Video for the wolf huggers

[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