Bowsite.com

Interesting article on wolves

This is a long read but what do you guys think? I think some of it is obvious bs but there are some points I can see. This article was in the Rapid City Journal here in South Dakota this morning. Please debate all you want. Interested in hearing all reasonable responses but it wont hurt my feelings if all you wolf haters blast away. I get it. Just thought this was interesting.

GRANTS PASS, Ore. | Scientists have found that, contrary to what many people think, killing wolves does not always reduce attacks on livestock.

Researchers at Washington State University found that for every wolf killed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming over the past 25 years, there was a 5 percent increase in the sheep and cattle killed the next year. Livestock kills only started going down after overall wolf numbers were reduced by more than 25 percent.

The study was published Wednesday in the journal PLOS One.

The reason appears to be that killing the alpha male or female, which normally keep a tight leash on other members of the pack, frees the other wolves to start breeding. That produces more breeding pairs. And breeding pairs trying to feed pups are more likely to kill livestock than individual wolves, said lead author Rob Wielgus, professor of wildlife ecology and director of the university's Large Carnivore Conservation Lab.

"It's like killing the schoolteacher, the animals that keep everyone else in line," he said. "You've got no brakes anymore."

Wielgus said earlier research found that livestock kills by bears and cougars went up when dominant males were killed, opening their territory to out-of-control young predators. But he did not expect similar results with wolves, which hunt as packs and have a rigid social structure.

He said the "Eureka!" moment came when researchers saw that the 5 percent increase in breeding pairs that came with each wolf killed matched the 5 percent increase in livestock kills.

William J. Ripple, distinguished professor of ecology at Oregon State University, said the study appeared to be important, and it could ultimately lead to major changes in wolf management, if it holds up.

"More research is now needed to study the number of livestock killed by large carnivores when we do nothing, compared to the typical approach to killing the offending predators," he wrote in an email.

John Pierce is chief scientist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which funded the study. Pierce said it covered a large scale, and the department was looking forward to research Wielgus was doing on what happens to an individual pack, where killing wolves still appears to be effective at reducing livestock attacks, at least in the short term.

"It is a well-constructed analysis and good science," he said. "But it kind of tees up the question of how does social behavior of wolves interplay with prey interactions, and depredation interactions."

Wolves were reintroduced into the Northern Rockies in the mid-1990s, kicking off a political battle that still rages between ranchers who want to kill wolves and conservation groups who want to see their numbers increase and spread. Hunting has been allowed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming since federal protections were lifted.

State Endangered Species Acts still protect wolves in Washington, Oregon and California, though California has no known wolves right now. Oregon has not killed a wolf for attacking livestock since reaching accord with conservation groups on a plan that requires ranchers to take non-lethal steps to protect herds in order to qualify for state compensation or a potential order to kill wolves attacking livestock. Washington state continues to kill wolves that attack livestock, but does not allow hunting.

After Endangered Species Act protections were lifted, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana allowed the hunting and trapping of wolves. Since then, the overall wolf populations in each state have gone down more than 25 percent, the level at which wolves naturally reproduce without humans intervening, and livestock deaths have gone down, Wielgus said.

Last September, a federal judge stripped Wyoming of authority over wolf management and restored federal protections, saying the state plan failed to guarantee more than a bare minimum of wolves would be maintained.

Best read ever on wolves right here. Reality!

So Mule Power, what are your thoughts on the article? What do you agree and disagree with?

It sounds like a rhetorical attempt to explain what we as modern man have forgotten, since we weren't exposed to them in our western ecosystem's for almost a century.

What keeps predator numbers in check is prey numbers. There is a balance to the whole system that will keep in check, if we stay out of it. It will ebb and flow. Problem with the wolves currently is, there existence comes at the expense of our hunting. That is why they were reintroduced. To eventually eliminate the American hunter.

As laws suits after lawsuit, and liberal judge after liberal judge has proven, if and when prey animals suffer higher mortality than needed to sustain the wolves to supposed introductory numbers, the decrease in tags, opportunity, etc... comes from the human hunter end of the equation. They don't increase wolf harvests. At least for long, until it is stalemated with a lawsuit.

The problem is the wolf isn't content to stay in an area and balance itself. It is like any other species on the planet, by design, they head into the frontier to pursue better territory or escape the dominance of other packs. So the march to new ground and more exposure of unintended prey herds is eminent. So, the only thing that will keep the wolf in check is all out war. Aside from poisoning them, we will never eradicate them again. And the only reason they were the first time around was the fact we nearly eradicated their food supply while all out assaulting them relentlessly at the same time.

Anyways, wolfs are individuals. Packs exhibit traits that others don't etc... Trying to explain a potential phenomenon based on a small study is ridiculous. The only certainty that can be expressed in the wolf/livestock relationship that will keep domesticated animal deaths low is treating the wolf as a species that needs to be managed, managed aggressively, with hunter and human conflict interests as the major consideration. No other way of saying it or putting it.

It is an insane, liberalized notion of wildlife management to insinuate that wolves don't need managed this way. Any other approach isn't management. It is sideline bench warming. Which is what was intended by the groups that pushed this. And I see this article as either wasted research or just another way to reinforce the attempt to disguise the ploy to advance these wolves to every section of public land big enough to hold a pack.

FWIW, I don't hate the wolf. I admire them. I hate the way they were used here, who they were used by, and the reason they were every introduced in the first place. God Bless

Wayne, nice article. I've been telling folks on here the same thing about coyotes.

Thank you WV. I don't hate the wolf either but I can see how it was a huge mistake bringing them back. As a trapper and hunter all my life I can see some valid points in the article. Teach the alpha pair to stay away and they will teach their young. Kill the alpha pair and the young get desperate and make mistakes. Like I said, I thought there were some interesting points but then it seemed to turn into the typical tree hugger crap. It's an interesting phenomenon. I think we are all pretty sure we are stuck with them. I think it's similar to the discussion from all the grizzly guys. It will take 10 years but if you start shooting some of them they will start teaching their babies to avoid you instead of stalking you to your elk carcass. Like I said, I thought it was an interesting and thought provoking article if you can read it objectively. Once again, I am not a wolf lover or tree hugger. Interested in everyone's thoughts.

Norseman, I didn't write the article. I just read it this morning in our local paper and thought it brought up some interesting points. I live in western South Dakota and we have had young wolves hit on the highway dispersing from Wyoming or Montana. Please elaborate on your coyote thoughts. I trap and snare coyotes here and they are crazy intelligent to the point that you have to respect them. And laugh when they make a fool out of you. I can only imagine that wolves are much smarter. It seems that in certain places no matter how many coyotes you take out another will take their place. However, I have educated a bunch of coyotes and seen the evidence of them using their education to make fun of me so I can only imagine that wolves could be educated pretty quick. Interested in your thoughts. Thanks.

Well, the article points out that the wolf population naturally increases by twenty five percent per year. It would stand to reason that if that twenty five percent increase is not removed, the population of wolves would continue to increase and thus livestock predation would increase.

I would think that a case might be made using their hypothesis that if the twenty five percent that are removed to keep the population static do not include any alpha males or alpha females, livestock predation might go down some.

But that's just looking at it from a numbers sense, using the assertions they made in the article. I am not a wolf guy, I am not a biologist. I have no knowledge whether or not their assertions are accurate though.

I am, however, sceptical in regard to the motives behind their assertions.

Obviously the key is to kill 25% or more every year.....

Then you MIGHT see a difference in both livestock damage (read: livelihood) and game populations.

The article seems to be pointed in the "why bother" or "managing wolves makes it worse" direction. Arguing a moot point.

Killing a wolf here or there will change nothing, fully agree. I believe AK studies point out you have to take nearly 50% to actually reduce wolf populations. Ignoring results in a place that has been dealing with them quite some time while the lower 48 hasn't would seem.... what's that word anti's hate so..... oh yeah, logical.

They were reduced to manageable numbers before with fewer people and wilder country. There are ways to do so again.

I think it is a very interesting article that raises some valid points. It is entirely reasonable to think that social structure is important in the behavior of wolves.

One has to remember though, that at this point they have established a correlation. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. It would be entirely presumptious to say there is a cause and effect relationship at this point in time.

That said, it may indicate some considerations for management. If you have depredation by a pack, maybe you are best served to eliminate the entire pack instead of one or two wolves?

I'm sure that CBD and the like will use this article as justification that no wolves should be killed because of livestock attacks, and that too would be an entirely unreasonalbe extrapolation of these findings. In fact, the findings clearly indicated that reducing the population significantly was correlated with a reduction in livestock depredation.

It doesn't necessarily mean that if you have wolf packs in an area that aren't disturbing livestock that you shouldn't hunt them. It just says that you MAY be creating problems down the road. Such is life.

I am very interested in what the findings will be for the research on preventative measures for livestock producers, and how effective they are.

Orionsbro,

That 25% figure is not an absolute. There are a lot of factors that go into wolf population dynamics.

Populations can and will increase rapidly if there is available habitat for them to expand into and colonize new territory. However, once those territories are occupied, you might actually see populations decrease as competition between packs occur and they kill neighboring wolves.

The wolf population in the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone has decreased in the past few years because of disease and inter-pack mortality.

The wolf populations here in Washington skyrocketed about four years ago as available habitat was being filled. Numbers have greatly stabilized in the last couple of years because colonization has slowed down/almost stopped.

JLS - Yep. I was just using the numbers and assertions that they threw out in the article.

As I said, I am not a biologist, but I assume most population dynamics are more complicated than a paragraph can summarize.

Fine. Lets just kill all the pups then.

TD is correct.

Studies here in AK have shown that to do effective predator control on a wolf population (we do it regularly in areas where wolves are depressing ungulate populations) you need to take AT LEAST 60% of the existing wolves annually for several years.

Taking a few wolves here and there does absolutely nothing to significantly reduce predation. What it does do is educate wolves...

Pete

"After Endangered Species Act protections were lifted, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana allowed the hunting and trapping of wolves. Since then, the overall wolf populations in each state have gone down more than 25 percent, the level at which wolves naturally reproduce without humans intervening, and livestock deaths have gone down, Wielgus said."

To me this paragraph contradicts what the article original states about the study.

I am curious how many wolves in Montana and Idaho that have been harvested are alpha males or females since the start of legal hunting has be reinstated.

I would 2nd Pete's reference as you can see it play out when hunters in northern WI take matters into their own hands. A few here and there won't bring back the elk or the deer. When neighboring landowners band together in northern WI and wipe 50%+ out, the deer start to slowly build back. Have to stay aggressive and constant as just when you think they are gone, that big radius they live in will bring in another pack that has to be taken care of. Wouldn't it be great if the harvest quota was 60%... sorry just dreaming a little.

" That is why they were reintroduced. To eventually eliminate the American hunter"

I don't mind discussions on the wolf and have my own ideas and feelings on them but the above statement cannot be accurate can it? I mean how the heck could a controlled wolf reintroduction eliminate the American hunter and how is it our money (hunting money) was the money used to fund such a thing?

Hammer: There were actually ideologs who supported wolf reintroduction in the intermountain West who were not so pro-wolf as anti-hunter. The thought of course was that if the annual surplus of ungulates could be taken by wolves, it would eliminate the need for hunters to harvest the game. Sad, but true.

Hammer, I also believe that is why there always in the courts to stop wolf hunting. IMHO

So I read the article and would like to contribute a bit of my experience and thoughts. As far as the reason wolves were introduced... it may have been the intention of some pro-wolf activist to eliminate the need for human hunting, but that doesn't mean it's going to work that way. Wolves do have an impact on the amount of surplus gave available to us as hunters, no doubt. I think we have a responsibility to manage wolves and also manage our behavior as hunters in order to steward game populations. An environment with all its native species seems to be the best scenario. Wolves have a right to be in their native territory's just like elk, deer, grizzly bears, humans or anything else. The key is that no one species should have total priority on resources at the expense of other species. If increased competetion dictates that human hunters adapt their behavior to accomodate some wolves so be it. If the amount of wolves becomes detrimental to the resource and threatens to eliminate the ability of humans to harvest some of the resource, then the numbers of wolves needs to be reduced, but not at the risk of extiction or elimination of an animal from its native range. I live in Northwest Montana and have witnessed the population explosion of wolves after reintroduction with wolf numbers peaking in our area in 2011. I have also seen that hunter management of wolves has greatly reduced wolf populations and given some relief to the elk and deer. However, human hunting pressure in this region has not diminished at all. Our overall elk number are starting to come back, but the bull/cow ration is abysmal compared to when I moved here in 2002. Killing the alpha male or female may cause more livestock predation as young pack members learn to hunt, but reducing the numbers of wolves by 25% or more is definitely helping the deer and elk. The way I see it, cattle are in direct competition with elk for feed and winter range and consequently the social dynamic of how many elk ranchers are willing to put up with during the winter, limits elk numbers more than most people realize. The Montana FWP is required by law to set population objectives that are determined by social dynamics, not biological or habitat limitations. In prime locations in the Southwest elk numbers are at a fraction of what the land could support because ranchers don't want competition from elk. In the Northwest where ranching is very limited, elk numbers are hampered from climbing due to a high number of predators, both human and wolves/lions/bears.

I think 5 percent is pretty statistically insignificant for establishing a correlation. It's more like a "normal variant".

Show me 25 percent (or more), and I'll be more inclined to believe the correlation.

Just my 2 cents.

Evan more dangerous than an out of control wolf population, is the Anti hunting Federal Fish and Wildlife Service. And look at the people involved in the study, a state wildlife scientist, a distinguished professor of ecology and a researcher. And every one is looking forward to more study and the next check in the mail. Our real wildlife problem is no one with any experience making a decision. DO any of these people, have the ability to manage wildlife on a large private ranch? no they do not. They can only work for the state or govt. and plan the next study. Good luck to us all.

Now this may be a long shot guess at the study, but is there a chance that the Wolf population is just growing! Iam glad that I don't have to pay Professor spinngood or the rest of the real experts.

Hammer, you need to do some research on this. Many of the groups that pushed for the reintroduction, are very outspoken against sport hunting. And, those same anti hunter groups were paying the loss fees on domesticated wildlife as well, to earn their influenced place at the negotiation table in the beginning.

I'll save my opinion oy the USFS on this one.

Pete and TD hit it dead on the head. It takes aggressive management to halt their progression. I like Idlly's idea too. Kill everyone you can. It is the only way to hold them in control.

Their unchallenged presence and march has/will changed the greatest hunting known to America. For at least one generation of hunters. At least one. Likely more if we don't get a hold of our politicians and appointed personal. Make no mistake. They were introduced for ONE reason concerning the main players in this debacle. God Bless

Many game managers prefer wolves to humans for controlling populations. They can hunt private and public, no trespassing, horn porn, APR's, seasons, voting rights etc. Why would they not prefer wolves, they do a better job than humans who argue over ethics?

"Researchers at Washington State University found that for every wolf killed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming over the past 25 years, there was a 5 percent increase in the sheep and cattle killed the next year."

Am I missing something or just dense tonight...only tonight though! Are they really saying that for those states if 20 wolves were killed then there would be a 100% increase in livestock kills? For some reason I just find that hard to believe.

"So Mule Power, what are your thoughts on the article? What do you agree and disagree with?"

It is a weak attempt at pro wolf crap. I've seen way better stabs at it than that.

He says Quote: "For EVERY wolf killed" blah blah blah.

The he goes on to say "The reason appears to be that killing the alpha male or female, which normally keep a tight leash on other members of the pack, frees the other wolves to start breeding."

So which is it? For every one killed or by killing the wrong one?

Let me ask him this... will we have less kills if we just quit eliminating the such a skilled predator?

I want to read that article... more wolves equals less dead critters. LOL ok. Like I said... that article doesn't hold water let alone air. Weak!

Then: "a federal judge stripped Wyoming of authority over wolf management" Completely false. He said get your act together. Come up with a plan. A bogus statement like that one completely undermines his credibility.

And don't miss the important part: "More research is now needed needed" In other words I'd like to stay on the payroll.

Thank you for all your thoughts. I pretty much agree with all of them. Like I said, I just thought the article was interesting. Mule power, my overall impression was it was spin on shaky research to stop wolf hunting. However, as a coyote trapper I thought a couple of the points were interesting and possible. If you factor in the social nature and pack behavior if you take out the alpha male and/or female I can see where the juveniles could get into trouble based on their lack of experience. Again, thanks for the responses. I don't know what the answer is but I do agree that if you just shoot a couple pups out of the pack it won't make a damn bit of difference but if you shoot the alpha it may cause chaos and you end up with three breeding pairs instead of one. Not sure we will ever know for sure based on the political climate and all.

I suppose there could be some validity to that. What about the fact though that by killing the alphas we slow down the learning process because they are the teachers?

We can talk about it all day long but less predators means less kills. And by nature when packs reach a certain size young wolves will move out and form other packs and expand the territory they inhabit. They sure did that here in the lower 48 before we were allowed to manage them did they not?

Mule power, your statement is right on, "What about the fact that by killing the alphas, we slow down the learning process because they are the teachers".

When you kill the alpha, the young wolves have no idea of how to chase its prey. They are of no help to the other wolves in the unit. Where I hunt them, we don't have large packs, usually family units. Male, female and pups.

Also, I agree with WV mountaineer, "wolves were introduced into areas to eventually eliminate the American Hunter". People making the rules are anti's in disguise (wolf lovers). They are letting wolves control prey (elk, deer) populations rather than the hunter. Hunters do a far better job!!

Biologists are paid for results. Results must come within a couple of years. They have no choice but to come to a conclusion whether right or wrong or they get fired.

Hunters and guides conclusions come after decades of hunting experience.

Wolves need to be hunted or trapped to keep them in check.

"What about the fact though that by killing the alphas we slow down the learning process because they are the teachers?" Exactly, if the alpha pair isn't there to teach them they don't learn how to catch deer and elk so they have to resort to slower, dumber prey. Otherwise known as sheep and cows.

"We can talk about it all day long but less predators means less kills." I completely agree. However, I don't think the recreational hunter that buys a wolf tag just in case he sees one is ever going to do it. They'll either take a yearling pup (which won't matter in the number of elk killed by the wolves) or if they are trying to howl one in they will most likely get one of the alpha pair(which may disrupt the whole dynamic of the pack that was taught to avoid people and livestock). In Alaska they use helicopters and take out the whole pack. That's what needs to happen but I'm not sure that is possible in the west. And even if you do, it will just open up new territory for the next young male breaking out to form his own pack. I have places here that as fast as you take out coyotes new ones move in. I would imagine it would be similar with wolves. Other than a full on shoot on sight order 365 days a year I don't think the problem will ever go away at this point.

There was a lady here that had a unit of wolves kill a deer right beside her corral that housed her riding horses. About 90 yards from her house.

She phoned me to take care of the wolves. Problem was, season just closed (April 1rst). Adult wolves were feeding off the deer not letting pups feed along with them.

Next thing you know, there are the pups worrying her horses, inside the corral. We were watching this from a distance. The pups had no idea, from what we observed, on how to take down the horses. They just chased them around. Couple of times the pups almost got stomped to death.

Wayne: I disagree with the assertion that wolf social interaction/dynamics, overrules hunger, instinct, and prey availability in wolf behavior. The flaw with the study is that is assigning anthropomorphic traits to wolves which is an inherent flaw that the study is built around.

They are not human which is the assertion that the researchers are trying to make. Wolves are highly intelligent: I have seen them ham string sheep so the pups can kill the sheep. I have seen where they have killed for the sheer sake of killing driven by their instinct and nothing else. This article is way off base in my mind.

Fair enough Seminole. I get that. Thanks for your input. My first thought was it was way off base too. There were just a couple points that made me think is all. Overall, I still think it's trying to convince people that we shouldn't hunt them so you guys are right on there. Hell, as soon as I read the title I thought man this ought to be good. And it was everything I expected except it made me think a little that's all.

Finally! Mule Power, I was waiting for someone to say it - why does the biologist assume that if you kill a wolf it will be the alpha male?

Surely some of the kills are not the alpha males.

Sorry, Fat fingered something and it sent before I was done. What's the answer?

Ok, I had typed up a very long and thoughtful response and somehow hit the wrong button on the last sentence and it disappeared. Looked like it submitted so I just tried to finish it but the main message was lost and I'm too tired to do it all again. Thanks for all the responses and I don't disagree with any of you. Just don't know what the answer is.

" if the alpha pair isn't there to teach them they don't learn how to catch deer and elk so they have to resort to slower, dumber prey. Otherwise known as sheep and cows"

I'd have to disagree with that as well. While they may be slower cows can kick their teeth in just as easily as wild game. And there are bigger threats when playing that game otherwise known as ranchers. In a way that statement assumes they think like a human would. "Hey.... since nobody is here to teach us how to cook let's head down to the drive through for some fast food."

There is always hunting going on and whether they resort to smaller game like rabbits and grouse... or just take down deer which is easy picking for any wolf, they will eventually learn. Plus once an alpha is removes another wolf quickly replaces them in the pecking order. It's not like there are only alphas and pups.

Ok, You win. One last thing though. "While they may be slower cows can kick their teeth in just as easily as wild game. And there are bigger threats when playing that game otherwise known as ranchers." Then what's the problem????

"Why would they not prefer wolves, they do a better job than humans who argue over ethics?"

Shut off the "study" grant income and see how much the wildlife managers prefer them over hunters paying hunting licenses, etc.

Hunters are MUCH better managers than any wolves, unless your idea of wildlife "management" is turn em all loose and see what happens.

You can control where the game is taken, when the game is hunted, males or females hunted, how many are taken. And readjust it all as necessary the very next season. You can dial in exactly what your goals are, can meet those goals reliably and infuse money into the departments and local communities at the same time.

Wolves there is zero control, they kill wherever they are, expand to anywhere they can, no regard for reproductive structure of the game, they kill 365 days a year, even harassing the game in the dead of winter when they can least afford to expend the energy.

They expand in numbers, sometimes exponentially, to the detriment of the game. And meaningful reduction in any predator numbers normally requires paid hunting. You pay to introduce them on one end, you pay to reduce them on the other (or in government language, a perfect situation...) .

And are a detriment to the local communities through livestock losses, reduced hunting opportunity (and the commerce it goes hand in hand with) etc.

The only people enriched by them are those involved in receiving the grants to introduce, study and eventually eliminate them.

The problem is that the article is saying we'd be better off if we would quit hunting/killing wolves.

It attempts to tell us that it would be for our own good and that killing wolves only adds to the problem.

The problem is that it's another biased wolf hugger article.

I might as well add that I am NOT in favor of decimating wolves. Just managing them like any other animal. I wouldn't mind wiping out the politicians that put them here though along with the anti hunters that don't want us to use hunting as a means of wildlife management.

Agreed Mule power. That pretty much sums it up. Thanks.

Wayne: I am thankful for you bringing this article to our attention. From a larger political perspective this arbitrary piece of work is a building block for a political cause much larger than you might expect.

If you noted recently in the news a court case in New York where the anti hunter crowd filed an injunction to free an ape because it violated his natural rights. The case failed to release the ape, but I see this "study" as that first step in establishing wildlife rights. These groups are trying to manipulate science for their own political goal.

This article made it in to the broadsheet newspapers here in the UK.

It strikes me that the wolf is being used as a political tool; when that happens, it's not only the species being used, but any number of species [humans included] will suffer.

A conservationist is a good animal; a preservationist is a bad animal. Walt Disney and the ensuing animal-rightists have an awful lot to answer for; with rights, come responsibilities...I am looking forward to PETA paying legal costs for the first case to be taken to court for wolves taking a ranchers livestock, as I will sure as Hell be sending my donation to the rancher's attorney!!

As with any and all species over which we as humans have dominion [much as that pains the hunting-haters], we need to manage populations for a balanced approach to overall sustainable populations of all species in that environment.

Good luck and good hunting

Correlation does not necessarily equal Causation.

Extremely common misconception I've noticed in the general public.

Dang straight, TEmbry...

Perception is often far removed from reality

Seminole, I think you are right about the article. That's pretty much the general impression I got out of it as well. And I also think it's probably the first step in another angle to make them untouchable. Barty, thanks so much for weighing in from across the pond. You guys have it way worse than we do over here.

Best example of skewed political [ab]use of a quarry species was the UK's Labour [Socialist/Democrat] government from 1997 to 2010 and their unceasing vitriol towards foxhunting...

In passing the Hunting Act 2004, seven HUNDRED hours of Parliament's time was used, ultimately saying that you can legally hunt with intent using dogs to hunt a rat but not a mouse, you can flush a fox to a gun using two dogs but not three...

To take us to war in Iraq in 2003, that same Parliament under Tony Blair's Labour government took just SEVENTY hours of debate [that's right; seven-zero].

So the fox as a political animal is a totem for the class warriors who populate the back benches; their opposition is based on who they think hunts, and not what actually happens

A good case of perception being far removed from reality

I believe my fellow hunting men and women in the US can sum it up best in the phrase 'Go figure'.

Good luck and good hunting!!

Barty... what's up with that elk hunt you were talking about awhile back?

Saving pennies and pounds Mule Power ;-) It'll happen...

Plus I have to talk to the US Embassy re visas and other related 'stuff'

Register here to reply to this topic