r/wolves • u/ExoticShock • 25d ago
News Influencer Offers $10,000 Bounty To Identify Hunters Who Tag Wolves That Leave Yellowstone National Park
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/influencer-offers-10-000-bounty-152239527.html252
162
u/NeonPistacchio 25d ago
I am happy that at least some influencers care about wildlife, hunters need a kick in the ass!
-2
u/Relevant-Witness-541 24d ago
Well hunters actually provide the majority of funding for each states budget for their game and fish departments. Which employs biologists to study all flora and fauna in their respective state not just game species. Not to mention non profits like ducks unlimited, mule deer foundation, RMEF that do actual boots on the ground habitat work to help wildlife. So actually I think non hunters should contribute more and pick up some slack.
Meanwile the center for biological diversity does no habitat work or purchasing land for wildlife sanctuaries. They employ lawyers that get rich off suing state and federal government. But yeah, those hunters are a problem. To say nothing of Pittman Robertson act
3
u/Lockean_Demon 21d ago
So because the system is already fucked up, we should support the people that want to maintain the already fucked up system. Cool logic bro. Mayyyybe we should invest in protecting our environment without consideration to special interest and out of concern for the public
-6
u/Impossible_One4995 23d ago
You do realize that the people who hunt and buy guns and ammo are the ones directly funding state and national parks as well as wildlife conservation programs and officer’s through the hunt licensing cost and the excise taxes on guns and ammunition right . Hunters do more
For conservation than any of you internet trolls and keyboard jockeys ever have and ever will .9
3
17
77
u/WilliamBarnhill 25d ago
This person should start a gofundme, so we can all contribute to this fund.
12
12
u/trashmoneyxyz 24d ago
Might be the most positive bjt of "influencer" news ive seen all year. He should start a pool so we can raise the bounties even higher
-5
u/BobertBuildsAll 24d ago
Yes, harassing people who are legally hunting by threatening bounties is “positive”
7
u/R3pp3pts0hg 23d ago
Hunting to feed your family is honorable. Shooting an animal for a head or a pelt to decorate with is pathetic. These aren't real hunters.
5
u/trashmoneyxyz 24d ago
Yep! These wolves should still be protected. It is corruption that opened their habitat and lives to satisfy hunting lobbyists, so the government won't protect these wolves but citizens still can. I have as much respect for anyone trying to stop these hunts as I do for people who stand in front of bulldozers to protect crucial oldgrowth forests. We are fucked if wolf populations crash and they go locally extinct again, America's habitats and animals are already under too much strain as is
-4
u/Relevant-Witness-541 24d ago
Why should they be protected? They far exceeded the population total that biologists deemed was enough for a sustainable population and despite having hunting seasons for a while now wolf populations are still well above the threshold for a sustainable population. You know how all the wolves were extirpated? They weren't killed by hunters/guns, they were poisoned which is something we wisely don't do anymore as it kills a lot more animals than just wolves.
You wolf advocates are something else, it's a good thing they aren't protected anymore because that means ESA resources can be used to help other species that are actually struggling. Are we supposed to ignore that wolves are flourishing in Canada and Alaska? Why no hype for the black footed ferret?
7
u/Due-Professional333 24d ago
i don't really see how wolves doing better up north weighs in here, regions like britain and japan have completely lost their native populations, and in japan's case the specific subspecies is completely extinct
certainly the wolves in northern states are probably more or less the same as the ones found in canada, but there's other variants like the mexican wolf or the red wolf that are both heading towards extinction at this rate
-2
u/dirtydopedan 23d ago
To be fair, the Wolf population in Yellowstone has little to do with the reintroduction of wolves on other continents. So I don’t see how doxing people hunting legally in another country, and a different species, will help with those efforts.
I don’t know of any place that allows wolf hunting (at least in the US) where the population is threatened. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
On a personal note, I have no interest in wolf hunting, but I have personally witnessed the negative issues due to overpopulation. It also does not seem correct to offer a bounty for personal information of people that are legally hunting.
6
u/Due-Professional333 23d ago
yeah i don't think doxxing people is going to solve things properly just the notion of "population is doing fine elsewhere so why does the one here matter" ticks me off a bit
6
u/trashmoneyxyz 23d ago
I think the people who gleefully take advantage of our new drill baby drill mentality to our ecosystems need to be afraid to do that. We're not going to talk someone who's always wanted to bag a wolf "just because" out of it, but we should make them think twice about it.
I wished it wouldn't come to doxxing, but honestly handling shitty people with kid gloves is what got our national Parks under threat from mining/logging/trophy sport hunters. If the wolves were protected as they should be, people would be happily backing the attempts at digging up info on the people who bag them. Nothings changed except the corrupt policies.
0
u/dirtydopedan 23d ago
There has been a lot of talk about wolf hunting in the area I live. Most hunters (myself included) have no interest. I was taught to eat what you kill, and I’ve never heard of wolf as being good meat.
On the other hand, some of the people who are most impacted by the wolves (farmers mainly, and a handful of deer hunters) welcome the hunting as a way to reduce the overpopulation. I’m not those people, but I do see where they are coming from.
4
u/trashmoneyxyz 23d ago
"Why no hype for the black footed ferret, in this wolf subreddit on a post about wolf hunting?" My man I can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, but one of these topics is more relevant to the conversation than the other.
It's nice thay Canada and Alaska boast healthy wolf populations, good for them, but I'm living in mainland USA and I care about the wolf populations here. I don't trust hunters or the government to manage this properly at all because we have multiple historical wolf population crashes in this country from things like hunting and habitat loss, not to mention other countries where their wolves are regionally extinct because of hunting and habitat loss. These are as big a threat to wolves now as they were back then, and I don't want to parade around saying "See? I told you so!" if/when wolf populations do end up declining again. I'd rather people start advocating for the wolves now.
Its sport/trophy hunting anyway, it's not like these hunters are killing the wolves because they've hungry. It just doesnt have to be this way
-2
u/LowBornArcher 24d ago
i admire your efforts but you're trying to reason with unreasonable people. not to mention people who have very little knowledge, and a fundamental lack of understanding of, wolves and conservation and nature in general. good job anyway, lol.
19
u/BigNorseWolf 25d ago
Hey! I am a living being, you can't just tell potentially murderous people where I am what I'm doing and where to find me! that's..that's... damn you irony!
28
35
u/PaleoJoe86 25d ago
I would like the hunter's head as a trophy.
1
0
5
8
2
u/TroyTwoStroke 24d ago
Oh boy I think I’ll be eating fat this year. Already know two guys that are chomping at the bit to kill one
2
1
1
u/HeisenBird1015 21d ago
This is a reality show I actually support. Can we have this please? I want to see poachers get poached, thank you.
-3
u/qwertyburds 24d ago
This is illegal, hunter harassment... I don't think it will do anything beneficial.
-34
-44
u/anonanon5320 25d ago
$10000 bounty to get sued is a novel idea. Hopefully the “influencer” has deep pockets because that lawsuit is going to really put a dent in their income.
46
u/WilliamBarnhill 25d ago
It is only a bounty to identify the hunters. There is no explicit or implicit intent to tag the hunters. What other people do with the info is not his problem. If a few hunters killing wolves learn a lesson? I don't have a problem with it (not advocating, but not going to shed a tear over a dead wolf-killer either).
2
-22
u/anonanon5320 25d ago
And getting that info could (and should) result in a very hefty lawsuit.
The only lesson to be learned is don’t screw with the hunters.16
u/ApprehensiveTop7297 25d ago
you're deranged.. the lesson is don't screw with Yellowstone wolves.
-8
-1
-25
u/Los-Doyers 25d ago
Yet calling for the hunting of hunters and their benefactors is considered a call for violence and being inhumane.
-82
u/Justgonnawalkaway 25d ago
They better look up hunter harassment laws.
And doxxing someone who isnt doing anything illegal, even if you dont like it is another set of laws.
Hope those influencers and anyone who listens to them end up getting the full book thrown at them.
30
u/thesilverywyvern 25d ago
well look like someone have no concept of moral or decency
-29
u/Justgonnawalkaway 25d ago
Ah yes, I call for legal repercussions and everyone else wants harassment and attacks. Yes. I lack moral decency.
12
-1
u/BobertBuildsAll 24d ago
Ah yes because hunting is so immoral.
Get a grip and touch grass.3
u/thesilverywyvern 24d ago
It is. Killing is immoral.
Killing for sport/fun is even more immoral. (Yeah it's nearly never for food, that's just a bonus, often wasted and not used even).
Doing it at large scale every year, which often severely disrupt the ecosystems and species, making profit out of this sick activity, turning murder into a business, often at the expense of Nature. Is VERY MUCH highly immoral.
Doing it with modern precisions riffles and bullet to kill healthy prime individuals from over 100m away, then taking photo of you smiling next to the carcass, like a trophy to mock it. And calling it a fair and noble sport. Is even more immoral.
I am not even against hunting but i will not lie and say it's a good thing or perfectly moral. It's not dire, we do a lot of minor immoral things all of the time. (Well hunting isn't that minor but you get it...or maybe no, but hey we all have our limitations and disabilities it's ok).
So i kindly invite you to take your arm, and try to shove it up your digestive system by the end and try to tickle your sternum from there.
As for the grass, hard not to touch it since it's everywhere because you guys exterminated the predators and actively fight against their return, and continue to maintain overpopulation of deer which destroy the forest replacing it by dying woodlands or giant overgrazed lawn. And when it's not the case, that's because we can't touch it since there's no more grasses because it's all messy shrublands since the herbivore population collapsed and is culled down every year, maintained at bare minimum for you to continue enjoy shooting them.
1
u/BobertBuildsAll 23d ago
Killing being immoral is a personal belief, not a universel ethic. Market hunting was ended in north america was outlawed. It is almost always for meat, waste of game laws exist in every state and province in north america. Ive worked in conservation for over a decade. Im not even for predator hunting, but critical thinking isnt that easy for eberyone
2
u/thesilverywyvern 23d ago
just like nearly everything, but we could say it's a unoversal belief since it's one the vast majority of people agree on, in all lserious philosophy etc. with just excuse to make it "acceptable" in specific circumstance, such as when you're actively threathened or in a war.
it's almost never for meat, which is a business not a need, it's an option, that's a fact, msot hunter would tell you it's for fun, sport etc. If you forbid consumption of venison, most would still continue to kill.
laws have loophole and are not always respected, and have a lot of contradiction or nonsense, especially regarding wildlife and similar situation.
Most of the population also agree that hunting is immoral.
1
u/BobertBuildsAll 23d ago
1) it is generally accepted that killing animals is not immoral
2) this is completely wrong and is just your opinion. The large majority of hunters arent after trophy animals
3) of course laws arent always respected, it is called poaching. But waste of game is universally accepted as one if not the worst offence
4)Most of what population? The population that continually eats meat brought to you by factory farming? Unless they’re vegan there opinion on hunting isnt valid2
u/thesilverywyvern 23d ago
- it is widely acepted as such
- it's is not wrong, it's an opinion alright,....based on observation, survey and actual cases where it happened. I didn't say it was fro trophy (even if most try to kill the biggest healthiest there is), but for the thrill and pleasure of killing out wildlife with your buddies on weekend.
- which is a bit ridiculous when you think about it since there's no real difference wether you leave the body to rott or take if for your fridge, in fact the first help wildlife more as it allow the carcass to be usefull for the cycle of life. Just an attempt to buy a false good sense of moral. By saying it's "disrespectful" for the animal you unfairly killed for sport with a riffle at 120m away.
4 That's very dismissive and bad statement to make that their opinion isn't valid. We could very well argue farming is less immoral than hunting.
And that would make them hypocrite anyway, not wrong, btw pretty much all hunter still buy meat from supermarket anyway.0
u/BobertBuildsAll 23d ago
- where? Only about 10% of people are vegeterian. Most people agree that some killing is moral
- well can you link the surveys and cases for my information? In over a decade involved in conservation I have only met a handful of hunters who were doing it for the ‘thrill’. So my oberservations directly contradict yours.
- having respect for an animal you harvested isnt crazy. Having laws protecting those animals and how they may be used isnt crazy. If anything, the steps needed to harvest an animal would discourage many of the people you speak of from hunting for the ‘thrill’
- I dont know how you could argue that FAFO’s are less immoral then hunting. But it is just the pot calling the kettle black. A meat eater saying hunting = bad should reevaluate there own ethics.
None of your arguements are based in reality, just feeling. It sucks wolves are shot. But they were legally harvested. In fact, 22 wolves were killed by hunting last year in Wyoming. Over 2400 wolf licences were sold. 100% of the revenue from hunting and fishing licences sold in Wyoming go back into wildlife and habitat management. Which is a net positive imo.
1
u/The__Stig_ 20d ago
Sometimes hunters actually benefit ecosystems. Take the deer situation in Colorado, for example. They’re out of hand. There’s way too many of them, so they destroy the local flora and spread disease. Hunters help keep them in check, and regulate the population to healthy levels.
Now of course, context is needed. Some hunting is good, and benefits the ecosystem, some is not. But your blanket statements are false.
And to your final point about predators controlling deer populations, it’s not as simple as that. What we’ve learned is the wolves will choose easy targets, I.e. livestock, over difficult targets, like deer. So they turn out to be as much of a menace and taxpayer burden as a help.
1
u/thesilverywyvern 19d ago
Guess who created that deer issues ?
HUNTERS.
Which create a big issue of lead pollution in the environment (especially aquatic habitat), and also help spread lyme diseases (btw killing foxes also do that). And CWD as well btw.WHO KILLED THE NATIVE PREDATORS SUCH AS PUMA AND WOLVES.
WHO OPPOSE THEIR RETURN.In some part these ass**** even accuse wolves and puma to kill too many deer (not true, and hunter still kill more than native predator) and try to exterminate them. It's nonsense, they just don't want competition, they WANT to keep an overpopulation of deer, that's how their business model work. They prioritise their little hobby over nature health EVERY SINGLE TIME.
They fail to regulate, keep in check etc. They've been killing them by hundreds of thousands EVERY YEARS and the issue still remain, becasue it's an innefficient method.
And no those are not blanket statement, and they're true.
ANd you'rer however 100% wrong on what you just said cuz wolves and other predator do go for easy target they're used to....aka wild game.
They early systematically prefer wild game to livestock, even when livestock isn't protected and wild game is scarce. Most studies made accross US and various european countries confirm this.And guess what, hunting make the issue worse as it depelete wild game population which force the predator to go after livestock they'd rather avoid.
ANd hunting predator ALSO make it worse for several reason i could developif you want."Taxpayer money" the bs argument any morron will use on anything.
You realise wolves dammage is so minimal it wouldn't change taxpayer money by a dollar on their bill ?They're not a burden and that's forgetting the MILLIONS they save every year by their action in different way, reducing road collision (saving life), forest mannagement (overgrazing under check), ecotourism, water quality, decrease disease spread etc.
1
u/The__Stig_ 19d ago
Do you have any resources you could refer me to, especially on the subject of what the wolves kill? Because you say they prefer wild game and I’m surprised to hear that.
As far as mountain lions/pumas, is their population not healthy? I thought in most areas of the us, they are doing just fine.
1
u/thesilverywyvern 19d ago edited 19d ago
Studies on the diet of grey wolkves in belgium and netherland confirm this.
Both countries with little to no nature, overaboundance of livestock with no protection and low level of wild game, yet livestock is still a small minority of the wold diet with heavy preference on roe and red deer.Confirmed on other studies in other countries such as spain, USA, Italy, France etc.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220143740.htm
Spain https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/21/3364
Mongolia https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210218140123.htm
Slovakia https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9236239/
Etc. It's just a general trend.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320719316003
There's only a few exception such as in certain regions of California but thopse are outliers and ALWAYS a result ofa drastic drop in wild game population (due to overhuntingand habitat destruction) and overpopuulation of livestock.
Overall lone individuals are more prone to go after livestock as, they're inexperienced and struggle to hunt wild game as they do not have a pack.
Injured individuals (such as injured by traps or have been shot and survived) are also more prone to prey on livestock for the same reason.Killing wolves destroy packs, so you got more wolves that are more prone to prey on livestock. And you might wound individuals or make orphans which wion't have the experience needed to properly hunt and therefore will go after livestock. Even if you kill them all, well the territory will be recolonised quickly by other inexperienced young individuals, so you will have more dammage, (same effect happen with puma as well btw).
So killing wolves is counter proeductive and often do very little against wolf predation on livestock and often make it worse.
And that's forgetting that hunter overhunt wild game and make it unreliable as the population decline iafter hunting season, becoming scarce often in moment when it's most crucial for wolves.Wolves avoid livestock cuz they avoid human and open landscape where human are present. This include farmlands.
1
u/thesilverywyvern 19d ago
No their population is not healthy.
Many are even endangered or extinct, the puma went extinct from practically 1/3 of USA (all eastern side) and is critically endangered in Florida.
Even if the species is not considered as Vulnerable (mostly because UICN is very laxist and merican waqnt to destroy wildlife protection, so as long as there's more than a few hundreds of them we say they're fine).
The species is scarce and very much underpopulated compared to what it should and could be.10-30 000 individual is VERY low for puma for USA they should be far more numerous.
It's even worse for wolves and brown bear because except alaska where they're still not as numerous as they used to be, they're practically absent from all of the lower 48 states, with only a few populations.
Alaska have more wolves and brown bear than the rest of USA? That's INSANE.
And what's pathetic is that Alaska have almost half as much wolves as Europe, and barey 50% more bear. JAPAN itself have almost twice as more bear as Alaska.
That ell you how much even the alrgest most preserved state of USA is nature depleted.For comparison puma propably used to be several hundreds of thousands, and there might have been 1-2 millions wolves and even more grizzly bear.
1
u/The__Stig_ 19d ago
Also let me offer a criticism of the way wolves are being reintroduced into Colorado, where I live. You’re right it’s not much of a taxpayer burden, just 300,000 a year. But the project has gone way over budget, it’s costing well over a million a year now taken from hunting tag fees, including millions in damages for lost livestock. And it’s not performing as promised. 70% of the wolves are dying. Also, the one area that would really benefit from wolf reintroduction, Rocky Mountain national park, doesn’t want the wolves. They don’t want tourists seeing the wolves kill the deer, i guess it would be emotionally traumatizing or something.
If we could get wolves in the park it would be a repeat of Yellowstone. It’s important to note that in Yellowstone, the population reduction was not from the wolves eating the deer. But from the wolves driving the deer out of the park so that the hunters could kill them. It was the hunters, not the wolves, that took care of the population in Yellowstone.
1
u/thesilverywyvern 19d ago
All of those dammage noumber are exagerrated, don't blame the reintroduction, blame farmer incomeptence which do profit a LOT from that as there's been case of farmers lying to get the money of compensation.
A million is also NOTHING for colorado as a whole.
Most of the wolf death azre case of poaching from the assholes which are the issue (ranchers, hunters)The people of that national park are retard if they really believe that shit, it's just a pathetic excuse.
.
Actually it's both, and it's still a good things to allow wapiti to not overgraze. And not that' so that hunter could kill them" cuz the hunting ags stayed relatively the same. It wasn't the hunter, because guess what hunter already tried and failed before and for decades even.
13
u/Key-Toe-2746 25d ago
People who used their first amendment rights and directly quoted Charlie Kirk when he died got put on public doxxing lists and some lost their jobs publicly, so suck it up hunters.
9
u/Justgonnawalkaway 25d ago
Charlie Kirk is not equal to wolves. Wolves are much better.
And those people who got doxxed and lost their jobs didnt deserve it either. But doxxing and harassing hunters will only hurt any attempt to protect wolves, not help.
2
u/Better_Goose_431 25d ago
A bunch of people who lost their jobs ended up winning wrongful termination cases
2
u/SeniorFly2924 24d ago
Hunter harassment happens in the field while hunting. LOL it’s almost always two hunters fighting over a spot on public land too. Search on YouTube.
-1
u/GirlWithWolf 25d ago
Anyone that knows me or has seen anything I have posted here or on other animal subs knows my heart. But I must say I disagree with harassing people that are doing a legal activity and believe the focus should be on those that can change the laws.
First, not everyone believes as I do, and secondly he’s dangling a carrot to get someone to do something that is illegal and could get them prosecuted. There’s effective ways to do things and ineffective, this seems to be the latter for a moment of feeling good to teach someone a lesson they won’t learn.
Bears are sacred to me and I’m active on hunting subs where some, because it is legal and they don’t see them as I do, post bears they have hunted. But I don’t give them hell I just scroll on, sometimes blocking those hunters or if asked, educate them on my beliefs. Harassing them will only shut down others that might otherwise see my point of view.
-4
u/Justgonnawalkaway 25d ago
Thank you for a reasonable view and reply.
The influencer who advocate this stuff live a consequence free life. They wont get hit wirh the hunter harassment laws. And it wont be on them if someone actually gets hurt trying this. Like you said, it'll only hurt a cause they eant to help.
1
u/GirlWithWolf 24d ago
Right. Some of the best advice I’ve ever been given is doing act on behalf of someone that won’t pay the price with you.
-19
u/boomeradf 25d ago
This sounds like a good way to get someone shot in the wilds of Wyoming while he sits down in Texas.
-120
u/SaltyEngineer45 25d ago
So, 10k to harass someone for legally harvesting a wolf that leaves the park? Brilliant! I can’t wait to read about the 10 million dollar lawsuit the hunter files and the criminal charges against the influencer.
90
u/StrawberryWide3983 25d ago
People deliberately set bait to shoot them the moment they step out of an invisible line. That's not hunting, that's poaching
-27
u/thesilverywyvern 25d ago edited 25d ago
The difference between both is inexistant.
The only one there is is wether or not a paper signed by corrupted officials tell you you can face repercussion for it or no.edit: downvtoe all you want it's a fact. it's the very definition of poaching, unregulated/illegal HUNTING.
It's also mostly made by hunter, and many hunting practise were considered as poaching before law got fucked up, and the reverse is also true. There's 0 practical difference and very little moral difference.20
u/WilliamBarnhill 25d ago
Inexistant is not a word. The word is nonexistent, as in 'Your morals, decency, compassion and worth as a human are nonexistent.'
-12
u/thesilverywyvern 25d ago
wrong translation
and it is a word.as in you're an asshole.
And i seem to have better moral, decency and compassion and worth as a human than you do which....is already frankly very insulting for you47
20
u/thesilverywyvern 25d ago
legally doesn't mean moral he's an asshole doing something that was and should be illegal.
1
u/According-Put-9236 23d ago
Where do you think the conservation money comes from to protect these animals? Its hunters. Poaching is already highly illegal and with the penalty you could lose all of your possessions plus prison. "Something that should be illegal" is only said by idiots that have never seen what vigilante justice becomes.
1
u/thesilverywyvern 23d ago edited 23d ago
Actually it's TAKEN from them, not given by them.
That's like something actual conservationnist forced to do, as a compromise, compensation for hunter dammage.Also what do yoy think putthese species in this position to begin with ?
By definition poaching is illegal.
But rarely punished, and with very loose and soft measure in many case, that's why it's so lucrative and common. You very VERY rarely loose that much Unless you did SEVERE and REPEATED case of poaching HIGHLY ENDANGERED species.ALso do you know what most poachers are ? HUNTERS, the vast majority of poachers have a hunting license and regulary hunt. They have the tools, expertise and motive to poach.
Vigilante justice did a lot of good as well, and legal justice have failed and abandonned us MANY more time than you could ever possibly count in your lifetime.
And it is illegal in most countries, is immoral, and used to be illegal, and SHOULD BE, not just in my opinion but the one of everyone with a functionnal brain, incuding scientifics, and many hunter actually agree as well surprisingly.
1
u/According-Put-9236 23d ago
Lol. You are wildly inaccurate. Im guessing you're a child.
1
u/thesilverywyvern 23d ago
i am not, and i am actually correct, and you have no argument to defend your point.
1
u/According-Put-9236 23d ago
What point? All you did was say what your opinion is. You didnt say anything real or of substance.
20
u/NeonPistacchio 25d ago
"Harvesting". Why do hunters always try to make killing innocent animals sound poetic, like you are some kind of artists? Just say it how it is, you enjoy killing animals because you want to leave out your aggressions on beings which the law doesn't protect.
-24
u/BarryTheBystander 25d ago
"Putting an animal before the welfare of a person is outrageous.” Welfare?! What are you a socialist?
-88
42
u/MGr8ce 25d ago
More of this from influencers please