I hate wolves. JUST hate them

[slim9300]

Plenty of game? Is that why Lewis and Clark survived off domestic dogs and salmon when they came to Washington? There was not plenty of game in the north west. Wolves play no significant part in todays day and age, there may have been a few before but they never thrived here.

We dont need wolves, they will have nothing but a detrimental effect on todays society

Exactly. People have this view that the white man was the one that wiped out all of North America's big game populations and before us, all animals were amazingly plentiful. Lewis and Clark could hardly find an animal to kill when they were anywhere near Indian 'traditional hunting grounds.' Which was most of their trip across the West. I wonder why that was?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slim9300]

I Don't much care for wolves but can you blame the wolf for doing what wolves do. No. Blame the jack wagons who brought them back

I think that should be obvious as most of us are debating the concept and not the animal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lucky33]

Big 'ol can of worms....

[3dsheetmetal]

Wolves need to be  shot ,trapped, or poisioned eliminate them all.

[AspenBud]

If we weren't parceling out the wilderness and containing wild animals into smaller and smaller ranges, there'd be plenty of game to go around, and we wouldn't have to wait half a lifetime to draw for a chance to hunt a trophy animal.

I don't think the wolf is our enemy, I think development is our enemy.

I agree, but there's more to it than that. We don't manage habitat like we should.

In a lot of places where game is becoming more scarce you don't see logging trucks as much as you used to. Big undisturbed forests are nice to see, but they don't allow for a lot of undergrowth and become ecological deserts. Less food and cover for hiding means fewer animals including deer. As I see it we were already in trouble thanks to the Sierra Club and other groups that don't seem to understand habitat. Wolves, where they are occurring, have just made the problem more visible and worse in some cases.

At the end of the day this argument is really about whether we cultivate game for hunting or if we let nature take its course wolf or no wolf. It's about whether you should have a reasonable right to hunt for your own food or be forced into the grocery store and line farmers' and livestock producers' pockets instead. It is more complex than just the wolf, but most don't understand that.

[AspenBud]

you wolf advocates dont see the big picture and you call hunters who dislike wolves narrow minded, hunters and most sportsman give endlessly to the survival of habitat and wildlife, wolves dont just stop with deer and elk, why dont you realize that, is it going to take a little kid playing in his yard and getting mauled by a wolf, or a tree huggin, wolf lovin, bunny humper getting picked off in the sticks by a wolf for you to realize that wolves no longer have a place in society in the lower 48  why dont people realize that wolves were done away with because they are not your normal predator, they do not fear like cougars, bobcat and yotes do. wolves are testers, they become more braisin by the minute, they are constantly testing strengths and weaknesses and they exploit the weaknesses very efficiently. you wolve lovers need to wake up and see the big picture, i for one cant wait for mama and baby leaf licker to be at a feeding station and while they watch the elk in their winter grounds eating their hay a wolf pack comes in and start grubbin on baby elk and watch mama elk stand there and watch her baby get consumed, that should leave a wonderful longlastin memory for the leaflicker family.

I don't see how you can think any of the above horror stories will make a difference. Adults, kids, dogs, cats, and so on regularly get attacked by mountain lions, coyotes, bear, and more in this country year in and year out. Unless it becomes a regular occurrence an errant wolf attack on a human being isn't going to change perceptions much among people who don't farm or hunt. Our society is fairly fatalistic about wild animals. If you don't think so you're not paying much attention.

[bearpaw]

For anyone to say that there was a lot of game before this land was settled may be lacking some historic knowledge. It is clearly detailed in the Lewis & Clark journal how few animals there were in many areas of the west, particularly in the mountain regions where wolves were prevalent. Big game herds thrived after wolves were exterminated and cougars and bears were controlled.

It has further been shown in YNP how wolves will reduce local herds to such a level that they kill and eat each other or move to other areas for food. There are now little more than half as many wolves in YNP as there was before they decimated the elk and moose herds.

Wolves are best suited in wilderness areas and large parks where humans, pets, and livestock do not inhabit the landscape. If wolves are not managed, which this state refuses to do, then they will decimate herds, when food gets scarce is when livestock, pets, and even humans may become just to appealing.

Just yesterday I ran into a friend who lives where the Smackout pack has taken up residence, she walks daily near her home, last week she ran into a wolf while walking and this wolf had no fear of her, she was actually shouting and throwing rocks at this wolf to keep it back, lucky for her a truck happened along. She says she will never walk without a gun again, this scared the dickens right out of her. These wolves are living in too close of proximity to livestock, humans, and pets, it's just a matter of time and they will be in trouble.

Another case in point is the Wedge Pack. Those wolves have been there for several years and us locals have been telling that to WDFW, but as everyone knows, until a couple years ago WDFW denied wolves existence. Those wolves multiplied and heavily impacted local game herds to the point that it became far easier to eat cattle.

The biggest mistake is failing to manage wolves and keeping their numbers to a minimum that does not impact big game herds. Yet that is exactly what WDFW has in mind for Washington. The WDFW Colville meeting was held so that WDFW could basically tell us locals when herds declined they were not going to act on reducing wolf numbers, they plan to study the problem. Once wolves multiply and begin depleting herd numbers then the domino effect of significant herd reductions will begin and ultimately the inability of the herds to recover due to continued predation will prevail, thus the term predator pit.

If WDFW continues to allow herds to deplete they will be responsible for the predator pit as it grows in Washington. There is already a predator pit in certain areas of NE WA. We had two hard winters and WDFW refuses to manage cougars and wolves which are significantly increasing in numbers, it has been some years since those bad winters but our deer herds are having a hard time recovering and numbers are dropping further in localized areas where the wolves and cougars are multiplying.

I am the last person who wants to see cougars over hunted and I would not want to see wolves extinct, but I am smart enough to clearly see that WDFW is not managing in the interest of the big game herds or hunters. WDFW is suffering from a cancerous infection known as extreme environmentalism. Until the cancer is removed it will grow and threaten the mere survival of hunting in Washington. 

[acnewman55]

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!?!?!

[bearpaw]

you wolf advocates dont see the big picture and you call hunters who dislike wolves narrow minded, hunters and most sportsman give endlessly to the survival of habitat and wildlife, wolves dont just stop with deer and elk, why dont you realize that, is it going to take a little kid playing in his yard and getting mauled by a wolf, or a tree huggin, wolf lovin, bunny humper getting picked off in the sticks by a wolf for you to realize that wolves no longer have a place in society in the lower 48  why dont people realize that wolves were done away with because they are not your normal predator, they do not fear like cougars, bobcat and yotes do. wolves are testers, they become more braisin by the minute, they are constantly testing strengths and weaknesses and they exploit the weaknesses very efficiently. you wolve lovers need to wake up and see the big picture, i for one cant wait for mama and baby leaf licker to be at a feeding station and while they watch the elk in their winter grounds eating their hay a wolf pack comes in and start grubbin on baby elk and watch mama elk stand there and watch her baby get consumed, that should leave a wonderful longlastin memory for the leaflicker family.

I don't see how you can think any of the above horror stories will make a difference. Adults, kids, dogs, cats, and so on regularly get attacked by mountain lions, coyotes, bear, and more in this country year in and year out. Unless it becomes a regular occurrence an errant wolf attack on a human being isn't going to change perceptions much among people who don't farm or hunt. Our society is fairly fatalistic about wild animals. If you don't think so you're not paying much attention.

Aspenbud you are correct, cougars, bear, and coyotes also need to be managed. When there is a lack of management of any predator, big game herds, and eventually livestock, pets, and even humans may suffer. The responsibility of WDFW is to manage predator numbers to coexist in today's modern ecosystems.

[bearpaw]

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.

You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?

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?
Up until a few years ago the government has done a great job of keeping wolves in remote areas and protecting big game herds, livestock, pets, and humans. It's pretty clear to me that you are simply a wolf lover, not even concerned about balanced management of all wildlife.   


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!?!?!

[acnewman55]

You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?

You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right?  What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right?  Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.

[bearpaw]

You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?

You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right?  What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right?  Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.

Nice try. 

Actually I like and enjoy any type of hunting. I enjoy still hunting around farmed and logged areas, packing on horses into more remote areas on our current forests, stand and blind hunting, and road hunting. Yes, I really do like to road hunt. Sometimes we get out of the truck, shoot an animal, load it up and drive home. That last method works particularly well for physically disabled and wounded hunters who have served in the military. Except when I have those type of hunters with me we often shoot from within the truck because they do not have the ability to walk at all. Other times I have hunters who are over weight or too old and cannot walk far, you may say that is their own fault for being overweight or that they should give up hunting because they are too old, but I am a bit more sensitive to peoples needs and feelings than that.

Wilderness effectively removes millions of Americans from ever enjoying that land because the first thing that happens is the roads are removed and access is limited. Under wilderness designation wildlife numbers do not benefit and human use is forever restricted. I think 22 is enough wilderness areas for Washington. 

We have vast areas of National Forest, a significant portion of the state which is closed to any kind of development. I wished they would do more logging though because that takes the place of forest fires on a smaller scale and wildlife benefits. Because you are a wilderness/wolf lover and obviously do not care about all wildlife, I do not expect you to understand the benefits of logging. But, FYI - The best big game herds thrive in logged areas. Most of the wolf packs in NE WA are thriving in previously logged areas which are home to big game herds. 

Large portions of the National Forests are already off limits to logging and mining. But wilderness/wolf lovers do not like to admit that.

Please go on, your politics are amusing me. 

[AspenBud]

You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?

You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right?  What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right?  Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.

A reasonable and well thought out amount of logging creates needed habitat. Nature used to do that for us with fire. But we put those out now so logging is the only option.

[trophyhunt]

For anyone to say that there was a lot of game before this land was settled may be lacking some historic knowledge. It is clearly detailed in the Lewis & Clark journal how few animals there were in many areas of the west, particularly in the mountain regions where wolves were prevalent. Big game herds thrived after wolves were exterminated and cougars and bears were controlled.

It has further been shown in YNP how wolves will reduce local herds to such a level that they kill and eat each other or move to other areas for food. There are now little more than half as many wolves in YNP as there was before they decimated the elk and moose herds.

Wolves are best suited in wilderness areas and large parks where humans, pets, and livestock do not inhabit the landscape. If wolves are not managed, which this state refuses to do, then they will decimate herds, when food gets scarce is when livestock, pets, and even humans may become just to appealing.

Just yesterday I ran into a friend who lives where the Smackout pack has taken up residence, she walks daily near her home, last week she ran into a wolf while walking and this wolf had no fear of her, she was actually shouting and throwing rocks at this wolf to keep it back, lucky for her a truck happened along. She says she will never walk without a gun again, this scared the dickens right out of her. These wolves are living in too close of proximity to livestock, humans, and pets, it's just a matter of time and they will be in trouble.

Another case in point is the Wedge Pack. Those wolves have been there for several years and us locals have been telling that to WDFW, but as everyone knows, until a couple years ago WDFW denied wolves existence. Those wolves multiplied and heavily impacted local game herds to the point that it became far easier to eat cattle.

The biggest mistake is failing to manage wolves and keeping their numbers to ad minimum that does not impact big game herds. Yet that is exactly what WDFW has in mind for Washington. The WDFW Colville meeting was held so that WDFW could basically tell us locals when herds declined they were not going to act on reducing wolf numbers, they plan to study the problem. Once wolves multiply and begin depleting herd numbers then the domino effect of significant herd reductions will begin and ultimately the inability of the herds to recover due to continued predation will prevail, thus the term predator pit.

If WDFW continues to allow herds to deplete they will be responsible for the predator pit as it grows in Washington. There is already a predator pit in certain areas of NE WA. We had two hard winters and WDFW refuses to manage cougars and wolves which are significantly increasing in numbers, it has been some years since those bad winters but our deer herds are having a hard time recovering and numbers are dropping further in localized areas where the wolves and cougars are multiplying.

I am the last person who wants to see cougars over hunted and I would not want to see wolves extinct, but I am smart enough to clearly see that WDFW is not managing in the interest of the big game herds or hunters. WDFW is suffering from a cancerous infection known as extreme environmentalism. Until the cancer is removed it will grow and threaten the mere survival of hunting in Washington.

bear paw, do you get the feeling the wolf lovers on here didn't take the time to read your post? You nailed it when it comes to wolves, Iam a fellow wolf hater! The guys who loves wolves need to tell us what they find wrong with your comment, it's seems like when people post intelligent views and facts, they get ignored for some reason.?

[bearpaw]

You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?

You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right?  What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right?  Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.

A reasonable and well thought out amount of logging creates needed habitat. Nature used to do that for us with fire. But we put those out now so logging is the only option.

Thank you for reinforcing the truth. Isn't it just disgusting that logging benefits humans though. It would be so much better if fire destroyed all that timber so humans wouldn't get a chance to benefit themselves. I'm sorry for being so sarcastic, but the environmental/wolf lover ignorance and hatred towards mankind is just disgusting.