Video for the wolf huggers

[Buckblaster]

A small group of wolves get their kill.  Its hard to watch.

Pack Of Wolves Attack Moose And Her Baby (Long Fight)

[Austrian Hunter]

this sucks, I would have loved being there with my AR and four or five mags.   

[Humptulips]

Saw that before. Taken In Denali. On the plus side I think several of those wolves were taken by a trapper out side the park the next winter.

[stevemiller]

I see that at least 2 of them were collard. Sucks

[NoImpactNoIdea]

I see that at least 2 of them were collard. Sucks

Yep

[elk247]

Did anyone read the comments from the guy about to become a game warden? Posted march 26.

[Boss .300 winmag]

Did anyone read the comments from the guy about to become a game warden? Posted march 26.

what thread was it in?

[elk247]

Did anyone read the comments from the guy about to become a game warden? Posted march 26.

what thread was it in?

I just watched the video and saw comments after i viewed. Youtube i think. Some knuckelhead.

[pianoman9701]

The wolf huggers not only wouldn't have a problem with this, they'd love it. One more animal hunters don't get to take. Wolf lovers aren't wolf lovers at all. They're hunter haters. That's their goal, that's their badge, that's what they are.

[Southpole]

The wolf huggers not only wouldn't have a problem with this, they'd love it. One more animal hunters don't get to take. Wolf lovers aren't wolf lovers at all. They're hunter haters. That's their goal, that's their badge, that's what they are.

That's correct

[Buckblaster]

I'm with you, pianoman.  They don't care what wildlife we have as long as man does not interfere with the natural balance.

[uplandhunter870]

Did anyone read the comments from the guy about to become a game warden? Posted march 26.

yeah here it is (i edited some language to meet HW rules, otherwise its a direct quote)

"Okay. Seriously. Shut up. I am studying to become a fish & game warden, and the wolves aren't bothering anybody. You need to research your facts & watch documentaries before you go spouting lies to everyone on the internet! FACT: Wolves are still endangered. FACT: Wolves kill because they are hungry or showing pups how to hunt. The same as hunters kill because they want to teach their kids. FACT:Wolves were here first. Farmers can **** off and buy some other piece of land." -- MrsOltslav

kinda supports the theory that antis are infiltrating the fish and game agencies to push their agendas doesnt it? MrsOltslav needs to brush up on some recent events and severely needs an attitude readjustment, that is the exact kind of person that we do not want in the ranks of outdoor law enforcement. she obviously has no idea of how hard a financial burden these flea bags are putting on an already financially stressed profession or how bad wolves are mucking up the natural order of ecosystems especially in the lower 48 you cannot simply reintroduce an apex predator to a food chain that has been absent for the last few decades and expect things to ride on an even keel

[asl20bball]

wow..that's a tough one to watch.
the wolves seek the weak out which many times means the young which puts the long term health and sustainability of the animals (elk, moose, deer, etc) in question.  a perfect illustration that "pro-wolf" = anti animal and wild life conservationist.

[dreamunelk]

Nothing hard to watch about it.  I found it fascinating.  That is how nature works.  As hunters we should understand this and not use it as an argument against wolves.  Remember it often takes more than 10 minutes to die from a poor shot or a good shot where things just went wrong. 

[trophyhunt]

My first thought was I wished the cow moose would go stomp that dip stick in the ground after she lost her calf, being that it was in Alaska makes it a little bit more tolerable. Now, if that was in our state, I would have wanted the pack of wolves to eat his ass. I understand nature is cruel at times and in an area that can sustain wolves and other animals without hurting the population of animals is a natural thing, but NOT in our state. What's really sad is those pieces of crap predators will make an impact on our population very soon and if that same scenario happened I sure hope the guy videoing would do the right thing a kill as many of those *censored*s as possible.

[asl20bball]

Nothing hard to watch about it.  I found it fascinating.  That is how nature works.  As hunters we should understand this and not use it as an argument against wolves.  Remember it often takes more than 10 minutes to die from a poor shot or a good shot where things just went wrong.

Interesting take and I do agree with you for the most part. however, ironically I don't find it hard to watch a wolf kill a cow yet it is hard for me to watch when it is a calf for some reason.

[JLS]

wow..that's a tough one to watch.
the wolves seek the weak out which many times means the young which puts the long term health and sustainability of the animals (elk, moose, deer, etc) in question.  a perfect illustration that "pro-wolf" = anti animal and wild life conservationist.

If wolves ate themselves out of house and home, and populations would not be sustainable, then how were there any elk, bison, and deer left after many years of wolves?

[dreamunelk]

Nothing hard to watch about it.  I found it fascinating.  That is how nature works.  As hunters we should understand this and not use it as an argument against wolves.  Remember it often takes more than 10 minutes to die from a poor shot or a good shot where things just went wrong.

Interesting take and I do agree with you for the most part. however, ironically I don't find it hard to watch a wolf kill a cow yet it is hard for me to watch when it is a calf for some reason.

True, I have to admit being a little on the soft side for the youngsters.  I think that is just the inner parent in all of use.  Something that makes us humans a little different.  No other critter than us do I know about that regular cares about another, even a different species, young.  Even the most blood thirsty hunter will often try to save a baby robin.

[bearpaw]

wow..that's a tough one to watch.
the wolves seek the weak out which many times means the young which puts the long term health and sustainability of the animals (elk, moose, deer, etc) in question.  a perfect illustration that "pro-wolf" = anti animal and wild life conservationist.

If wolves ate themselves out of house and home, and populations would not be sustainable, then how were there any elk, bison, and deer left after many years of wolves?

There weren't many animals in the mountains, read about Lewis & Clark crossing the Rockies.

[KFhunter]

The wolf huggers not only wouldn't have a problem with this, they'd love it. One more animal hunters don't get to take. Wolf lovers aren't wolf lovers at all. They're hunter haters. That's their goal, that's their badge, that's what they are.

I know a wolf hugger, she got all the stickers and adopt a wolf stuffed toys. 
She has grand kids and every year for Christmas she adopts a wolf in the kids' name.


There just isn't much more of a wolf hugger than this granny.


 

She's also pro hunting, shot deer herself and coyotes and cougars but not anymore.  She invited me to shoot a bear off her property.

but you'd better not be talking about shooting no wolf or she'll wig out. 



weird huh

[Buckblaster]

Lewis and Clark about starved to death in the Rockies.  Most of the big game was on the plains being chased by indians, grizzlies and wolves.

[JLS]

wow..that's a tough one to watch.
the wolves seek the weak out which many times means the young which puts the long term health and sustainability of the animals (elk, moose, deer, etc) in question.  a perfect illustration that "pro-wolf" = anti animal and wild life conservationist.

If wolves ate themselves out of house and home, and populations would not be sustainable, then how were there any elk, bison, and deer left after many years of wolves?

There weren't many animals in the mountains, read about Lewis & Clark crossing the Rockies.

I've read it.

[BOWHUNTER45]

All this does is peeees me off ....The law of man is predator against predator ....If I see anything like this it will not be good for the wolf .....SORRY BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT IS !

[James]

Nothing hard to watch about it.  I found it fascinating.  That is how nature works.  As hunters we should understand this and not use it as an argument against wolves.  Remember it often takes more than 10 minutes to die from a poor shot or a good shot where things just went wrong.

Same here, it’s no different than any other predator/prey situation that plays out millions of times a day. The old, weak, sick, dyeing, and young getting eaten; high school biology and the food chain at its best.    I am far from a wolf hugger, but it seems really weird to get upset that predators kill animals and eat them.

I grew up watching the nature channel, so this just seems par for the course.

[huntrights]

Something that many people just don’t seem to understand:  Wildlife management is managing people, wildlife, and habitat.  Habitat has a carrying capacity for the various types of wildlife including the game animals we hunt.  We are allowed to hunt game animals that fall into the category of “surplus” of game for a particular habitat; that’s why the number of permits available change all the time.  It depends on the carrying capacity of the habitat and how much surplus game there is projected to be in that habitat each year.

Now, bring in the wolves.  Wolves are large apex predators that know nothing about carrying capacity of a habitat or what the ideal game population is for that habitat; they will kill their prey whenever and wherever they decide to do so.  Licenses, permits, or bag limits do not control the choices wolves make; they just kill and eat as long as the prey is there.  What will happen to the number of surplus game animals in a particular habitat each year if wolves are allowed to expand their numbers without control?  What will happen to hunting opportunities; the ability to harvest wild game to bring to the dinner table?  What happens when the preferred prey (i.e. elk, deer, moose) of wolves runs low; what prey will the wolves pursue?

[Tradbowhunter]

This is nature. This is how pack predators hunt. You think this is sick? This is the REAL world. I'm not anti or pro wolf, but posting a video like this targeting people who like wolves is acting out of complete and blatant ignorance for the real, natural world. Stay in your gated two story home subdivision if you don't like it, but just because you don't have to participate in the survival of the fittest the way the rest of the real world does gives you no grounds for condemning a predator for being a predator. THAT is sick. It's never fun to watch something young die, but such is the way of things. Ever eaten veal? Not much difference according to your statement, perhaps there should be a season opened up where they sell human tags.... 

[huntrights]

Take a look a look the human population in the United States in relatively recent history:

The United States population in 1789 was close to 4 million (not including the Native American population).  Let’s consider Native American population the baseline since no one knows what the population may have been before Columbus.

Washington State has a population of about 7 million people.

The United States now has a population over 315 million people.

When the buffalo roamed free with the elk, deer, moose, antelope, and indigenous people of the continent, the wolves were here as well.  The United States has an area of nearly 4 million square miles; that’s a lot of space to roam.  Hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago, a natural balance between predator and prey had the space and time to occur through long term natural cycles.  Those conditions and those days do not exist anymore.  We now have over 315 million people in the United States along with huge cities, small towns, highways, cattle ranches, sheep ranches, farms, etc.  Yes, it is very natural for wolves to kill a moose calf; it is also very natural for them to kill other animals they might consider edible (i.e. cattle, sheep, dogs, etc.).  Since the human population is what it is along with the associated infrastructure, we must manage our wildlife, including wolves, through sound and unbiased science.  Wildlife management must take into account the conditions we all live in today.  Humans are part of the ecosystem; we are not spectators observing predator-prey interactions through a looking glass.

[Tradbowhunter]

 

I agree with you, and I'm all for the idea of good wildlife management. Sadly, what I see and hear is far from that. Most people that say things like "wolf hugger" seem to display the intelligence of a rock, and I would be curious to hear what their idea of management actually is, but "death to ____" is not a term that is used in proper management. There is also a huge difference between wolves taking prey in nature and a dog or cattle from your backyard or property. There are two completely separate arguments here that should never be mixed. Protect your home and your property, but do not mistake that as having the right to condemn an animal for being a predator just because it makes some of you squeamish. We have become desensitised as a society and no longer have a good idea of what "Real" is when applied to the world around us. The natural world is harsh. Using videos like this to stir up emotion and invoke feelings of malice towards an animal for simply doing what a predator does is hanusly asinine. Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong 

Cheers

[huntrights]

Videos such as the one at the beginning of this thread expose what actually takes places in wild.  This is example of what wolves do.  Much of the issue in the wolf debate is the ignorance of the general population.  Anti-hunting and animal-rights organizations along with a supportive media have turned wolves into icons with names, families, and wagging tails just like our pet dogs at home.  Wolves are not like our pet dogs at home.  Wolves are large apex predators that will have a definite impact on the ungulate wildlife populations we have in our country.  Over 100 years of successful wildlife management is the reason we have some of the most envied ungulate wildlife populations in the world.  If wolves are not responsibly controlled from the start, they will affect those ungulate populations and they will have negative interactions with domestic animals and humans.  There are already many examples of this fact in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and Canada.

Wildlife management directed by emotional public outbursts, propaganda, or the ballot box will undermine any valid scientific foundation that should be applied to the process.  People need to be educated with facts to help support wildlife management through the application of sound and unbiased science.  There will always be “wolf-lovers” and “wolf-haters” that will express their views, but we are very fortunate to live in a country with a Bill of Rights (i.e. the 1st Amendment in this case) in which they can do that.  However, we should all try to bring the extremes back to the facts; although, that can be difficult when your cattle, sheep, or dogs are killed, maimed, or otherwise negatively affected by wolves and you feel powerless to take protective action because of the wolves' protected status.  On the other side, it is very difficult to get through to people that want the wolf protected regardless of the damage they do, or negative impact they may have on other wildlife populations (i.e. ungulates); these people tend to live in areas completely removed from the impact of wolves (i.e. urban areas). 

These are the issues that are the subject of many current legislative battles. 

[Tradbowhunter]

Well spoken, my friend. The hardest thing to accept is that most likely it's the extremist's that will in the end win the ballot, whichever side that may be. I personally can't stand either side whether it be anti-predator or animal rights activists. Both act as zealots with no real actual factual information to back up their extremely ignorant opinion. I feel for ranchers and farmers that are being told they can't take action against an animal that is taking their livestock, that must be frustrating. Unfortunately for the apparently small percentage of responsible folk left in the world, if the majority of the general public were able to take matters into our own hands, there probably wouldn't be much left to hunt. Management as well as conservation is key.

[dinker]

I see that at least 2 of them were collard. Sucks

yea i saw this before on here and i was watching it with my grandpa and i even said a few have collors on them

[Broker]

I don't really have emotional responses to stuff like that video but the general population does.  I do have some instinctual trait that makes me want to kill the wolves but I guess that's some residual caveman DNA left in me.  More of a competitive reaction as I realize I would kill that animal in seconds, not after 10 minutes. 

As a hunter, I do not hate the wolf for what it does, they have far less effective killing tools than I do. I simply view them as unwanted competition for a limited resource.  Selfish but true.

If it were legal, I would shoot every wolf I encountered in the wild.  Their day has come and gone in the lower 48.  I know this sounds harsh and wasteful, but it's the caveman DNA talking again.  Predators take out other predators when they can, it's in our nature.  What does a wolf pack do to a coyote when they run across it?  Replace coyote in that sentence with any North American predator you want and you get the same answer.  (For the smartazz who will try and twist what I just typed as condoning killing of humans because they are predators, get a life.  We have laws on the books against murder for a reason.)

We no longer possess the vast areas required to maintain wolves without significant impacts to wildlife numbers.  They were removed by our forefathers for a reason.  How's that quote go, something along the lines of those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

If you really want to make it legal to hunt wolves in this state sooner rather than later, it will take money, air time and the initiative process. 

Someone stated earlier that the extremists will probably have the power to make the decision.  That is partially true.  The extremists on either side will need to sway the general public one direction or the other.  The general public doesn't care about hunting or wolves, they care about their jobs, families, safety and comfort.  The argument needs to be presented to the GP that wolves are needlessly cruel in their killing and sportsman are a far more efficient, humane way of controlling wildlife in a way they can understand.

The way to do that in my opinion is to get videos like this on TV and offer a solution to the problem which is an initiative allowing hunting and trapping of wolves.  Yes there will still be fed issues to deal with but this same general population just legalized marijuana in our state which is not condoned by the feds.

The problem is, we hunters are apathetic and even if we weren't it would take a while to pull off.  By the time we got organized, funded and ready to go, the wolf tags would already be available over the counter. 

[kneedragon76]

And the most hypocritical kneejerk reactionary post award goes to "blatant ignorance for the real, natural world. Stay in your gated two story home subdivision if you don't like it"

CALM DOWN CUP CAKE

[kneedragon76]

having read a few of these forums and having recently moved here from Texas hunting most of the SW in NM, AZ, TX, & MO I have to admit I'm genuinely concerned about taking my sons (3) into the woods with me for a hunt.  Regarding the original post and the reaction from some that missed the point.  Huggers are hypocrites in general emotional reactionaries (a lot like tradbowhunter). I simply don't feel secure with hungry dogs in the same area with my son while cleaning a deer. So my only question to anyone who supports the wolf agenda is WHY? What is the value added by releasing aggressive predators that have a large hunting grounds into prime hunting or recreational or residential areas. The cons simply out weigh the pros and if your worried about the lives of a few wolfs put up an 8' fence around your yard and keep them there. I'm sick of liberals pushing there beliefs on everyone else and yet by definition they are the accepting ones. Hypocracy at its best.

[AspenBud]

Sorry, I really don't see the difference.

Cougar Attack !!! MuleyCrazy 6: Trophy Mule Deer Overdose

One is hunted and glorified, the other is not and despised. I say open a season on wolves. If you "love" them their survival as a game species will be all but guaranteed and if you don't like them you have a chance to control their numbers and take a trophy.

You guys need to be gearing up to fight HSUS on this one. WDFW will at some point open up a season and the real fight will start at the ballot box at that point.

[AspenBud]

having read a few of these forums and having recently moved here from Texas hunting most of the SW in NM, AZ, TX, & MO I have to admit I'm genuinely concerned about taking my sons (3) into the woods with me for a hunt. 

If you want safe I hear they have internet hunting in Texas.

[JLS]

The general public doesn't care about hunting or wolves, they care about their jobs, families, safety and comfort.  The argument needs to be presented to the GP that wolves are needlessly cruel in their killing and sportsman are a far more efficient, humane way of controlling wildlife in a way they can understand.

I agree the public needs educated.  However, a wolf must kill or it dies, same as any predator.  If humans don't kill we have other options.  I much prefer wild game for the taste and health benefits, but if I had to I would purchase meat from a store.

To argue to the general public that wolves are needlessly cruel, and humans are a much kinder way to die is a very bad tactic to take IMO.  Do you really think a deer cares whether it's eaten by a pack of wolves, or ends up in my freezer?  I doubt it.

Maybe a more logical argument is to articulate how HUNTERS have brought back wildlife populations to where they are today through self imposed taxes to fund wildlife management.  And as they have funded the wildlife populations, feel that they have a vested interest in being able to continue sustained harvest of these populations.

[huntrights]

Hunting is conservation when coupled with wildlife management based on sound and unbiased science.  Wildlife managers can't dictate bag limits to wolves, but they can control wolf populations to prevent them from decimating other wildlife populations and/or attacking domestic livestock, or pets.

[Broker]

The general public doesn't care about hunting or wolves, they care about their jobs, families, safety and comfort.  The argument needs to be presented to the GP that wolves are needlessly cruel in their killing and sportsman are a far more efficient, humane way of controlling wildlife in a way they can understand.

I agree the public needs educated.  However, a wolf must kill or it dies, same as any predator.  If humans don't kill we have other options.  I much prefer wild game for the taste and health benefits, but if I had to I would purchase meat from a store.

To argue to the general public that wolves are needlessly cruel, and humans are a much kinder way to die is a very bad tactic to take IMO.  Do you really think a deer cares whether it's eaten by a pack of wolves, or ends up in my freezer?  I doubt it.

Maybe a more logical argument is to articulate how HUNTERS have brought back wildlife populations to where they are today through self imposed taxes to fund wildlife management.  And as they have funded the wildlife populations, feel that they have a vested interest in being able to continue sustained harvest of these populations.

I disagree with you on this one.  The general public doesn't care how much money we put into conservation or the amount of wildlife habitat we have collectively saved as sportsman.

You need to appeal to their emotions to cause them to move on an issue.  Seeing a deer, elk or moose plucked away from it's mother in the most savage way will get them going if you offer them a more sanitary alternative.

This tactic worked perfectly for the anti hunters when they banned leg hold traps, dogs and bait.  Did you not see the commercials?

Remember, these people like to eat meat, they just don't want to look into those soft brown eyes and do the killing themselves.  They want to think their chickens are free range and happy before they end up in the bucket at KFC.

I don't know how much time deer spend on the topic of their demise but I doubt very much a deer would prefer to be torn to shreds by a wolf vs  just tipping over dead without notice from a hunter's bullet.  Of course, I've never spoken with a deer about it's feelings so that's just a guess on my part.

[AspenBud]

The general public doesn't care about hunting or wolves, they care about their jobs, families, safety and comfort.  The argument needs to be presented to the GP that wolves are needlessly cruel in their killing and sportsman are a far more efficient, humane way of controlling wildlife in a way they can understand.

I agree the public needs educated.  However, a wolf must kill or it dies, same as any predator.  If humans don't kill we have other options.  I much prefer wild game for the taste and health benefits, but if I had to I would purchase meat from a store.

To argue to the general public that wolves are needlessly cruel, and humans are a much kinder way to die is a very bad tactic to take IMO.  Do you really think a deer cares whether it's eaten by a pack of wolves, or ends up in my freezer?  I doubt it.

Maybe a more logical argument is to articulate how HUNTERS have brought back wildlife populations to where they are today through self imposed taxes to fund wildlife management.  And as they have funded the wildlife populations, feel that they have a vested interest in being able to continue sustained harvest of these populations.

I disagree with you on this one.  The general public doesn't care how much money we put into conservation or the amount of wildlife habitat we have collectively saved as sportsman.

You need to appeal to their emotions to cause them to move on an issue.  Seeing a deer, elk or moose plucked away from it's mother in the most savage way will get them going if you offer them a more sanitary alternative.

This tactic worked perfectly for the anti hunters when they banned leg hold traps, dogs and bait.  Did you not see the commercials?

Remember, these people like to eat meat, they just don't want to look into those soft brown eyes and do the killing themselves.  They want to think their chickens are free range and happy before they end up in the bucket at KFC.

I don't know how much time deer spend on the topic of their demise but I doubt very much a deer would prefer to be torn to shreds by a wolf vs  just tipping over dead without notice from a hunter's bullet.  Of course, I've never spoken with a deer about it's feelings so that's just a guess on my part.

 

The animal rights people will just fire back with stuff like this...

Eyewitness account of Elks being bowhunted caused shock and outrage by the public

and more.

I think the public has a stronger stomach in regards to what happens in the wild than you think.

In a lot of ways the public doesn't count in this, which is why we need to push for ways to keep the issue off the ballot and get the WDFW to manage them with data based on science, not emotion.

[Smossy]

The general public doesn't care about hunting or wolves, they care about their jobs, families, safety and comfort.  The argument needs to be presented to the GP that wolves are needlessly cruel in their killing and sportsman are a far more efficient, humane way of controlling wildlife in a way they can understand.

I agree the public needs educated.  However, a wolf must kill or it dies, same as any predator.  If humans don't kill we have other options.  I much prefer wild game for the taste and health benefits, but if I had to I would purchase meat from a store.

To argue to the general public that wolves are needlessly cruel, and humans are a much kinder way to die is a very bad tactic to take IMO.  Do you really think a deer cares whether it's eaten by a pack of wolves, or ends up in my freezer?  I doubt it.

Maybe a more logical argument is to articulate how HUNTERS have brought back wildlife populations to where they are today through self imposed taxes to fund wildlife management.  And as they have funded the wildlife populations, feel that they have a vested interest in being able to continue sustained harvest of these populations.

I disagree with you on this one.  The general public doesn't care how much money we put into conservation or the amount of wildlife habitat we have collectively saved as sportsman.

You need to appeal to their emotions to cause them to move on an issue.  Seeing a deer, elk or moose plucked away from it's mother in the most savage way will get them going if you offer them a more sanitary alternative.

This tactic worked perfectly for the anti hunters when they banned leg hold traps, dogs and bait.  Did you not see the commercials?

Remember, these people like to eat meat, they just don't want to look into those soft brown eyes and do the killing themselves.  They want to think their chickens are free range and happy before they end up in the bucket at KFC.

I don't know how much time deer spend on the topic of their demise but I doubt very much a deer would prefer to be torn to shreds by a wolf vs  just tipping over dead without notice from a hunter's bullet.  Of course, I've never spoken with a deer about it's feelings so that's just a guess on my part.

 

The animal rights people will just fire back with stuff like this...

Eyewitness account of Elks being bowhunted caused shock and outrage by the public

and more.

I think the public has a stronger stomach in regards to what happens in the wild than you think.

In a lot of ways the public doesn't count in this, which is why we need to push for ways to keep the issue off the ballot and get the WDFW to manage them with data based on science, not emotion.

That video makes me laugh. Cant quite pinpoint why but boy o boy that's hilarious.

[JLS]

I disagree with you on this one.  The general public doesn't care how much money we put into conservation or the amount of wildlife habitat we have collectively saved as sportsman.

You need to appeal to their emotions to cause them to move on an issue.  Seeing a deer, elk or moose plucked away from it's mother in the most savage way will get them going if you offer them a more sanitary alternative.

Fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinions.  I thinks it's a very poor gamble though to think that you are going to win an emotional battle with the American people, who largely support the presence of wolves.  You can do all you want to portray the wolf as a cruel and ruthless killer, but the reality is that it's only doing what it has evolved to do.  I see this emotional battle as a poor tactical move and a battle that hunters will never win.

[ribka]

First of all many people are is easily manipulated by emotion based ad campaigns. Look at the 2012 election ad campaigns. We saw who won and who more successfully manipulated the public via emotion based campaigns. No big secret look at 1930's Russia and Germany where mass manipulation was first tried out and perfected. Cult of personality

Respectfully disagree using this technique with pro wolf or people who are neutral about wolves.  I have heard at least a few doz times from urban anti-hunting wolf lovers that wolves do not kill for sport. We who spend our time in wolf country know that they do. The majority of anti- hunting wolf luvers  think with and are driven by their emotions.

And wolves " target and kill only the sick and old infirmed from the herd thereby making the elk and deer herd healthier"

This video is proves otherwise. Need more videos like this. Also show photos and videos of animals killed by wolves for sport.

Agree with you about reminding non-hunters that hunters donate millions to wildlife recovery( including wolves), habitat restoration  via the Pitman Robertson Act. Plus the positive health aspects of harvesting and eating wild game.

Use a two pronged campaign approach for controlling the wolf populations

I disagree with you on this one.  The general public doesn't care how much money we put into conservation or the amount of wildlife habitat we have collectively saved as sportsman.

You need to appeal to their emotions to cause them to move on an issue.  Seeing a deer, elk or moose plucked away from it's mother in the most savage way will get them going if you offer them a more sanitary alternative.

Fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinions.  I thinks it's a very poor gamble though to think that you are going to win an emotional battle with the American people, who largely support the presence of wolves.  You can do all you want to portray the wolf as a cruel and ruthless killer, but the reality is that it's only doing what it has evolved to do.  I see this emotional battle as a poor tactical move and a battle that hunters will never win.

[ribka]

The anti-hunters have been using this stuff for over 2 decades. They understand the importance of manipulating the non hunting public's emotions.
All HSUS and PETA campaigns ads and media are based upon emotional manipulation and shock factor

time to turn the tables on them

The general public doesn't care about hunting or wolves, they care about their jobs, families, safety and comfort.  The argument needs to be presented to the GP that wolves are needlessly cruel in their killing and sportsman are a far more efficient, humane way of controlling wildlife in a way they can understand.

I agree the public needs educated.  However, a wolf must kill or it dies, same as any predator.  If humans don't kill we have other options.  I much prefer wild game for the taste and health benefits, but if I had to I would purchase meat from a store.

To argue to the general public that wolves are needlessly cruel, and humans are a much kinder way to die is a very bad tactic to take IMO.  Do you really think a deer cares whether it's eaten by a pack of wolves, or ends up in my freezer?  I doubt it.

Maybe a more logical argument is to articulate how HUNTERS have brought back wildlife populations to where they are today through self imposed taxes to fund wildlife management.  And as they have funded the wildlife populations, feel that they have a vested interest in being able to continue sustained harvest of these populations.

I disagree with you on this one.  The general public doesn't care how much money we put into conservation or the amount of wildlife habitat we have collectively saved as sportsman.

You need to appeal to their emotions to cause them to move on an issue.  Seeing a deer, elk or moose plucked away from it's mother in the most savage way will get them going if you offer them a more sanitary alternative.

This tactic worked perfectly for the anti hunters when they banned leg hold traps, dogs and bait.  Did you not see the commercials?

Remember, these people like to eat meat, they just don't want to look into those soft brown eyes and do the killing themselves.  They want to think their chickens are free range and happy before they end up in the bucket at KFC.

I don't know how much time deer spend on the topic of their demise but I doubt very much a deer would prefer to be torn to shreds by a wolf vs  just tipping over dead without notice from a hunter's bullet.  Of course, I've never spoken with a deer about it's feelings so that's just a guess on my part.

 

The animal rights people will just fire back with stuff like this...

Eyewitness account of Elks being bowhunted caused shock and outrage by the public

and more.

I think the public has a stronger stomach in regards to what happens in the wild than you think.

In a lot of ways the public doesn't count in this, which is why we need to push for ways to keep the issue off the ballot and get the WDFW to manage them with data based on science, not emotion.

[westside bull]

Yes this is  nature there is very small place for wolves in this state they need to  be managed like elk in video when there killing livestock that people depend on and are wdfw is paying livestock owners off for there loss I see a problem . Wait until a pack is at a elk feeding station laying waiting for elk and killing right in front of the people who loves the wolf .Manage them now so are general fund doesn't go to crap 

[AspenBud]

That has been tried and failed in other states like Michigan.

That's why hunters there used the system to stop animal rights groups in their tracks by taking away their power at the ballot box.

Say what you want about that but they have a wolf hunt now and we don't.

The anti-hunters have been using this stuff for over 2 decades. They understand the importance of manipulating the non hunting public's emotions.
All HSUS and PETA campaigns ads and media are based upon emotional manipulation and shock factor

time to turn the tables on them

The general public doesn't care about hunting or wolves, they care about their jobs, families, safety and comfort.  The argument needs to be presented to the GP that wolves are needlessly cruel in their killing and sportsman are a far more efficient, humane way of controlling wildlife in a way they can understand.

I agree the public needs educated.  However, a wolf must kill or it dies, same as any predator.  If humans don't kill we have other options.  I much prefer wild game for the taste and health benefits, but if I had to I would purchase meat from a store.

To argue to the general public that wolves are needlessly cruel, and humans are a much kinder way to die is a very bad tactic to take IMO.  Do you really think a deer cares whether it's eaten by a pack of wolves, or ends up in my freezer?  I doubt it.

Maybe a more logical argument is to articulate how HUNTERS have brought back wildlife populations to where they are today through self imposed taxes to fund wildlife management.  And as they have funded the wildlife populations, feel that they have a vested interest in being able to continue sustained harvest of these populations.

I disagree with you on this one.  The general public doesn't care how much money we put into conservation or the amount of wildlife habitat we have collectively saved as sportsman.

You need to appeal to their emotions to cause them to move on an issue.  Seeing a deer, elk or moose plucked away from it's mother in the most savage way will get them going if you offer them a more sanitary alternative.

This tactic worked perfectly for the anti hunters when they banned leg hold traps, dogs and bait.  Did you not see the commercials?

Remember, these people like to eat meat, they just don't want to look into those soft brown eyes and do the killing themselves.  They want to think their chickens are free range and happy before they end up in the bucket at KFC.

I don't know how much time deer spend on the topic of their demise but I doubt very much a deer would prefer to be torn to shreds by a wolf vs  just tipping over dead without notice from a hunter's bullet.  Of course, I've never spoken with a deer about it's feelings so that's just a guess on my part.

 

The animal rights people will just fire back with stuff like this...

Eyewitness account of Elks being bowhunted caused shock and outrage by the public

and more.

I think the public has a stronger stomach in regards to what happens in the wild than you think.

In a lot of ways the public doesn't count in this, which is why we need to push for ways to keep the issue off the ballot and get the WDFW to manage them with data based on science, not emotion.

[Broker]

Hopefully we'll see a season for them soon in Washington one way or the other.  I have plenty of room for a nice wolf rug on the wall.

[Jonathan_S]

I wish that mama moose would have got a few of them under those hooves.