The Great White Hunter is Bogus

I've been following a blog posted by the Great White Hunter.

He is an American who lives in the Northwestern United States and is having trouble coming to grips with the re-introduction of Timber Wolves into Yellowstone, Utah and Montana.

The problem from is perspective is that he and others of his ilk believe their elk herds are being decimated by an exploding wolf population.

A variety of fantasies are used to support their claim that the wolves are bad news for the elk herds.

Certainly elk numbers have gone down but they stabilized at a sustainable level and have since rebounded.

This story is important because the US is not the only place in the world where wolves are persecuted by people who promote unfounded hysteria in order to advance their position that cannot be substantiated with facts.

Below is the last of about six blogs I posted to the Great White Hunter site. After about the fourth one Great White Hunter started banning my posts because he though I was making personal attacks. They were not intended to be personal but I have to say, if the shoe fits, wear it.

What prompted the ban was my comparing trappers to Ted Bundy. GWH took offence to that. On the other hand in my view, if anyone should have taken offence it was Ted Bundy since as bad as his crimes were, those of trappers against animals easily put Bundy's into the shade.

It is said based on a great deal of research that people who abuse animals escalate those crimes and eventually start abusing children.

There is no evidence to suggest that any trappers have ever done that. Not that I know of. However, as far as I know, no one has ever analyzed the minds of trappers. I believe that would be a fertile field of study. There are not many people who could stomach spending their days killing and skinning animals these days.

If you have to do it to make a living, a case may be made. But there are plenty of trappers who do it who don't have to do it to make a living. What would make a person choose to spend their time ending the lives of animals who contribute to environmental health - especially when you consider there are very few people on earth today who aren't aboriginals still living a subsistence lifestyle who can make the same claim? Most people alive today have a continuous and heavy detrimental impact on the environment.

GWB's thread is frequented by other hunters, some possibly most of whom believe as GWH does and the following blog was an answer to a poorly researched or poorly thought out or intentionally misleading comment by Silverfox:


I just found where that weird Tom Bergerund Canadian (wildlife manager/scientist) comment came from. Talk about manipulating fact.

Tom does say that wolf predation will (and did) have a major impact on elk herd numbers. However, when you put that comment into context, what it really means is that the wolves will (and did) cull old and young herd members.

He did not say anything about wolf over-population.

He did say that if you want to "recruit” 24 new elk per 100 born in an area of one thousand square kilometers (600 square miles) then you have to maintain wolf numbers at nine in that same area.

That sort of predation rate does not by any stretch of the imagination threaten the viability of elk herds, their potential to remain numerous or support your claim of 18,000 elk vanishing.

He also said that without management, wolves will REGULATE - (not exterminate) ungulates. That is a good thing. The absolute best thing from an elk herd health perspective. Lots of other studies support this statement. I found none supporting your position.

So the entire argument you guys have been promoting is based on your intent to provide unhealthy grocery store hunting conditions for elk. That is not an honest or intelligent way to manage wildlife and certainly not in the best interests of the health of the herds. This is all about hunter selfishness and making sure that lousy hunters with deep pockets can roll up with their beer bellies, wheelchairs and walkers and bag a trophy elk before it drops dead of fatigue.

Do I understand why you would want to do such a thing? Absolutely. The money has to come from somewhere and fooling people with money into thinking they’re hunting is the easiest way to get it.

Is it necessary? Maybe, but I think educating the hunting public would serve your interests far more effectively in the long run.

Is it necessary to lie about why you really want to kill wolves? I don't think so. In the long run, this sort of thing turns the general public against you as has happened here in the east. Hunters are viewed by the general public here with scorn and aversion. Does that help wildlife in any way? No because then, the public no longer interacts with the natural world. When that happens, the land is easy pickings for developers because then you have local populations that have no stake in maintaining nature and no knowledge or appreciation for what the developers plan to destroy.

Talking about killing a wolf here in the east will get you vilified in short order. There is no sympathy for anyone wanting to kill a wolf even when it eats their own pet in their backyard right in front of them. The public here is finally waking up to the devastation caused by development - but it's too little too late as usual.

When I investigate suspicious looking government undertakings, if I push long enough I find evidence of crime. Usually it's fraud to begin with and related to government projects that will harm both the environment and the public. This whole wolf thing here smelled like that to me and sure enough, you guys are basically using lynch mob rationale to justify your positions. You have no facts and no evidence to back you up and you're using scare tactics to convince other people who are too busy or too lazy to search for the truth with an open mind.

To me a Great White Hunter is a person who thoroughly understands the reality of his hunting environment and uses common sense and integrity upon which to base beliefs. Sometimes problem predators do have to be culled. That is reality and the public accepts that.

History though, has shown that "Great" White Hunters like Jim Corbett and others of his ilk are so few and far between they have become historical icons. Sadly, modern hunters cannot be said to be following in his footsteps.

If Jim Corbett had acted like you guys, he would have been promoting the slaughter of tigers and leopards throughout what was then India. After all, there was no argument about tigers and leopards eating people. They still do with regularity. Luckily he didn't do that.

You guys are just the opposite. You want to slaughter the wolves so you can eat their food. In addition, you don't want the wolves to eat your domestically raised food (living in wolf territory) either. In other words, the environment should be constrained to serve your interests like it is a giant farm to the exclusion of environmental reality. All this in the absence of an alternative, effective method of culling weakened animals whose continued existence becomes a threat to the healthy animals you want to shoot and the ecosystems they need to live in.

Prove me wrong.