Bowhunter chased up tree by wolves in GMU 121!

[pianoman9701]

Ever wonder why we went to such great lengths to completely eliminate the wolf from North America, long after we'd taken steps to protect and revive the populations of other predators like bears and cougars?

You might want to check your historical facts here, because I don't think they align with what you're trying to sell.

Cougars were still being killed for bounties up until the 1960's, when they began receiving game animal status.  Grizzly bears were not even listed as threatened until 1975, and dwindled greatly from the early 1900's until then.  Wolves had pretty much been eradicated from the Rocky Mountain states by the middle 1900s.  The last documented wolf kill in Yellowstone was 1927.

I don't think there was any preferential treatment for any predatory animal up until the the 60's.  Bounties were the norm in many states until then, when federal and/or state protection started being instituted.

But the efforts to eradicate the wolf were far more intense than any other predator and were supported by the government.

[turkeyfeather]

You're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack.  Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!

http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous

Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.

You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.

Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.

[idahohuntr]

You're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack.  Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!

http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous

Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.

You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.

Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.

I will be happy to take your bet.  So, in 10 or 15 years I say deer/auto collisions will kill more people than wolf attacks on humans.  How much will you give me are we betting? 

[wolfbait]

You're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack.  Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!

http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous

Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.

You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.

Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.

Do to very few wolves up until the wolf introduction the lower 48 had no problem with wolves. First wolf pack in 70 years says WDFW and OR, now after 17-18 years of a protected predator that has no enemies except man, we have wolves that are habitual to man and rural communities. WDFW stress wild wolves, we don't have wild wolves we have wolves raising their pups in the valleys where people live.

Comparing the dangers of wolves to deer is what the pro-wolf crowd does in order to down play the danger of wolves, the argument might work for some but not for the majority of people with half a brain. How many people are worried about a herd of deer killing and eating them, how many times have deer ate the person they killed? (run Fred it's a herd of deer, last year they killed and ate my wife) News Flash: DNA test show nine does killed hiker and then ate him.  Very poor argument, like the argument that other predators, weather and disease kill more livestock than wolves, but we aren't counting the whole USA, we are counting single states where wolves exist, add the percentage to every state in union and wolves would defiantly be the leading cause of livestock deaths. Big difference.

[turkeyfeather]

You're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack.  Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!

http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous

Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.

You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.

Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.

I will be happy to take your bet.  So, in 10 or 15 years I say deer/auto collisions will kill more people than wolf attacks on humans.  How much will you give me are we betting? 

Way to dodge the fact you got called out on spewing ridiculous numbers. Then again I guess you figured there was no point in debating you were wrong.

[JLS]

Put your money where your mouth is.  What would be your terms of the bet?

[idahohuntr]

You're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack.  Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!

http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous

Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.

You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.

Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.

I will be happy to take your bet.  So, in 10 or 15 years I say deer/auto collisions will kill more people than wolf attacks on humans.  How much will you give me are we betting? 

Way to dodge the fact you got called out on spewing ridiculous numbers. Then again I guess you figured there was no point in debating you were wrong.

I'm not dodging anything.  You are very misinformed if you think wolves will result in more deaths to humans than deer/auto collisions. 

[turkeyfeather]

I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.

[KFhunter]

Why are you all arguing about deer vs wolves?  It's obfuscation from the topic at hand.  Don't let the pro-wolfers  turn the thread like that, it's what they do.



Besides, we all know in 10-15 years there won't be any deer left to kill and eat people   

[turkeyfeather]

Why are you all arguing about deer vs wolves?  It's obfuscation from the topic at hand.  Don't let the pro-wolfers  turn the thread like that, it's what they do.



Besides, we all know in 10-15 years there won't be any deer left to kill and eat people   

That's why I feel confident. 

[snowpack]

I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.

Couple factors at play the wolf population will increase and likely the deer population decline.  So I'd think your assumptions will be valid.  If someone is in a car accident with a deer that is being chased by wolves, I would consider that to be a wolf related injury/accident.

[KFhunter]

Why are you all arguing about deer vs wolves?  It's obfuscation from the topic at hand.  Don't let the pro-wolfers  turn the thread like that, it's what they do.



Besides, we all know in 10-15 years there won't be any deer left to kill and eat people   

That's why I feel confident. 

You should have stipulated that all data must be current and specific to the region, no wagering on old data or using data from states like Florida 

[turkeyfeather]

I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.

Couple factors at play the wolf population will increase and likely the deer population decline.  So I'd think your assumptions will be valid.  If someone is in a car accident with a deer that is being chased by wolves, I would consider that to be a wolf related injury/accident.

And that is is exactly one scenario I envision being a very real possibility.  My whole point is that Sitka/ Idahohnter are comparing scewed numbers to numbers that don't even exist yet. Therefore nullifying his entire argument.

[turkeyfeather]

Why are you all arguing about deer vs wolves?  It's obfuscation from the topic at hand.  Don't let the pro-wolfers  turn the thread like that, it's what they do.



Besides, we all know in 10-15 years there won't be any deer left to kill and eat people   

That's why I feel confident. 

You should have stipulated that all data must be current and specific to the region, no wagering on old data or using data from states like Florida 

That's why I said states that have actual confirmed wolves.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.

They better get started.  Wolves have been around for quite a few years now and no one has been injured....

I think you are going to lose money on that bet Turkeyfeather

This thread started with a guy that was "treed" (i think he may have overreacted)  by wolves...how did it devolve into an argument over deer/car collisions?