Bowhunter chased up tree by wolves in GMU 121!

[pianoman9701]

I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.

Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......

That would be a very legitimate concern.

When I say protected, what I meant was that hunting would be severely limited from what it is now. Maybe protected isn't the correct term.

[stryker]

Had to jump right to the end, these 'Arguing in circles" threads are brutal.

If you don't want to pack when in the bush, your call. May not be smart, but its your call. Wolves are not the only critter out there that will cause you harm. Even if its no death, an injury can still ruin the next few months of your life. Just because the OP's friend went up a tree, means nothing.

I don't care what the threat is, its gonna get shot if it approaches me and all its little buddies will get the same treatment. Call it educating the pack or eliminating the threat. 

Its just easier to carry a couple pounds or protections than to wonder around thinking your some kind of Paul Bunyan bad ass.  Just sayin...

There is an obvious WANT to increase the wolf numbers by some officials, and they are getting their way. Nothing short of more negative human interactions will they even think of changing their minds. Im on the West Side, and spend a lot of time in the Snoqualmie area 10-20 miles out of town. I don't go out unarmed as a general rule, now with the Teanaway pack growing, maybe the West Side wolf lovers will get a clue.

[KFhunter]

I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.

Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......

That would be a very legitimate concern.

When I say protected, what I meant was that hunting would be severely limited from what it is now. Maybe protected isn't the correct term.

Not until I get over there and hunt one,  I've never hunted BT deer.  Not sure I've even seen one I do avoid that side of the state 
Oh and turkey slam.

[idahohuntr]

If Wolfbait wanted to say that wolves are exacerbating problems created as a result of poor deer/elk habitat I could buy into that. But to say that better and more habitat wouldn't change things is just downright wrong.

Poor and decreasing habitat is part of the problem. Very much so.

Couldn't Agree more.  The lolo zone in Idaho is a perfect example.  My family has been hunting there (until recently and with the exception of a few years in the early 1940's) since the early 1920's.  There have been boom and bust periods in that zone before.  The current situation is one of relatively poor habitat combined with substantial predators that are indeed exacerbating the problem. 

[pianoman9701]

Agreed, and until there are substantial changes to habitat, introducing additional predators is stupid.

[buckfvr]

Agreed, and until there are substantial changes to habitat, introducing additional predators is stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does...........its nothing new with these folks.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

According to this article Aspenbud, you're off. The increase in deer population is due to habitat changes created by the oil boom. The caribou are being killed off by the wolves.

An example this morning of a common blog attack is Cry Wolf: An Unethical Oil Story. DeSmogBlog. Carol Linnitt.

The facts are basically these. Note that this does not follow the exact  same logic as “Cry Wolf” above.  Alberta has already killed 500 wolves using poison bait and the entire array of methods that conservationist hate.  This includes strychnine which kills all the scavengers too. The planned wolf cull is to kill 6000 wolves over the next 5 years. Why? All the industrial activity in the northern forest creates deer habitat.  A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them.  Mountain caribou are also edible, but usually not bothered much by wolves due to their rarity.  However, the larger wolf population means more caribou get eaten as what we might call “by-catch,” to use a fishing example.  Mountain caribou can’t stand this pressure even though the absolute number of caribou killed is small.  So the big wolf killing program is the government-dirty oil complex’s effort to save the caribou."

"A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them." Not the other way around.

Your article is from someone hoping to shift the blame from industry to wolves as far as the woodland caribou go. Here's a paper on the real causes of decline. Most of it relates to human activity and development, predators are a side factor.

http://www.borealcanada.ca/pr/documents/IBCCcariboubackgrounder.pdf

Here are some relevant quotes.

"The expansion of cities and industrial development slowly extinguished southern populations to the point where today they have been wiped out of about 50% of their historical range, now almost exclusively occupying the northern, intact portions of the boreal forest. Their inability to coexist with extensive disturbances and need for older forests indicate that only by protecting remaining large, intact portions of their habitat will we be successful at reversing this troubling decline."

"Woodland caribou require large expanses of intact and undisturbed habitat."

"during the vulnerable calving period, females distribute themselves widely across the boreal landscape so that on average there is a one female per sixteen square kilometres."

"Predators such as wolves, bears, and hunters are often blamed for the woodland caribou’s decline, but predation is only a proximate cause. The ultimate causes of woodland caribou decline virtually all stem from the ramifications of industrial
natural resource development activities."

"Habitat loss from logging and other industrial activities poses by far the largest threat."

"Viable herds almost exclusively reside in regions with little to no disturbances, whereas extirpated or declining populations
are associated with high levels of human impact."

"While regulating hunting levels and predator control may be needed for some of the most threatened herds, it cannot overshadow the fact that habitat conservation and minimizing disturbances remain the only viable long-term measures for preserving woodland caribou."

So basically, those who want to tear up the habitat for resource extraction are the cause of the decline, but they are shifting the blame to predators so they don't take the heat.  Killing off predators is not going to bring woodland caribou back. That's just to take your eyes of the real problem. Woodland caribou require lots of 50 year old and older forest to have a chance.

The real sad part is, it's not just animals that are suffering because of the tar sands extraction, the area is causing the local humans to become ill too. That area is a hotbed for cancer and the local natives or first nations are getting involved with lawsuits and protests.

[WAcoyotehunter]

 

I tend to agree with that.  Now that the population is so low, EVERY impact is a serious one.  But caribou declined a hell of a long time before wolf recovery.

[pianoman9701]

Boreal Canada has its own agenda. I'm not saying that surface mining for oil is good for caribou. But, you present this in opposition to the other articles as if it's gospel. It's the opinions of an environmental organization and it's going to be slanted to that viewpoint.

[wolfbait]

you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.

Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.

Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html

[JLS]

you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.

Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.

Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html

So were the elk and bison I saw in YNP last winter really just a figment of my imagination?

[idahohuntr]

you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.

Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.

Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html

So were the elk and bison I saw in YNP last winter really just a figment of my imagination?

No, they were real.  You were able to see them because your tinfoil hat was not obstructing your view. 
 

[dis_pat_]

Yeah, sometimes I dislike being in the position I am in. Due to my job, I cannot quite say what I feel on this issue. At times I feel throttled or choked and cannot speak my mind.

I fully understand how folks would want to just knock them down and walk away.

It almost feels like we are waiting for a few sacrificial "lambs". A few citizens mauled or killed. Even after this occurs I am not convinced this will have the impact on public opinion about wolves.

I will not be the victim. I don't climb trees well and it will be showtime with lots of lead flying.

This is the USA.  We are supposed to have freedom of speech no matter what our jobs, unless the topic is proprietary employer information.

We've lost our freedom to speak already, due to fears of political correctness.

[wolfbait]

you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.

Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.

Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html

So were the elk and bison I saw in YNP last winter really just a figment of my imagination?

No, they were real.  You were able to see them because your tinfoil hat was not obstructing your view. 

Before the wolf introduction 19000 elk ranged in the Yellowstone now there are less than 4000. My guess is neither one of you are interested in the truth, you just want to push the more habitat BS.

 18 years of proof on the ground in three states, and many lies told by the USFWS, state game agencies, and David Mech have been exposed, and yet state game biologists are still trying to push the same lies. I guess if the lies are told enough times they will even believe it themselves…..

[KFhunter]

you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.

Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.

Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html

So were the elk and bison I saw in YNP last winter really just a figment of my imagination?

The Bison and Elk behave a lot like range cattle, something I know a little about. They stay down where it's safe. 

Wish I had you in the cab of my truck this fall I could have shown you some serious over grazing by cattle down low and near people and activity. 
As we head higher up you'll see the grasses go from nubs to 6 foot + high right in the ditches. It was fascinating to see the "no go" areas as cattle and wolf create their boundaries.  The area wasn't to permitted capacity either.

I talked with the range riders who would push the cattle back up higher only to have the wolves push them back down in a day or two.  It was a daily chore to get the cattle on feed, otherwise they'll hug the trucks, over graze a small area,  then bust off range and head home.


Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves, the park service will haze the wolves to keep them out of people areas creating safe zones where people view wildlife.  You didn't say if you hiked way back,  but I think a guy will only get a very small picture of the park from the blacktop and tourist areas.