Bowhunter chased up tree by wolves in GMU 121!

[wolfbait]

We have already seen the outcome in the three hardest states to introduce wolves to, if they would have known the outcome. How much chance does WA have with a bogus wolf plan and a state game agency that refuses to confirm wolf packs? Refuses to acknowledge the impact wolves and other predators are having on the game herds and livestock, and refuse to acknowledge the danger to humans due to attacks and the diseases they spread.

Just like cougars that are not hunted as they should be, wolves will be a major problem as their prey is depleted, especially with wolves that already have no fear of people.

My guess the first three or four people who get whacked won't matter to WDFW or the pro-wolfers unless it is one of their own. The small communities however will make war on the wolves, tell me do the wolves win? Or do the frauds at the USFWS and state game agencies win?

My guess, in the end the wolves will lose, where will the wolf lovers be then? Counting their money and looking for a new cash flow with a different critter.

[JLS]

Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.

You are a pro-wolf extremist if:

a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever 

Don't know, I hunt Montana.  Some areas are better than ever, some the same, some worse.

b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit 

I don't believe in a predator pit as perpetuated by Eastman's, but I believe in boom and bust cycles of prey and predators

c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands

I think it is entirely appropriate to graze cattle and/or sheep on public lands if done so in a responsible manner (i.e. rotational grazing)

d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands

I have no idea what you mean by non-recreation public lands, but I do think easements are entirely appropriate to gain access to public lands, when entered into willingly by the seller.  I also believe that corner crossing should be legal.

e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter

I am a self admitted crappy bowhunter, and no I have seen no correlation or made no claim that wolves have made me better.

f)  You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been

I think Yellowstone is much more in balance, but not completely.

g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check

I think hunting by itself in the right circumstance CAN do so, but is not always likely.  Recreational trapping has shown itself to be at least equally effective as hunting and is a valuable tool for population management.

h)  You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned

I never said it would get wolf hunting banned, but I did say that I think it reflects very poorly on hunters as a whole.

I)  You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.

No false pretenses here, no avatar, and could care less what my "legitimacy" is.  I guess if providing an alterrnative viewpoint from the popular mantra is derailing and obfuscating then I am guilty as charged.  I didn't realize that individual opinions are not allowed if they deviate.

j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.

No, they also planted them in the Frank Church.  You have claimed to have evidence of other releases for quite some time, but never provide it.

K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.

I think more habitat is never a bad thing, nor is improving existing habitat to alleviate the problems created by too many years of Smoky the Bear, noxious weeds, and loss of winter range.  Specific instances of predation issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis.  I believe that good habitat (and an abundance of it) is one of the biggest steps in mitigating the effects that wolves have on hunting opportunity.

[/color]

There you go Wolfbait.  There are my thoughts and opinions in bold letters so that you can do what you feel you need to do and attach labels to folks.  If these make me a pro wolf extremist in your mind that's great.  Half of them don't even have a darned thing to do with wolves in the first place.
 
You tend to selectively ignore many facts.  Some of us extremists spoke out against the WDFW wolf plan.  Some of us extremists spoke out when the delisting process in MT, ID, and WY was stalled. 

Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves are a wild animal and as such can be dangerous.  Yet because we don't jump on board with fear mongering, we are extremists.

Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves do affect population numbers in varying degrees.  Some of us extremists had the same fears years ago, but have witnessed enough with our own eyes to change our minds.  If that is kool-aid, so be it.

You wanted answers, you got them.  Make whatever label or stereotype out of this that you need to do, it makes no difference to me.

[jon.brown509]

Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.

You are a pro-wolf extremist if:

a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever 

Don't know, I hunt Montana.  Some areas are better than ever, some the same, some worse.

b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit 

I don't believe in a predator pit as perpetuated by Eastman's, but I believe in boom and bust cycles of prey and predators

c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands

I think it is entirely appropriate to graze cattle and/or sheep on public lands if done so in a responsible manner (i.e. rotational grazing)

d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands

I have no idea what you mean by non-recreation public lands, but I do think easements are entirely appropriate to gain access to public lands, when entered into willingly by the seller.  I also believe that corner crossing should be legal.

e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter

I am a self admitted crappy bowhunter, and no I have seen no correlation or made no claim that wolves have made me better.

f)  You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been

I think Yellowstone is much more in balance, but not completely.

g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check

I think hunting by itself in the right circumstance CAN do so, but is not always likely.  Recreational trapping has shown itself to be at least equally effective as hunting and is a valuable tool for population management.

h)  You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned

I never said it would get wolf hunting banned, but I did say that I think it reflects very poorly on hunters as a whole.

I)  You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.

No false pretenses here, no avatar, and could care less what my "legitimacy" is.  I guess if providing an alterrnative viewpoint from the popular mantra is derailing and obfuscating then I am guilty as charged.  I didn't realize that individual opinions are not allowed if they deviate.

j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.

No, they also planted them in the Frank Church.  You have claimed to have evidence of other releases for quite some time, but never provide it.

K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.

I think more habitat is never a bad thing, nor is improving existing habitat to alleviate the problems created by too many years of Smoky the Bear, noxious weeds, and loss of winter range.  Specific instances of predation issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis.  I believe that good habitat (and an abundance of it) is one of the biggest steps in mitigating the effects that wolves have on hunting opportunity.

[/color]

There you go Wolfbait.  There are my thoughts and opinions in bold letters so that you can do what you feel you need to do and attach labels to folks.  If these make me a pro wolf extremist in your mind that's great.  Half of them don't even have a darned thing to do with wolves in the first place.
 
You tend to selectively ignore many facts.  Some of us extremists spoke out against the WDFW wolf plan.  Some of us extremists spoke out when the delisting process in MT, ID, and WY was stalled. 

Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves are a wild animal and as such can be dangerous.  Yet because we don't jump on board with fear mongering, we are extremists.

Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves do affect population numbers in varying degrees.  Some of us extremists had the same fears years ago, but have witnessed enough with our own eyes to change our minds.  If that is kool-aid, so be it.

You wanted answers, you got them.  Make whatever label or stereotype out of this that you need to do, it makes no difference to me.

[KFhunter]

I actually did provide evidence of USFWS planting wolves in southern and eastern states,  I didn't find anything on planting wolves in WA and I don't think that happened but it's documented that wolves were planted in many different states.

I also find some contention with aspens bud's assertion that the wolves we have now are a different sub-species than the wolves in Russia - therefore discrediting wolfbaits data.   The wolves we have now are the most aggressive according to some date I've seen.   I haven't time to dig it up, but it's my understanding that the sub-species debate was set aside when they brought the wrong ones to YNP in the first place.

Now they're just all "gray wolf" - and I don't buy that our wolves are somehow kinder and gentler towards humans.

[wolfbait]

Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.

You are a pro-wolf extremist if:

a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever 

Don't know, I hunt Montana.  Some areas are better than ever, some the same, some worse.

b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit 

I don't believe in a predator pit as perpetuated by Eastman's, but I believe in boom and bust cycles of prey and predators

c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands

I think it is entirely appropriate to graze cattle and/or sheep on public lands if done so in a responsible manner (i.e. rotational grazing)

d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands

I have no idea what you mean by non-recreation public lands, but I do think easements are entirely appropriate to gain access to public lands, when entered into willingly by the seller.  I also believe that corner crossing should be legal.

e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter

I am a self admitted crappy bowhunter, and no I have seen no correlation or made no claim that wolves have made me better.

f)  You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been

I think Yellowstone is much more in balance, but not completely.

g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check

I think hunting by itself in the right circumstance CAN do so, but is not always likely.  Recreational trapping has shown itself to be at least equally effective as hunting and is a valuable tool for population management.

h)  You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned

I never said it would get wolf hunting banned, but I did say that I think it reflects very poorly on hunters as a whole.

I)  You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.

No false pretenses here, no avatar, and could care less what my "legitimacy" is.  I guess if providing an alterrnative viewpoint from the popular mantra is derailing and obfuscating then I am guilty as charged.  I didn't realize that individual opinions are not allowed if they deviate.

j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.

No, they also planted them in the Frank Church.  You have claimed to have evidence of other releases for quite some time, but never provide it.

K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.

I think more habitat is never a bad thing, nor is improving existing habitat to alleviate the problems created by too many years of Smoky the Bear, noxious weeds, and loss of winter range.  Specific instances of predation issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis.  I believe that good habitat (and an abundance of it) is one of the biggest steps in mitigating the effects that wolves have on hunting opportunity.

[/color]

There you go Wolfbait.  There are my thoughts and opinions in bold letters so that you can do what you feel you need to do and attach labels to folks.  If these make me a pro wolf extremist in your mind that's great.  Half of them don't even have a darned thing to do with wolves in the first place.
 
You tend to selectively ignore many facts.  Some of us extremists spoke out against the WDFW wolf plan.  Some of us extremists spoke out when the delisting process in MT, ID, and WY was stalled. 

Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves are a wild animal and as such can be dangerous.  Yet because we don't jump on board with fear mongering, we are extremists.

Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves do affect population numbers in varying degrees.  Some of us extremists had the same fears years ago, but have witnessed enough with our own eyes to change our minds.  If that is kool-aid, so be it.

You wanted answers, you got them.  Make whatever label or stereotype out of this that you need to do, it makes no difference to me.

Did I single you out JLS? I think it was your buddy Idahohunter that started tagging labels on people.

 We can learn a lot from each other through discussions like these, but only if people are willing to share ideas, and share the history of the wolf introduction. We will go nowhere sticking to the same BS propaganda that the USFWS, defenders of wildlife and the brain-washed WDFW biologists spout.

[wolfbait]

I actually did provide evidence of USFWS planting wolves in southern and eastern states,  I didn't find anything on planting wolves in WA and I don't think that happened but it's documented that wolves were planted in many different states.

I also find some contention with aspens bud's assertion that the wolves we have now are a different sub-species than the wolves in Russia - therefore discrediting wolfbaits data.   The wolves we have now are the most aggressive according to some date I've seen.   I haven't time to dig it up, but it's my understanding that the sub-species debate was set aside when they brought the wrong ones to YNP in the first place.

Now they're just all "gray wolf" - and I don't buy that our wolves are somehow kinder and gentler towards humans.

Actually there are a few cases of the USFWS and WDFW releasing wolves in WA, and like all crappy things that smell, at sometime in the future the truth is exposed.

If your like your insurance, you can keep it> Period

[snowpack]

I actually did provide evidence of USFWS planting wolves in southern and eastern states,  I didn't find anything on planting wolves in WA and I don't think that happened but it's documented that wolves were planted in many different states.

I also find some contention with aspens bud's assertion that the wolves we have now are a different sub-species than the wolves in Russia - therefore discrediting wolfbaits data.   The wolves we have now are the most aggressive according to some date I've seen.   I haven't time to dig it up, but it's my understanding that the sub-species debate was set aside when they brought the wrong ones to YNP in the first place.

Now they're just all "gray wolf" - and I don't buy that our wolves are somehow kinder and gentler towards humans.

When you control the funding to the scientists being used to further your agenda, sounds about right.  Wolf from NW Canada is the same as one 1500+ miles away in the US rockies.  But a king salmon is a completely different species from another king salmon found in rivers 5 miles apart.   

[JLS]

Did I single you out JLS? I think it was your buddy Idahohunter that started tagging labels on people.

 We can learn a lot from each other through discussions like these, but only if people are willing to share ideas, and share the history of the wolf introduction. We will go nowhere sticking to the same BS propaganda that the USFWS, defenders of wildlife and the brain-washed WDFW biologists spout.

I didn't say you did single me out, but since at least one of your questions was in direct reference to me then I would logically assume that you are including me in your zone of fire. 

Now, I'll step aside so as not to derail and obfuscate the conversation

[Sitka_Blacktail]

First of all tar sands have nothing to do with wolves destroying elk herds. Completely different topics.

 

Sitka you are just a another wolf lover posing as a hunter and spewing propaganda to try and propagate your precious wolves. Elk herds were in good shape and in many cases at near record population levels in most areas where wolves have caused dramatic declines in big game populations. F&G Depts have had to make significant decreases in hunter opportunity to try and conserve the few remaining elk, moose, and deer.

Aww shucks Dale you found me out. I've never hunted a day in my life and never saw an animal outside of a zoo. I don't really have a clue what I'm talking about. Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy and smug now?

First of all, I didn't bring up the tar sands in this thread, Pianoman9701 did with this link.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/

I was just pointing out to him that there are other opinions of the situation than those in the link he provided.

As for loving wolves, I can take them or leave them, they've never made a difference in my hunting in Alaska. Nature takes care of predators in the long run. They go up and down with the prey species, usually a couple years behind in the cycle of things. And they've certainly never threatened me or anyone I know out hunting. The only real threat from wolves is to livestock and pets. People should be able to defend their animals. People should be able to hunt and trap wolves. That isn't going to happen until a stable population has established itself unfortunately. All the demonization and fear of wolves isn't going to help that along and frankly it makes hunters look silly.

I realize as a "professional" guide, in some cases it can affect your bottom line,  if you want animals to be in X spot when you have a client and they've been pushed out of the area due to a pack of wolves coming through. But when you are all doom and gloom about wolves wiping prey animals out but then I see you offering doe hunts with multiple tags per hunter, I have to laugh. 

And when I hear stories of hunters climbing trees and trembling in fear of wolves I have to roll my eyes and wonder "where are the hunters of yesteryear?".  Like Fred Bear stepping out from behind a rock to arrow the world record Brown Bear. Go to 6:05 to watch and see if Fred was quivering in his boots, and climbing trees, waiting for his shot. (His camera man was a different story. lol)  Fred Bear Historical Hunting Footage.flv

[KFhunter]

You can't trap wolves in Washington, hunting them is ineffective in the brush state as well.
Poison is outlawed everywhere.

What do you propose to do to keep wolf populations in check on private ground and public where grazing is permitted?

[KFhunter]

?

All I hear is crickets....

[KFhunter]

WDFW already admits they got no clue how many Elk are in the NE corner of Washington,  but if herd numbers decline they'll do a study to find out why. 
Oh they also said they'd limit hunting.

So what do you say to hunters that want to hunt in their home state after these small herds of Elk that don't bugle during the rut?  A small herd of Elk could easily be wiped out beyond recovery by a pack of wolves if the winter is bad.  So far they've all been mild but the first heavy snowfall winter we get will realize all the doom and gloom the "wackjob anti's" been spouting about.

[idahohuntr]

Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.

You are a pro-wolf extremist if:

a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever 

Don't know, I hunt Montana.  Some areas are better than ever, some the same, some worse.

b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit 

I don't believe in a predator pit as perpetuated by Eastman's, but I believe in boom and bust cycles of prey and predators

c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands

I think it is entirely appropriate to graze cattle and/or sheep on public lands if done so in a responsible manner (i.e. rotational grazing)

d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands

I have no idea what you mean by non-recreation public lands, but I do think easements are entirely appropriate to gain access to public lands, when entered into willingly by the seller.  I also believe that corner crossing should be legal.

e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter

I am a self admitted crappy bowhunter, and no I have seen no correlation or made no claim that wolves have made me better.

f)  You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been

I think Yellowstone is much more in balance, but not completely.

g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check

I think hunting by itself in the right circumstance CAN do so, but is not always likely.  Recreational trapping has shown itself to be at least equally effective as hunting and is a valuable tool for population management.

h)  You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned

I never said it would get wolf hunting banned, but I did say that I think it reflects very poorly on hunters as a whole.

I)  You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.

No false pretenses here, no avatar, and could care less what my "legitimacy" is.  I guess if providing an alterrnative viewpoint from the popular mantra is derailing and obfuscating then I am guilty as charged.  I didn't realize that individual opinions are not allowed if they deviate.

j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.

No, they also planted them in the Frank Church.  You have claimed to have evidence of other releases for quite some time, but never provide it.

K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.

I think more habitat is never a bad thing, nor is improving existing habitat to alleviate the problems created by too many years of Smoky the Bear, noxious weeds, and loss of winter range.  Specific instances of predation issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis.  I believe that good habitat (and an abundance of it) is one of the biggest steps in mitigating the effects that wolves have on hunting opportunity.

[/color]

There you go Wolfbait.  There are my thoughts and opinions in bold letters so that you can do what you feel you need to do and attach labels to folks.  If these make me a pro wolf extremist in your mind that's great.  Half of them don't even have a darned thing to do with wolves in the first place.
 
You tend to selectively ignore many facts.  Some of us extremists spoke out against the WDFW wolf plan.  Some of us extremists spoke out when the delisting process in MT, ID, and WY was stalled. 

Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves are a wild animal and as such can be dangerous.  Yet because we don't jump on board with fear mongering, we are extremists.

Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves do affect population numbers in varying degrees.  Some of us extremists had the same fears years ago, but have witnessed enough with our own eyes to change our minds.  If that is kool-aid, so be it.

You wanted answers, you got them.  Make whatever label or stereotype out of this that you need to do, it makes no difference to me.

Did I single you out JLS? I think it was your buddy Idahohunter that started tagging labels on people.

 We can learn a lot from each other through discussions like these, but only if people are willing to share ideas, and share the history of the wolf introduction. We will go nowhere sticking to the same BS propaganda that the USFWS, defenders of wildlife and the brain-washed WDFW biologists spout.

There you go ignoring facts that don't fit your talking points again wolfbait.  Look at the quote in this post...it is you and KF coming up with a list of questions to TAG LABELS ON PEOPLE.  You called me a lot of things before I came up with your wolf-wacko name...which isn't original by the way...I coined it from an IDFG commissioner who used to deal with clowns like you when he was fighting for a reasonable wolf management plan and had to listen to all the same bs you come up with...like wolf diseases, "non-native" wolves, government conspiracies, etc.  Anyways, you can call me whatever the hell you want...it doesn't change the fact that you spew a lot of faulty misinformation. 

[bearpaw]

Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves,

Something tells me that's not why elk hang out around the country club in Longview, WA. Nor is it why people in Kentucky  (where elk have no real predators, have a 92% calf survival rate and are about 15% bigger than their western counterparts) are starting to complain about elk invading their gardens and property.

Nice try to distort this situation in Kentucky to try and say wolves are needed. But that's more wolf lover rubbish. All that Kentucky has to do is liberalize hunting seasons to control elk populations. Wolves are not needed. 

[KFhunter]

actually,  USFWS freely admits it's non-native wolves that were planted in YNP and even go so far as to give a break down on the differences.

On the size difference they quoted something like 10-15% overall larger size than the historical native wolves, but didn't say the potential difference between alpha's of each subspecies. 


Now USFWS is concerned these non-native wolves will get into the ones above Vancouver island and breed with them destroying their genetic pool.