Wedge pack costs

[GrousePointer]

Farming practices have been more detrimental to pheasants than coyotes.

Housing on the winterrange(here in washington), gas exploration etc elsewhere have taken their tolls on Muledeer.    Problem that concerns me is that wolves are like putting the bullet between the eyes to the herds, and its something we can control.    Its like dumping a sex predator in the middle of a class of 14 year old girls and see what happens.   Folks can declare its the natural order of things, but its not something that is needed for a healthy system at this point. 


Logging is INDEED needed, and its unfortunate that so many green groups have put a halt to it.  The Gore/Clinton agenda is still being felt.   He didn't inhale.....well if he was in the neighborhood now, he'd be inhaling.

Agreed.

The issue as I see it is the wolf is just speeding up something that may well occur anyhow if we can't get a handle on the habitat problem. Hunting them all down might well be like putting a band aid on an infected cut. It covers up the problem for a while, but the infection still spreads.

[huntnphool]

Still waiting for that less confusing source, the one that doesn't repeat numbers or record them differently from year to year.

All right chuckling phool. Is this a good enough source for you? It's the official Idaho Department of Fish and Game elk report.

If you and anybody else take the time to read it, you can educate yourself and be an educated phool. It's very informative and enlightening.

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf

Go to page 4. On it you will see a graph on the left that has the actual number of elk harvested by year. On the right is another graph in traditional graph form.  Now if you add the cows taken and the bulls taken for each year, you will soon see the numbers Bob33 used on his graph were wrong. For starters, there isn't one year approaching 25,000 elk taken, let alone 35,000. In fact there is only one year with a harvest over 20,000 and that was 2005 with a total harvest of about 20,600. So now would be a good time to admit I was right and you were wrong and we can continue on our discussion in a respectful way with correct "facts".   If you can't do that, there is no point continuing, because if you won't accept facts because they don't agree with your viewpoint It's a waste of my time pointing them out to you. In that case, all I can say is "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Thanks Sitka, I read the report both statewide overview and region by region. There is a underlying theme when you go through the regional reports and the statewide report sums it up rather nicely, and I will quote the IDFG,

Wolf predation is the leading cause of mortality.

Enough said!!!

[Northway]

No one's going to kill all of the predators, especially with no hounds or bait. Cougars are at full carrying capacity everywhere in the state. Wolves are going nuts and the state is just beginning to realize the impact of their foolish plan. Bears are also at full carrying capacity. Coyotes are in downtown Seattle. Not only is the demise of predators not even possible at this point, it's so far from the truth as to be fairy tale. If every wolf were eliminated from the state today, we still have huge management problems that don't account for man as an apex predator. The greenies who spend no time in the woods have dictated predator policy now for 17 years and with the addition of the wolf, the hunting in this state is going to collapse.

How would you manage cougars, bears, and wolves in this state if you could be wildlife management dictator? Predator management will have to be an important part of any plan that includes maintaining decent hunter opportunity, but at what levels?

I feel that this subject gets lost in the mix with all the other hotly debated issues surrounding wolves.

I know a lot of non-hunting conservations who feel that predators are oppressed, but only a very few seem to have a grasp on what specific levels a majority of the hunting community think they should be managed to.

[boneaddict]

Hound hunting cats for sure.   

Hounds and baiting period.


One thing that many overlook is that those two methods allow serious hunters to be selective on their prey.   population goals are easier met.   There will be less spent on problem animals and displacement of predators. 

hounds and wolves don't work.

[pianoman9701]

No one's going to kill all of the predators, especially with no hounds or bait. Cougars are at full carrying capacity everywhere in the state. Wolves are going nuts and the state is just beginning to realize the impact of their foolish plan. Bears are also at full carrying capacity. Coyotes are in downtown Seattle. Not only is the demise of predators not even possible at this point, it's so far from the truth as to be fairy tale. If every wolf were eliminated from the state today, we still have huge management problems that don't account for man as an apex predator. The greenies who spend no time in the woods have dictated predator policy now for 17 years and with the addition of the wolf, the hunting in this state is going to collapse.

How would you manage cougars, bears, and wolves in this state if you could be wildlife management dictator? Predator management will have to be an important part of any plan that includes maintaining decent hunter opportunity, but at what levels?

I feel that this subject gets lost in the mix with all the other hotly debated issues surrounding wolves.

I know a lot of non-hunting conservations who feel that predators are oppressed, but only a very few seem to have a grasp on what specific levels a majority of the hunting community think they should be managed to.

I would have started managing in 1996 and informed the general public on what a ban on baiting and hounds would do to our cougar and bear populations for the future. Regardless of the reasons, our DFW was silent when this debate was waged and out-of-state groups paid millions to support the ban, resulting in it's passing. This is the primary step that would have meant more meaningful management. In lieu of that, I would now open the season on cougars, be very liberal (don't get excited conservatives) on handing out hound-use/baiting damage permits for both cougars and bears, make a second permit free, and increase the bear season on each end by a month. I would not require a hunting license for coyote shooting and would exempt hunters from penalties on the waste of meat with regards to all three of these animals. Wolves would also be open season immediately. Without trapping and poisoning, there's no way wolves would get hunted to extinction, but they'd certainly be encouraged to disappear into thicker woods and remote wilderness habitat.

[boneaddict]

and would exempt hunters from penalties on the waste of meat with regards to all three of these animal

explain

[pianoman9701]

and would exempt hunters from penalties on the waste of meat with regards to all three of these animal

explain

According to the current definitions and penalties for wasted game in WA, predator hunters have a liability if they waste the meat. It's a technicality that basically exposes us to penalties if we didn't want to eat cougar meat and left it in the field, penalties that could be pushed by anti-hunters to further harass us. I think that predators should be exempted from any kind of waste penalties and regulations, with the possible exception of bear meat and hides.

[pianoman9701]

And the reason for such exemptions would be to make predator hunting as easy and care-free as possible, to encourage it as much as possible, getting as many hunters of it in the field as possible.

[jackmaster]

If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?

http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf

I mean this in the most respectful way possible, you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat and how to improve it if you want to keep successfully hunting in the future. You can kill every predator out there and still won't solve the problem without better habitat maintenance. You can fight that all you want, but you can also bet that the Sierra Club et al doesn't have a clue about it yet they are dictating habitat policy, or trying to, to you.

Think about it.

yeah think about it, when you leaf lickers stopped logging because of the spotted owl, wow dude that would have been alot more habitat for deer and elk.... dont even try to say that logging does nothing.....it creates habitat and alot of it....

[Kola16]

If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?

http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf

I mean this in the most respectful way possible, you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat and how to improve it if you want to keep successfully hunting in the future. You can kill every predator out there and still won't solve the problem without better habitat maintenance. You can fight that all you want, but you can also bet that the Sierra Club et al doesn't have a clue about it yet they are dictating habitat policy, or trying to, to you.

Think about it.

When is the last time a greenie actually thought about something besides their stupid wolves?

[Bob33]

If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?

http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf

Wouldn't that mean I'd be associating with some evil "rich" hunters? Goodness, there might be a doctor or lawyer in that group, and what then? Could I even bear the possibility that one might use an outfitter at some low point in his life?

[pianoman9701]

If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?

http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf

I mean this in the most respectful way possible, you guys need to educate yourselves about wildlife habitat and how to improve it if you want to keep successfully hunting in the future. You can kill every predator out there and still won't solve the problem without better habitat maintenance. You can fight that all you want, but you can also bet that the Sierra Club et al doesn't have a clue about it yet they are dictating habitat policy, or trying to, to you.

Think about it.

When is the last time a greenie actually thought about something besides their stupid wolves?

When they were coming up with other ideas to end hunting.  Lead ban anyone?

[Bob33]

"When is the last time a greenie actually thought about something besides their stupid wolves?"

Since Al Gore got discredited and went into hiding, they had to come up with something besides global warming. "Hey - let's do wolves!"

[GrousePointer]

If you don't like my word for it or wildlife agencies word for it, how about a non-profit funded and supported by hunters?

http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/Upland%20Almanac%20Winter%20MDZSm.pdf

Wouldn't that mean I'd be associating with some evil "rich" hunters? Goodness, there might be a doctor or lawyer in that group, and what then? Could I even bear the possibility that one might use an outfitter at some low point in his life?

Well Bob, some of us are hunters and others of us are "hunters." To each his own but when Outfitters' business starts to cut into the hunting public's access to land and game I have a problem with that. I-161 in Montana didn't happen for nothing. Maybe you should research that one a little.

I hang out with bird dog people, by virtue of that I've associated with some who have money since field trials are an expensive game to play and some guys like to travel out of state with their dogs. Some of those people choose to use outfitters, so your point is apt. I also know people who sit in an office all year and pack up their gear and have it shipped to an outfitter and they go "hunting" for a week. No scouting done by them, no boot leather worn, no gas burned. Excuse me if i find the idea of blowing away a wolf or two so some desk jocky "hunter" can be guided to a location to shoot an elk a little offensive.

 That said, sometimes you have to break bread with those you have differences with and work on the areas you have common ground.

[Bob33]

That said, sometimes you have to break bread with those you have differences with and work on the areas you have common ground.

Fair enough. Does that cut both ways? Are you willing to respect and break bread with outfitters and with hunters that despise wolves?