Bowhunter chased up tree by wolves in GMU 121!

[AspenBud]

Aspenbud, you just can't seem to stay on topic can you? You have to spew rubbish to try and change the topic from talking about the real problems with wolves!

Kentucky elk that are thriving without wolves have nothing to do with wolf predation on elk and wolf interactions with humans in the northwest. 

The only rubbish here is when people try to say habitat is irrelevant or that elk and deer are coming to town only because of wolves. Hogwash.

Sorry my points undercut your narrative.

Sorry but you are 100% incorrect, I have never made those statements. Please post a link to any place where I have ever made those statements.

I'm sorry, I mistook your defensiveness as agreeing with those who did.

[AspenBud]

Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?

No, especially if the habitat provides little cover for them to hide in.

   There is tremendous habitat and cover in NE WA, your comment makes no sense at all?

Yes, but is it quality? Just because it can hold elk in the absence of wolves does not mean it has sufficient escape cover.

[AspenBud]

   
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.

[bearpaw]

Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?

No, especially if the habitat provides little cover for them to hide in.

   There is tremendous habitat and cover in NE WA, your comment makes no sense at all?

Yes, but is it quality? Just because it can hold elk in the absence of wolves does not mean it has sufficient escape cover.

It is obvious to me that you are merely using pro-wolf talking points, it's obvious you know nothing about NE WA. 

[AspenBud]

Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?

No, especially if the habitat provides little cover for them to hide in.

   There is tremendous habitat and cover in NE WA, your comment makes no sense at all?

Yes, but is it quality? Just because it can hold elk in the absence of wolves does not mean it has sufficient escape cover.

It is obvious to me that you are merely using pro-wolf talking points, it's obvious you know nothing about NE WA. 

Hm, well it's obvious to me that unless someone agrees 100% with all of your talking points on the subject you brand them a wolf lover. Okay.

Enjoy your party with the Sierra Club. They think the habitat out your way is great too.   

[bearpaw]

Aspenbud,
To help you understand my comments. The USFS pretty much eliminated logging and our National Forest land is an aging forest with little feed for ungulates. However, there is a ton of cover in that aging forest, so cover is the least of problems in  NE WA. That is why I made the comment I did about your post, it was obvious you know little about the NE. However, there are large tracts of state land and private lands which are selectively logged every decade or so. These lands do provide excellent habitat for ungulates which in turn provides the best habitat for predators. Hope this helps you understand the situation a little better.

[bearpaw]

It's typical wolf lover fashion to blame habitat for reductions in ungulate herds. Habitat certainly has an important effect on the herds, I completely agree with that, but the wolf groups always try to use habitat as the primary cause and they try to say that wolves have little or no effect on the herds and this is and has been proven wrong by biologists in wolf infested areas of Alaska, Canada, and now the Rocky Mountain states.

I suppose if you talk like a wolf lover you are going to appear to be one. 

[pianoman9701]

It's typical wolf lover fashion to blame habitat for reductions in ungulate herds. Habitat certainly has an important effect on the herds, I completely agree with that, but the wolf groups always try to use habitat as the primary cause and they try to say that wolves have little or no effect on the herds and this is and has been proven wrong by biologists in wolf infested areas of Alaska, Canada, and now the Rocky Mountain states.

I suppose if you talk like a wolf lover you are going to appear to be one. 

I actually agree that lack of habitat has reduced our ungulates. All the more reason not to allow in an extra-large apex predator to further reduce their numbers.

Something I find funny in this and other threads is that pro-wolfers never say they're pro-wolfer. In fact, they usually deny it, all the while fighting tooth and nail to make sure we see the light and accept wolves for the loveable, cuddly, balance to nature that we ll really need to understand they are. The rest of us, on the other hand, have little trouble with the truth. We don't want wolves here, especially in areas of any population or agricultural development, which includes cattle ranching and grazing. We and wildlife were doing just fine and stayed balanced (except for diminishing ungulate habitat through logging restrictions) and would've continued to be so without a single wolf coming into WA. We're even willing to compromise on that, acknowledging that they would be OK (but not great) in remote wilderness areas. It's hard to debate someone who doesn't have enough conviction in their beliefs to come right out and admit their stance.

[idahohuntr]

Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier.  A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.   

  ya

Then why is it you step behind any locked gate and immediately find old Elk droppings and waist high grasses of varying flavors going to waste, and more browse than you can shake a stick at. 

So then tell me, why is it NE Wa has such small elk herds?  I am less familiar with NE Wa and am using the NW corner of Idaho (Priest Lake area) as a surrogate.  We can still hound hunt in Idaho...I killed my one and only lion just E of priest lake.  Bears are abundant up there, but they are also hunted pretty hard. 

There is more to habitat than waist high grasses.  Long before wolves were ever present in Idaho there just were very few elk up in that corner of Idaho...nobody raved about the great elk hunting up in the NW corner of Idaho.  There are elk there, and guys kill bulls up there to this day...but something is limiting them that did not limit the deer and moose...they give out more moose tags up in that corner of Idaho (even today) than they do for the entire state of Washington.  Unit 1 is loaded with deer.  That suggests some habitat requirement of elk is limiting. 

[idahohuntr]

I've suspected you were a complete farce a long time ago, now I'm convinced of it. 
 
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.

I honestly don't know why you two are allowed to remain on this site 
[/quote]
When you stick to debating the facts, I think you sometimes present points worth considering in things like what may affect elk abundance...even if I ultimately disagree with you based on my experience and observations.

However, when you dive off into absurd accusations like what I quote you above, you really lose credibility IMO.  What have I said, what picture have I posted that you believe is a "farce"? 

[bearpaw]

Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier.  A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.   

  ya

Then why is it you step behind any locked gate and immediately find old Elk droppings and waist high grasses of varying flavors going to waste, and more browse than you can shake a stick at. 

So then tell me, why is it NE Wa has such small elk herds?  I am less familiar with NE Wa and am using the NW corner of Idaho (Priest Lake area) as a surrogate.  We can still hound hunt in Idaho...I killed my one and only lion just E of priest lake.  Bears are abundant up there, but they are also hunted pretty hard. 

There is more to habitat than waist high grasses.  Long before wolves were ever present in Idaho there just were very few elk up in that corner of Idaho...nobody raved about the great elk hunting up in the NW corner of Idaho.  There are elk there, and guys kill bulls up there to this day...but something is limiting them that did not limit the deer and moose...they give out more moose tags up in that corner of Idaho (even today) than they do for the entire state of Washington.  Unit 1 is loaded with deer.  That suggests some habitat requirement of elk is limiting.

If you go to Priest Lake and then go to areas in NE WA you will see some differences. I think NE WA has more diversified habitat than the Priest Lake area, more winter range, more agriculture, more logging on state and private lands just to name a few of the differences. This adds up to better elk habitat than the Priest Lake area. 

[bearpaw]

Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier.  A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.

I've suspected you were a complete farce a long time ago, now I'm convinced of it. 
 
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.

I honestly don't know why you two are allowed to remain on this site 

When you stick to debating the facts, I think you sometimes present points worth considering in things like what may affect elk abundance...even if I ultimately disagree with you based on my experience and observations.

However, when you dive off into absurd accusations like what I quote you above, you really lose credibility IMO.  What have I said, what picture have I posted that you believe is a "farce"?

FYI - It's true that we've had wolf lovers posing on this forum as hunters and that stolen photos and lies about being hunters have been posted to portray themselves as a hunter who support wolves. We have weeded out a few of these types but have trouble identifying them from certain hunters who actually do support wolves to one extent or another. It's not the intention of H-W to ban anyone because they support wolves. But H-W will ban anyone who is only a pro-wolfer representing themselves as a hunter when in fact they are not and are truly only a liar trying to promote wolves.

Idahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.

Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.

[wolfbait]

After 18 years of fraud and corruption in the wolf introduction, and the lies that were told by David Mech (environmentalists, USFWS and state game agency) go to guy for promoting wolves. The end results is not about an endangered wolf but instead habitat. Thats right the wolf is about driving 30,000 ranchers out of business, stopping hunting, making life hard on those who live in rural areas.

If you look at the amount of land that has been bought up by WDFW alone it is astounding, then add in the USFWS, and environmental groups, which by the way, environmental groups who buy up land are just middleman for the feds, so that people don't connect as to how much land the feds are really scooping up, and all in the name of saving habitat.

Now we see this topic which was started on the dangers of wolves switched to more habitat by people who claim to have the best interests of the game herds in mind? But yet they don't want to discuss the impact of wolves?

I guess we should start focussing on the fraud behind the wolf introduction, instead of the impact wolves are having, after all the wolves actually have nothing to do with the real reason behind the wolf introduction, remember the spotted owl lie?

I guess what it all boils down to is more habitat, less access to public lands, more wilderness. No ranching, no hunting, and how many people want to camp in a predator infested environment. 

The wolves are the perfect tool, in the end the USFWS etc. can then jump in and fix the problem by closing down public lands because of the impact create by humans, is this where the famous corridors come to light?

[KFhunter]

Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier.  A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.

I've suspected you were a complete farce a long time ago, now I'm convinced of it. 
 
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.

I honestly don't know why you two are allowed to remain on this site 

When you stick to debating the facts, I think you sometimes present points worth considering in things like what may affect elk abundance...even if I ultimately disagree with you based on my experience and observations.

However, when you dive off into absurd accusations like what I quote you above, you really lose credibility IMO.  What have I said, what picture have I posted that you believe is a "farce"?

I just couldn't understand how you could say habitat was "the" factor in suppressing the Elk herds, when clearly the habitat is pretty good and getting better with more recent logging efforts and increased controlled burns.  It appeared to me that you were dodging a trap by being dishonest about habitat.

Part of it is liberal tags as Dale pointed out,  until about 3-4 years ago the Elk herds were maintaining or perhaps even growing by a very small amount in some areas.  That's stopped and now they're going backwards.  The biggest factor is calf recruitment.   You can go out and look at a herd of Elk and not see a single calf with the cows, or if you do it's just a cow here and there with a calf at her side.  The % of calves that make it to mature adult status is too low.  The big cats really play hell on the calves and smaller Elk.   


Where I'm going with this is if the Elk herds can barely hang on prior to the arrival of the wolf, what makes anyone think they'll continue to maintain current numbers?  WDFW has changed tags to antlered only which I applaud, but it's too little too late in my opinion.  The predators are still out there and thanks to a new cougar harvest plan I'm prohibited from filling my tag in an area where I'd like to see Elk numbers improve,  an area with heavy wolf predation   



(fixed the quotes)

[bearpaw]

   you are right on KFhunter...