I watched this video and would agree it's interesting.  But it seems a bit onesided in it's viewpoints and interviews.  I'd like to see interviews with leaders of activist groups they quote.  Kind of a straw dog to set up your debate with quotes, explain your point but provide no opportunity for counter-point.  

I'm not a wolf re-introduction activist by any stretch of the imagination.  I would also not really consider myself anti-wolf.  I would absolutely consider myself pro-agriculture and ranching.  Educating myself about this issue is probably something I should do.

Thanks for posting the link.  It was interesting and definitely piqued some interest from me to try to discover more about this issue.

I had heard about this movie, but hadn't watched it yet. Thanks for posting Tndeerhunter!

COMeatHunter, most people do not see or understand what ranchers have to deal with on a daily basis. They already deal with mountain lions, bears and coyotes and to introduce yet another predator is simply not right. I've been reading and tracking this from the time they first started talking about introducing wolves. It's always been a bad idea, but no one listened to the people that would have to deal with the wolves, instead they opened it up to commentary from people who had some romantic notion about wolves and would never be personally affected by them. As the one rancher stated in the movie, they were promised that wolf populations would not be allowed to grow past what was recommended by wildlife biologists. It was an outright lie. Those numbers were reached very quickly and then the wolves continued to multiply exponentially. Of course the wolves have also spread out and are creating havoc in many more areas than just the greater Yellowstone area. 

To add insult to injury, Pittman Robertson funds were obtained by the wolf activist groups to pay for their wolf propaganda. Funds that are paid for by hunters and intended for wildlife conservation. The wolf was allowed to multiply and devastate wildlife populations completely unchecked. This is not what conservationists had in mind when the fund was established back in 1937. 

Many of the wolf groups have websites, do a search and you will quickly see the mindset of these people. They literally idolize wolves. Here is one that I keep an eye on http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com - oh and try and post or comment on any of these sites. Not allowed. All they want is their own point of view promoted, God forbid some rational thinking person tries to point out how viscious and destructive wolves can be. If any mention is made of the pain they inflict on their prey - well, then it's simply just what wolves do. 

Personally I've always believed that wolves were introduced to remove people (hunters) from the equation of managing wildlife. When wildlife populations are decimated, hunting cannot continue. Look at what's happening right now with caribou, moose and elk populations in areas of Canada, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Minnesota and Michigan. Hunting has been halted or cut back severely. 

Canada and Alaska have been trying to get a handle on the wolf problem for many years, even resorting to aerial shoots, but the wolf just continues to multiply. And how in the world do you take an animal like that and place it in the lower 48 states and suddenly label it endangered? For one thing it's NOT our native wolf and secondly it's NOT endangered in North America. 

Hunters everywhere need to wake up and see that the wildlife is slowly dwindling and our own tax dollars are being used to promote that destruction. The wolves are here, it's only a matter of time before they spread to all the states. 

Cowgal,  very well put.  Like it or not big game animals are funded by the hunter.  We buy the tags the equiptment support wildlife orgs. such as RMEF, Mule deer Fundation among others.   We are paying for them 2 times.  Through taxes and the other ways I just mentioned

Cowgal, thanks for taking the time to provide a bunch more thoughts and detail.  I grew up in an agricultural area and worked for many farmers and ranchers as a young man.  I know how hard they work and what little they get in return sometimes.  I've been there.  Anything that makes it harder for them to make a living is going the wrong direction.  

I would agreed with most (if not all, I can't remember a point in the film that I didn't really agree with) of the opinions and comments in the film.  My above point was more "style" critique than content criticism.  I don't really know enough about this issue to critique the content and I appreciated the film in that it piqued my interest to look further into the issues and facts.  In terms of style, when information comes across as one-sided, many people's propaganda meter goes off and they stop listening or stop believing the information presented--kind of glaze over.  How many times have you watched a Michael Moore film, or the "terrific" film by Al Gore, and thought to yourself they aren't being completely honest with their presentation of information?  I'm not calling Crying Wolf a propaganda movie, I'm simply trying to say a more balanced approach to presentation would capture a much wider audience and lend much more credibility to the content.

I would agree about laziness too.  I think we all get comfortable and don't realize how big some problems/issues really are until they come knocking on our door.  The time to act is long before it becomes more personal and effects each of us, from the price and quality of the beef we eat to the animals we hunt.  I'm guilty of being lazy here.  But I can remedy that pretty quickly.

Thanks again, I appreciated your comments and points. 

I am pretty neutral with the wolf.  We got them, they are not going away, lets manage them.

what i am going to say next won't be popular, but oh well.

I am sick of hearing ranchers bitch and moan that there overhead went up.  Yes ranchers work hard, but no harder than anyone else who owns a business.  The govt raises overhead on small business all the time but no one is reimbursing us.  Change is a part of life, the better we deal with change, the better off we will be. 

Also, i do have 2 wolf tags in my pocket if and when i do see one, during the season.

COMeatHunter, I agree that the whole piece would have had more credibility had they included at least one USFWS official and one biologist that worked on the wolf reintroduction. 

The big mistake I see is that biologist recommendations were not followed in maintaining specific wolf population numbers. Instead judges like US District Court Judge Donald Molloy allowed themselves to be swayed by wolf activist groups, rather than relying on biology and science. Like I stated above emotion was allowed to rule. I'm appalled that these wolf groups were even allowed to sue - and they continue to, using our tax dollars. 

Tim, it's not just the loss of dollars that ranchers are upset about - it's the brutal loss of their livestock, that is even more devastating. Why is it when a Fluffy or Fifi is snacked off by a predator in an urban setting, the media is all over it and the predator hunted down and destroyed, but it's ok to say that ranchers must just suck it up and accept it as a cost of doing business? Don't forget that most ranchers have already been dealing with mountain lions, bears and coyotes for many years. The worst part is that most problem lions and bears are tagged due to causing problems in an urban area, then transplanted to a rancher's backyard. 

The wolf hasn't impacted just ranchers, it has totally destroyed outfitting businesses, many that have been around for generations. No amount of hard work or money can save an outfitter when there are no animals to hunt. 

The wolves will continue to spread, they're already here in Colorado. They've been spotted on numerous occasions on the western slope.

I suppose hunters may finally pay attention when it impacts the sport they love. It's already happening in many areas. 

here is an example of an outfitter adapting to the change.

this outfitter is in central idaho.

quoted from his newsletter:

The wolf season has really been an added bonus this year.  The wolves are plentiful and should make for some fun lion/wolf hunts this winter.  We have room in January-March in the wilderness.  We normally charge $6500 for a wilderness lion hunt plus a $2000 trophy fee for the second lion.  This year we are going to charge $7000 and the hunt will include 2 lions and 2 wolves along with bobcat during the season.

Tim, it's great to see an outfitter try to make "lemonade" out of the "lemons." However simply advertising the hunts does not mean he's successful in selling them. Most of the outfitters I know offer some type of predator (usually mtn lion and/or coyote) hunts. It brings in some money, but it is not be enough to make a living. The main focus will always be elk and deer. Most hunters are not interested in paying big bucks to an outfitter to hunt wolves. 

I am a little late on this post but agree full hearted with you all about the wolves. They need to be controled for the good of the herd and for the good of the ranchers livelyhood. I have posted many times that we as hunters need to get more hunting groups such as Rocky Mountain Elk more involved in this issue so we can get the truth out to the general public. The public gets a ear full from the anti's but how much do you ever see from the hunters side or good wildlife management side? We also need to voice our opinions to our local state reps. to so they understand how we as a group feel. It makes me sick when I see reports about how money raised from taxes on hunting gear is being used to limit/stop hunting or the BILLIONS tax payers have forked out on the law suites etc. If anyone thinks any of this is by chance you are sadly mistaken. This is a well thought out attack to stop hunting at any cost and these folks do not care how it happens as long as it happens. They will lie, cheat or do what ever to get their twisted side out to the public and sway them to vote against hunting. It happened in Colorado for spring bear and no trapping on public lands and in several other if not every state. If we could get a few laws changed or passed it would help the hunting community out greatly. Two that stand out to me are; change the law allowing garbage law suites that we pay all the fees regardless if the antis win or lose. If we change that I am sure they will not be as willing to file since it will cost them. Second, let the state wildlife folks set quotas on all game and preditors so they can manage their populations using sound and proven wildlife management techniques and not based on emotions. I would love to see states that have issues with wolves, bears and lions help the situation by selling low cost or free tags for folks with deer and or elk tags. I am sure most outfitters would not have a issue with skinning a wolf or bear for a client while on an elk hunt. Idaho has reduced tags in areas where the preditors are out of control and need to be thinned. At $32 a tag, I think most hunters would take a lion, wolf or bear if they see one on their hunt.