Wolves do affect business

[KFhunter]

Maybe you can help me understand Idahohntr;

*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side?  I mean what do you stand to loose?   Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul.  Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow.


If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet,  OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference,  cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life.  I got skin in the game so to speak.  All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.

[KFhunter]

Well untill WDFW do make hunting of wolves legal or somebody gets something on a ballot to vote on ,so we can all vote for the hunting of wolfs.Were pretty much stuck fighting with each other over instead of doing something about it.I woulnd sign something right now so we hunt them.Thats why it kinda makes mad that they get to hunt them on the res and not here i hope they do the right thing and fill all those tags since there the ones that get to have them.

Idahohntr and I are obviously opposed in this issue, yet we both agree hunting alone will not do much to bring wolf numbers down.

We need serious public pressure to bring about legislative emergency action to curb the growth of wolves. 

[bearpaw]

How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.

Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please.  He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum.  Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter.  The world is not black and white.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum.

I have not hunted with anyone on this forum.  I may be the only hunter on here    But I did exchange PM's with him and we discussed very specific details of Idaho elk hunts such that I am as certain as one can be without actually knowing the person.

Maybe he is a hunter, although some of the wolf lovers have learned to be pretty convincing. Still wouldn't change the fact that his points are lacking!

How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. He sounds exactly like the wolf lovers who try to pose as hunters to make it sound like hunters want more wolves. Everything he writes supports most everything the anti-hunters want. His points don't even make sense. He suggests that because he has hunted Alaska that predators won't limit hunting opportunity. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Alaska intensively manages wolves, using hunting, trapping, and even aircraft when needed to cull wolves. No wonder he has had some hunting success in Alaska, if in fact he is a hunter? 

[hunter399]

I was watching the sportsman channel yesterday a guy eat crow for real shot them,breasted them,fried them up and said there pretty good.LOL :chuckle:Said on the show they were tough but look like dark meat,but didnt taste bad.

[hunter399]

One of u guys on here know the facts on this,but how many tax dollors were spent by WDFW to take out the wolves up where your at kf hunter.I think they shound just open up hunting right now and save the money for our deer and elk herds before the problem gets worse.That woulnd also allow cattle ranchers too to protect there herds.

[KFhunter]

How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter.

Oh goodness...not another witch hunt please.  He is a hunter just like most every other person on this forum.  Just because someone has a different viewpoint doesn't mean they are not a hunter.  The world is not black and white.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but have you hunted with him? How would you know? Fact: It wouldn't be the first time we had a poser on this forum.

I have not hunted with anyone on this forum.  I may be the only hunter on here    But I did exchange PM's with him and we discussed very specific details of Idaho elk hunts such that I am as certain as one can be without actually knowing the person.

Maybe he is a hunter, although some of the wolf lovers have learned to be pretty convincing. Still wouldn't change the fact that his points are lacking!

How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. He sounds exactly like the wolf lovers who try to pose as hunters to make it sound like hunters want more wolves. Everything he writes supports most everything the anti-hunters want. His points don't even make sense. He suggests that because he has hunted Alaska that predators won't limit hunting opportunity. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Alaska intensively manages wolves, using hunting, trapping, and even aircraft when needed to cull wolves. No wonder he has had some hunting success in Alaska, if in fact he is a hunter? 

I know you know this Dale, but we have many readers.

What the wolf advocates are doing is creating doubt and dividing hunters,  delaying the outrage so the wolves can get fully established state wide.
 
They pretend to be hunters to do this, most of them pretend to be out of state hunters so they don't get trapped trying to speak with authority in local areas where it would be obvious they didn't know what they were talking about. 

They throw hunters a bone by professing to be for recreational hunting of wolves,  because they know how ineffective it truly is.

One thing they have in common is they don't post trophy pictures on HW,  one of them tried that once....then I found the true owner of the image and Emailed him.

[hunter399]

Im just not willing to spend everybodys tax payers dollor without trying hunting first.

[hunter399]

If im a non-hunter because i dont agree with u on this then so be it but i will be out hunting coyote and cougar tomorow mouning as i am every weekend right here in loon lake/chewelah area and havent seen a wolf track yet.Im always checking on the deer and elk in my area.I can start taking pics of all my mounts if want but i woulnd have to log off for few so i can download the pics off my smart phone to computer.

[KFhunter]

If im a non-hunter because i dont agree with u on this then so be it but i will be out hunting coyote and cougar tomorow mouning as i am every weekend right here in loon lake/chewelah area and havent seen a wolf track yet.Im always checking on the deer and elk in my area.

I doubt there's any wolf haters posing to be hunters 

[KFhunter]

Maybe you can help me understand Idahohntr;

*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side?  I mean what do you stand to loose?   Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul.  Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow.


If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet,  OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference,  cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life.  I got skin in the game so to speak.  All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.

are you going to answer this Idahohnter?  Or are you hoping it gets buried.

[idahohuntr]

Maybe you can help me understand Idahohntr;

*IF* you happen to be correct then what's the down side?  I mean what do you stand to loose?   Why are you so passionate about wolves because if you're proven correct then there is no harm and no foul.  Life went on and you get the satisfaction of being correct - the worst thing that happens is I get to eat crow.


If I'm correct then hunter opportunity in WA will go down the toilet,  OIL tags for moose will be eliminated or so close to it whats the difference,  cattle producers will take big big hits until the point it's no longer feesable to free range cattle destroying many people's way of life.  I got skin in the game so to speak.  All hunters have skin in the game even if they're pro-wolf.

I see what your saying...the downside to me being wrong and convincing other hunters of my viewpoint could be catastrophic to hunters in the sense that wolves will annihilate elk populations...you were trying to fire them up to improve the probability of legislative action and here I am tamping the flames down.  If your wrong, its actually a good thing...it means were all still hunting.  Is that about right?

I don't think it is bad at all to encourage hunters to speak up to legislators about concerns over wolves and to hold them accountable for fighting for the hunters in this state.  I do think there is a point though if you push to far and too boldly, you lose credibility and then you just get cast aside.  That is my biggest fear...if every hunter swears that wolves are going to end all elk hunting...politicians are going to see through this eventually...like the boy who cried wolf.   And, if this were Idaho I would say CRY WOLF...because you would be in good company.  But in WA, I think hunters might be our own worst enemy in terms of getting wolves de-listed so control actions will be easier because of the makeup of the legislature and the number of voters west of the cascades.  

Believe me, I thought exactly as you do about potential impacts of wolves in N. Idaho 10 or 15 years ago...it just didn't materialize so I am now more optimistic than you...I will also agree that it is NE Wa that is going to take the biggest hit from any wolf impacts and so regardless of who is right, your WA hunting is still probably going to suffer more than mine down here in SE Wa...and I fully acknowledge its easier for me to go sit on my property down here and glass bulls and watch bucks coming into my food plots and forget that it might not be so great for folks in the NE.  It sounds like you've lived your whole life up there, which makes it particularly difficult to see declines in hunting opportunity.  I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns, but I do believe you are more pessimistic than the evidence would support.   

[hunter399]

I agree a little bit thats what happend with hound hunting long time ago ,freaking westsider-nonhunters took that away so quick.

[cougarbart]

always remember about variables boys! you may have great hunting now on your food plots but if hunting is restricted in ne wa, hunting pressure could be put on other units like yours and then even tho your on private property the state will make your unit a draw unit and now you might only be able to hunt your property once every 5 years!  variables and trickle effect can not yet even be determined!

[Sitka_Blacktail]

How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. He sounds exactly like the wolf lovers who try to pose as hunters to make it sound like hunters want more wolves. Everything he writes supports most everything the anti-hunters want. His points don't even make sense. He suggests that because he has hunted Alaska that predators won't limit hunting opportunity. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Alaska intensively manages wolves, using hunting, trapping, and even aircraft when needed to cull wolves. No wonder he has had some hunting success in Alaska, if in fact he is a hunter? 

even if you disregard alaskan predator control policies, it is so incredibly different up there in terms of population / habitat etc as to be totally incomparable to anywhere in the lower 48.  the wolf lovers love to use the "habitat habitat" argument when it suits them, yet theyll say that if a place like alaska can have wolf populations that we can too.... while ignoring the gross discrepancy in available habitat between alaska and anywhere in the continental u.s.

Alaska not only has the most predators in the country, it also has the worst overall habitat and the worst winters. There are 7,000 -10,000 wolves in Alaska but they maintain a population of about 175,000 moose. But Alaska's habitat is so poor in most areas of the state that, that works out to one moose per about 3.8 square miles.  Hardly a Serengeti full of game. The saving grace is Alaska is so big and there are pockets of decent habitat. The lower 48 has way more good habitat than Alaska. And wolves, they are nothing compared to the bears. The places I deer hunted there, Prince William Sound and Kodiak, you are always bumping into bears, Kodiak all brownies and PWS both brownies and blackies.  That's hair raising enough, then you shoot a deer, or moose, or elk (on Afognak Is) and you have a battle some times trying to save your animal.  The worst areas in the lower 48 are a piece of cake compared to hunting in Alaska. It's big boy hunting up there.

[deaner]

How do we know that Sitka is even a hunter. He sounds exactly like the wolf lovers who try to pose as hunters to make it sound like hunters want more wolves. Everything he writes supports most everything the anti-hunters want. His points don't even make sense. He suggests that because he has hunted Alaska that predators won't limit hunting opportunity. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Alaska intensively manages wolves, using hunting, trapping, and even aircraft when needed to cull wolves. No wonder he has had some hunting success in Alaska, if in fact he is a hunter? 

even if you disregard alaskan predator control policies, it is so incredibly different up there in terms of population / habitat etc as to be totally incomparable to anywhere in the lower 48.  the wolf lovers love to use the "habitat habitat" argument when it suits them, yet theyll say that if a place like alaska can have wolf populations that we can too.... while ignoring the gross discrepancy in available habitat between alaska and anywhere in the continental u.s.

Alaska not only has the most predators in the country, it also has the worst overall habitat and the worst winters. There are 7,000 -10,000 wolves in Alaska but they maintain a population of about 175,000 moose. But Alaska's habitat is so poor in most areas of the state that, that works out to one moose per about 3.8 square miles.  Hardly a Serengeti full of game. The saving grace is Alaska is so big and there are pockets of decent habitat. The lower 48 has way more good habitat than Alaska. And wolves, they are nothing compared to the bears. The places I deer hunted there, Prince William Sound and Kodiak, you are always bumping into bears, Kodiak all brownies and PWS both brownies and blackies.  That's hair raising enough, then you shoot a deer, or moose, or elk (on Afognak Is) and you have a battle some times trying to save your animal.  The worst areas in the lower 48 are a piece of cake compared to hunting in Alaska. It's big boy hunting up there.

couple problems with your logic.  one is that you said the lower 48 has more habitat... come on, the lower FORTY EIGHT STATES, which have a total of at least double the land mass of alaska, has more good habitat?  come on man, silly argument.  and while this MIGHT be true, youre not only talking about twice as much land, but youre also obviously taking No account of human population versus available habitat.  not to mention that the "higher amount of available habitat" available in the 48 consists of lots of small pockets of habitat amid tons of urban *censored*, whereas alaska is a few small pockets of urban *censored* amidst a large area of wildlife habitat.  its apples and oranges.  and even if alaska had the same square miles of good habitat as the rest of the country, it would be worth way more to animals due to the MUCH lower number of people messing around in it.  also, youre saying how bears are so much worse than wolves.... on KODIAK ISLAND... no *censored*?  you mean the ISLAND famous for giant bears?  wow who woulda thunk it?  come on dude, cant you come up with a logical valid argument?  quit using comparisons that make no sense