Bowhunter chased up tree by wolves in GMU 121!

[JLS]

screw the livestock owners
screw the small herds of elk


Hey, as long as you got some Elk to chase around in Idaho right 

That's exactly the way the wolf lovers think, screw everyone else. The wolf lovers on this forum are no different, they will say anything to shift the blame of wolf impacts and distort the truth. Wolf groups fund their own biologists to help perpetuate their wolf propaganda and they have infiltrated F&G Depts and doing the same within F&G Depts. Unfortunately even some well-meaning hunters fall for the proganda and koolaid.

The fact is that many people in Idaho took wolf management into their own hands before there was ever any wolf season established. Otter was elected governor because he said he wanted the first wolf tag in Idaho. Then the governor of Idaho aided the people of Idaho in helping many of their big game herds by directing IDFG that they could not report wolf poachers to the feds. Wolves were shot on sight year around in many areas of Idaho and that slowed the growth of the wolf population in many areas. Anyone who doesn't believe what I say can go to any small town in Idaho and confirm the fact that locals readily say they have been killing wolves since before there were any wolf seasons in an effort to try and control them. Now with a wolf season and wolf trapping in place wolf populations are being somewhat controlled and this has really given some of the herds some relief from wolf predation. But wolf lovers will distort how wolf management has evolved and how it has really unfolded and they will try to say this is proof that wolves will not decimate herds. The real truth is that Idaho residents have been killing a lot of wolves for several years and this proves that wolves must be heavily managed (shot on sight year around) to help the big game herds. 

The wolf lovers will distort the truth and do anything to try and cover up the real life consequences of wolves. We've got a handful of these misled individuals on this forum who try to distort the facts and shift the blame to propogate wolves. Some of these individuals are probably not even hunters, they are likely wolf lovers posing as hunters.

Talk about spewing rubbish......

[AspenBud]

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

I''ll take this to mean that you can not refute that tar sands development has led to an increase in quality deer habitat which has led to a boom in deer numbers despite wolves.

It may have nothing to do with elk, but Wolfbait sure likes to cry about declining deer numbers around where he lives. I'd say my point is very relevant.

[AspenBud]

Not sure how you can make an argument about habitat when it's preserved

I might be misunderstanding you here, but just because land is "preserved" does not mean the habitat on it will not degrade without some form of intervention. A lot of people on the eco-nut side would like to just leave habitat alone and not do anything to it, much as they espouse a hands off approach to wolves. That has real impacts on game numbers, often not for the best. To deny that as Wolfbait does is just wrong. Wolves and other carnivores certainly compound the issue however. Roosevellt elk have taken a hit in recent years in some areas and logging restrictions have been directly attributed to that, not wolves. If/when wolves make their way over the mountains the problem will become even more obvious. Not that Wolfbait and his Sierra Club friends want to admit that.

[AspenBud]

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.

[Northway]

This topic is about a bow hunter friend who was recently forced up a tree for his own protection.

He found himself surrounded by howling wolves within 50 to 100 yards on both sides of him, given the wolf politics of Washington he did the smartest thing he could do, he climbed the tree as fast as he could for his own safety.

Wolves are a serious concern in NE Washington, I know several people who have had threatening encounters with wolves, this is an increasing problem that needs resolved. I don't appreciate the wolf lovers who try to derail this topic and shift the topic of discussion.

What exactly are you trying to prove by highlighting this threatening encounter? Is there anyone on this forum, even the folks you label "wolf lovers" who say that wolves in certain circumstances aren't a threat to people just like any other apex predator?

Are you trying to highlight the need for greater freedoms for folks to kill wolves if they feel threatened, or are you trying to prove that somehow wolves are substantially more dangerous than other apex predators?

[AspenBud]

Elk survival
depends primarily on
four factors: habitat
conditions, weather,
predation and hunter
harvest.

guess which one is most easily controlled?

Creating better habitat isn't terrifically hard and it can create jobs, it just takes time to grow. Finding and killing wolves is another story according to everyone here.

[sebek556]

This topic is about a bow hunter friend who was recently forced up a tree for his own protection.

He found himself surrounded by howling wolves within 50 to 100 yards on both sides of him, given the wolf politics of Washington he did the smartest thing he could do, he climbed the tree as fast as he could for his own safety.

Wolves are a serious concern in NE Washington, I know several people who have had threatening encounters with wolves, this is an increasing problem that needs resolved. I don't appreciate the wolf lovers who try to derail this topic and shift the topic of discussion.

What exactly are you trying to prove by highlighting this threatening encounter? Is there anyone on this forum, even the folks you label "wolf lovers" who say that wolves in certain circumstances aren't a threat to people just like any other apex predator?

Are you trying to highlight the need for greater freedoms for folks to kill wolves if they feel threatened, or are you trying to prove that somehow wolves are substantially more dangerous than other apex predators?

I would say yes, wolves are a more dangerous predator from my experience. I have hunted Alaska,wa,Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, Georgia. Homes to grizzlies, brown bears, polar bears, cougars, alligators and wolves. The only predator I have had stalk me was wolves. I have ran into other predators but none of the actively stalked me like the wolves did.

[AspenBud]

Wolves do kill people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have recently read letters written by wolf supporters who were obviously reared watching animal cartoons and movies about animals that depict them as if they were human. These people have no clue as to the reality of how and what predators do. Most predators do not "kill" their prey before they rip their victims apart—elk, deer, dogs or people.
Yes, wolves have and do kill people. If you research wolves on your computer, as I have, you will discover these facts about people killed by wolves:
France 1580-1830: 3,069 people.
Russia between 1840-1861: 169 children and 9 adults.
Kirvo Oblast, Russia, 1944-1950: 22 children.
India 1876: 721 people
1878: 624 people
1910 and 1915: 115 children
1980 and 1986: 122 children killed and 100 injured
1993-1995: 60 children
March 27,1996 - July 1 1996: 21 children killed and 16 mauled
This total Is 4,925 people killed by wolves, mostly children! These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. This is just from three countries. In India so many children have been taken by wolves that they have a phenomenon called "child lifting." Other European and Asian countries have records of people killed by wolves also.
So, I ask, is the shooting or trapping of wolves worse than the mauling and eating of our children? How many children do you think we should sacrifice to your wolf god? I pray to my god that you realize that the lives of people should always be put first.
JOHN GAITHER
President
Idaho County Sportsmen Club
Grangevile
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375

If you have to use statistics from outside of North America to back up your case you are most likely going to lose.

Russia alone also has about 25,000-30,000 wolves and the species there is not the same as what we have here. Russia also has a significantly higher population density that say, Canada. But Canada has about twice that number in North American gray wolves and Canada has about half the land that Russia has. If you compare statistics, the number of attacks is vastly different between the two.

[idahohuntr]

Is there anyone on this forum, even the folks you label "wolf lovers" who say that wolves in certain circumstances aren't a threat to people just like any other apex predator?

No. 

And I figured out what bp means by "wolf lover": someone who uses data and logic and supports science based wildlife management and conservation so future generations can also enjoy the hunting heritage. 

Its just such a foreign concept to folks that would prefer to manage wildlife like a herd of cattle and based entirely on emotions, fear, and severe paranoia of the government and their black helicopters. 

[wolfbait]

Wolves do kill people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have recently read letters written by wolf supporters who were obviously reared watching animal cartoons and movies about animals that depict them as if they were human. These people have no clue as to the reality of how and what predators do. Most predators do not "kill" their prey before they rip their victims apart—elk, deer, dogs or people.
Yes, wolves have and do kill people. If you research wolves on your computer, as I have, you will discover these facts about people killed by wolves:
France 1580-1830: 3,069 people.
Russia between 1840-1861: 169 children and 9 adults.
Kirvo Oblast, Russia, 1944-1950: 22 children.
India 1876: 721 people
1878: 624 people
1910 and 1915: 115 children
1980 and 1986: 122 children killed and 100 injured
1993-1995: 60 children
March 27,1996 - July 1 1996: 21 children killed and 16 mauled
This total Is 4,925 people killed by wolves, mostly children! These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. This is just from three countries. In India so many children have been taken by wolves that they have a phenomenon called "child lifting." Other European and Asian countries have records of people killed by wolves also.
So, I ask, is the shooting or trapping of wolves worse than the mauling and eating of our children? How many children do you think we should sacrifice to your wolf god? I pray to my god that you realize that the lives of people should always be put first.
JOHN GAITHER
President
Idaho County Sportsmen Club
Grangevile
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375

If you have to use statistics from outside of North America to back up your case you are most likely going to lose.

Russia alone also has about 25,000-30,000 wolves and the species there is not the same as what we have here. Russia also has a significantly higher population density that say, Canada. But Canada has about twice that number in North American gray wolves and Canada has about half the land that Russia has. If you compare statistics, the number of attacks is vastly different between the two.

The reason wolves killed so many people in these different countries is because the wolves were not hunted, these people had no guns to kill wolves with. Read the book, Wolves in Russia by Will Graves

Predators that are not hunted, become habitual to humans, in other wards they have no fear of humans. Ask MR Coyote.

[wolfbait]

Is there anyone on this forum, even the folks you label "wolf lovers" who say that wolves in certain circumstances aren't a threat to people just like any other apex predator?

No. 

And I figured out what bp means by "wolf lover": someone who uses data and logic and supports science based wildlife management and conservation so future generations can also enjoy the hunting heritage. 

Its just such a foreign concept to folks that would prefer to manage wildlife like a herd of cattle and based entirely on emotions, fear, and severe paranoia of the government and their black helicopters. 

Thanks KFHunter, I added one more.

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
b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit
c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands
d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands
e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter
f)  You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been
g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check
h)  You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned
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.
j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.
K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.

[pianoman9701]

Looks like a good list. 

I'm not sure that there are no wolf-loving hunters on this forum, but I would have to agree that t the very least, they're deluded.

[snowpack]

you can argue (a) on that list.  The population may not be what it once was, but with many of the elk being driven toward human settlement to escape wolves I've heard that the hunting in those areas has been more successful.  People have to spend less time in the field and have higher kill rates in spite of lower populations.

[AspenBud]

Wolves do kill people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have recently read letters written by wolf supporters who were obviously reared watching animal cartoons and movies about animals that depict them as if they were human. These people have no clue as to the reality of how and what predators do. Most predators do not "kill" their prey before they rip their victims apart—elk, deer, dogs or people.
Yes, wolves have and do kill people. If you research wolves on your computer, as I have, you will discover these facts about people killed by wolves:
France 1580-1830: 3,069 people.
Russia between 1840-1861: 169 children and 9 adults.
Kirvo Oblast, Russia, 1944-1950: 22 children.
India 1876: 721 people
1878: 624 people
1910 and 1915: 115 children
1980 and 1986: 122 children killed and 100 injured
1993-1995: 60 children
March 27,1996 - July 1 1996: 21 children killed and 16 mauled
This total Is 4,925 people killed by wolves, mostly children! These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. This is just from three countries. In India so many children have been taken by wolves that they have a phenomenon called "child lifting." Other European and Asian countries have records of people killed by wolves also.
So, I ask, is the shooting or trapping of wolves worse than the mauling and eating of our children? How many children do you think we should sacrifice to your wolf god? I pray to my god that you realize that the lives of people should always be put first.
JOHN GAITHER
President
Idaho County Sportsmen Club
Grangevile
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375

If you have to use statistics from outside of North America to back up your case you are most likely going to lose.

Russia alone also has about 25,000-30,000 wolves and the species there is not the same as what we have here. Russia also has a significantly higher population density that say, Canada. But Canada has about twice that number in North American gray wolves and Canada has about half the land that Russia has. If you compare statistics, the number of attacks is vastly different between the two.

The reason wolves killed so many people in these different countries is because the wolves were not hunted, these people had no guns to kill wolves with. Read the book, Wolves in Russia by Will Graves

Predators that are not hunted, become habitual to humans, in other wards they have no fear of humans. Ask MR Coyote.

Good thing we aren't those countries, have the right to bear arms, in many states have the right to shoot a wolf, and don't have the same sub species of wolf. Your comparison does not work. You have many other arguments to support your cause that are much more valid.

[AspenBud]

K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.

I don't think you need more (though who could argue with more public land to hunt on?)  I think the habitat you have is not as great as you think it is and wolves have walked in and proved it. Like I said, you're playing into the hands of groups like the Sierra Club who think nature should be left undisturbed. They don't think habitat needs to be improved or created either, that nature will sort it out.

In some ways you, groups like the Sierra Club, and people dead set against predator management are doing a very good job of ensuring mutually assured destruction of what you're trying to save. Enjoy the outcome.