If filled, the quota will result in estimated 25% reduction in state wolf population-

Montana’s wolf hunt is expected to be easier on the state’s wolf population than Idaho’s. With the congressional delisting of the wolf in the Northern Rockies, Montana and Idaho can pretty do what they want in terms of wolf quotas.

State wildlife officials propose 220-wolf quota for 2011 season. By Eve Byron Helena Independent Record.

Also, Obama administration takes wolves off endangered species list. AP.  They are also delisting the Great Lakes population, which is certainly ready. Unfortunately, all three states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have fallen to tea party governors. Michigan’s seems as bad as Wisconsin’s notorious Scott Walker.

Tagged with:
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

59 Responses to Montana proposes 220-wolf hunting quota for 2011 season

  1. Cody Coyote says:

    Let’s generate a new word to describe what Montana and Idaho have in mind for wolves under their state management plans:

    “Canicide “

    • william huard says:

      I don’t understand how the USFWS can allow Idaho to attempt aerial gunning of 50 wolves during denning season! What is that?
      The upcoming hunting season should be done with FAIR CHASE methods and baiting, trapping and electronic call signals should not be allowed

      • Savebears says:

        I am not an advocate for aerial gunning, but once delisted, the USFWS has no more say in it, it is under state control, the only say USFWS has is if the numbers go under the required minimums…

      • william hurard,

        Idaho’s politicians can now legally do it. Because we knew they wanted to do it all along is why I opposed giving Idaho management authority.

        • Russell says:

          The problem with that is, it’s not the Federal government’s job to manage wildlife in Idaho. That is a right legally reserved to the state by the Constitution.

          • Brian Ertz says:

            not true. Kleppe v. New Mexico – check it out

          • Elk275 says:

            ++not true. Kleppe v. New Mexico – check it out++

            That may be true, but I would like to see the fed’s try one day to take over management of wildlife on all federal lands in the USA. What would happen in today’s political climate?

            Every western state’s congressional representatives Republican or Democrat would introduce legislation to nullify any administrative or court order changes. Within six months there would be a law passed reverting management of wildlife back to the states.

            If the fed’s controlled wildlife on public lands, what would happen to wildlife on private lands. Then, I as a private landowner want to own the wildlife on my private land. Large private landowners in the west would love to own the wildlife on their lands and there are several nascent movements promoting this change.

            Be careful what one wishes for.

          • JB says:

            WM, Mark: I fully agree that direct challenges to states’ authority over wildlife on federal land are not in the cards–at least not in the near term. However, Kleppe is still relevant. In particular, I could see federal laws designed to protect certain species (as you know, several already exist), or restrict the use of certain harvest methods on federal lands. The discussion about New Mexico trapping (here: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2011/07/18/game-and-fish-department-enlarges-trapping-across-new-mexico/#comment-86871) is a case in point. It is not out of the realm of possibility to envision a federal ban on the use of foothold traps on federal lands. In fact, given public opinion on the matter (especially outside of the West), I would go so far as to say such legislation is probable.

            Of course, a federal ban on trapping on public lands does not directly challenge states’ management authority (but it does erode it). However, because of Kleppe, it seems very likely that such legislation would stand up to any subsequent legal challenge. Another venue that could become relevant are federally-mandated FS planning processes.

            I would argue that liberal regulation and aggressive harvest objectives for wolves, cougars (or other charismatic species) make such actions more likely. Trapping is especially problematic in this regard; that is, because wolves are very well liked nationally, and opposition to trapping is generally high, the convergence of these two issues (i.e., wolf in a foothold trap), gives the folks who would push for a ban the very ammunition they seek. Ultimately, the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act passed for exactly this reason–perceived mistreatment and disregard of a charismatic species.

        • WM says:


          Kleppe v. NM is a unique case applying to a one off situation, and can be distinguished away, mostly.

          If it is ever expanded in any material way as your short comment suggests, you can expect a backlash that will involve nearly every state with wildlife on federal land. And, if an activist court takes it on, the Congressional fix will come even more swiftly and in more nefarious forms than the riders we have been talking about recently. I
          I guess we will also see how this separation of powers thing works up close and personal.

          Federal government in day to day wildlife management role. It will never happen. guarantee it.

          • JB says:

            Hmm… The Court in Kleppe is pretty clear that the federal government’s power over lands to which it holds title is without limit. The really interesting legal question is, does the federal government have a public trust responsibility (akin to the state’s) with respect to wildlife resources? The broad, flexible reading of the public trust doctrine that many legal scholars advocate suggests that they do, though there is little case history.

            Of course, the federal government could always claim that the State is managing the federal resource on the federal government’s behalf, which is by far the most likely scenario should such a claim ever be made. So Congressional “fixes” to a claim of federal ownership is probably a moot point. Still interesting to ponder though. Given the SCs prior rulings I sincerely doubt a Congressional “fix” would withstand legal challenge, as such a ruling would challenge federal authority over the government’s own property and (ironically, as Elk’s comments imply) the whole notion of private property rights with pretty interesting implications (e.g., Could states lay claim to wildlife on DOD land/military bases?).

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            As Elk, WM and JB have agreed, the likelyhood of the federal government attmepting to usurp the role of state government in wildlife management on a broad and general basis is next to non-existant. As much discussion as this topic has received over recent years, the most important point is emphasized above: Yes, the federal government has broad authority to over-rule states on issues of wildlife management authority on federal public lands, HOWEVER – the examples of that occurring have been very few and under very selective circumstances. The history of wildlife management in North America has always been within the North American Model and will continue to be so for the forseeable future – if for no other reason than those offered by Elk and WM. In fact, there are a multitude of other equally sound reasons why the North American Model will remain the gold standard – WITH NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS to keep it relevant to our changing society.

          • Phil says:

            Mark: You speak of the “North American Model”, but, going back to your Federal Government stepping in and over-ruling the states on management issues, how can they when they are run by a “yes man” to anything and everything those states propose to him? These plans are not dictated by the North American Model, they are dictated by those who have a distaste to a certain species. I applaud your dedication to defend your agency and what it does, but as an outsider from your point of views, I also see the dis-honesty you and your agency are implementing.

          • WM says:


            I should not have been so flip in dismissing the implications of the case. JB is, of course, correct on the far reaching potential of Kleppe.

            I fast forwared to the practical part where Congress has chosen for good reason not to get into the wildlife management business much beyond the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1976, in which the federal government asserted control over these (actually non-native species, so they are really not wildlife in the conventional sense anyway) and told the state of AZ to go pound sand. And, as we have discussed here many times, the feds have done a woefully inadequate job of managing both at huge expense to the federal taxpayer. They have so many freakin’ wild horses they don’t know what to do with them, and to top it off continuing special interest pressures on Congress from a bunch of wildlife advocates for horses and burros have created even more inhumane conditions by preventing humane slaughter of the excess they cannot get rid of. That makes the problem even worse than it was.

            Congressional and federal government agency involvement anymore than they already are would be shear insanity, on a scale even more grand with those wild horses and burros. Hell, it appears Congress can’t even agree on how to get the country’s debt obligations to others in the world timely paid, and anymore the government appears on the verge of shutting down every couple of years, as the respective political parties wait for the other to blink.

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            I’m sure you include the Idaho wolf management plan in your comments on “these plans” and their distance from the North American Model. The Idaho wolf management plan is firmly within the North American Model. It is guided by desires of the residents of Idaho, is designed to meet a broad array of wildlife management objectives, is dedicated to a viable and sustainable wolf population that will meet a variety of public desires for the Idaho wolf population resource and relies on traditional hunting and trapping wolf harvest to achieve wolf population mangagement objectives. Hunting and trapping will be augmented by assistance from WS, where needed to achieve more difficult population objectives – the Lolo Zone e.g. – to achieve managment objectives to lower but not eliminate wolf numbers in specific geographic portions of the state. Because the plan – it’s objectives and the management actions included in the plan – adhere to sound conservation principles for wolves and other wildlife species, it (the plan) is indeed guided by the North American Model. Not sure who you refer to as the “yes man”, but of course the Idaho Department of Fish and Game serves the needs and policies of the state of Idaho, as does every other state fish and game/wildife agency in our country. If you mean to suggest that the IDFG (or other state agencies) should NOT be guided by their state government, you don’t understand our system of government including conventional North American wildlife management. This was discussed in more detail in a previous thread between IDhiker, JB and myself.

          • IDhiker says:


            To simplify Mark’s long answer, state fish and game agencies may accumulate biological data, but all final decisions are political in nature. These decisions may, if convenient to the politicians that control the agency, be based on the biological data, but often do not.

          • IDhiker says:

            Hello Mark,

            In a perfect world, all fish and game decisions would be made for the best interests of wildlife, by professionals that base their decisions on the best data available, without the interference of special interest groups and politicians. I, as you, realize that this is not true, and maybe shouldn’t be.

            I agree with you that all decisions will be debated as to their validity. And they should be, because the public should always be skeptical of decisions with so much input from many sides with vested interests.

            Regarding decisions not based on biological science, the Idaho Wolf management plan is one I would argue, because I am not convinced a “no quota” season makes any sense, and neither, apparently does Montana FWP. You have attempted to explain that one, but to me your explanation conflicts with itself. Another example would be the wolverine trapping season in Montana. Montana FWP admits they have no real data as to how many wolverines are present in the state, but they still allow trappers to kill a number every year for “trophy” trapping opportunities. Now, in the local papers, wolverines are near the top of the list of animals being considered for protection by the feds.

        • WM says:


          I agree with the framework of your analysis. Not sure what to think of the likelihood of legislation for potential trapping prohibition on federal lands (not that I disgree with the concept, as I don’t care for it much myself in most instances).

          It would, I expect, generate that shit storm you have talked about before, as it would be perceived as the erosion of states rights to manage wildlife within their boundaries, notwithstanding federal ownership of certain lands. We all know what that means.

          • JB says:


            I think the “shit storm” may be inevitable. Some state agencies (their commissions, really) have refused to adopt “common sense” regulations (e.g., 24 hour trap checks, mandatory padded or offset jaw traps), viewing any additional regulation as a “slippery slope”. Meanwhile, public opinion is firmly on the side of people who would restrict or even eliminate some of these practices altogether. The result is that agencies appear heavily biased toward the consumptive user. You toss charismatic species, pets, and federal public land into this mix and you’ve got a highly-combustible situation just waiting for a spark.

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            IDhiker –
            ALL decisions by humans – individually, by government and other institutions of society – are political. Whether those political decisions are well informed and guided by biological or other scientific information will always be disputed or debated. Are you thinking of a specific decision that you believe is not based on biological information?

          • IDhiker says:

            Regarding “commonsense” trapping regulations, and agencies reluctance to implement them, I fought with IDFG for a long time to get the traps and snares off the Salmon River and Middle Fork Salmon trails. IDFG allowed trappers to block these USFS trails with snare poles and traps,in addition to allowing trappers to block pack bridges with the same devices. I had a dog caught in one.

            IDFG wouldn’t budge an inch (although I’ve heard they have since due to more public pressure) on this, which I thought just made sense, since USFS trails are public “right-of-ways”, so to speak. I understand they require traps to be off the trail tread now by about five feet. In Montana it’s fifty.

            Frustrated, I went to the previous supervisor of the Salmon-Challis NF, who told me he had the authority to stop the practice, and even close the forest to trapping if he so chose, but deferred trapping issues to IDFG, effectively ending my options of achieving change.

            Since then, I ran into a warden along the Salmon River, who told me that he and a partner were going down the river trail to check on a trapper, and discovered the Horse Creek (a tributary) pack bridge was totally barricaded with poles, brush, and snares. They removed the obstruction and agreed with me that what I had been reporting was valid.

          • IDhiker says:

            Sorry Mark, my first reply appeared a few entries before yours. The Wolf Plan: how in the world can the agency claim to be able to cut off the hunts and trapping when the numbers of wolves killed reach their management goals, when the agency hasn’t set the goals? To me, this makes little logic. In my way of thinking, first you set a goal, then set out to achieve it. For example, if I were you, I’d figure out how many wolves needed to be removed from each management unit to meet my other objectives. I wouldn’t say, “Well, I don’t know what that number is, but I’ll know it when I see it.”

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            IDhiker –
            Good, practical question that needs more discussion. The proposed wolf season is no different than most of our hunting seasons and the way those seasons are conducted. In the extremely unlikely event that wolf harvest exceeds a safe number – the Department and the Commission will have ample time and ability to consider the risk and make necessary adjustments to the wolf hunting/trapping season, up to and including closing the season. Recall, that this season includes mandatory reporting requirements for successful hunters and trappers. We will closely monitor wolf harvest through the season and have an accurate assessment of hunting/trapping mortality for the population at the state and local levels. With this in mind, it should be clear that a wolf harvest quota is not at all necessary to avoid over-harvest of wolves.

        • WM says:


          Sorry, the post about 6 items below this one (July 19, 7:00 am) responding to Kleppe and trapping legislation should have appeared here.

      • WM says:

        I would venture the means and method of knocking the population down would have been more conservative had a hunt last year been allowed to go forward. Now, with this constant barrage of suit after suit, and who knows what tomorrow may bring in the way of relisting, they will take whatever windows they get just to hold the line.

        That, william, is the part of this some of you folks just don’t get. It is all about the numbers, that were promised (or their understanding of the numbers) at the start of reintroduction and what has actually transpired.

      • Daniel Berg says:

        I think we’ll find out how just how shrewd some of the anti-wolfers are at the state level sometime soon. Aerial hunting of wolves is something that Sarah Palin was/is infamous for supporting, even among some of those who are not “serious” ennironmentalists.

        Widespread and overt use of that tactic could potentially draw more of the general public into the issue.

      • william huard says:

        This is a mess. You know well enough that the USFWS needed to put these minimum numbers on the table to get people that opposed reintroduction to agree. In hindsight, that was a mistake, because these numbers are now arbitrary and have no scientific justification to them.
        It’s like Obama having an economy off cliff and saying that unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%. it’s the same thing- people hold you to those numbers.
        I think the real issue here is that Idaho is incapable of managing wolves responsibly.

      • Elk275 says:

        I am very much against aerial gunning. How stupid can a group of people be, (anti wolfers) so soon. It reminds me of a crimimal after serving his term in the state pen immediately getting out of jail, going to the bar, getting drunk and not remembering what they did when drunk and the judge a month later senting him back to the big house.

      • william huard says:

        Elk 275
        I’m sure you don’t believe me when I say that I am not anti-hunting. I believe in fair chase hunting, no unfair advantage, no dogs, call signals, baiting, trapping. You know Idaho is incapable of doing the right thing here. Aerial hunting in the spring when wolves are trying to raise pups is nothing short of dispicable, and it says alot more about Idaho than I really care to know.

      • Elk275 says:


        I know you are not anti hunting.

        ++I believe in fair chase hunting, no unfair advantage, no dogs, call signals, baiting, trapping. ++

        I believe only in fair chase hunting but what is an unfair advantage. No Dogs, one of my best lady friends has 5 cockers and springers and is trying to win a nation field trial championship. She hunts with her dogs, so is that an unfair advantage. She will not hunt with me; she thinks that I am a bubba hunter. Up flies the pheasant, bang, I shoot it. But no it is all about the dog, the pheasant has to get out aways and only proper shots can be taken. What the hell, I do not have the proper attire anyway to hunt with her. No green weenies, green loden wool pants and coat, tattersall shirt with a tie and a waist coat.

        Interesting, I went to a field trial with her and they plant pheasants, the dog flushes, the shooter shoots and the dog retrieves the pheasant. You are against live pigeon shoots in PA, what is the difference between shooting live pigeons in PA and shooting live pheasants at a field trial. Good questions, it does not bother me either way.

        Calls, is it wrong to call ducks, elk, moose, turkeys, etc. Calling is a time honored method of hunting. Electronic calling is different. Baiting, I do not know where baiting is legal in Montana, but it is used in Idaho on bears.

        • Russell says:

          Baiting is not legal for any big game animal in Montana. It is illegal to hunt a baited area whether or not you knew it was baited.

        • Phil says:

          Elk: Yes, it is wrong to call ducks, elk, turkeys, etc. By bringing the animal to you you are making the kill easier on yourself and decreasing the chances of survival for that animal. You are using that animal’s instinctive behaviors against them. If I call an elk to come to the field I am at, then the elk will track that call from its instinctive behaviors. The elk may track the call in pursuit of a cow, competition, or any other reasons, basically acting upon a behavior it was born with, so how fair game is that?

      • JB says:


        Utah’s director of the DNR compared with wolf reintroduction with reintroducing the T. Rex, and one of Idaho’s F&G commissioners referred to wolves as “stone cold killers” and went on and on about how they destroy wildlife. Idaho’s own governor said he would support a hunt to kill all but 100 wolves (in 2009) and then ordered law enforcement not to enforce federal law with respect to wolves. So I wonder…what would you have done were people who wield this kind of political power saying these sorts of things and threatening these sorts of actions about elk?

        They knew exactly what they were doing–stoking the fire of controversy for their political gain. Throwing all the blame at environmentalists for using the only tool they have to advocate their interest in this matter is disingenuous. There is plenty of blame to go around.

      • Savebears says:

        Boy I used to love it when one of my female golden’s was working a pheasant field, she was the prettiest dog when doing the job she loved. Man I sure miss that dog.

        I also honestly say, there is something to be said about using a bugle to entice a bull during rut, of course turkey hunting with a mouth call and getting large long bearded tom to come strutting in…man oh man, and talk about great eating!

    • Abbey, E says:

      Such a hubristic attitude toward nature, let’s destroy god’s creation for wasteful ranchers. These so called “super hunters” were here before us, maybe people shouldn’t be ranching that land, or living there, in the first place.

      If the state’s rights crowd had its way the whole place would be hunted out and paved over.

      Such brave hunters with poison and gunning out of helicopters.

  2. Phil says:

    I don’t think planning to kill about 1/3 of the wolf population in the state is a responsible or a reasonable hunt. It seems as though Montana wants to establish that 100-150 numbers mark as quickly as possible.

    • Savebears says:

      Right now, it really does not matter what you think Phil, the ball is in the State Game Agencies court..

      • Phil says:

        SaveBears: Yes, it does not matter what I think, but this is one of many reasons why people were against the states to have managements on wolves. This does not show any reasonable management plan by the states. They want to show they can have a respectable plan? Killing off (if they reach their quota) 1/3 of the population in the first years hunt is not reasonable.

    • Savebears says:

      Hopefully they act responsibly..

  3. Nancy says:

    +Interesting, I went to a field trial with her and they plant pheasants, the dog flushes, the shooter shoots and the dog retrieves the pheasant+

    Elk – spent my teens at field trials with pointers and setters. Took home my share of trophies – Top Jr. Handler in my region twice. But we never shot the birds! They (quail) were planted prior to the trials or were in the area, the dogs roamed the fields, went on point when they found them and a starter pistol fired signaled a good flush. Game over. Garnishing points had to do with the dog’s ability to stand without breaking and how the handler worked with the dog before and after the bird flushed.

    • Savebears says:


      Some of the trials I went to, we used the starter pistol system, but there were others that we were allowed to shoot the birds over the dog, and then had a hell of a dinner later in the evening..

      • Savebears says:

        To add, some of the birds hunted are not native to America, so I guess, we could either could have been doing a service or allowing a non-native species to proliferate! But I can tell you, my first golden was hell on field trials and her partner was a great water dog and hell on retrieving ducks, the perfect combination of dogs and they both loved going on point after grouse!

      • Elk275 says:

        I have only been to one field trial and it was in mid October, there could be others ways of doing it.

        I got bore and went home, got my side by side 28, and bubba boy went blue grouse hunting in local attire.

    • Savebears says:

      Elk are you guys getting a lot of grouse down your way this year, man they are overrunning us this year, I was heading into town this morning and seen dozens and had one group of over 10 sitting in the middle of the road looking at me!

      • Elk275 says:

        Save Bears, I am a city boy, I like to have 2 or 3 beers (3 is the limit) and a short drive home, so no mountain living for me.. I live in Bozeman proper. I used to see 7 or 8 coveys of Huns between my home and Costco. In the last several years the Huns have gone. I use to have them in my yard. No more.

  4. Phil says:

    Elk: Whether it is ariel hunting or using calls it is not a fair game for both sides. The call brings the target either close enough or right in front of you. What equal opportunity is that for the elk, deer, duck, etc? What equal opportunity is it for the duck who is found and forced to fly off from the dog? Hiding for the duck is a defensive mechanism, but when human technology is put into use to make the hunts easier for the humans then that defensive mechanism is useless.

    “What is the difference between shooting live pigeons in PA?” In my thinking, I see it no different then canned hunts that occur in Texas or whereever.

    • Savebears says:

      Well Phil,

      I can tell you as my maximum range is about 30 yards with my long bow for an ethical kill and filling the freezer, I am going to continue to use calls, remember I don’t use a gun to secure my meat, I use a wood longbow, wood arrows and hand sharpened steel broad heads and feathers on those wood arrows, if I were to try a longer shot, I risk only wounding the game I am pursuing.

      I can also say, running through the woods willy nilly ain’t going to cut it!

    • wolf moderate says:

      Phil, have you used a call before? Or are you basing your experience on watching “horn porn” videos? Those videos where the elk are bugling like crazy and running to the bugle rarely happen in real hunting situations. Most of those videos are shot, either on private property or extremely limited hunting areas. It’s not like you sound the call and the infantry of animals that you are hunting come sprinting in or something. Also, to master the art of calling takes hard work and dedication. My bugling is horrid lol.

    • Elk275 says:

      Phil, calls and dogs have been used since caveman days. That is the way it is done, there is an entire culture around dogs, calls and decoys. It appears to be a genteel. Ariel hunting is a different situation and has nothing to do with modern sport hunting. It is not sport hunting but animal reduction, we both know that.

      ++The call brings the target either close enough or right in front of you. What equal opportunity is that for the elk, deer, duck, etc? ++

      I am capable of shooting at 500 yards and have shot many animals at that distance. If the range is not crowded, I will shoot at 300 and 400 yard targets. Ethics is a hard to define. I was looking at rifle scopes with electronic red dots in the middle of the cross hairs Sunday. Should they be allow or not, should one be allow to use a GPS, a range finder or the new modern progressive gun powers and rifle bullets that have been introduce in the last 5 years increasing muzzle velocity up to 150 per second.

      Each year modern firearms brings the hunter closer to his prey. The biggest development is used by both hunter and wildlife watcher, modern optics. Forty years ago good quality binoculars were expensive and most hunters did not have a decent pair. The best German quality binoculars available forty years now that same quality or better quality is available at Wal Mart for less than $200.

      I was talking with an employee of a archery products company the other day and her company is developing a small range finder that will be mounted on the bow. Modern archery equipment has nothing in common with archery equipment 30 to 50 years ago. The mountain man of the fur trade era wouldn’t have a cure on how to shoot a modern muzzle loader.

      Is technology destroying the sport of hunting or fishing or all modern sports. I used to like to rock climb, today I do not recognize modern rock climbing gear. The same with skiing, boating, etc. If I play golf or tennis I am sure that technology has changed them too.

      • Phil says:

        Whether it is 500 yards or 50 yards, the calls are the baits for the animal to swing your way. It does not give the animal an equal fighting chance. Basically, the calls are forcing a reaction from the instinctive behavior of that animal. “Each year modern firearms brings the hunter closer to his prey.” I think it should be that it brings the prey closer to the hunter, but you are exactly right on.

        Even though I do not believe hunting is a outdoor sport, you are right. Modern technology only benefits the rock climber, and modern technology only benefits the hunter which gives an unequal playing field. I am not trying to start a vicious argument, but to me it is clear.

      • Savebears says:


        I mouth call, I can bugle with nothing other than my mouth, now I am unfair because I have learned and hone a skill that uses no tools? I don’t own a commercial bugle, I have also hunted Moose, and use a birch bark call, that I peel off the tree to call them. When turkey hunting, my wife is my caller, she can mimic a turkey to a tee with nothing but her own mouth. She is also pretty good at mewing to elk with nothing more than what god gave her. So based on your opinion, we should duck tape our mouths when we are out hunting?

      • Savebears says:

        Of course I also speak fluent German and Japanese, I guess that gives me an unfair advantage as well! But I don’t write them fluently, but can write it both languages as well, it appealed to the natural instinct of a Japanese woman enough that we were married for over 5 years many years ago..

      • wolf moderate says:

        Don’t give these guys an excuse to duct tape your mouth shut. It’s a slippery slope, it starts when only you hunt, then to one hour before and after the hunt, then all the sudden they got you muzzled 24/7! I saw it happen once.

      • Savebears says:


        I know people that can use a blade of grass to call in elk, very similar to what the Native Americans did, I guess that was unfair as well..of course as a country we did silence that group of people!

      • Elk275 says:

        Save Bears

        My moose call is high tech compared to yours: mind will not pass Phil’s muster, oh well. I use a 2 pound coffee can with a hole punched in the middle of the bottom of the can. Then I knot a flat shoe lace and let the length of the lace run down the middle of the can. You wet the lace and run your hand down it. The can amplifies the sound created by the fiction with your hand on the lace. Works very good, I used it in Alaska one day and there was my moose five minutes later.

        I do not what anyone says about calls etc. The biggest technological advantage is modern optics, something few think about.

      • Savebears says:


        I have heard of that one, I have never tried it though, I might play around this year and see how that works out, I would love to get some good photos of bulls in rut, something to add to my collection.

  5. Phil says:

    wolf moderate: I did not say a herd of deer or elk will flock to your destination when hearing the call, but deer hunting occurs during the season when the males are in their testes hormone stage, right? Isn’t that one factor as to why their velvets begin to peel? I am not going to pretend to know the exact effects of calls, but I do understand the call is either a mating call or a male to male conflict call.

    SB: Come on. LOL Chasing the deer in the woods would be fun.

    • Savebears says:

      Phil, at the time I hunt deer, calling them is pretty much useless, I don’t hunt deer during the rut, its to damn cold at that time of the year, I hunt deer during archery season, which occurs in September around the area I live in, the rut happens in Nov-Dec, to much snow and to damn cold to be drawing a bow!

  6. Phil says:

    SB, wolf moderate and Elk: As hard as it is, and as much proof as there is out there, I will try to see it your way due to the fact that you go through what you are saying.

  7. brian says:

    i hope you all lived in the area these animals are now i seen one of the wolf last fall and scared the hell out me it was hunting me and lucky for me a hunters shoot scared it off. my friend has owned this land for about 40 plus years killed his dogs in front of the house five years ago and he will not even hardly got out of his house at night the to someone bright idea there was a reason the pioneers got rid of these animals. the food source the eat deer elk are drying up we are next. i just got a email about one attacked a guide in idaho and surrounded hunters in a pack just the start; the food runs out we are the food out dog, cat and adults and our children.


May 2011


‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey