Wedge pack costs

[pianoman9701]

Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. 

FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.

Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. 

So in your opinion as long as there are wolves, the deer and elk populations will not only never recover, but will keep declining until they are all gone? Does that mean if harvest numbers start going back up that you'll admit you were wrong?

Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.

There is only one animal that hunts it's prey to extinction or near extinction. I'll let you figure that out for yourself. But I'll give you a hint, it's the same animal that smugly thinks it should be the only predator in the world.

The time before Europeans settled NA isn't now. North America was sparsely populated and there was room for large numbers of predators. Once the white man populated the west, wolves were hunted to near extinction because they didn't get along with man, especially with the hugely increased numbers of white men. We have replaced the wolf as the top apex predator. This doesn't mean that there can't be wolves, but it does mean there should be a much smaller number of them than is planned for WA. What happened before has nothing to do with what's happening now in a fully populated country.

Your argument is misleading. There were also wolves where Seattle now sits. But, there shouldn't be wolves there now. Why? Because man is there and wouldn't get along with them. The same goes for much of our rural but populated state.

[Bob33]

Your argument is misleading. There were also wolves where Seattle now sits. But, there shouldn't be wolves there now. Why? Because man is there and wouldn't get along with them. The same goes for much of our rural but populated state.

Wolves, and bears, cougars, and probably some dinosaurs - let's bring them all back to Seattle and have our own Jurassic Park.

Let's bring on the mosquitos also. I think King County has been killing those poor little creatures!

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.

The early accounts like the Lewis and Clark journals generally mention how sparse wildlife was in Idaho and Washington.  That they ate a lot of bear in Idaho and shot wolves.  When they got to Washington they nearly starved and had to eat horses and leather until they met Indian tribes.  Then they bartered for salmon and camas, even the Indians rarely went for game due to lack of it and abundance of salmon.
Other accounts for early Washington mention how there is enough game to support trappers and traders, but due to high levels of predators not enough to support colonization (except with salmon).  Many of the settlers around 1900 were hired specifically to kill predators.  I believe the wolf count at the time was estimated to be around 30,000 for Washington (about what today's black bear estimate is).

Not enough game for settlers, but enough to keep 30,000 wolves healthy? All around 1900? Do tell.

If you read the elk biology report I linked above (https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR10.pdf) You will see this repeated over and over throughout the reports from the different regions....... "Historically, elk herds were scattered and numbers were low in this area. Few big game animals were found along Clearwater River by Lewis and Clark in the early 1800s, probably due in part to the dense, unbroken canopy of forest that covered the entire area. Wildfires burned over vast expanses near the beginning of the twentieth century, creating vast brush-fields that provided abundant forage areas for elk." or "Elk numbers were very low in the Panhandle Zone around the early 1900s. Major landscape changes occurred as a result of stand-replacing fires beginning in 1910. Vast areas of timber were transformed into brush fields and early succession timber stands that provided ideal conditions for elk."

Nowhere do I see the low numbers at that time attributed to wolves or other predators. I see it attributed to "poor habitat". Massive forest fires changed that. These days logging, not forest fires is more likely to change habitat from dense and poor to open and good for elk.

But this arguing is all getting monotonous. You guys aren't going to change my opinion on the matter, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind if they can't open their mind to the idea that game dynamics are controlled by much more than predators.  Are predators a piece of the puzzle? Sure. But they aren't the only piece or even the biggest piece. To think they are just opens you up to being overwhelmed by other conditions that can cause downturns in game herds while you're fixated on one issue.

I'm done with this argument. I'm going hunting. Just remember, when harvest numbers come back up in spite of wolves, you heard that it was possible and even probable here first.

Good hunting!

[Kola16]

But this arguing is all getting monotonous. You guys aren't going to change my opinion on the matter, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind if they can't open their mind to the idea that game dynamics are controlled by much more than predators.  Are predators a piece of the puzzle? Sure. But they aren't the only piece or even the biggest piece. To think they are just opens you up to being overwhelmed by other conditions that can cause downturns in game herds while you're fixated on one issue.

I'm done with this argument. I'm going hunting. Just remember, when harvest numbers come back up in spite of wolves, you heard that it was possible and even probable here first.

Good hunting!

Edited, for being mean.

[Knocker of rocks]

But this arguing is all getting monotonous. You guys aren't going to change my opinion on the matter, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind if they can't open their mind to the idea that game dynamics are controlled by much more than predators.  Are predators a piece of the puzzle? Sure. But they aren't the only piece or even the biggest piece. To think they are just opens you up to being overwhelmed by other conditions that can cause downturns in game herds while you're fixated on one issue.

I'm done with this argument. I'm going hunting. Just remember, when harvest numbers come back up in spite of wolves, you heard that it was possible and even probable here first.

Good hunting!

So you quit. Arguments can be solved. When someone quits, it pretty much shows that you lost.

Be nice junior, you gotta remember that some of us are three times your age

[Kola16]

But this arguing is all getting monotonous. You guys aren't going to change my opinion on the matter, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind if they can't open their mind to the idea that game dynamics are controlled by much more than predators.  Are predators a piece of the puzzle? Sure. But they aren't the only piece or even the biggest piece. To think they are just opens you up to being overwhelmed by other conditions that can cause downturns in game herds while you're fixated on one issue.

I'm done with this argument. I'm going hunting. Just remember, when harvest numbers come back up in spite of wolves, you heard that it was possible and even probable here first.

Good hunting!

So you quit. Arguments can be solved. When someone quits, it pretty much shows that you lost.

Be nice junior, you gotta remember that some of us are three times your age

Didn't think I was being mean. If you find that offensive I will take it away.

[Knocker of rocks]

Just because someone quits a arguement doesn't mean they're wrong.  I was at a bar where I spent several hours discussing wether the Holocast happened or not with some dumb-ass neo-Nazi.  I finally quit the discussion (arguement).  Did that mean that the I now know that the Holocast didn't happen?  Or did I just come to the realization that I stood a good chance of getting killed?

[Kola16]

I just think that this is something that could have easily been resolved. And I also said "pretty much". I never said he did lose. I wasn't even arguing with him anyway.

[sakoshooter]

I LOVE HUNTN, been doing it my whole life like many here on this site, we should all ban together and refuse to hunt next year, i could give up a huntn season or 2 to get are point across, what would be 1 or 2 years for us, yeah it would suck not actually getn to hunt but it would stop a guy from killn a ton of animals with his camera, it wouldnt hurt us as much as it would the department of fish and wildlife, maybe they would have to cut back on some of the anti-hunting staff.....just a thought..... your points would still be there, when we decided to hunt again, and it would be a hell of a united message   

I totally agree Jackmaster. We've got to hit them where it will make a difference and that's in they're bank account. One year and they'd realize who carry's the hammer in WA.
Get it started Jackmaseter and count me in.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I just think that this is something that could have easily been resolved. And I also said "pretty much". I never said he did lose. I wasn't even arguing with him anyway.

It was never about winning Kola, just about getting people to think. There's more than one way to look at and deal with an issue. The popular opinion train isn't always the one that will get you where you want to go.

No offense taken by the way to anything you've said.

[bearpaw]

Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. 

FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.

Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. 

So in your opinion as long as there are wolves, the deer and elk populations will not only never recover, but will keep declining until they are all gone? Does that mean if harvest numbers start going back up that you'll admit you were wrong?

Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.

There is only one animal that hunts it's prey to extinction or near extinction. I'll let you figure that out for yourself. But I'll give you a hint, it's the same animal that smugly thinks it should be the only predator in the world.

Careful, you claim to be a hunter like most wolf lovers do, but you are letting your possible hatred and bias against hunters show through. 

You also have exposed the fact that you are not quite as sharp as you would like everyone to think that you are. First, I never said wolves will eat elk to extinction, never, ever, and I challenge you to find where I ever once to said to extinction.

However, wolves can take prey species into a predator pit, you should know what that is if you are as sharp as you want to portray yourself! Once prey species are in a predator pit, then the predators will have a serious correction (they die off or they leave for other parts) which is exactly what has occurred in YNP and the Lolo. I challenge you to prove me wrong!

Once prey species are in a predator pit they will likely be stuck there until predator numbers drop low enough to allow recovery of prey specie numbers. There can only be very limited human hunting during times of a predator pit or there will be further decline in the prey species. If you understand and agree with this sort of extreme fluctuations in prey species, then I suggest you are either nuts, or you are another wolf hugger posing as a hunter. I would suggest that nobody can be that naive!

Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to do the math and figure out that wolf numbers should never be allowed to be high enough to have an effect of lowering game populations. Once predator numbers are high enough to effect prey numbers then there will likely be a domino effect, as prey numbers decline, predator impact will be more significant, until prey numbers drop to the point that there is a predator correction. At that point in time, due to piss poor management, the land will be supporting both fewer prey species and fewer predators. An intelligent biologist, a biologist without an agenda of promoting wolves and reducing hunter opportunity, could easily calculate that we would have the highest wolf population if we keep wolf numbers from reaching a point where they begin impacting prey numbers.

Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.

You seem to be living in a make believe world! Anyone who has studied history knows that prey precies were very hard to find in the west, yet bear and wolves were commonly seen. Modern management has actually increased the number of animals which our land can support. But by your writing, I can tell you are opposed to the land supporting more wildlife, you are most likely one of those wolf lovers that hates the fact that man has managed for ample wildlife to hunt. Your lack of understanding or perhaps bias of predator/prey relationships seems to suggest that you are one of those people who wants less wildlife on the landscape because you don't believe man is part of the ecosystem. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Dream on..........

[waterdoctor]

Week after next I get to come home for a while and have made an appointment with the wolf biologist in Colville.  I can talk to talk with the bio's as I have a degree in Vertebrate Zoology.  After having been a chairman of a local Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation chapter I leaned a lot about the politics of game management.  The most important thing that we can do in the short term is help the trappers like Paul do is locate and confirm new packs.  Once we have the pack count up we can get the wolves de-listed.   

One thing that happens with bio's working with a species is that they can "fall in love" with the animal they are studying.  I have seen this happen in other states with bio's and only one on one interaction will help this issue.  That is why I have made the appointment. 

East of 395 an amendment to the wolf plan needs to be requested IMO.  It is small but might get past the tree huggars.  That is that lethal force could be used to protect pets and "penned" live stock.  Also I will ask the question what is the impact on other endangered species in the federal de-listed area?   Is the department being opened up to lawsuits without a plan that takes into consideration of the wolves on the endangered species?

Bearpaw, if you would like to meet me PM me.

[Kola16]

No offense taken by the way to anything you've said.

Good. I really wasn't trying to make anyone feel bad 

And on top of that, I kind of like being on the minority. Some people have found out that I will take the side that I don't even believe in. It drives some of them nuts that I do that, but oh well

[Northway]

Sitka, better yet, the wedge isn't ideal habitat for cattle, that must be the reason their herd is declining. 

FYI - Despite having some of the worst habitat, the McIrvins are Stevens Counties largest cattle producer.

Another hole in your propaganda: Unit 4 in the panhandle has Idaho's largest elk herd because wolves ate the other herds first, but it's in a decline now that wolves have arrived. 

So in your opinion as long as there are wolves, the deer and elk populations will not only never recover, but will keep declining until they are all gone? Does that mean if harvest numbers start going back up that you'll admit you were wrong?

Common sense says you have little knowledge of predator prey relationships. Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.

There is only one animal that hunts it's prey to extinction or near extinction. I'll let you figure that out for yourself. But I'll give you a hint, it's the same animal that smugly thinks it should be the only predator in the world.

Careful, you claim to be a hunter like most wolf lovers do, but you are letting your possible hatred and bias against hunters show through. 

You also have exposed the fact that you are not quite as sharp as you would like everyone to think that you are. First, I never said wolves will eat elk to extinction, never, ever, and I challenge you to find where I ever once to said to extinction.

However, wolves can take prey species into a predator pit, you should know what that is if you are as sharp as you want to portray yourself! Once prey species are in a predator pit, then the predators will have a serious correction (they die off or they leave for other parts) which is exactly what has occurred in YNP and the Lolo. I challenge you to prove me wrong!

Once prey species are in a predator pit they will likely be stuck there until predator numbers drop low enough to allow recovery of prey specie numbers. There can only be very limited human hunting during times of a predator pit or there will be further decline in the prey species. If you understand and agree with this sort of extreme fluctuations in prey species, then I suggest you are either nuts, or you are another wolf hugger posing as a hunter. I would suggest that nobody can be that naive!

Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to do the math and figure out that wolf numbers should never be allowed to be high enough to have an effect of lowering game populations. Once predator numbers are high enough to effect prey numbers then there will likely be a domino effect, as prey numbers decline, predator impact will be more significant, until prey numbers drop to the point that there is a predator correction. At that point in time, due to piss poor management, the land will be supporting both fewer prey species and fewer predators. An intelligent biologist, a biologist without an agenda of promoting wolves and reducing hunter opportunity, could easily calculate that we would have the highest wolf population if we keep wolf numbers from reaching a point where they begin impacting prey numbers.

Before Europeans settled North America, it was teaming with predators and with wildlife. Look at the great herds of wildlife in Africa, they are preyed upon by large numbers of predators and seem to survive just fine.

You seem to be living in a make believe world! Anyone who has studied history knows that prey precies were very hard to find in the west, yet bear and wolves were commonly seen. Modern management has actually increased the number of animals which our land can support. But by your writing, I can tell you are opposed to the land supporting more wildlife, you are most likely one of those wolf lovers that hates the fact that man has managed for ample wildlife to hunt. Your lack of understanding or perhaps bias of predator/prey relationships seems to suggest that you are one of those people who wants less wildlife on the landscape because you don't believe man is part of the ecosystem. 

I've read that prey species were hard to find in some areas, but abundant in others. I am curious to know more about historical accounts of game prevelance in the Okanagan prior to the impact of market hunting by the early 1900's. I recently read a book called "From Copenhagen to the Okanagan". Based on Ulrich Fries accounts, game appeared to be relatively prevelant in the mid to late 1880's - at least in parts of the Okanagan. I have not read enough accounts from that time period to really say what the situation was in that area, however.