I hate wolves. JUST hate them

[headshot5]

I'll support wolves being protected, when there is a sustainable population of grizzlies in California again...  Just like way back when...

[AspenBud]

Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot.    It's an emotionally driven argument.

Hunting dogs die. It's something my Dad warned me about as a kid when we contemplated taking the family dog out as a rabbit hunter and also something several hardcore bird dog guys have said to me over the years. I accept it.

As an upland hunter I'm sensitive to the risks, it's why I want the right to defend myself and my dogs from wolves if, God forbid, an encounter occurred. Good gun dogs are expensive to buy and train and there is no price on the emotional attachment if they are a family pet.

But wolf or no wolf you always roll the dice when taking man's best friend hunting. People who can't handle the fact that their dog might die from any number of causes while hunting should probably not be hunting with dogs.

[AspenBud]

Getting WDFW to allow wolves to be shot is only one part of what's needed and that's arguably the easy part.

You guys need to get over who legally or illegally introduced wolves to the state, if it happened at all, it is completely irrelevant at this point. They are here regardless.

You also need to stop worrying about what WDFW is or is not doing. NONE of that will matter if you don't find a way to stop the initiative process from preventing a right to self defense from wolves and/or wolf hunting.

The state of Michigan has actually provided a blue print for that and your time would be better spent finding ways to follow their lead on the matter rather than p&%$ing and moaning about the rest.

Mark my words, if WDFW opened a season on the animals today HSUS and PETA would be here in force with out of state funding to get the citizens of our state to ban any shooting of wolves like they got hound hunting banned. You all better pay attention to that and get on the stick or you can expect things to get worse when talk of a season finally does start.

It's easier to convince a few biologists or change out management at a state agency than it is to convince the public that they should not be playing wildlife biologist.

[billdo5]

should have shot them

[elk247]

That is a good point aspenbud. I can't help but think of the plaque at the zoo that was posted recently. The sign was claimed to be recently updated. The sign was outside the wolf exhibit and claimed with enthusiasm that wolves are back! The population on the sign was estimated around 30 individuals. It's obvious to me that misinforming the public of the magnitude of the wolf problem is the goal.

[acnewman55]

43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Hunters killed 252 wolves, and trappers 123, for a total of 375 wolves."

375 wolves killed. that's approximately 40% of the original population of 945 (based on biologist estimates), or 20% if you're one of em that thinks there were really more than 1200 out there.

I'd say wiping out 20-40% of the wolf population in a single season of hunting and trapping is pretty effective.  I'm not going to loose any sleep about wolves taking over the continent, snatching our children from their beds, or committing insurance fraud.  Hunting and trapping will do enough to control populations.

Your figures about less than 1% success rate also assume a whole lot.  You assume every hunter that purchased a tag hunted.  You also assume that every hunter purchased one tag.  I believe every hunter can purchase up to 5 tags.  If every hunter did this, then only 8660 hunters purchased tags (I'm sure there were a lot more hunters involved) and then you're looking at a hunter success rate of 4.33% assuming every hunter actually hunted. 

I think most folks would agree then that success rates fell somewhere in between 1%-5%.  Since Idaho has only just ended it's 4th wolf hunting season, it's safe to say that most hunters have little or no experience in hunting wolves, and even fewer have had experience with success.  Many of those "wolf hunters" are just average joes that stuck a wolf tag in their pockets while out on their other hunts, just in case they ran into one.  Not every one of those hunters is out there specifically targeting wolves.

In a couple of years, as more hunters get wolf-hunting experience under their belts, and more resources are available to aid these hunters, those percentages will inevitably rise.  The wolves will get smarter too, no doubt, like any species would.  Currently, a 1-5% success rate eliminating 20-40% of the population is plenty to keep the wolf population down. 

Seems to me, once those success rates increase, if the same number of hunters are going out after wolves you could easily see 400-600 wolves getting killed - 40 -75% of the population in a single season.

And some of you don't think we can control wolves with hunting/trapping?  Doesn't make sense to me.

[Johnb317]

The pictures of the dogs was a little much, but maybe if the tree huggers saw that wolves kill for sport and they aren't cuddly creatures they might be more open to reality.   PETA will show pictures of dead wolves, but never of elk cows with nothing eaten but the unborn calf, nor of when a farmer loses 120 sheep in a night.

If I go to Idaho I'm getting a wolf tag

[jackmaster]

ASPENBUD, how come you dont include yourself in what  needs to be done? are you not a sportsman, your last post made it sound like your not concerned at all. i say this because you say we need to get on the stick, but you never sound like your including yourself anyways, we sportsman know what needs doing, its kinda hard though when the majority are backed by very wealthy orginizations, and we sportsman are on are own yet the sportsman care more about are elk and deer heards and the habitat than these other orginizations. they just seem to want wolves around with little to NO concern for the others that are being impacted by these wolves...i am still curious as to why noone can tell me why wolves were eradicated in the first place? if this kinda stuff continues none of us are gonna have to worry about hunting anymore, because there wont be anything to hunt. i can tell you when it gets to this point in say 10 to 15 years you will probably more concerned about protecting yourself when you decide to venture into the hills. like i have said before as have others, wolves are thinkers, probably one of the smartest predators known to man, they WILL be causing so much damage that it is going to cost more money than we can imagine to even begin to try and fix it....there isnt a person on here that doesnt believe that wolves need to be managed, but by the time the wdfw gets to the numbers they desire it will be to late...

[wolfbait]

Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot.    It's an emotionally driven argument.

Those dogs got killed/eaten because a wolf's instincts are to kill and eat things.  They don't make moral decisions about the things they kill and eat.  They make rational decisions based on how much energy they'll burn to kill the animal vs. how much safety/food/territory they'll get out of the kill.  Cost vs. Benefit.  Not Right vs. Wrong.

To judge an animal as you might judge a human is ridiculous.  In this country you can plead insanity to a crime- which basically you means you weren't capable of making a decision on the morality of your actions.  In this country we understand that some folks who commit crimes just can't help themselves. This is true even for those guilty of heinous crimes like murder.  Those folks are treated differently than those capable of moral judgement.  Sure, they're still removed from society for the protection of the population.

That should go for wolves as well.  You should want to relocate them, manage their populations, etc.  If that's not getting done, whose fault is that?  Certainly not the wolf's fault.  That fault lies with WDFW, taxpayers, voters, politicians.  Distaste for some of these decision makers is warranted, and logical.

Hating a wolf for being a wolf though?  Well that's just unintelligent 

You can blame the pictures of dogs being killed by wolves as emotional, but it is also fact.  What about dogs that arn't hunting and are killed or chewed up by wolves? Is that not also a truth about wolves and there lust just to kill? Or is it emotional propaganda?

What about pictures of livestock killed by wolves? Is that emotional or fact?

If you look at the past history of the Illegal wolf introduction you will find many cases of wolves killing, Just to kill. Would you like to call that emotional also? Or fact?

The history of wolves go back many years, not much of the true wolf history hasn't been known in the last 80 years. Instead the American people have gotten a fake wolf to worship, the USFWS wolf.

No one has to releases wolves any where the USFWS and WDFW have already done that.

[gonehuntin68]

I would have shot every one of them

[acnewman55]

Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot.    It's an emotionally driven argument.

Those dogs got killed/eaten because a wolf's instincts are to kill and eat things.  They don't make moral decisions about the things they kill and eat.  They make rational decisions based on how much energy they'll burn to kill the animal vs. how much safety/food/territory they'll get out of the kill.  Cost vs. Benefit.  Not Right vs. Wrong.

To judge an animal as you might judge a human is ridiculous.  In this country you can plead insanity to a crime- which basically you means you weren't capable of making a decision on the morality of your actions.  In this country we understand that some folks who commit crimes just can't help themselves. This is true even for those guilty of heinous crimes like murder.  Those folks are treated differently than those capable of moral judgement.  Sure, they're still removed from society for the protection of the population.

That should go for wolves as well.  You should want to relocate them, manage their populations, etc.  If that's not getting done, whose fault is that?  Certainly not the wolf's fault.  That fault lies with WDFW, taxpayers, voters, politicians.  Distaste for some of these decision makers is warranted, and logical.

Hating a wolf for being a wolf though?  Well that's just unintelligent 

You can blame the pictures of dogs being killed by wolves as emotional, but it is also fact.  What about dogs that arn't hunting and are killed or chewed up by wolves? Is that not also a truth about wolves and there lust just to kill? Or is it emotional propaganda?

What about pictures of livestock killed by wolves? Is that emotional or fact?

If you look at the past history of the Illegal wolf introduction you will find many cases of wolves killing, Just to kill. Would you like to call that emotional also? Or fact?

The history of wolves go back many years, not much of the true wolf history hasn't been known in the last 80 years. Instead the American people have gotten a fake wolf to worship, the USFWS wolf.

No one has to releases wolves any where the USFWS and WDFW have already done that.

I'm not sure I understand what your point was here... 

It's the argument that is emotional.  A fact can't really be emotional... It's just a fact.  I'm saying that reacting emotionally about the actions of wolves is the wrong way to approach the issue.  No biologist / scientist / politician / F&W official with a college degree is going to take outdoorsmen seriously if we keep making arguments like that.

You have to win these arguments with fact and logic, not emotional responses.  Outdoorsmen don't help themselves by appearing as a rabble of rednecks that post photos of their dead hunting dogs and repeatedly just post "KILL EM ALL!"

You aren't doing yourselves any favors.  It's no wonder to me that nobody is listening to you.

Maybe you folks know better than the biologists and scientists with their masters degrees and PhDs.  The hunting public certainly represents a lot more boots and eyes on the ground than the state can bring to bear, so it's not ridiculous to assume that hunters know plenty that the biologists aren't aware of.  The problem is, when you enter an argument with your emotions instead of your heads, it makes it really tough to convince anybody of anything, especially a scientist.

You're already fighting an uphill battle, you've noted that many of the folks that run this state don't really give a damn what you think.  To make things worse, as soon as anybody makes an argument you don't like, you jump all over him and call him "wolf lover, hippie, tree-hugger."

Well, maybe they think ya'll are a bunch of inbred, uneducated, rednecks. My point is that you should try a little harder to come off as educated rednecks, and make logical arguments instead of emotional arguments, so that the folks in charge might listen to you. 

[wolfbait]

Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot.    It's an emotionally driven argument.

Those dogs got killed/eaten because a wolf's instincts are to kill and eat things.  They don't make moral decisions about the things they kill and eat.  They make rational decisions based on how much energy they'll burn to kill the animal vs. how much safety/food/territory they'll get out of the kill.  Cost vs. Benefit.  Not Right vs. Wrong.

To judge an animal as you might judge a human is ridiculous.  In this country you can plead insanity to a crime- which basically you means you weren't capable of making a decision on the morality of your actions.  In this country we understand that some folks who commit crimes just can't help themselves. This is true even for those guilty of heinous crimes like murder.  Those folks are treated differently than those capable of moral judgement.  Sure, they're still removed from society for the protection of the population.

That should go for wolves as well.  You should want to relocate them, manage their populations, etc.  If that's not getting done, whose fault is that?  Certainly not the wolf's fault.  That fault lies with WDFW, taxpayers, voters, politicians.  Distaste for some of these decision makers is warranted, and logical.

Hating a wolf for being a wolf though?  Well that's just unintelligent 

You can blame the pictures of dogs being killed by wolves as emotional, but it is also fact.  What about dogs that arn't hunting and are killed or chewed up by wolves? Is that not also a truth about wolves and there lust just to kill? Or is it emotional propaganda?

What about pictures of livestock killed by wolves? Is that emotional or fact?

If you look at the past history of the Illegal wolf introduction you will find many cases of wolves killing, Just to kill. Would you like to call that emotional also? Or fact?

The history of wolves go back many years, not much of the true wolf history hasn't been known in the last 80 years. Instead the American people have gotten a fake wolf to worship, the USFWS wolf.

No one has to releases wolves any where the USFWS and WDFW have already done that.

I'm not sure I understand what your point was here... 

It's the argument that is emotional.  A fact can't really be emotional... It's just a fact.  I'm saying that reacting emotionally about the actions of wolves is the wrong way to approach the issue.  No biologist / scientist / politician / F&W official with a college degree is going to take outdoorsmen seriously if we keep making arguments like that.

You have to win these arguments with fact and logic, not emotional responses.  Outdoorsmen don't help themselves by appearing as a rabble of rednecks that post photos of their dead hunting dogs and repeatedly just post "KILL EM ALL!"

You aren't doing yourselves any favors.  It's no wonder to me that nobody is listening to you.

Maybe you folks know better than the biologists and scientists with their masters degrees and PhDs.  The hunting public certainly represents a lot more boots and eyes on the ground than the state can bring to bear, so it's not ridiculous to assume that hunters know plenty that the biologists aren't aware of.  The problem is, when you enter an argument with your emotions instead of your heads, it makes it really tough to convince anybody of anything, especially a scientist.

You're already fighting an uphill battle, you've noted that many of the folks that run this state don't really give a damn what you think.  To make things worse, as soon as anybody makes an argument you don't like, you jump all over him and call him "wolf lover, hippie, tree-hugger."

Well, maybe they think ya'll are a bunch of inbred, uneducated, rednecks. My point is that you should try a little harder to come off as educated rednecks, and make logical arguments instead of emotional arguments, so that the folks in charge might listen to you. 

You make several good points, AC.

Personaly, I think the only WA wolf management we will ever get is the SS-shoot&shut up. That being said how many wolves will be shot?-not nearly enough

There is one thing that many people seem to miss with wolves and that is the Fact that 50 to 70% need to be culled each year in order to control them. And the Fact that wolves increase 50% each year makes this very difficult when they are hunted as a big game animal, even if they were hunted as a predator the goal would not be met. So with that being said, what makes anyone think our game herds have a chance once WDF&Wolves and the USFWS finally decide there are enough wolves in WA and you can hunt them as a big game animal?

By the time WDFW and the USFWS get finished with WA there will be nothing left to hunt, it's called genecide by wolves.

That doesn't mean we quit fighting, it's just an example of what we are up against.

[raydog]

Quick question: If I shoot a wolf in the woods and no one is around to hear it, is it still illegal? 

[wolfbait]

Quick question: If I shoot a wolf in the woods and no one is around to hear it, is it still illegal? 

The wolves were introduced illegally, it's open season

[gaddy]

depends? how many times have you been watched in the woods & not knowed about it ?