Bowhunter chased up tree by wolves in GMU 121!

[idahohuntr]

The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.

Yea...I don't equate wolves to psychopathic people who murder humans for pleasure.   

[KFhunter]

The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.

Yea...I don't equate wolves to psychopathic people who murder humans for pleasure.   

http://www.ktvb.com/news/Wolves-kill-176-sheep-near-Victor-greatest-loss-recorded-in-Idaho-220371911.html

Out of those 176 sheep one was partially consumed.



They could have snagged one sheep and been done with it, like a Cougar would do - but no they had to push them to pile into a giant mound.

 

[pianoman9701]

The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.

Yea...I don't equate wolves to psychopathic people who murder humans for pleasure.   

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? It's because unlike the others, they do enjoy killing for fun - like a psychopath, and because of their size and they way they coordinate their attacks, they're extra dangerous. They don't belong here with us. They belong, if anywhere, in the far reaches, far away from civilized populations. The people who are pushing for their comeback everywhere are extremists posing as naturalists. They want animals first at any price. It's wrong to do this.

[turkeyfeather]

Wolves are capable of killing people.  No doubt about it.  My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun.  However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. 

What a load of el torro caca! 

[KFhunter]

Wolves are capable of killing people.  No doubt about it.  My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun.  However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. 

What a load of el torro caca! 

Well he's got a point statistically speaking,  he's much more likely to fall from his tree stand or get lost and die in the elements.  There's millions of ways to die while hunting and wolves are very far down that list.  I think it's incredibly selfish to not carry a handgun though.


I think it is unconscionable to have a wolf encounter end with a favorable outcome to the wolves.

If someone is camping and the wolf is allowed to rummage through a cooler, then next time it might be biting some passed out teen's head.
If a wolf is prey testing and you fail to educate the wolf/s terminally, then next time it might be a school teacher unable to defend herself as she's jogging down a road.

It is our duty to educate wolves since we are the ones out in the woods and armed, we must not let wolves loose fear or humans or worse associate us with food or prey. 

I'm against shooting wolves 1000 yards away without a valid tag in your pocket,  just as I'm against shooting a wolf that turns inside out trying to flee if you "bumped noses" on a trail somewhere unless you have a tag in your pocket.   

But to let an aggressive wolf run you up a tree/truck/camper or take your dog is unconscionable.   We need to all be packing a handgun in wolf country and we need to be terminating any wolf that fails to flee immediately once your presence is known to them.  To do otherwise is self centered, selfish and creating a worse problem for someone else down the road.
 
I understand in this thread the person did not see the wolves but I'm talking general terms.

[furiouzgeorge]

Wolves are capable of killing people.  No doubt about it.  My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun.  However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. 

What a load of el torro caca! 

Well he's got a point statistically speaking,  he's much more likely to fall from his tree stand or get lost and die in the elements.  There's millions of ways to die while hunting and wolves are very far down that list.  I think it's incredibly selfish to not carry a handgun though.


I think it is unconscionable to have a wolf encounter end with a favorable outcome to the wolves.

If someone is camping and the wolf is allowed to rummage through a cooler, then next time it might be biting some passed out teen's head.
If a wolf is prey testing and you fail to educate the wolf/s terminally, then next time it might be a school teacher unable to defend herself as she's jogging down a road.

It is our duty to educate wolves since we are the ones out in the woods and armed, we must not let wolves loose fear or humans or worse associate us with food or prey. 

I'm against shooting wolves 1000 yards away without a valid tag in your pocket,  just as I'm against shooting a wolf that turns inside out trying to flee if you "bumped noses" on a trail somewhere unless you have a tag in your pocket.   

But to let an aggressive wolf run you up a tree/truck/camper or take your dog is unconscionable.   We need to all be packing a handgun in wolf country and we need to be terminating any wolf that fails to flee immediately once your presence is known to them.  To do otherwise is self centered, selfish and creating a worse problem for someone else down the road.
 
I understand in this thread the person did not see the wolves but I'm talking general terms.

  Thanks for putting it better than I could! 

[KFhunter]

I just think it's a very dangerous rumor to spread that you're more likely to be hit by lightning that be bitten by a wolf even if it is true.  If the pro-wolf people were smart they'd see the danger in this as well. 

To allow a wolf to "get away with it" by either not being armed or climbing a tree to safety as they howl 50 feet away is bad for people on both sides of the fence.  As more and more stories of wolf conflict with humans surfaces the less tolerance people will have for them, naturally. 

So while I'm all for less tolerance for wolves    I also don't think it's right that some innocent could get hurt next.

This really is the most pathetic thread I've seen here.  Good grief, some of you must be afraid of your own shadows.

Wolves are capable of killing people.  No doubt about it.  My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun.  However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. 

The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.

Yea...I don't equate wolves to psychopathic people who murder humans for pleasure.   

[JLS]

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.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

 

The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.

Eye rolls indeed.

That's about what I'd expect on this thread. Except you're comparing apples to horse apples. By your logic, because of the green River Killer and other serial killers, we need to kill off and "control" all human beings.

No, the right way is to take out the ones causing trouble and  keep the rest trimmed to a reasonable sustaining population.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Come to think of it, you could be right BP. You're way more likely to be killed by another human out hunting than by a wolf. And you're more likely to catch some serious disease from another human.

[huntnnw]

we listened to wolves on a 6 mile hike out in the dark in Hells canyon this year they were under 200 yards..the trail was trampled in wolf tracks..they would follow the stock in every day

[KFhunter]

No, the right way is to take out the ones causing trouble and  keep the rest trimmed to a reasonable sustaining population.

I won't speak for Bearpaw, but I do believe that's his desire as well.  You and I may argue somewhat on what "reasonable" means though 


I guess my work here is done 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I think it is unconscionable to have a wolf encounter end with a favorable outcome to the wolves.

But to let an aggressive wolf run you up a tree/truck/camper or take your dog is unconscionable.   We need to all be packing a handgun in wolf country and we need to be terminating any wolf that fails to flee immediately once your presence is known to them.  To do otherwise is self centered, selfish and creating a worse problem for someone else down the road.
 
I understand in this thread the person did not see the wolves but I'm talking general terms.

The person this thread is about wasn't chased up a tree by the wolves, but by his own fear. He had a pistol too.

And how was the outcome favorable to the wolves? As far as I can see it was a neutral outcome. For all we know, these wolves may not have even known this guy was shivering in a tree.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

[turkeyfeather]

Wolves are capable of killing people.  No doubt about it.  My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun.  However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. 

What a load of el torro caca! 

Well he's got a point statistically speaking,  he's much more likely to fall from his tree stand or get lost and die in the elements.  There's millions of ways to die while hunting and wolves are very far down that list.  I think it's incredibly selfish to not carry a handgun though.


I think it is unconscionable to have a wolf encounter end with a favorable outcome to the wolves.

If someone is camping and the wolf is allowed to rummage through a cooler, then next time it might be biting some passed out teen's head.
If a wolf is prey testing and you fail to educate the wolf/s terminally, then next time it might be a school teacher unable to defend herself as she's jogging down a road.

It is our duty to educate wolves since we are the ones out in the woods and armed, we must not let wolves loose fear or humans or worse associate us with food or prey. 

I'm against shooting wolves 1000 yards away without a valid tag in your pocket,  just as I'm against shooting a wolf that turns inside out trying to flee if you "bumped noses" on a trail somewhere unless you have a tag in your pocket.   

But to let an aggressive wolf run you up a tree/truck/camper or take your dog is unconscionable.   We need to all be packing a handgun in wolf country and we need to be terminating any wolf that fails to flee immediately once your presence is known to them.  To do otherwise is self centered, selfish and creating a worse problem for someone else down the road.
 
I understand in this thread the person did not see the wolves but I'm talking general terms.

Well said.