I hate wolves. JUST hate them

[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 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.?

trophyhunt I hear you. You know I never used to be so outspoken about wolves. But unmanaged populations of wolves have been forced into the landscape. The people responsible for this mismanagement and the lies used to fleece the public of our formerly abundant big game herds is what I really hate.

I think cougar, bear, coyotes, and even wolves are fascinating animals and like I said, I am the last person who wants them to be extinct. I simply want these enviro/hugger cult worshippers to quit sensationalizing one animal as being better than another. Manage them all so that there is an abundance of all animals. These huggers are so blinded by their Disney feelings for wolves frolicking with the butterflies that they cause the demise of big game herds which eventually causes famine and suffering and eventual reductions in the very animals they love due to a lack of big game to hunt.

Jeesh.....

[yakimarcher]

I couldn't do what those guys did. I know mother nature has to be able to do her thing, but I physically couldn't stand there and watch, and I don't mean I would walk away...

Absolutely my feelings!

[slim9300]

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!?!?!

Clearly I have you pegged pretty well. The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

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.

I have friends who log and I see a funny thing happen starting in August and going into the Fall every year on places like Facebook. People start asking loggers where they are seeing game. As sure as the sun rises, the locations they give are at or near old clear cuts. Not old growth. If old growth (and I use that term loosely) is near, it's usually coincidental and part of a mixed age class plot. When I hop on Google Earth to look for places to drive to and check out, I don't simply look for any old forest land...

I don't think we should be raping the landscape of all resources, but what I see going on these days is, well, nothing...and that has about the same affect.

[SkookumHntr]

-God that clip made me so mad! Reminded me when I was on a moose hunt set up on a pond  we noticed moose bones all around us that wernt there like 3 days before! We were cow calling and sure enough here comes a wolf! Little bit different ending for that wolf tho..

[slim9300]

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.

You need to take a look at what the goal of the National Forrest Service is and was. They are a joke now but they were originally created to manage timber lands and HARVEST that timber! They still do to a small extent but that's mainly due to people like you that think logging is somehow bad. You know what letting timber land just sit unmolested does? It means huge fires, beetle kill, poor habitat for elk and deer and waisted resources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AspenBud]

The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.

I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's somewhat misguided. Private land holders have ZERO reason to help out hunters unless they're in the business of selling hunts on their land and even then they squeeze out the average Joe.

That said, government land that is not open to hunting and not managed well is of little benefit to hunters.

But at least if it's government owned, we have something of a say in the matter since we all own it then. (I realize there are flaws in that statement, but ultimately we do the electing...)

The flip side of course is something like a timber company on private timber land, they actually do a lot for us.

[Northway]

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.

I call myself an environmentalist. I understand millions of acres of this state will always be working forest and there are no issues as long as reasonable environmental standards are upheld that most likely the both of us could agree on.

I also support wolves in this state and accepted their management before the first "confirmed" wolves even set up shop here. I also believe that maintaining hunter opportunity should be factored into management decisions.

In my opinion, there is only a small minority of folks that have "hatred towards mankind". I believe extrapoliting the most extreme views of a few across an entire group makes it easier to despise the group as a whole.

[Northway]

The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.

I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's somewhat misguided. Private land holders have ZERO reason to help out hunters unless they're in the business of selling hunts on their land and even then they squeeze out the average Joe.

That said, government land that is not open to hunting and not managed well is of little benefit to hunters.

But at least if it's government owned, we have something of a say in the matter since we all own it then. (I realize there are flaws in that statement, but ultimately we do the electing...)

The flip side of course is something like a timber company on private timber land, they actually do a lot for us.

In my opinion, we have 50 years or so to decide how the remaining undeveloped land is utilized. Once it's developed, there's no going back.

For the maintenance of my own lifestyle, and the lifestyle maintenance of every man woman and child that recreates in any fashion on undeveloped lands, we need to make sure a significant portion of it remains free from development. We need to make sure that all the various stakeholders, whethers its recreationists or loggers, are incentivized to advocate towards that end.

[pianoman9701]

I don't hate wolves. In the zoo, they look great. But outside the zoo, it's irresponsible to allow them anywhere near people and their property. Nature didn't suffer their loss and we got rid of them for a reason. The reason is even bigger today - they don't get along well with people. I'll never publicly advocate the illegal killing of any animal. What the rest of you want to say about it is fine with me.

[acnewman55]

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.?

I see a myriad of responses that tell me why I should dislike WDFW and biologists, and hippies and politicians but still no reasons why I should hate wolves.  Anecdotes about some lady that saw one and was frightened isn't convincing to me.  If I was a wolf I'd eat nothin but cattle - easy pick'ns.

[Skyvalhunter]

Wrong you are because now if you were a wolf eating a mans cattle he could shoot you without recoarse. You are obviously not a serious hunter if you don't think about what will happen to the game animals if the wolves are not held in check.

[AspenBud]

The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.

I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's somewhat misguided. Private land holders have ZERO reason to help out hunters unless they're in the business of selling hunts on their land and even then they squeeze out the average Joe.

That said, government land that is not open to hunting and not managed well is of little benefit to hunters.

But at least if it's government owned, we have something of a say in the matter since we all own it then. (I realize there are flaws in that statement, but ultimately we do the electing...)

The flip side of course is something like a timber company on private timber land, they actually do a lot for us.

In my opinion, we have 50 years or so to decide how the remaining undeveloped land is utilized. Once it's developed, there's no going back.

For the maintenance of my own lifestyle, and the lifestyle maintenance of every man woman and child that recreates in any fashion on undeveloped lands, we need to make sure a significant portion of it remains free from development. We need to make sure that all the various stakeholders, whethers its recreationists or loggers, are incentivized to advocate towards that end.

Agreed.

The interesting thing is you have a preview already available in the world if enough land goes private. Take a trip over to Europe. For example a country like Denmark really has no public land to hunt. You want to hunt, you pay someone for that privilege and you pay A LOT more than what WDFW currently charges. It may sound oxymoronic to some, but we really are blessed with public land hunting opportunities here. But we can do better and we shouldn't discount acquiring more.

Hunting should not be for the rich only nor should it be only available if you save for enough years.

[bearpaw]

The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.

I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's somewhat misguided. Private land holders have ZERO reason to help out hunters unless they're in the business of selling hunts on their land and even then they squeeze out the average Joe.

That said, government land that is not open to hunting and not managed well is of little benefit to hunters.

But at least if it's government owned, we have something of a say in the matter since we all own it then. (I realize there are flaws in that statement, but ultimately we do the electing...)

The flip side of course is something like a timber company on private timber land, they actually do a lot for us.

In my opinion, we have 50 years or so to decide how the remaining undeveloped land is utilized. Once it's developed, there's no going back.

For the maintenance of my own lifestyle, and the lifestyle maintenance of every man woman and child that recreates in any fashion on undeveloped lands, we need to make sure a significant portion of it remains free from development. We need to make sure that all the various stakeholders, whethers its recreationists or loggers, are incentivized to advocate towards that end.

I agree and absolutely do not want to see all our open spaces developed. However, that isn't going to happen, we have huge public land masses. It doesn't take more wilderness areas to accomplish that end. Wilderness ends most all use, the national forest can remain a multiple use forest and still be a place of wild open spaces. The answer is reasonable amounts of logging and proper logging practices that benefit the forest, the animals, and humans.

I am an environmentalist myself, I just don't fit into the enviro whacko cultism. 

[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!?!?!

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.