Bowhunter chased up tree by wolves in GMU 121!

[pianoman9701]

In case there's been any ambiguity in my posts, we should be freed up to kill every one we come across.

[idahohuntr]

This is getting to the point of absurdity that I wonder why I even respond.  I hunt as much (if not more) than many on this site.  I have hunted all my life.  I am fortunate that I hunt multiple states every year...and I don't take it for granted.  Yes, I serve on the GMAC (like many other folks on this site).  I also volunteer significant time to RMEF (like others on this site who volunteer to many conservation organizations).  I am a former recipient of a Wildlife Leadership Award from RMEF.  I taught hunter and bowhunter ed in Idaho for 10+ years.  I have posts with pictures of deer and elk I have killed for petes sake.  So, while I agree just because somebody posts on the internet that they are this or that does not mean it is true...but for heavens sake...what more do you people need??  So, go ahead and ban me if you think im pulling off this elaborate scheme to portray myself as a hunter.  I have my views of how wildlife should be managed for the publics benefit and I share those opinions and discuss them with other hunters.  In the end though, these wildlife issues are not about me or any one person and it is a sad state of affairs that time is wasted on whether a particular person "hunts enough" or whatever to be allowed to share a view.  Focus on the issues and forget about the individuals.     

Well said Idahohntr 

With that I'll apologize for calling you a farce.   I also thank you for your effort and previous accomplishments.



Now, if you'll just listen...

  Water under the bridge.  And I apologize for any name calling I engaged in...I may not be completely innocent   

I do understand some of the frustration expressed about wolves and their potential impacts.  I did grow up in rural Idaho after all...in fact my dad would probably fall more in line with posts from KF and Bearpaw than mine!  I am at least encouraged that we all care enough to speak up on these issues.  And I also believe that even if we disagree on something like wolves...well, that doesn't mean we are sworn enemies.  We can still find lots of common ground and swap hunting stories/pics etc. or find things we think WDFW should do better.

Alright...enough philosophy from me, whose ball is it...wolf wackos or wolf lovers? and what quarter are we in?   

[bearpaw]

I don't think anyone was talking about banning you, IDhntr

I think my post a ways back was misunderstood, I was not specifying anyone, I was referring to people who are not hunters, who are imposters here for the sole purpose of furthering their wolf agenda, we all know we have had those types on this forum, anyone who is not an imposter and is a hunter is welcome as long as they follow the rules. 

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.

I do apologize to any hunters I have offended. 

[Don Fischer]

I like wolves. But there's a reason they were wiped out years ago. A super predator than when it get's hungry isn't choosy what it eats as long as its meat. They should be in the remotest parts of the country we could get them to, or probably best to eliminate them anywhere near civilization. When I would hear reports of wolves anywhere I would take my dogs out, I would avoid that place. I don't understand why people take that risk to their dogs. Down in Florida I understand hunter's duck dog's get taken by gators now and then. Why would someone put their dog in harms way, gator's or wolves, just to shoot a bird? If I ran into one where they were not reported to be, I would shoot it on sight. There is a reason they were shot out.

I think this wolf stuff started back in the 70's. I was in Montana then and a group from Idaho wanted Montana to re-introduce wolves. Montana declined and told them if they wanted wolves, re-introduce them in Idaho. As I understand it that is exactly where this problem came from, Idaho. Idiots went ahead and did it! I wonder how those same idiots would like to have some prehistoric meat eater's re-introduced? The best interest of wolves is served by not re-introducing them into civilized country.

[jackelope]

Like Bob33 pointed out, other members may not give their  if they think they will be labeled as wolf lovers.

I mostly refuse to engage in any wolf threads any longer because of past interactions on here that went down like this thread has. It's unfortunate that some people can't have a little different viewpoint on this topic without getting bashed, being referred to as a "wolfer", a wolf lover or being labeled as having a pro-wolf agenda.

That's all I'm going to say. Been there, done that.

[pianoman9701]

I don't see where this thread went that far south. The OP was relating a story about wolves treeing a hunter. People who don't see wolves as a threat took that as an opportunity to say how they thought the hunter was probably mistaken, without really knowing anything about the incident except that which was relayed by the OP. If you want to take the opposing view just because the OP is making a point about wolves becoming more aggressive here in WA, then expect some push back. And that's all it was. Put your big boy pants on or stay out of it. My 

[Northway]

I agree with pianoman. 

Wolves should not be protected in the NE corner.  (Actually, I don't want them protected anywhere in WA).  They should be treated like coyotes. 

Even if wolves were treated like Coyotes and shot 24/7 365 the population of wolves would not be significantly reduced.

Remember when WDFW said they killed the wedge wolf pack? 
I submitted proof just a few months later that that wasn't the case. 
WDFW has since changed their wording for those who caught it.   Now the official statement reads something like  "WDFW has removed "some" of the wedge wolf pack." 

It took WDFW a radio collar and helicopter to get the few wolves they did get,  the hunters they hired were unsuccessful even with a radio collar tracker at their disposal.

While I don't agree that wolves should be managed the same way as coyotes, David Mech himself has stated that wolf populations can sustain liberal hunting/trapping seasons without risk of extermination. There are biologists who disagree with that assertion, but I haven't seen a lot of examples of where it doesn't hold true. Here's Mech's quote from another blog:

++Dave Mech says:

September 8, 2012 at 11:15 am

This replies to WM’s Sept. 7: 3:36 pm question about how my views about wolves might have changed since the quoted material from my 1970 book “The Wolf.” The short answer, which I stated in some article since then was that the wolf haters have long ago been outshouted and outvoted and that the wolf’s long-term need is for the preservation of as much wild land as possible.

Without the widespread poisoning that originally wiped out wolves, the species can survive any kind of management by the states including Idaho’s, once their population has reached several hundred.

I have always tried to be as objective as possible about wolves and wolf management and not let my personal views get in the way of my professional views. When I challenge writings by others it is not because I disagree with their slants on wolves, but rather it is to correct what I believe is their mistaken assumptions, analyses, conclusions, or facts.

However, there is not time for me to keep up on these blogs, so this will have to be my last post.++

[AspenBud]

When I would hear reports of wolves anywhere I would take my dogs out, I would avoid that place. I don't understand why people take that risk to their dogs. Down in Florida I understand hunter's duck dog's get taken by gators now and then. Why would someone put their dog in harms way, gator's or wolves, just to shoot a bird?

I asked that question to a friend of mine, a grouse trialer, in the Midwest. His answer? "Bird dogs die." Some guys have a stronger stomach for risk than others and some simply accept that bird dogs have a risky job at the best of times.

Take this link for example...

https://www.gundogcentral.com/view_article.php?articleID=187&title=Congrautlations

As far as I know the dog mentioned there still runs in field trials where the bear attack happened and many other dogs still do. I would think twice after that, others would not.

I've seen others talk about their dogs getting chased back to the truck by wolves out there and find their dogs shaking under the truck or in their open dog box with wolf tracks all around the rig. They still go out and play the odds.

It's a different mindset, one I do not share.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Even though the NF system has curtailed logging and that hurts elk habitat, logging is more prevalent in NE WA due to the many state lands and private lands, there is ample opportunity for elk herds to grow significantly. The elk herds are small because WDFW had an either sex elk season whereby any elk seen during archery, muzzleloader, or rifle season was being shot for many years. This was the most liberal elk seasons in the entire state and WDFW readily stated they did not want elk herds to grow. Only recently since wolves have arrived and hunters were demanding better elk management has WDFW gone to bull-only in rifle and muzzleloader season in many NE units.

You are quite possibly right about the liberal hunting seasons keeping the herd small in NE Washington. The Lincoln Unit #501 in Western WA also suffers from the same liberal elk seasons.

[buckfvr]

Even though the NF system has curtailed logging and that hurts elk habitat, logging is more prevalent in NE WA due to the many state lands and private lands, there is ample opportunity for elk herds to grow significantly. The elk herds are small because WDFW had an either sex elk season whereby any elk seen during archery, muzzleloader, or rifle season was being shot for many years. This was the most liberal elk seasons in the entire state and WDFW readily stated they did not want elk herds to grow. Only recently since wolves have arrived and hunters were demanding better elk management has WDFW gone to bull-only in rifle and muzzleloader season in many NE units.

You are quite possibly right about the liberal hunting seasons keeping the herd small in NE Washington. The Lincoln Unit #501 in Western WA also suffers from the same liberal elk seasons.

Even though wdfw said it was at the request of the hunters for better future n.e.wa. opportunity, is was clearly in the interest of feeding the wolves.........and remains that way.   

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

You do realize that where there is agriculture, they don't want deer and elk as they destroy crops and in the case of elk, also knock down fences. You ought to see them trying to keep deer out of alfalfa fields. The farmers actually get paid for crop damages by the State, I believe. Agriculture is the reason for the liberal seasons on elk in 501 Lincoln and probably in NE Washington too. Some farmers actually hate elk as much as some of them hate wolves.

[buckfvr]

Add the timber companies to that........first thing up throught the snow in the spring ( in normal years ) is the tender tops of the reprod seedlings..........elk clobber the tops and kill the seedlings.

[AspenBud]

Add the timber companies to that........first thing up throught the snow in the spring ( in normal years ) is the tender tops of the reprod seedlings..........elk clobber the tops and kill the seedlings.

So do deer. I suspect the timber companies will stay quite silent on the issue.

[pianoman9701]

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.

You do realize that where there is agriculture, they don't want deer and elk as they destroy crops and in the case of elk, also knock down fences. You ought to see them trying to keep deer out of alfalfa fields. The farmers actually get paid for crop damages by the State, I believe. Agriculture is the reason for the liberal seasons on elk in 501 Lincoln and probably in NE Washington too. Some farmers actually hate elk as much as some of them hate wolves.

And yet the agriculture is not a recent occurrence. It's been around this state for some time. It's certainly not a catalyst for recent changes in ungulate populations such as the stemming of logging operations, (and already in some areas), the effects of wolves.

[KFhunter]

Like Bob33 pointed out, other members may not give their  if they think they will be labeled as wolf haters.

I mostly refuse to engage in any wolf threads any longer because of past interactions on here that went down like this thread has. It's unfortunate that some people can't have a little different viewpoint on this topic without getting bashed, being referred to as a "anti", a wolf hater or being labeled as having a anti-wolf agenda.

That's all I'm going to say. Been there, done that.

Hey,  I fixed it for you