is used in this country. I for one have no problem with spending my tax dollars to re-imburse ranchers, or to collar the wolves. I thought they mostly were collared as part of the re-intro plan in the first place - thats all. As far as "that would be part of it", I mean if we have to compete with predators to kill deer/elk, thats how it would have to be if the wolf was re-intro'd in NC. And the red wolf has been. It is a smaller species, but it is working great.

Listen, when I stated that I didn't think you comprehended my posts, it was because you seemed to disregard all that I agreed with you on. I fully understand this is a very complex issue.

Most things worth doing these days are.


And if the people of Idaho determine, with the experts that they need a wolf hunt. I have no issue at all with it. That is for you to decide in Idaho.

I just hope that if they do decide to allow the hunts, or if they allow limited removal by the ranchers of problem animals, that that would be the extent of it.

Not to argue Dave, but have you ever seen a wolf there in Idaho?
Would you like to if not?

Dave in IDAHO

Thanks for the clarification Tommy.

Yes, I have seen wolves in the wild in Idaho. And no, I don't care to ever see another wolf in the wild again. Even if I have a wolf tag in my pocket.

In the beginning tagged wolves were somewhat common. Some had to be taken out as "problem" animals. They even attempted reloacating some wolves in the beginning. The ranchers were given limited rights - very specific as to when they could use them - to protect livestock. This is still in place.

If you fish for trout and something happens to the stream where you have caught fish for decades, wouldn't you want to restore the stream to it's former bounty? That is all I am after. That is all I want. Wolves or no wolves, I dont care. All I want is to be able to pass on my hunting heritage and experiences on to my grandkids. Yup - I'm old.


Red Wolf no problems? Maybe I am not up to date, but... I thought the wolves were released in the Smokies, but were recaptured after they left the park (how dare wild creatures leave their designated area) and were on surrounding private land. One at least had been hit by a car and killed. The last I heard (literally) they were in pens in Chattanooga. They were beautiful creatures and their howl gave me chills. But to tell the truth, they look just like coyotes we have at home in KY.



I hear you. I just hope there is a way you and the wolf can hunt.


The red wolf was re-introduced in NC in the east. They have really built a foundation around them there for tourists as well. Lots of new buildings and visitor areas where they too can hear them howl. Yes they are smaller; like a coyote. As far as the Smokies, there may have been an effort there also, though I am not aware of it.

Down east they are so involved with it they are testing all newborn red wolves, that they can find, to make sure they are not breeding with the coyotes, which red wolves will do at times. Any such animals found are culled to make sure the red wolf population stays as pure as possible.


Matt Mallery

Jim Bob Bigy blog,

You obviosuly have never been in the west. Most of the land is public. Ranchers do not own it, we all do.

As far as who cares. I do. Question Answere.

As far as the comment about human population goes: I am not suggesting we open a season on people, but people should sue birth control, have smalelr families, and consume less. Tehre you go.

Martin Anderson

I have hunted Northcentral British Columbia every year for the last four years. I have asked several Canadians that I have met along the way about their thoughts regarding grey wolves and
our importation of wolves from Canada to the United States. Without exception, they think we are stupid and worse. The area that I have hunted has a sufficient population of wolves in as much as I have had some contact every year. Sightings are frequent and at times close. There are no deer or elk, only moose. I have been stalked on two occasions, once close enough to smell them. It was raining and I could smell wet dog. Two years ago, I witnessed an ambush of my guide by a pack of seven wolves. Four wolves survived. Anyone who thinks that wolves won't attack humans is out of touch with reality. Other attacks have been documented. One that I recall was on an Alaskan school teacher. She survived. The other involved a college student working an internship in Canada. He was eaten. I doubt any wolf supporters will take me up on an offer to go moose hunting with me without being armed. Gunfire is very effective repellant.


If your comments are true, your points would be well taken. If they were true.

Irregardless, the last sentence was irrelevant and unnecessary.

Who would go into a hunt knowing there were apex predators CAPABLE of taking man without adequate protection. Whether or not a couple of people have been attacked or even killed by wolves is also irrelevant. The overall point would be that they do not see us as food.

Any attack would more than likely be a case of an accident; stumbling upon wolves with young, or on a kill, or the result of wolves protecting their kill. Or a person in the wilderness, already in a bad way; injured - easy prey.

I am impressed that you are so willing to go into the woods with your gun though.


That was me.

Matt Mallery


An intelligent comment from you as usual.

As I stated before, if wolves are attacking and killing people, and this bothers you, go to the mall this weekend rather than to the wilderness. The wilderness has hazards. If it didn't, it wouldn't be worth visiting.

Matt Mallery


the second half of my last post was directed at Martin Anderson. Sorry.


No worries Matt,

I know where you stand and vice versa. And anyone worth us caring about, in this forum, would know where your comments were directed.
But thanks for the clarification anyway.

Dave in IDAHO


Intellegently stated, but once again, we do not agree. If you think Mr MArtin Anderson is making it up, you are living with blinders on. You only hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Do a little browsing on the web and you will, like I did find that there have been confirmed documented cases of wolf attacks (and kills) by healthy wolves on healthy humans dating back to the 1800's. But dont think that this whole wolf hunting thing revolves around that one issue. We know that wolves would not normally attack a human. They will take advantage of humans if given the oppotunity. That is not the point.

"...And anyone worth us caring about, in this forum,..."

Does this mean you care about wolves in a state you don't live in more than some of the posters on this forum?


Calm down Dave,

First of all, I would say that the FACT that they do not see humans as food should be of major freaking importance when we are talking about opening up hunts on them again, since many individuals have put alot of time and money into the re-introduction of said species.

Second, to your question about caring more about wolves than people on this thread - wtf?

No - absolutely not.
Matt, and anyone I give a hoot about reading these posts, knows many times there are people that post on this site simply looking to cause arguments or berate others for their views. I could care less about people like that.

And as I have posted several times, there are wolves in my state, and I ain't cryin about it, nor do I want to hunt one.

Don't eat wolf. Don't fear wolf. Don't shoot wolf. Even if I had to to stop a one in a million wolf from attacking me, by dispatching it - I still would not hunt them. It would be an animal acting as it has acted by way of evolution; long before I ever set foot on this planet.

As far as I am concerned, the wolf has just as much of a right to protect himself, feed himself, and to procreate than I do.

We do not really have to see animals as any less or greater than us. Those thought-lines were created by those that drew lines of communion long ago, succumbing to fear and monetary gains, instead of thinking for themselves.

One religious group says animals are beasts, another says God wants us to use the animals for whatever we want; justifying the absolute pestilence that was the men that rendered the plains void of the buffalo; sending irresponsible pop shots from rail-cars by those that knew not what they were doing, save the few that actually reasoned they could wipe out indians by removing their most valued livestock. How honorable and brave to starve those that disagree with you.

Then there are the animal rights activists. Many of whom are good people, just too blinded by the feelings they have in their hearts, to know that conservation is truly necessary; if they wish to continue to see the animals they cherish, alive, in the future. They too are governed by fear, and shall join the ranks of their adversaries once the grim cloud that is death forces them to the pews in search of salvation.

I am not encumbered by such fear tactics. Nor should anyone be, when it comes to the taking of a life; be it man or wolf.


And Dave,

After taking your advice, so as not to appear to be wearing blinders, I have found that experts seem to be able to record less than 30 attacks by wolves in North American history, resulting in an astounding single death.

While I am intelligent enough to realize there could be others that went unreported - I also realize the numbers should make anyone looking to get a hunt on wolves, (listen carefully - I am being honest), leave any talking/debate point about wolves being dangerous to humans alone.

It will not help your case.

Act as if you do not hear the comment if someone you are arguing with brings it up. Stare at the ceiling, the floor and act mute. They will go on to something else, and then you will not seem like someone just looking to kill an animal because it inconveniences you or your families interests - or because you fear it. I am not saying you do Dave in Idaho, I am just trying to help - since you said earlier in this thread that you were saddened by seeing that there are hunters that do not support you. I do support you, I have stated many ways I would support the ranchers in this regard. But that has not been enough.

Frankly, it seems all you want to hear is someone agreeing that you should go shoot the wolves. I will not tell you that. I will however listen to the authorities when they make their decision.

Dave in IDAHO

Wow, almost poetic. Meaningless dribble.

You are missing the point. If you were shooting at the side of a barn you would hit the farm house. We in Idaho are not trying to open a hunt BECAUSE they are a threat to humans. We are not proposing to kill ALL grey wolves, we recognise their right to exist and procreate. So you can - if you ever come out west - maybe see a wolf for years to come. Wolves will NEVER be eradicated.

The red wolf in NC is no comparison to the canadian grey wolf. Not a valid discussion point.

Religion? Sure, religion/upbringing/personal beliefs/geographics do affect our collective view of animals and their values, uses, preparations, etc., but this is a more scientific, population management discussion. I don't think we need to bring religion into it.


If it was so meaningless - why did you respond? If the two wolves are not remotely comparable - too bad - I feel they are, irregardless of their size. And I believe the word you were looking for was "drivel", not "dribble".

Good luck in life Dave in Idaho.
May the wolves steer clear of you or your families livestock.


Sorry, but another thought occured to me upon the completion of my last post.

"We in Idaho are not trying to open a hunt BECAUSE they are a threat to humans."

Good move. Reasons I believe so stated above.

"The red wolf in NC is no comparison to the canadian grey wolf. Not a valid discussion point."

I know - you are right, the enormous Grey Wolf has killed an entire person in it's North American History. That would be one more than the Red Wolf.

So if you do not want to kill them because of fear, and we have no evidence that their numbers are so great that they need to be culled to avoid starvation and disease, you must want them to be shot because they inconvenience you, and they compete with you; for game. Both really inconveniences.

Great reasons to kill. I hope those with like minds do what Mr. Mallery asks of them.

Go to the mall. It's safer and people expect to hear fits being pitched over inconveniences.


And I will refrain from taking pot shots at your shooting ability. Or making a truly meaningless remark.

Dave in IDAHO

I can't beleeve I mispalled a ward! Dadgummit!

I of course do want to hear folks agree with me that a hunt to manage the wolf population in Idaho is the right thing to do based on the science, not the feelings surrounding this issue. Is that so unreasonable?

If that is what you call support, then thanks, but no thanks.


No Dave - not quite.

What you did was used a word out of context. You spelled drible right, it was just used incorrectly.

We all do it.

You should just try not to do it when you are insulting someone else's intelligence - as you did to me in your post at 2:43 today.


See I mispelled dribble in the above post. But I did not insult you, or use any word out of context.

Dave in IDAHO

"...the enormous Grey Wolf has killed an entire person in it's North American History."

Of course this is wrong, but I will reiterate - not why the hunt is important, not the issue at all! No one said wolves should be hunted because they are killing people. I have never said that is why I want fewer wolves in Idaho. Why does this keep coming up???

"...we have no evidence that their numbers are so great that they need to be culled to avoid starvation and disease,..."

True, 100%. But again, off the mark. The wolves are healthy, happy predators. This is not the reason a hunt has been deemed neccesary. Thier numbers are so great that they are negatively impacting the state of Idaho, hunters, ranchers, and anyone else who profits from hunting in any way. This is not just some crusade to wipe out all things wolf. This is a thoroughly thought out plan to manage wolf populations to a reasonable number. It's not about inconveniences, it's about economy. It's about increasing elk and deer populations. It's about reducing costs to manage the wolves. Yah, money.

Ah, the red wolf. About the size of a coyote... How many elk and deer do they eat? Not many I would bet. Not a predator of the same caliber. A grey wolf can weigh over 200lbs. They eat alot. They can take down a bison. Can a red wolf do that? Not even the same thing.

Matt Mallery

Sop far I hear three main reasons for hunting wolves:

1) They are depleating "our" game. As if elk and deer belong to humans. I love to hunt, but I prefer to hunt in real wilderness with a real ecosystem. The Indians did it for thousands of years. If we can't co-exist with wolves, maybe we should re-evaluate our own lifestyles and ask what kind of impact we are having on North America. Why isn't there enough space and game for both human and wolf and deer and elk? Maybe we are the destructive agents and not the wolves.

2)"They are hurting the Ranchers". The bison co-existed with wolves for thousands of years. They also co-existed with prarie dogs and grizzlies and many other animals many ranchers (not all, but many)love to hate. The ranchers graze on public land, land that belongs to us all. So Ranchers do not get the final say in how that land is managed. Maybe cattle are the problem and not wolves. Maybe we are looking at reducing the wrong animal.

3) "Wolves are a threat to people". The scientific evidnece is simply not there to suport this, and even if it were, hazards come with a life outdoors. Why do so many hunters find it exilerating to hunt in Africa or Alaska? Because of the wild places and many dangers those places harbor.

Our Blogs