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. 

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

That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...

[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.

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.

Exactly. But if you say it loud enough and with unrelenting repetition it becomes true. Just look at the gun violence polling in the US. 75% of people polled felt it was UP and the fact is that it's WAY down! We live in a country of drones that soak up the media message like a sponge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[elk247]

Wolf harvest 2011-12
255 hunted
124 trapped

Wolf harvest 2012-13
197 hunted
120 trapped

These are the numbers from idaho game and fish.

[slim9300]

Wolf harvest 2011-12
255 hunted
124 trapped

Wolf harvest 2012-13
197 hunted
120 trapped

These are the numbers from idaho game and fish.

Already posted. Now look at the number of tags issued.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[turkeyfeather]

I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.

[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

That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...

Always a silver lining for a liberal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[acnewman55]

I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.

 

Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.

[slim9300]

I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.

 

Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.

Guns had nothing to do with it. I'm confused? Please elaborate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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. 

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

That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...

Always a silver lining for a liberal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really, it was Obama who signed the document that delisted them.   

[turkeyfeather]

I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.

 

Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.

Even if they did so what. Wolves have superior eyesight, hearing and sense of smell. Humans have superior intellect. And we figured out a way to compete. It's still natural selection. Lucky for us intellect will usually win in the end.

[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

That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...

Always a silver lining for a liberal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really, it was Obama who signed the document that delisted them.   

Obama had no idea, it was a rider. It was probably on page 1699 in the footnotes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[elk247]

It only means 43,000 hunters want a chance to pop one. What does sucess percentage have to do with anything? Say 150,00 washington hunters purchase wolf tags here when they become available, and say the quota is 200. So what? I just hope the wdfw sets accurate limits and harvest numbers are met every year. It would really be great if the tags can be bought over the counter for a reasonable price.

[pianoman9701]

I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.

 

Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.

Actually, poison and traps had the biggest effect. Those work great!  That's one reason the wolf plan for WA is so faulty. We'll never use poison on wolves again and the plan is so aggressive that when we finally do get to manage them, trapping and guns alone won't be able to keep up with them. And trapping will be maligned by the wolf lovers and there'll be a voter referendum where HSUS and the Defenders will spend millions of dollars in television lying and convince the general uninformed public that it's a barbaric practice and should be outlawed, and the public, most of whom live in Pierce and King counties and are unaffected by wolves, will believe their lies and pass it, just as they did with hounding and baiting in 1996.

It's not just wolves that people hate, it's the false information that their huggers use to lull the unthinking urbanites into supporting their plans to end hunting. That pisses me off, too.

[slim9300]

It only means 43,000 hunters want a chance to pop one. What does sucess percentage have to do with anything? Say 150,00 washington hunters purchase wolf tags here when they become available, and say the quota is 200. So what? I just hope the wdfw sets accurate limits and harvest numbers are met every year. It would really be great if the tags can be bought over the counter for a reasonable price.

You missed the previous discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slim9300]

I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.

 

Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.

Actually, poison and traps had the biggest effect. Those work great!  That's one reason the wolf plan for WA is so faulty. We'll never use poison on wolves again and the plan is so aggressive that when we finally do get to manage them, trapping and guns alone won't be able to keep up with them. And trapping will be maligned by the wolf lovers and there'll be a voter referendum where HSUS and the Defenders will spend millions of dollars in television lying and convince the general uninformed public that it's a barbaric practice and should be outlawed, and the public, most of whom live in Pierce and King counties and are unaffected by wolves, will believe their lies and pass it, just as they did with hounding and baiting in 1996.

It's not just wolves that people hate, it's the false information that their huggers use to lull the unthinking urbanites into supporting their plans to end hunting. That pisses me off, too.

Exactly what I was going to point out. Guns did almost nothing in wiping out the wolves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk