The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”

[pianoman9701]

Actually A-bud the end results is about land, after the wolves ruin the hunting, ranching and make it undesirable for people to go camping or live in rural areas what will be left?

Hilarious!

Alaska has about 10,000 wolves and in the 30+ years I lived there I don't remember anyone who gave up camping because of them. In fact, I never heard anyone who went camping express a concern about them. And the hunting is pretty good. Especially if you get away from the crowds.

And Canada..... Canada has 50,000 to 60,000 wolves and not only do they camp up there, the hunting is pretty darn good, and there are successful ranches all over the place. Never heard of a person moving away from Canada because of wolves.

But keep up the funny stuff!

There are huge differences between wolves in AK and Canada, and anywhere in the lower 48, but specifically WA. The Canadian grey wolf is native to Canada and AK, not the lower 48. Even so, they have so many wolves that they're having control problems, especially in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. AK has also never been without wolves and the ungulate populations have grown used to them over many thousands of years. In addition, the human population densities of those areas are extremely tiny fractions of WA's. So, to say that you can go camping and hunting and running through the woods naked in those places, implying that it'll be the same here, is either completely naive or a straight out manipulation of the truth to push your own point.

Were the wolves to inhabit WA as they have the aforementioned areas to the north, it would probably take centuries for the entire ecosystem to balance in such a way as to bring back abundant ungulate populations as we now have. The pressure on ungulate populations during the interim is going to mean problems for us and the native wildlife. This is on top of the fact that we didn't need another apex predator in WA and that the wolf they chose was not the one which had been native. Add to that the disease problems associated with the Canadian wolves and their apparent propensity for mating with domestic canids, and you have an even larger mess.

You may argue that mixing things up for a couple of hundred years to eventually create natural balance which includes the Canadian grey wolf is the right thing to do. I would argue that we already had a good natural balance without introducing them and that this will hurt my opportunities to hunt and enjoy nature as I have my whole life. Selfish? Maybe. Were we hurting without the Canadian wolves 10 years ago? Definitely not. Do they belong in AK and northern Canada? Sure. Do they belong in WA with a population density of 100 times that of AK? Not a chance in hell.

[WAcoyotehunter]

No one is arguing that wolves can remain uncontrolled...  I think the point Sitka is making is that wolves (from Alaska or Washington) are not much of a threat to campers ect.... It's just more sensationalism from the rabidly anti wolf folks.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.

interesting idea... you might be right though.  I dont think I've seen too many wolfbait posts that talk about hunting.  And i cannot think of a singe hunting photo he has ever posted....
Wolfbait- do you hunt? Do you just hang out here to seek affirmation from otheramti wolf folks?  Honest question.

Thats quite the push back on a topic that you say is BS>I remember back in 09 you were defending the wolves and spouting more habitat then also. kind of funny how you don't defend the wolves now as you did then but are up in arms about the Wildlands Project, and of course you are back to discrediting the messenger instead debate. 

The wolf issue is not all about hunting, it will eventually affect everyone in some way. As far as whether I hunt or not, you have never taken an interest in the past, and I'm quite sure you don't really care now.

Is that you Spurs??? 

I hadn't really thought about it until Aspen brought it up.... ?  So, do you hunt much?  I can't imagine how you make time with all the effort you put into your wolf research and that big court case you were planning... We are all still waiting with bated breath for some news on that!

I still argue that more habitat, and better habitat will make more deer and elk, depsite wolf predation.  It's a pretty simple concept... think of the wilds as a cow pasture and deer or elk as your livestock... more and better grass+more acres=more area for cows   

easy enough right?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

No one is arguing that wolves can remain uncontrolled...  I think the point Sitka is making is that wolves (from Alaska or Washington) are not much of a threat to campers ect.... It's just more sensationalism from the rabidly anti wolf folks.

There you go.  That is the point.

[wolfbait]

Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

Conservation easements are an incredibly useful tool for protecting wildlife habitat while compensating willing land owners.  You've got to be a serious nutjob to see a whole lot of downside to conservation easements if you hunt.  If you are a large real-estate mogul however...they are the devil.

As I said, wolfbait does not care about hunting or any end to it. Neither do a lot of the people trying to lure hunters into the wolf debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.

If you got rid of the wolf today he and his like minded buddies would sell hunters out in a heartbeat if it benefited him.

This is about land and livestock. Not hunting.

interesting idea... you might be right though.  I dont think I've seen too many wolfbait posts that talk about hunting.  And i cannot think of a singe hunting photo he has ever posted....
Wolfbait- do you hunt? Do you just hang out here to seek affirmation from otheramti wolf folks?  Honest question.

Thats quite the push back on a topic that you say is BS>I remember back in 09 you were defending the wolves and spouting more habitat then also. kind of funny how you don't defend the wolves now as you did then but are up in arms about the Wildlands Project, and of course you are back to discrediting the messenger instead debate. 

The wolf issue is not all about hunting, it will eventually affect everyone in some way. As far as whether I hunt or not, you have never taken an interest in the past, and I'm quite sure you don't really care now.

Is that you Spurs??? 

I hadn't really thought about it until Aspen brought it up.... ?  So, do you hunt much?  I can't imagine how you make time with all the effort you put into your wolf research and that big court case you were planning... We are all still waiting with bated breath for some news on that!

I still argue that more habitat, and better habitat will make more deer and elk, depsite wolf predation.  It's a pretty simple concept... think of the wilds as a cow pasture and deer or elk as your livestock... more and better grass+more acres=more area for cows   

easy enough right?

"think of the wilds as a cow pasture and deer or elk as your livestock... more and better grass+more acres=more area for cows"

That would work out fine if the wolves weren't killing all my cows, but since the wolves have killed 3/4 of my cows I now have plenty of grass, and not enough cows. I don't need more habitat I need to kill a bunch of wolves.   Easy enough right?

So why are the environmentalists and WDFW buying up so much land?, it isn't because more habitat is needed, thanks to the protection of predators we now and will have far less ungulates and much more habitat.

[snowpack]

No one is arguing that wolves can remain uncontrolled...  I think the point Sitka is making is that wolves (from Alaska or Washington) are not much of a threat to campers ect.... It's just more sensationalism from the rabidly anti wolf folks.

But Washington has a small wolf population (only 52 according to WDFW) and there have been enough encounters to argue otherwise.
A hunter was almost attacked during the high hunt and had to shoot a wolf.
A hunter from this forum was chased by wolves when scouting for the high hunt.
A blogger was chased by wolves in the NE on his property.
A bowhunter was chased up a tree by wolves in the NE.
A lady had them follow her as she went to the mailbox at the end of her rural driveway.
Probably a few more cases I haven't heard of.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I'm surprised we haven't seen more pictures of all of your dead cattle.....

[pianoman9701]

No one is arguing that wolves can remain uncontrolled...  I think the point Sitka is making is that wolves (from Alaska or Washington) are not much of a threat to campers ect.... It's just more sensationalism from the rabidly anti wolf folks.

There you go.  That is the point.

My point is that with a population density of 1 person per sq mile in AK, the wolves have plenty of places to go so as not to interact with man. In WA that's not the case. The population density for WA is 100 ppl per sq mile and even in the infancy of the program, we're seeing plenty of human/wolf conflict. A lot of people are blaming those conflicts on the people, like ranchers who don't want to hire full time range riders or stop ranging on public land. I blame it on the fact that most of the area in WA is unsuitable for wolf habitat - not remote enough and way too populated.

[Longbowz]

Funny you don't hear about wolf attacks in Canada or Alaska very often.  Maybe because they aren't normally dangerous to humans.  Don't get me wrong this is in no way downgrading the need to control wolves in the lower 48 states.  Just don't try to make a wolf into  something it's not.  There's already enough fiction being spread on both sides of the debate.

[pianoman9701]

Funny you don't hear about wolf attacks in Canada or Alaska very often.  Maybe because they aren't normally dangerous to humans.  Don't get me wrong this is in no way downgrading the need to control wolves in the lower 48 states.  Just don't try to make a wolf into  something it's not.  There's already enough fiction being spread on both sides of the debate.

They have more room to live in No. Canada and AK, and don't need to come around man like they do here. Two completely different scenarios.

[wolfbait]

I'm surprised we haven't seen more pictures of all of your dead cattle.....

I was replying to your simple concept, but here's an example of raising cows where the USFWS and WDFS wolves end up. And of course there hasn't yet been a confirmed wolf kill in the Methow Valley.

[wolfbait]

Funny you don't hear about wolf attacks in Canada or Alaska very often.  Maybe because they aren't normally dangerous to humans.  Don't get me wrong this is in no way downgrading the need to control wolves in the lower 48 states.  Just don't try to make a wolf into  something it's not.  There's already enough fiction being spread on both sides of the debate.

They have more room to live in No. Canada and AK, and don't need to come around man like they do here. Two completely different scenarios.

Plus the fact that wolves are hunted and trapped along with arial gunning, even with these methods of control there have been several wolf human encounters in both Alaska and Canada. Now put wolves in a highly populated area such as WA and protect them above all else and the end results are wolves that have no respect for humans.

[wolfbait]

Funny you don't hear about wolf attacks in Canada or Alaska very often.  Maybe because they aren't normally dangerous to humans.  Don't get me wrong this is in no way downgrading the need to control wolves in the lower 48 states.  Just don't try to make a wolf into  something it's not.  There's already enough fiction being spread on both sides of the debate.

Wolf Attacks
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

[bobcat]

So... what exactly is the topic of this thread? I thought it was about the green scum but now we're talking about wolves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curly]

I think you have to go back to the original post.........it is posted under the wolf forum and the post was about wolves.  It kind of veered off a bit, like normal ........but pretty much is still on topic of the ESA.