I hate wolves. JUST hate them

[JLS]

I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'

You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves.  I'm all for more protected wilderness.  I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion.  I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.

Wolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.

Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them.  Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land?  I seem to remember something like that.  Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free.  You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?

What's next?  Wolves don't serve in the army?  They don't pay their taxes?  They aren't members of the NRA?  THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!

What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.

Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down?  Think I read that on the previous thread.  Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. 

Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.

They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area.  However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting".  BS.  If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise.  They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.

What are you talking about. The wolves are not being controlled. They are reproducing faster than they can be killed. They may have slowed a bit, but that is far from saying they are being controlled.

What are you talking about?  If they were reproducing faster than they were being killed then the numbers would still be rising.  They are not rising, therefore they are not reproducing faster than they are being killed.  No matter how you want to argue semantics, that equates to the population being controlled to some extent by hunting.

Carry on.

[KyleMB123]

It's not the wolves. It's the gov't and the influence from irrational environmentalists who stole money (essentially) to bring Canadian wolves into the lower 48 in a vain attempt to permanently reduce hunting, and, therefore, permanently reduce the amount of influence hunters have in setting the policy governing our public lands. It has been a horrific failure which has cost millions of hours of time and millions of dollars in wasted and lost gov't revenue and will still continue to cost everyone for years and years. This is the legacy of the wolf reintroduction. This legacy will set the anti-hunting crowd back decades.

Finem Respice

[turkeyfeather]

I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'

You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves.  I'm all for more protected wilderness.  I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion.  I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.

Wolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.

Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them.  Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land?  I seem to remember something like that.  Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free.  You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?

What's next?  Wolves don't serve in the army?  They don't pay their taxes?  They aren't members of the NRA?  THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!

What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.

Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down?  Think I read that on the previous thread.  Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. 

Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.

They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area.  However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting".  BS.  If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise.  They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.

What are you talking about. The wolves are not being controlled. They are reproducing faster than they can be killed. They may have slowed a bit, but that is far from saying they are being controlled.

What are you talking about?  If they were reproducing faster than they were being killed then the numbers would still be rising.  They are not rising, therefore they are not reproducing faster than they are being killed.  No matter how you want to argue semantics, that equates to the population being controlled to some extent by hunting.

Carry on.

I think your delusional. I have personally talked to a Idaho biologist who confirmed that the population is still increasing.

[JLS]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/03/idaho-wolf-population-decreased-by-11-percent-in/

Yes, I'm completely delusional.

[turkeyfeather]

Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me)  At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.

[Ridgeratt]

I got nothing!!   
But as they get closer to the west side more folks are taking an active interest in them.

Best place in this topic is to watch it from the sidelines!!

[crazysccrmd]

Probably but even if so, how does that justify that they deserved to be inhumanely ripped to pieces? Theyre not used to kill other animals. Theyre used for theyre amazing ability to track an animal, in which that animal is usually terminated as quickly and as humanely as possibly. Not ripped apart piece by piece.  Some people are just retarded. If a wolf put a bullet into an animal right before they ate the entire thing. That would be different.  Kinda lol, and a freak of nature but still.

I know that no one likes it when their dog is killed, but it's what happens sometimes. There was a post on here not that long ago about a member's hound who was mauled pretty badly by a bear. No one blamed the bear, it's a risk you take when pursuing game with other animals (dogs). When anything in nature is killed and eaten it is ripped apart piece by piece, that isn't something wolves alone do. To single this out is just as bad as a wolf lover saying they don't kill cattle.

I'm ok with wolves, and a well managed season with quota caps that will allow enough harvest to keep the population in check. It means WDFW will actually have to do their job and forecast properly, so that might just be a pipe dream.

[JLS]

Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me)  At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html

I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too.  I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.

Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth.  Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?

Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009.  Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves.  You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.

[Scottystyle]

I'm just waiting for the wolves to attack a hiker up on the Saddlerock Trail and hear WDFW say the hiker got hit by a car first...    

This memo has already been pre-typed for when this occurence happens  I see it reading somethin like this..... "The wolf was waiting to feed on the hiker with the broken leg.  When officers arrived, they fired warning shots to scare the wolf away, interupting a meal.... now it will have to find another hiker to feed on" 

[turkeyfeather]

Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me)  At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html

I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too.  I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.

Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth.  Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?

Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009.  Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves.  You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.

Your right that I have made up my decision and opinions already, but I have done it with info and opinions coming from those that are in the field and see what's going on. Forgive me if I don't believe the game depts that have been lying to us for years. What do we have to lose? A few meals, a story or two. The game depts stand to lose millions. That's why the numbers have been scewed or misrepresented for years. And if you don't think that has been happening you have your head in the sand and there is no point in debating this with you.

[JLS]

Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me)  At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html

I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too.  I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.

Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth.  Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?

Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009.  Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves.  You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.

Your right that I have made up my decision and opinions already, but I have done it with info and opinions coming from those that are in the field and see what's going on. Forgive me if I don't believe the game depts that have been lying to us for years. What do we have to lose? A few meals, a story or two. The game depts stand to lose millions. That's why the numbers have been scewed or misrepresented for years. And if you don't think that has been happening you have your head in the sand and there is no point in debating this with you.

I don't know what you're getting at here bro, you think I have my head in the sand because I don't get all spun up in the emotions of wolves? 

I am willing to bet I have as many, if not more contacts in the field who see and know what's going on.  I could care less what opinions and decisions you've made.  I could care less if you believe the game departments have lied to you so they don't lose millions.  Rock on, believe whatever you want.

This all started because I called folks out on reciting the tried and true propoganda lines that wolf haters put out there.  It's no different than trying to use numbers versus emotions on a gun control argument, except now many of you are on the emotional side of the fence ignoring facts and screaming conspiracy.  I didn't ask you for a debate, I pointed out flaws in statements.  Nothing more, nothing less.  My stance on wolves has not wavered in one single post I have made, look it up.

[turkeyfeather]

Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me)  At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html

I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too.  I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.

Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth.  Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?

Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009.  Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves.  You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.

Your right that I have made up my decision and opinions already, but I have done it with info and opinions coming from those that are in the field and see what's going on. Forgive me if I don't believe the game depts that have been lying to us for years. What do we have to lose? A few meals, a story or two. The game depts stand to lose millions. That's why the numbers have been scewed or misrepresented for years. And if you don't think that has been happening you have your head in the sand and there is no point in debating this with you.

I don't know what you're getting at here bro, you think I have my head in the sand because I don't get all spun up in the emotions of wolves? 

I am willing to bet I have as many, if not more contacts in the field who see and know what's going on.  I could care less what opinions and decisions you've made.  I could care less if you believe the game departments have lied to you so they don't lose millions.  Rock on, believe whatever you want.

This all started because I called folks out on reciting the tried and true propoganda lines that wolf haters put out there.  It's no different than trying to use numbers versus emotions on a gun control argument, except now many of you are on the emotional side of the fence ignoring facts and screaming conspiracy.  I didn't ask you for a debate, I pointed out flaws in statements.  Nothing more, nothing less.  My stance on wolves has not wavered in one single post I have made, look it up.

Good for you.  Neither have I. You have your opinions and I have mine that's all it is. You present your side and I present mine and we see if we can sway each other. Sorry you didn't sway me. I think the numbers are bogus and you will not convince me other wise. I have seen our Idaho hunting ground wiped out.

[Heredoggydoggy]

I'm just waiting for the wolves to attack a hiker up on the Saddlerock Trail and hear WDFW say the hiker got hit by a car first...    

This memo has already been pre-typed for when this occurence happens  I see it reading somethin like this..... "The wolf was waiting to feed on the hiker with the broken leg.  When officers arrived, they fired warning shots to scare the wolf away, interupting a meal.... now it will have to find another hiker to feed on" 

You forgot the rest of the story:  "The officers euthanized the hiker and removed him.  The necropsy showed no evidence that the wolf broke his leg or fed on him." 

[Houndhunter]

Probably but even if so, how does that justify that they deserved to be inhumanely ripped to pieces? Theyre not used to kill other animals. Theyre used for theyre amazing ability to track an animal, in which that animal is usually terminated as quickly and as humanely as possibly. Not ripped apart piece by piece.  Some people are just retarded. If a wolf put a bullet into an animal right before they ate the entire thing. That would be different.  Kinda lol, and a freak of nature but still.

I know that no one likes it when their dog is killed, but it's what happens sometimes. There was a post on here not that long ago about a member's hound who was mauled pretty badly by a bear. No one blamed the bear, it's a risk you take when pursuing game with other animals (dogs). When anything in nature is killed and eaten it is ripped apart piece by piece, that isn't something wolves alone do. To single this out is just as bad as a wolf lover saying they don't kill cattle.

I'm ok with wolves, and a well managed season with quota caps that will allow enough harvest to keep the population in check. It means WDFW will actually have to do their job and forecast properly, so that might just be a pipe dream.

When you pursue an animal like bear or lion, ya we know *censored* can happen. Heck a dog can fall off a cliff, stuff happens. But there's a big difference between a pack of wolves that your not pursuing comes in and kills all your dogs and a bear you were pursuing that killed a dog. Get what im saying? There's no comparing the two as its completely different scenarios

[Scottystyle]

I'm just waiting for the wolves to attack a hiker up on the Saddlerock Trail and hear WDFW say the hiker got hit by a car first...    

This memo has already been pre-typed for when this occurence happens  I see it reading somethin like this..... "The wolf was waiting to feed on the hiker with the broken leg.  When officers arrived, they fired warning shots to scare the wolf away, interupting a meal.... now it will have to find another hiker to feed on" 

You forgot the rest of the story:  "The officers euthanized the hiker and removed him.  The necropsy showed no evidence that the wolf broke his leg or fed on him." 

hahaha !!! or did the hiker break a leg and die of complications of giving birth? hahaha!!!