I hate wolves. JUST hate them

[AspenBud]

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.

[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.

[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.?

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.

There are many good people in WDFW, the problem is that a few of them need weeded out which are misguiding the agency. Example: I think Phil Anderson is the best director we've had in years, but the Endangered Species Division greatly misguided the wolf plan. Some people within WDFW are moving it toward environmental extremism. There are too many within WDFW who seem to prefer predators over other wildlife. There are some great biologists and managers, but there are some who should be on the Peta payroll instead of the public payroll because they seem to be there to advocate for predators and to stop hunting rather than manage for the benefit of all wildlife and hunting. 

I don't even hate the wolves, as already stated I find them fascinating, but they need to be managed, WDFW is failing because they refuse to manage and they are ignoring the impacts in NE Washington.

[bearpaw]

110 wolves killed in MN, that is laughable, anyone worth their salt knows there are more pups than that in the dens right now. 

[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!?!?!

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. 

You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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!?!?!

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.

They are rising in ID and MT. Get a clue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. 

I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo.   

[acnewman55]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that clear cutting in SOME ways will benefit our forests and wildlife in the same way that fires once did.  Now that development has forced us to contain the fires, the forests become choked, and they become dysfunctional habitat.

Clear cutting isn't inherently good for a forest, it simply replicates some of the effects that healthy wildfires had before for the NFS went and messed all that up too.  Poor human management of natural resources.

But at least if we allow clear cutting there will be plenty of roads through the forests so we can all shoot our game from our vehicles! 

I loved that beetle-kill comment.  (in red-neck southern accent) "the best way to stop the beetles is to cut down all the trees a'fore they git to'em"

Sorry - beetles are stopped by freezing temperatures, not by clear cutting.

[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.

[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. 

You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?

If it's your argument, make it yourself. 

[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!?!?!

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. 

By the way. 6000 wolf tags sold equated to 110 dead wolves. That's a 1.8% success on wolves that have never been hunted on any large scale. Way to prove your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that clear cutting in SOME ways will benefit our forests and wildlife in the same way that fires once did.  Now that development has forced us to contain the fires, the forests become choked, and they become dysfunctional habitat.

Clear cutting isn't inherently good for a forest, it simply replicates some of the effects that healthy wildfires had before for the NFS went and messed all that up too.  Poor human management of natural resources.

But at least if we allow clear cutting there will be plenty of roads through the forests so we can all shoot our game from our vehicles! 

I loved that beetle-kill comment.  (in red-neck southern accent) "the best way to stop the beetles is to cut down all the trees a'fore they git to'em"

Sorry - beetles are stopped by freezing temperatures, not by clear cutting.

Nice attempt to twist the truth, visit the worst beetle kill areas, funny those areas have not been logged. 

Like I said buddy, I like road hunting just as much as I like packing in on horses or still hunting. I also understand that many hunters do not have the physical ability to get away from roads, under your philosophy only our most physically fit people should have hunting access. 

[acnewman55]

It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. 

I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo.   

I know it's scary when people disagree with you. 

[singleshot12]

I don't hate wolves either,they are magnificent creatures that play an important role in the ecosystem. But with man being the dominant predator now they just don't fit in anymore and need to be controlled and managed correctly. They multiply like rabbits and will always be especially prolific when a food source is available.Unfortunately anything with hooves is their main source. I'm sure once our herds of elk and deer are on the endangered species list big $$ will be spent eradicating them again in the near future. Not sure if poisoning them which worked before will be an option now though unfortunately.

[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!?!?!

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. 

You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?

If it's your argument, make it yourself. 

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