I hate wolves. JUST hate them

[AspenBud]

Absolutely has nothing to do with habitat in his area. It hasn't changed.

The fact that it hasn't changed is the problem JLS is talking about. Poor habitat often means easy pickings for predators like wolves.

[AspenBud]

It's pretty easy to shrug off the habitat issue when there is no hardcore apex predator around. Ungulates have, frankly, had it easy for many many years in that they haven't had to worry about predation outside of man much. The habitat could be fairly crappy and they could do ok in many cases. But those days are over.

It is now an issue that must be addressed. Good or bad, right or wrong, wolves have exposed a problem outside of themselves.

[wolfbait]

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

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

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

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

Have you watched a dog get killed in the field?  I watched one get stretched by a pair of coyotes before I could get to her.  It's damn emotional and I suspect it's easy for you to sit back and think "we all take risks when we turn loose" ect... but I gurantee if you watched your pet/companion/hunting partner get wiped out, you would be emotional about the topic too.

Wolves kill dogs when the opportunity exists.  It's a topic that we will be dealing with for a while and not one to be dismissed easily.  I have not lost a hound to wolves yet, but I know it could happen the next time I turn loose.  Let's try to be somewhat sympathetic for thier loss.

Thats fine an dandy WAcoyotye, where is your sypathy for the the Methow valley deer? or the cows and calves that WDF&Wolves kill, and their lies that follow? What happened to your idea of more habitat?

I agree with AC, leave your emotions on your trigger pull, and deal with the wolf issue without any emotion.

Take Me and the Methow Valley as an example, in the past I showed my true feelings, fought like hell to try an make people understand. It did no good. I have watched as WDFW's wolves slaughter the deer each winter and summer while one of their prize employees lie.

I don't have any more emotion to give , I have seen what the people of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have seen. A lying USFWS and a lying WDFW and many wolves.

Welcome to Washington

HAHA- So, Wolfbait- are you agreeing to leave emotion out if your posts from now on?  You fought like hell to sell people a BS story about the WDFW planting wolves from a van...  And you had no evidence to that...and you were suprised that people didn't believe your story???  Really?

My idea of more habitat is absolutely the only way that we will have robust populations of game available to hunting.  Without well managed habitat we won't have anything at all.  Right?

I don't get too wound up about a deer getting killed by wolves.  It's the natural order of things.  Wolves that kill pets and livestock should be dealt with quickly.

I think you some how missed the point WAcoyote, I didn't say anything about WDFW releasing wolves on the Golden Doe, but since you brought it up. You are right and I was wrong about WDFW releasing the wolves at that time. It was actually the USFWS who released the wolves as WDFW watched.

And as you and a few of your friends know their have been many releases and relocated wolves throughout WA.

Have you been following the Benghazi coverup, WAcoyote?  If you have, wait until the USFWS and WDFW are in the hot seat. Can you look into the near future and see your job as a pro-wolf bio going up the chimmney? I can see it from here. It truely puts a smile on my face. Don't worry though, fitkin can probably get you a job sweeping floors for good old mitch-fried-man at conservation wolverine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WAcoyote>My idea of more habitat is absolutely the only way that we will have robust populations of game available to hunting.  Without well managed habitat we won't have anything at all.  Right?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Tell me, what kind of habitat has wolf repellent? Do you and WDFW plan on putting in some wolf fencing? Do you plan on city habitat, because thats where most of the deer are found? Or are you going to get some well behaved wolves? 
 I think your buddy fitkin said his wolves were well behaved, of course that was after he lied about the wolves killing the Golden Doe cow and calf. well actualy the USFWS lied also, but who's counting anymore.

Whats one more lie from the USFWS or WDFW?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WC>I don't get too wound up about a deer getting killed by wolves.  It's the natural order of things.  Wolves that kill pets and livestock should be dealt with quickly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Natural order you say, well thats all cool until the chit hits the fan and the wolves don't have nothing to eat any more. As far as wolves killing pets and livestock and being delt with, you junior' are now the laughing stock of many, just like WDFW.

I know for a fact that more ranchers are pulling the trigger on their own wolf problems now, and WDFW are happy about this because they don't have to confirm more wolf packs. Not that it really matters anymore.

[wolfbait]

The subject of more habitat always seems to come up. with less game there really shouldn't be any reason to make more "habitat". It seems where there are wolves there is no game but lots of habitat.

Here's an example for WAcoyote and Fitkin: I put my broncs in one pasture until the habitat was ate down, and then I moved them to a different pasture so that the ate down habitat could grow back up. Are you with me so far? I see you both have your hands raised  , whats your question?

No, wolves don't manage habitat like you were taught in school, I see this all the time with people who spend most of their time reading books written by the USFWS.  Here's your asignment for tomarrow, read the whole article, fitkin make sure junior reads it also

Are The Northern Rockies In A Predator Pit?

           

            Just what is a "Predator Pit"?

            Wolf researchers have come to use the term when referring to an area where predators have pulled prey populations down so low that recovery of those populations is impossible, unless there is a drastic reduction in the number of predators.  The situation results from how predators affect prey numbers in two different ways.  One is the manner in which predators, especially wolves, kill far more adult prey animals than needed to survive, commonly referred to as "surplus killing".  The second is the destruction of the prey age class, due to the loss of newborn young of the year.  And the loss of that recruitment can be either due to outright killing of fawns and calves in the spring (with excessive surplus killing), or due to the stress predators (especially wolves) place on pregnant females in winter, causing them to abort their fetuses.  In the classic predator pit situation, a rising number of predators results in a constant decline in prey numbers, with the average age of surviving prey animals becoming older and older with each passing year - to the point that reproductive growth becomes impossible and the  prey base begins to die off from old age.

            This accurately describes the situation in much of the Northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming today.

            Through the 1970s and 1980s, populations of elk, moose and other big game had recovered well from the record lows of the early 1900s, and by the mid 1990s many areas of the Northern Rockies boasted record wildlife populations.  And through all of that recovery from the market hunting era of the late 1800s, there were still viable populations of mountain lions, black bear, and in some areas even a few grizzlies.  The only missing predator was the wolf.  America's sportsmen had poured billions of dollars into modern conservation projects, many of which took decades to accomplish, and they had been rewarded with an abundance of game.  So much so, that during the 1980s and 1990s many joked that "The Good Ol' Days Are Now!".

            Now, they know there was more to that feeling than anyone at that time could have realized.

            Against the wishes of the vast majority of sportsmen in this country, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began releasing wolves back into the Northern Rockies in 1995.  And as wolf numbers quickly grew, thanks to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, the dynamics of the predator to prey ratio likewise quickly changed.   When the first 31 wolves were dumped back into Yellowstone National Park (1995-1996), close to 20,000 elk made up the northern Yellowstone elk herd.  Today, there are more than 400 wolves within the Greater Yellowstone Area - and the northern Yellowstone elk herd, which is one of several herds in the region, has plummeted to fewer than 6,000 remaining animals.  And those that have managed to survive the constant pursuit of wolf packs, some of which are now known to number 20 or more adults, have become a very geriatric herd.  In 1995-96, the average age of that elk herd was around 4 years of age, today the remaining animals are an average of 8 to 9 years of age.  Calf recruitment in the spring is presently near zero.

            Yellowstone's elk herds are dying.  And so are the elk herds in many other areas of western Montana, northwestern Wyoming, and the northern half of Idaho.  The area is definitely well into a predator pit situation.  And the elk aren't the only big game that's now quickly disappearing.  Moose, which were once plentiful in the Northern Rockies, have become nearly non-existent.  In fact, within Yellowstone National Park, they could probably qualify as an "Endangered Species".  Likewise, throughout the entire region, mule deer, bighorn sheep and mountain goat populations are also in serious decline - and the problem is wolf depredation.

            Sportsmen and others who are concerned about the future of wildlife in this once wildlife rich region of the country are now beginning to organize to take on those who seem to have one goal in mind - and that is to put an end to sport hunting.  Who are the enemies?

            Topping the list is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  We now know that when Congress denied funding for capturing Canadian wolves and transplanting them into Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, USFWS literally stole the money needed for the project from the excise taxes sportsmen paid on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing gear, through what is known as the Pitman-Robertson Act.  These funds are to be used exclusively for wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement.  USFWS helped itself to somewhere between $60- and $70-million dollars to finance several unauthorized uses - including the funding needed to dump wolves back into the Northern Rockies ecosystem.

            Right there with USFWS is a long list of anti-hunting "environmental" organizations, including the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Human Society of the United States, and a few dozen others.  These groups have learned to use wolf impact on big game populations as a tool to put an end to hunting.  Without a surplus of big game, there's no need for hunters.  It's that simple.  And one former upper echelon USFWS division chief, who blew the whistle on the theft of millions from Pitman-Robertson funds, also says that USFWS has entered into under-the-table agreements with the environmentalists - those who want more wolves, and fewer hunters.

            And as absurd as it may sound, several of the state wildlife agencies which sportsmen have funded and supported since those agencies were founded have also bought into all the lies, deceit and theft that has now been associated with the Wolf Recovery Project of the Northern Rockies.  And as these same sportsmen learn more about all that's wrong with introducing non-native, non-endangered Canadian wolves into Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, upper management within a couple of these agencies continues the cover up of the damage wolves have already dealt big game populations, livestock impact due to wolf depredation, the loss of hunting opportunities, how USFWS manipulated wolf science to justify the introduction of an invasive wolf subspecies, the true number of wolves in their respective states, and what it is going to take to gain control of this problem.

            Perhaps the worst of the state wildlife agency lot has been Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

            Sportsmen in this state have become extremely agitated at MT FWP's inability to get a handle on the impact wolves are dealing elk, moose and other big game - and that was very evident at one of the agency's regional meetings to discuss wolves and wolf "management" on June 2, 2010.  That meeting took place in Missoula, for the state's Region 2 management unit.

            A presentation by Regional Supervisor Mack Long, Regional Wildlife Manager Mike Thompson, and Regional Wolf Coordinator Liz Bradley, to detail the impact wolves were having on big game populations and various proposed wolf season harvest quotas, only tended to further agitate the 150 or so attending the meeting.  Their anger was very evident, and some of the accusation very pointed.  It was clear that they had had enough of wolves, and enough of losing the wildlife populations they had funded to build.  And they wanted something done, and done quickly to turn things around.

            But, there was no encouragement from those making the presentation.  They presented three different levels of harvest.  If the statewide quota was set at 153, they claimed it would reduce the number of wolves in the state by only 9-percent.  Should FWP go with a harvest quota of 186 wolves, that would reduce the state wolf population by 13-percent.   If the quota was set at 216, Thompson claimed that the overall state wolf population would be reduced by 20-percent.

            But, 9-, 13- or 20-percent of what?  The sportsmen of Montana are fully aware of the fact that MT FWP does not have a clue about the true number of wolves within the state.  During an Environmental Quality Committee meeting at the State Capitol Building in Helena in early March, the agency admitted they had not done an official wolf count since 2008.  The Chairman of that committee questioned the accuracy of their counts when he shared that two years ago, when he asked how many wolf packs were in the area of his home in northwest Montana, FWP told him just one.  Then, this past winter they admitted they knew of at least six, maybe eight packs there.

            Extremely few of the sportsmen in that room for the meeting bought FWP's claim of having just 500-550 wolves in the state.  Most feel there are at least twice that many, as evidenced by the loss of big game numbers all along the western side of Montana.

            Attending the meeting was Bob Ream, Chairman of the MT FWP Commission, who had willingly worked with the introduction of the non-native Canadian wolves throughout the Northern Rockies at the start of the project.  He angered the crowd even more when he stated, "More than 60-percent of the wolves now in Montana came here from Canada on their own."

            If that's true, why did USFWS feel so compelled to embezzle more than $60-million dollars from the funds provided by sportsmen for improving wildlife and fisheries habitat - in order to introduce wolves?  Many of those at the meeting felt that it was just more of the agency's cover up of a mad-scientist experiment gone bad.

            So, what would it take to bring Montana's (along with Idaho's and Wyoming's) elk, moose and other big game populations out of the predator pit situation they've been thrown into by misguided federal and state wildlife agencies?  One thing is for certain, it'll take a heck of a bigger reduction of wolf numbers than 20-percent! 

            Before writing his acclaimed book, "Wolves in Russia - Anxiety Through the Ages", author Will Graves spent several decades researching and studying wolves and their impact in that country.  He shares that to reverse the negative impact wolves have on wildlife populations, livestock production, plus the emotional, health and safety threat to human inhabitants of a wolf populated region, the Russian government found it necessary to reduce wolf populations by as much as 80-percent.  And they did so by using semi- and full-auto gunfire from helicopters.  During Grave's research, wolf control in that country carried a price tag of about $45-million annually.

            Will Graves claims,  "Wolves cannot be managed...they have to be controlled!"

            In his May 2008 declaration for the wolf delisting hearing and pending "wolf management hunts",  Dr. L. David Mech stated, "It has not been demonstrated that 'a substantial reduction' in wolf abundance will occur, and my opinion is that it will not because merely to hold a wolf population stationary requires an annual take of 28-50% per year."

            Mech went on to declare that wildlife agencies outside of the Northern Rockies recovery area try to kill 70% of the wolf population annually in order to achieve a reduction in wolf numbers.  He was referring to what it takes to keep wolf levels low enough to prevent a predator pit situation in Alaska and areas of Canada. According to this wolf biologist and researcher, who is considered by many to be the top wolf expert in the world,  sport hunting as currently being implemented by the wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho normally do nothing to reduce wolf populations.

            Even if MT FWP goes into the 2010 wolf season with a quota of 216 wolves, and that quota is met, it simply means that by next spring there will be still more wolves on the landscape of Montana than there are as this is written - and that western Montana's predator pit situation will only worsen.  More elk, more moose, more deer, more bighorn sheep, more mountain goats will be lost to the wolves, and those animals that do manage to survive the continuous onslaught of those apex predators will inch one more year closer to being lost to old age.  The big game populations that have provided food for western families, an opportunity for sportsmen to harvest the surplus bounty and enjoy time afield with family and friends, and which have simply provided viewing enjoyment for countless wildlife watchers are dangerously close to being lost forever.

            Sportsmen fully realize what they are losing, and they feel those who they have entrusted to wisely manage these wildlife resources are now asleep at the wheel - or just don't care anymore.   Wolf impact on the Northern Rockies is a bomb that's about ready to explode, and the fuse keeps getting shorter and shorter.  -  Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH           

 

[bearpaw]

Habitat is a very pressing problem that is difficult to separate away from the issue or perception of wolf impacts.  Much of the habitat in northern Idaho has been decreasing in quality over the last 100 years.  Look at how much elk numbers have increased in the Palouse zone, which is a mix of agricultural and private timberlands.  Yet at the same time in the Lochsa, Selway and upper Clearwater elk numbers are remaining depressed and have for a very long time from before wolves.

I'm not saying wolves aren't having an impact, but I believe the biggest impact is habitat quality.  Following the fires of the early 1900's the upper Selway had one of the largest elk herds in North America.

Typical agency style response,  blame everything but the wolves, shift the blame to anything other than the real problem, a lack of predator management. I agree that habitat is a concern, but please explain the YNP elk herd. No habitat control there by humans, yet until man introduced wolves there were strong elk/moose herds before the fire and after the fire. Now that man introduced wolves they have reduced the herds, the wolves are eating each other and moving to new areas, the YNP has far fewer ungulates or wolves because of a lack of management.   

Is that obvious enough for you now?  I'm not shifting blame simply because I don't agree with you, I have repeatedly explained my stance and we obviously differ in our opinions and beliefs.  I don't feel the need to mock you, sorry that you do. 

I've explained my views and observations on the northern YNP herd to you and you will believe what you want to believe.  I'm good with that.  The reality is you had a huge population spike following the '88 fires, and then years of hunters shooting the snot out of the elk when they came out of the park, followed by an exponential growth of wolf numbers.  If the population is so dismal, why is that particular elk management unit within acceptable parameters in the state of Montana?  There are no emergency closures for elk hunting in this area.  People still continue to come from across the country to hunt it.  Maybe the reality is that it's not so bad after all.

That's misleading and untruthful, the wolf impacts are very well documented, all the late cow hunts have been eliminated because the northern Yellowstone herd has declined from roughly 20,000 to 4,000.

[boneaddict]

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

I dink he callin me stooped.   

[Arnbo]

Again, all I see are hunters hating wolves because wolves kill game. Whether or not the eat the whole animal matters little to me.

More deer are killed by cars speeding down highways. Don't see anyone taking up arms against drivers for not eating their road kill.

There was plenty of game in North America when wolves roamed freely. The reason we have less game now is a problem of development and overcrowding of winter range, not a handful of wolf packs in a handful of states.

I backpacked through Yellowstone two years ago and made camp less than a mile from a den. The barking up the new litter of pups kept me awake all night. It was one of the most memorable wilderness experiences of my life.

I don't believe that wilderness belongs only in national parks. I want that wilderness experience in my home state.  If several hundred deer are killed and left for the birds to pick clean, I say that's a reasonable trade off for the chance to experience wilderness a little closer to what it was before our highways and cities destroyed it.

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 can't hate an animal for living according to it's nature.

Well said..... I too have had a simular experience.

[Sawbuck]

Again, all I see are hunters hating wolves because wolves kill game. Whether or not the eat the whole animal matters little to me.

More deer are killed by cars speeding down highways. Don't see anyone taking up arms against drivers for not eating their road kill.

There was plenty of game in North America when wolves roamed freely. The reason we have less game now is a problem of development and overcrowding of winter range, not a handful of wolf packs in a handful of states.

I backpacked through Yellowstone two years ago and made camp less than a mile from a den. The barking up the new litter of pups kept me awake all night. It was one of the most memorable wilderness experiences of my life.

I don't believe that wilderness belongs only in national parks. I want that wilderness experience in my home state.  If several hundred deer are killed and left for the birds to pick clean, I say that's a reasonable trade off for the chance to experience wilderness a little closer to what it was before our highways and cities destroyed it.

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 can't hate an animal for living according to it's nature.

Well said..... I too have had a simular experience.

Mods should move this to the jokes section

[turkeyfeather]

And again your getting your info from state officials who have a vested interest in feeding you a line of crap. I'm out for tonight. Good luck trying to convince people of you line of thinking. We all know better.

Wow.  You can make this blanket statement about people you have never met?  People who are just as passionate, if not more, about elk hunting than many of us here?  People who I've gotten to know as friends with a common interest in hunting elk?  How brave of you to stand behind an anonymous name and label them crooked liars.   
 
I am in no way anticipating that I will convince you of anything.  You know everything apparently, maybe you should go run Idaho Fish and Game.  Then people like yourself, who think they know better than you could label you a crooked liar.

The fact of the matter JLS is that they have lied to the public for years. I frankly don't care if they are hunters or not. If they work for or with the F&G dept then they are probably never going to tell the truth. That whole dont bite the hand that feeds you thing. And frankly I don't blame them. But to suggest that they have been truthful is laughable. I did a quick search this morning and found a 2010 IF&G newsletter that shows a study of wolf populations and elk populations in the Lolo and Sawtooth areas of Idaho since 1995. Now these were two of the best elk hunting zones in the state. Believe it or not the study showed that as wolf population rose the elk population declined in conjunction with that. Now they to say that it was due to habitat loss but you have to read between the lines. The study also says that in order to maintain a healthy population in that region that cow elk survival rates needed to be about 88%. Yet they also say that they can attribute almost 40% of the causes of death to wolves. The numbers don't lie. Before wolves the elk populations were stable and healthy, since re-introduction they have steadily declined. Now is that just a coincidence. The answer is no.

[JLS]

Is that obvious enough for you now?  I'm not shifting blame simply because I don't agree with you, I have repeatedly explained my stance and we obviously differ in our opinions and beliefs.  I don't feel the need to mock you, sorry that you do. 

I've explained my views and observations on the northern YNP herd to you and you will believe what you want to believe.  I'm good with that.  The reality is you had a huge population spike following the '88 fires, and then years of hunters shooting the snot out of the elk when they came out of the park, followed by an exponential growth of wolf numbers.  If the population is so dismal, why is that particular elk management unit within acceptable parameters in the state of Montana?  There are no emergency closures for elk hunting in this area.  People still continue to come from across the country to hunt it.  Maybe the reality is that it's not so bad after all.

That's misleading and untruthful, the wolf impacts are very well documented, all the late cow hunts have been eliminated because the northern Yellowstone herd has declined from roughly 20,000 to 4,000.

What's misleading and untruthful?  Hunters shot the absolute crap out of the elks herds migrating out of the park for a large number of years.  I lived there and saw it.

Here is an abstract that looks at Northern Yellowstone elk population data over a 70 year period
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4495221?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102282399347


Here is an article where Tom Lemke, longtime biologist in the Yellowstone Valley, talks about the different factors that contributed to a decrease in elk numbers in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2008/02/17/robert-fanning-has-his-say/

[JLS]

And again your getting your info from state officials who have a vested interest in feeding you a line of crap. I'm out for tonight. Good luck trying to convince people of you line of thinking. We all know better.

Wow.  You can make this blanket statement about people you have never met?  People who are just as passionate, if not more, about elk hunting than many of us here?  People who I've gotten to know as friends with a common interest in hunting elk?  How brave of you to stand behind an anonymous name and label them crooked liars.   
 
I am in no way anticipating that I will convince you of anything.  You know everything apparently, maybe you should go run Idaho Fish and Game.  Then people like yourself, who think they know better than you could label you a crooked liar.

The fact of the matter JLS is that they have lied to the public for years. I frankly don't care if they are hunters or not. If they work for or with the F&G dept then they are probably never going to tell the truth. That whole dont bite the hand that feeds you thing. And frankly I don't blame them. But to suggest that they have been truthful is laughable. I did a quick search this morning and found a 2010 IF&G newsletter that shows a study of wolf populations and elk populations in the Lolo and Sawtooth areas of Idaho since 1995. Now these were two of the best elk hunting zones in the state. Believe it or not the study showed that as wolf population rose the elk population declined in conjunction with that. Now they to say that it was due to habitat loss but you have to read between the lines. The study also says that in order to maintain a healthy population in that region that cow elk survival rates needed to be about 88%. Yet they also say that they can attribute almost 40% of the causes of death to wolves. The numbers don't lie. Before wolves the elk populations were stable and healthy, since re-introduction they have steadily declined. Now is that just a coincidence. The answer is no.

My last exchange with you on this.  I have a few very good friends that work for different state wildlife agencies.  Each of them is an avid hunter.  If you think that they simply toe the party line and spew mistruths then you are incredibly mistaken.  I frankly have no use for the close mindedness and stereotyping that you continue to exhibit.

[turkeyfeather]

And again your getting your info from state officials who have a vested interest in feeding you a line of crap. I'm out for tonight. Good luck trying to convince people of you line of thinking. We all know better.

Wow.  You can make this blanket statement about people you have never met?  People who are just as passionate, if not more, about elk hunting than many of us here?  People who I've gotten to know as friends with a common interest in hunting elk?  How brave of you to stand behind an anonymous name and label them crooked liars.   
 
I am in no way anticipating that I will convince you of anything.  You know everything apparently, maybe you should go run Idaho Fish and Game.  Then people like yourself, who think they know better than you could label you a crooked liar.

The fact of the matter JLS is that they have lied to the public for years. I frankly don't care if they are hunters or not. If they work for or with the F&G dept then they are probably never going to tell the truth. That whole dont bite the hand that feeds you thing. And frankly I don't blame them. But to suggest that they have been truthful is laughable. I did a quick search this morning and found a 2010 IF&G newsletter that shows a study of wolf populations and elk populations in the Lolo and Sawtooth areas of Idaho since 1995. Now these were two of the best elk hunting zones in the state. Believe it or not the study showed that as wolf population rose the elk population declined in conjunction with that. Now they to say that it was due to habitat loss but you have to read between the lines. The study also says that in order to maintain a healthy population in that region that cow elk survival rates needed to be about 88%. Yet they also say that they can attribute almost 40% of the causes of death to wolves. The numbers don't lie. Before wolves the elk populations were stable and healthy, since re-introduction they have steadily declined. Now is that just a coincidence. The answer is no.

My last theychange with you on this.  I have a few very good friends that work for different state wildlife agencies.  Each of them is an avid hunter.  If you think that they simply toe the party line and spew mistruths then you are incredibly mistaken.  I frankly have no use for the close mindedness and stereotyping that you continue to exhibit.

It's not close minded at all. It's simply the facts of what has been going on for years. You may have good friends that tell you what they think, but the agency they work for only cares about one thing and that is the all-mighty dollar. I am also not saying they are liars maybe they are misinformed, but they are wrong in my opinion.  And that has been proven over and over. The proof is in the pudding my friend and the facts are that once wolves were introduced the ungulate population started a steep decline. That is not in dispute. Idaho F&G has acknowledged that. You can try and blame it on whatever you like that helps you sleep better but that vast majority of us see thru the BS.

[Northway]

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

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

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

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

Have you watched a dog get killed in the field?  I watched one get stretched by a pair of coyotes before I could get to her.  It's damn emotional and I suspect it's easy for you to sit back and think "we all take risks when we turn loose" ect... but I gurantee if you watched your pet/companion/hunting partner get wiped out, you would be emotional about the topic too.

Wolves kill dogs when the opportunity exists.  It's a topic that we will be dealing with for a while and not one to be dismissed easily.  I have not lost a hound to wolves yet, but I know it could happen the next time I turn loose.  Let's try to be somewhat sympathetic for thier loss.

Thats fine an dandy WAcoyotye, where is your sypathy for the the Methow valley deer? or the cows and calves that WDF&Wolves kill, and their lies that follow? What happened to your idea of more habitat?

I agree with AC, leave your emotions on your trigger pull, and deal with the wolf issue without any emotion.

Take Me and the Methow Valley as an example, in the past I showed my true feelings, fought like hell to try an make people understand. It did no good. I have watched as WDFW's wolves slaughter the deer each winter and summer while one of their prize employees lie.

I don't have any more emotion to give , I have seen what the people of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have seen. A lying USFWS and a lying WDFW and many wolves.

Welcome to Washington

HAHA- So, Wolfbait- are you agreeing to leave emotion out if your posts from now on?  You fought like hell to sell people a BS story about the WDFW planting wolves from a van...  And you had no evidence to that...and you were suprised that people didn't believe your story???  Really?

My idea of more habitat is absolutely the only way that we will have robust populations of game available to hunting.  Without well managed habitat we won't have anything at all.  Right?

I don't get too wound up about a deer getting killed by wolves.  It's the natural order of things.  Wolves that kill pets and livestock should be dealt with quickly.

I think you some how missed the point WAcoyote, I didn't say anything about WDFW releasing wolves on the Golden Doe, but since you brought it up. You are right and I was wrong about WDFW releasing the wolves at that time. It was actually the USFWS who released the wolves as WDFW watched.

And as you and a few of your friends know their have been many releases and relocated wolves throughout WA.

Have you been following the Benghazi coverup, WAcoyote?  If you have, wait until the USFWS and WDFW are in the hot seat. Can you look into the near future and see your job as a pro-wolf bio going up the chimmney? I can see it from here. It truely puts a smile on my face. Don't worry though, fitkin can probably get you a job sweeping floors for good old mitch-fried-man at conservation wolverine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WAcoyote>My idea of more habitat is absolutely the only way that we will have robust populations of game available to hunting.  Without well managed habitat we won't have anything at all.  Right?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Tell me, what kind of habitat has wolf repellent? Do you and WDFW plan on putting in some wolf fencing? Do you plan on city habitat, because thats where most of the deer are found? Or are you going to get some well behaved wolves? 
 I think your buddy fitkin said his wolves were well behaved, of course that was after he lied about the wolves killing the Golden Doe cow and calf. well actualy the USFWS lied also, but who's counting anymore.

Whats one more lie from the USFWS or WDFW?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WC>I don't get too wound up about a deer getting killed by wolves.  It's the natural order of things.  Wolves that kill pets and livestock should be dealt with quickly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Natural order you say, well thats all cool until the chit hits the fan and the wolves don't have nothing to eat any more. As far as wolves killing pets and livestock and being delt with, you junior' are now the laughing stock of many, just like WDFW.

I know for a fact that more ranchers are pulling the trigger on their own wolf problems now, and WDFW are happy about this because they don't have to confirm more wolf packs. Not that it really matters anymore.

So, the USFWS released the wolves on the Golden Doe?  I'm interested to hear this story... Was it the UPS truck again?

Habitat that is robust and well managed can support more ungulates (following me?) which will support wolves and hunting.  Habitat that has escape cover, available browse, thermal cover, and contiguous travel corridors will encourage more robust prey populations and support ALL the wildlife better than degraded habitat.  It's really a no brainer.  I'm not sure why the concept becomes a joke... Wolf repellant is not necessary- wolf management will be a part of that, as is ungulate management.  I am failing to make the connection between your "Bronc pasture" and a wildland...

"Me and my Friends" know that there was not a release, and often chuckle about the conspiracy theories that surround the idea of one in WA.  Thanks for providing that entertainment.

As far as habitat goes, a while back someone made a compelling argument about why they believe lack of quality winter range was the biggest problem holding back the size of some herds, aside from the argument over impact of predators. Previously I had always wondered about whether abusive grazing practices that were improperly monitored by the BLM/Forest Service on summer allotments were having an impact.   

[Northway]

Habitat is a very pressing problem that is difficult to separate away from the issue or perception of wolf impacts.  Much of the habitat in northern Idaho has been decreasing in quality over the last 100 years.  Look at how much elk numbers have increased in the Palouse zone, which is a mix of agricultural and private timberlands.  Yet at the same time in the Lochsa, Selway and upper Clearwater elk numbers are remaining depressed and have for a very long time from before wolves.

I'm not saying wolves aren't having an impact, but I believe the biggest impact is habitat quality.  Following the fires of the early 1900's the upper Selway had one of the largest elk herds in North America.

Typical agency style response,  blame everything but the wolves, shift the blame to anything other than the real problem, a lack of predator management. I agree that habitat is a concern, but please explain the YNP elk herd. No habitat control there by humans, yet until man introduced wolves there were strong elk/moose herds before the fire and after the fire. Now that man introduced wolves they have reduced the herds, the wolves are eating each other and moving to new areas, the YNP has far fewer ungulates or wolves because of a lack of management.   

Is that obvious enough for you now?  I'm not shifting blame simply because I don't agree with you, I have repeatedly explained my stance and we obviously differ in our opinions and beliefs.  I don't feel the need to mock you, sorry that you do. 

I've explained my views and observations on the northern YNP herd to you and you will believe what you want to believe.  I'm good with that.  The reality is you had a huge population spike following the '88 fires, and then years of hunters shooting the snot out of the elk when they came out of the park, followed by an exponential growth of wolf numbers.  If the population is so dismal, why is that particular elk management unit within acceptable parameters in the state of Montana?  There are no emergency closures for elk hunting in this area.  People still continue to come from across the country to hunt it.  Maybe the reality is that it's not so bad after all.

That's misleading and untruthful, the wolf impacts are very well documented, all the late cow hunts have been eliminated because the northern Yellowstone herd has declined from roughly 20,000 to 4,000.

So aside from the biological questions of whether 20,000 elk in the Northern Yellowstone area was too many, or whether the equilibrium of elk vs. wolves & other predators levels off around 4,000 - 6,000, how much opportunity should hunters be entitled to in regards to the NY herd? Maybe an unfair question if you don't frequent the area or hunt the herd, but I think it's still an interesting question. 8,000 elk? 10,000? This is an all else being equal question. Let's assume a healthy, sustainable herd, with good calf recruitment, etc.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 you know I keep reading so much about habitat loss and Wdfw did or didn't do whatever and I don't know for sure either way. But what I DO KNOW is that in the mid 1990's the USFWS ( which should not even exist, States did JUST FINE without them) created the predator pit  by importing a superior breed of wolf  to the Lower 48 with money STOLEN from the Pittman fund. since then the native species has been replaced by these Mak river killing machines and they have been expanding ever since.
 
Wacoyote....
"Habitat that is robust and well managed can support more ungulates (following me?) which will support wolves and hunting.  Habitat that has escape cover, available browse, thermal cover, and contiguous travel corridors will encourage more robust prey populations and support ALL the wildlife better than degraded habitat.  It's really a no brainer."


As for Habitat and  WDFW ....why have they allowed  so damn MUCH The cover to be destroyed in the Naneum, and Quilomene areas of the Colockum elk herd then? this area used to belong to the Dept of Game  (donated by the Coffin Family) when I started hunting that area,but since has been traded to the DNR who has done the damage to it. And since the herd has been suffering the consequenses, along with their other brain fart....Spike only which created the Native  American trophy farm.

 Do you think I trust WDFW??

 One other thing.......I have hunted the 105 Kelly Hill for 25 years and have seen where that in the last 5 years or so the Deer population had decreased 70-80% due to DFW's pets....... that they poo pooed their existence for HOW long? and they are so concerned about frogs and bats! (last weeks email)