Since Wolves

[snowpack]

I don't know if you're married or have kids sitka-blacktail,  but you'd have to pretty solid in your beliefs to send your kids out to the bus in the dark after hearing wolves out side.

In the past 100 years maybe 5 people have been killed in North America by wolves. In the past 10 years more than 250 people have been killed by domestic dogs in America. There has been over 40 million dog bites and over 450,000 requiring emergency room care also in the last 10 years in America.

...and your worried about wolves hurting your kids because you hear one howl.

Makes perfect sense to me...

It's amazing any children are left in Alaskan villages with such a threat looming!

Most of that time frame there weren't wolves except in remote Canada and Alaska.  Kind of hard for an animal that doesn't really exist in any numbers to be racking up a large body count.  Dogs however number around 80 million, so a very small fraction of dogs can give you a large number of human casualties.  When wolves reach the steady, targeted population objectives it will be interesting to revisit the how dangerous are wolves stats.  Especially considering that 100 years if they encountered a person it was likely a trapper/hunter/rancher/indian warrior/etc and got shot; and now days it will likely be yuppy hikers/photographers/joggers/bicyclists and they might throw an I-pod or a latte at the wolf.

[KFhunter]

He's so steady in his belief that wolves are huggable skittish creatures that avoid man at all costs; he'd send his kids down a rural driveway at o'dark 30 in the morning even having heard wolves howling that same night.

[mountainman]

This is the wolf forum,  it's not the feral dog section, the coyote section, the habitat section, rabid bunny section, bear section or conservation section - it's the wolf section.

humanure was banned because he constantly diverted the topic from wolf to other topics, continually derails the conversation.

 

Now he comes back under different user names but always uses the same tired trick. 

[Northway]

I think the argument about whether or not wolves, or other predators for that matter, reach an equilibrium with the ungulates in their surrounding area. I happen to believe that they do, but that's not the point. The important thing is that in a number of areas, a certain level of predation drives ungulate numbers lower to the point that hunter opportunity reaches a socially unacceptable level.

As someone who is more predator friendly than most people on this site, I believe that predator management is definitely not the only component, but an important component in maintaining hunter opportunity. There's just no way around it that I can see, at least in Washington State under the current circumstances.

Along with predator management however, there needs to be a strong focus on habitat improvement/preservation, identification & prosecution of poaching, and increased pressure on tribes to police their own members in problem areas.

The problem with supporting predator management is that some folks make predators the scapegoat for everything while ignoring the other important factors that also need to be considered.

Another problem is that some refuse to recognize man as one of the natural predators and hunting as a natural activity of that predator. Animal species and balances in nature change. Sometimes when there are two competing predators, the less effective of them is driven out or killed off. The wolf at one time roamed the entire country. Man showed up and they were killed off because of the competition for game and because of the danger they presented to man. They don't belong here anymore.

There are not many people in here, if any, who don't participate in conservation, which for the purposes of this discussion include habitat enhancement and improvement, and increased pressure on poaching and other illegal or detrimental activities which impact game. Some of us are more involved than others, but just by the very fact that someone buys their license and guns, they support conservation and habitat restoration.

Where would we be at if every time that a person made the claim that an animal was some sort of problem, they could snap their finger and the species disappeared? I'm pretty sure that all those people had what was to them, a compelling set of reasons why the animal was a nuisance, economic hinderance, or danger to man and should be gone. All of them, at one time or another, probably felt as justified in their opinion towards whatever animal was bothering them as you do about wolves. 

[idahohuntr]

Wolves have no effect on ungulate populations... 

So idahohuntr you can thank the wolves for bringing the Elk right to you 

So, now you are claiming that wolves have improved elk hunting???  Also, I was several miles in backcountry (on mules) and I hunted multiple drainages several air miles apart...elk were in every one of them.  So it was not that I just got the one lucky draw where all the elk were hiding from wolves.   

I agree Idaho has a good plan...but it is no thanks to nutjobs claiming conspiracies like wolfbait...it is because of rationale sportsmen, congressman, and IDFG biologists seeking reasonable management and ignoring the greenies who don't want to harm a single wolf AND ignoring the cry babies claiming every elk must be killed or elk populations will be destroyed. 

[KFhunter]

Wolves have no effect on ungulate populations... 

So idahohuntr you can thank the wolves for bringing the Elk right to you 

So, now you are claiming that wolves have improved elk hunting???  Also, I was several miles in backcountry (on mules) and I hunted multiple drainages several air miles apart...elk were in every one of them.  So it was not that I just got the one lucky draw where all the elk were hiding from wolves.   

I agree Idaho has a good plan...but it is no thanks to nutjobs claiming conspiracies like wolfbait...it is because of rationale sportsmen, congressman, and IDFG biologists seeking reasonable management and ignoring the greenies who don't want to harm a single wolf AND ignoring the cry babies claiming every elk must be killed or elk populations will be destroyed.

Several miles is nothing    That's effortless for wolf.

I agree Idaho has a good plan...it is because of rationale sportsmen, congressman, and IDFG biologists seeking reasonable management and ignoring the greenies who don't want to harm a single wolf AND ignoring the cry babies claiming every elk must be killed or elk populations will be destroyed.

that's all I want for washington.   

[idahohuntr]

then we agree

[KFhunter]

then we agree

.....and it sounds like we'll both be hunting in Idaho next year too 

[magnanimous_j]

Who the hell is Humanure?

[seth30]

Who the hell is Humanure?

Your lucky you didn't deal with him   He was a piece of work that was pro wolf anti hunting and really stirred the pot here before a permanent ban.

[pianoman9701]

I think the argument about whether or not wolves, or other predators for that matter, reach an equilibrium with the ungulates in their surrounding area. I happen to believe that they do, but that's not the point. The important thing is that in a number of areas, a certain level of predation drives ungulate numbers lower to the point that hunter opportunity reaches a socially unacceptable level.

As someone who is more predator friendly than most people on this site, I believe that predator management is definitely not the only component, but an important component in maintaining hunter opportunity. There's just no way around it that I can see, at least in Washington State under the current circumstances.

Along with predator management however, there needs to be a strong focus on habitat improvement/preservation, identification & prosecution of poaching, and increased pressure on tribes to police their own members in problem areas.

The problem with supporting predator management is that some folks make predators the scapegoat for everything while ignoring the other important factors that also need to be considered.

Another problem is that some refuse to recognize man as one of the natural predators and hunting as a natural activity of that predator. Animal species and balances in nature change. Sometimes when there are two competing predators, the less effective of them is driven out or killed off. The wolf at one time roamed the entire country. Man showed up and they were killed off because of the competition for game and because of the danger they presented to man. They don't belong here anymore.

There are not many people in here, if any, who don't participate in conservation, which for the purposes of this discussion include habitat enhancement and improvement, and increased pressure on poaching and other illegal or detrimental activities which impact game. Some of us are more involved than others, but just by the very fact that someone buys their license and guns, they support conservation and habitat restoration.

Where would we be at if every time that a person made the claim that an animal was some sort of problem, they could snap their finger and the species disappeared? I'm pretty sure that all those people had what was to them, a compelling set of reasons why the animal was a nuisance, economic hinderance, or danger to man and should be gone. All of them, at one time or another, probably felt as justified in their opinion towards whatever animal was bothering them as you do about wolves.

It's not a claim. It's a fact. We got rid of them because they were in direct conflict with us. Wolves are different from every other top predator other then man in NA. Bears and cougars self-regulate their populations, as do coyotes. They don't populate more than a given number of animals per sq mile. Not so with wolves. Another differentiation is that wolves hunt in organized packs with strategy. Other predators don't do that, other than man. They are different from other predators and they are in more conflict than man than other predators. You don't have to look if you don't want to, but the science is there.

[buckfvr]

Odd how the ones with the scientific argument have to have the obvious explained to them...............I just dont get it.................

[Sitka_Blacktail]

One could say that the reason you saw so many elk was cause you didn't see any wolves.


That is exactly a point I've already brought up, and one of the reasons some hunters are seeing extraordinary numbers of Elk.

Wolves are like sheep herding dogs moving herds of Elk around like so many sheep, if your in the path hunting is wonderful! 
No get far back where the wolves are working and you'll find empty drainages where all those Elk you've been seeing would normally be.
If you spread out all those Elk across Idaho back into their ranges where they would have been prior to the wolves you'd see sparse numbers and tough hunting.

So idahohuntr you can thank the wolves for bringing the Elk right to you 

At least you're admitting the elk are still there. You just have to actually "hunt" for them. Some people just want to conveniently kill animals where they want to kill them and not where they may actually be. That's not a realistic approach to hunting, and if that's what you want, go to a game ranch. There's nothing wrong with having to search out your prey. In fact it can be the most satisfying part of the hunt. It can also make you a better hunter.

[KFhunter]

"wolves will make better hunters"


another talking point of the wolf huggers

[AspenBud]

Bears and cougars self-regulate their populations, as do coyotes. They don't populate more than a given number of animals per sq mile.

? That's why we have a year round coyote season? Because they self regulate their population? Where'd you get that from?

I guess 25,000-30,000 black bear and at least 2500 cougar didn't get the memo either now that hound hunting is gone.

 Another differentiation is that wolves hunt in organized packs with strategy. Other predators don't do that, other than man.

African lions anyone? African wild dogs? Hyena's?

Doubtless you meant to say "no other predator in North America does that."