Since Wolves

[KFhunter]

actually he did,  NA = North America in P-mans post

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

Pianoman, while I don't always agree with you, I always thought you tried to get your facts straight, but in this case you're far off the mark. Wolves do self regulate and often have territorial battles that end with one side being exterminated. Also, just like ungulates self regulate by the number of young born based on the condition of their habitat, the same happens to wolves. If times are tough, fewer young are born and fewer young survive.

Coyotes are about the least self regulating wild predator there is.

[AspenBud]

actually he did,  NA = North America in P-mans post

Doh! You got me.

I think that's a sign that I've had enough. No minds are going be changed on either side anyhow.

Good luck guys.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

"wolves will make better hunters"
another talking point of the wolf huggers

Now, now, KF. I said having to actually search out animals that aren't where you want them to be can make you a better hunter.  Who's putting words in someone else's mouth now?

[pianoman9701]

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.

Pianoman, while I don't always agree with you, I always thought you tried to get your facts straight, but in this case you're far off the mark. Wolves do self regulate and often have territorial battles that end with one side being exterminated. Also, just like ungulates self regulate by the number of young born based on the condition of their habitat, the same happens to wolves. If times are tough, fewer young are born and fewer young survive.

Coyotes are about the least self regulating wild predator there is.

So why is it the Province of Alberta has got a goal of 6,000 wolves to kill? They're having problems up there they're not having with any other predator.

[CAMPMEAT]

Yawn.........

[turkeyfeather]

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.

I'm sorry that is one of the more laughable, ridiculous arguments you've made yet.

[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.

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.

But bears and cougars don't self-regulate to the extent that there aren't plenty of hunters in this state who feel that both of those species should be more heavily managed. Wildlife Services alone kills about 75,000 coyotes per year, nationally. We're helping out plenty with coyote "self-regulation". There are strong arguments for even more intensive management of coyotes in any number of areas, I'm sure. 

It's all ultimately a question of management, even with wolves.   

Let's be honest about the use of the words "fact" and "science". Both of those words have been *censored*ized to the point that they aren't even useful terms in general discussion. Every side of the argument claims dominion over facts & science. And that's not isolated to the wolf debate.

[pianoman9701]

I agree. I think all of the predators need to be managed aggressively. Full carrying capacity state-wide of cougars and bears, mixed with the reintroduction of wolves into the equation spells disaster for the human predation outlook. I'm not willing to wait until the absence of ungulates pushes the self regulation of wolves before I think it's time to manage them. Man is part of the equation and part of nature. If we want to continue hunting ungulates, we need to manage the predators. I'm not sure that you care, but i certainly want to continue to have ungulates to hunt.

[Northway]

I agree. I think all of the predators need to be managed aggressively. Full carrying capacity state-wide of cougars and bears, mixed with the reintroduction of wolves into the equation spells disaster for the human predation outlook. I'm not willing to wait until the absence of ungulates pushes the self regulation of wolves before I think it's time to manage them. Man is part of the equation and part of nature. If we want to continue hunting ungulates, we need to manage the predators. I'm not sure that you care, but i certainly want to continue to have ungulates to hunt.

For what it's worth, I favor a more conservative management approach with wolves that repopulate parts of this state until we have a better understanding of the impact that they have on ungulate populations here, specifically. This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming; there are some different variables in play and the landscape will support fewer wolves than in the NRM. We should aggressively manage wolves for a slow & staggered increase in population, over a period of years up to a decade or two, to a point that can at least be somewhat agreed to by multiple parties as it becomes more clear how they are affecting herds. It would be a lot more expensive (get $$ from the general fund) and involve translocation, but I feel confident that it would be a better approach.

This would also have to involve more aggressive management of bear & cougar to compensate for the additive pressure on ungulates. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Meanwhile, a group of friends just finished up their deer hunt in 204. All tags filled, six in all. Doesn't sound so bad for a unit with 7 wolves in it according to Hunting Washington. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=79244.0

[pianoman9701]

I agree. I think all of the predators need to be managed aggressively. Full carrying capacity state-wide of cougars and bears, mixed with the reintroduction of wolves into the equation spells disaster for the human predation outlook. I'm not willing to wait until the absence of ungulates pushes the self regulation of wolves before I think it's time to manage them. Man is part of the equation and part of nature. If we want to continue hunting ungulates, we need to manage the predators. I'm not sure that you care, but i certainly want to continue to have ungulates to hunt.

For what it's worth, I favor a more conservative management approach with wolves that repopulate parts of this state until we have a better understanding of the impact that they have on ungulate populations here, specifically. This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming; there are some different variables in play and the landscape will support fewer wolves than in the NRM. We should aggressively manage wolves for a slow & staggered increase in population, over a period of years up to a decade or two, to a point that can at least be somewhat agreed to by multiple parties as it becomes more clear how they are affecting herds. It would be a lot more expensive (get $$ from the general fund) and involve translocation, but I feel confident that it would be a better approach.

This would also have to involve more aggressive management of bear & cougar to compensate for the additive pressure on ungulates. 

In lieu of exterminating them altogether, I would be far more inclined to your approach than the state's.

[Cougartail]

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!

  Kind of hard for an animal that doesn't really exist in any numbers to be racking up a large body count. 

A very truthful statement and when applied to Washington State any rational person understands that less than 100 wolves do not have much of an impact or threat.

Because of shear numbers of dogs and the fact that a certain small percentage will bite/maul and kill you aren't being rational in worrying about an animal who runs at the sight of man most times and is still pretty rare here.
 

[mountainman]

Only problem is they dont always just ran away..Ask Jon Stevie in Carlton..Or ask Hirsey here on this sight. I can give you more contacts if you would like??

[Cougartail]

Only problem is they dont always just ran away..Ask Jon Stevie in Carlton..Or ask Hirsey here on this sight. I can give you more contacts if you would like??

And I've been bitten 4 times by fido and have had dozens of encounters with aggressive dogs.

The only wolves I've seen are running away upon first glimpse of me. And the times I've tried to hunt/call them I can't even get one of these ruthless killers to come in for an offer of dinner? (Even though they were howling nearby!) 

Yes, Unlike most on here I've personally have seen wolves and hunted them. (and lived to tell about it. lol)