Poachers more problematic than wolves?

[JLS]

Idaho budgeted 2 million bucks to "control wolves" on top of current hunting/trapping seasons.

Idaho COs have been on mileage restrictions for over a year now, according to one that I talked to recently down on the Clearwater.

I don't blame the COs for being irritated.

[AspenBud]

Wolves hunt year around, every day! How long before there will be any wolf control in WA? I ask Wacoyote and he didn't have an answer, do you DoW=ID

With people like you running around spewing garbage conspiracies and making hunters look like complete fools to non-hunting voters...I don't know if there will ever be a wolf season in Washington.   

My absurd guess was based on government documented statistics arrived upon by researchers investigating wolf kills. Like it or not, those numbers were not a guess, they are a statistical fact. Wolves in the study killed on average the equivalency of 17 elk or 44 deer per year.

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT! 

Oh, so now you are willing to trust the governments numbers eh?  The government can't count how many wolves there are but when they report how many deer and elk are killed they are "GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT"   

Anyways, I'm going to stick with info. being reported by the guys in the article...not you internet research/armchair biologist folks.  I also do not see this article as downplaying wolf effects in any way...its just pointing out very correctly how people "blow a gasket" about wolves but not so much when it comes to poaching.  The majority of the responses in this thread just further validate the points made by these great officers.

Where do you get off,Everyone on this forum blows a gasket,boils over,when poaching is even mentioned.Poachers are held to a much lower regard than wolves on this forum.You sir are speaking out of both sides of your face,Poachers are garbage and should not be protected in any way,Wolves are hazardous to our herds and should be limited enough to stop detrimental damage to the herds while being protected from extinction.Do you get that now,what is being said by me now.I have not seen any where on this forum that all wolves across this state should be killed,I have not read anywhere on this forum anyone defending poachers either. 

Almost true,  read the wolf poaching threads with polls.  80% +/- supported wolf poaching.

Indeed

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,105968.0/nowap.html

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,148084.0.html

[bearpaw]

Idaho budgeted 2 million bucks to "control wolves" on top of current hunting/trapping seasons.

Idaho COs have been on mileage restrictions for over a year now, according to one that I talked to recently down on the Clearwater.

I don't blame the COs for being irritated.

The biggest reason Idaho has limited funding is due to wolf impacts. Hunters don't see many elk anymore in numerous wolf impacted zones, so many hunters quit hunting Idaho and western Montana. Meanwhile states with no wolves sell out of elk tags. I have Idaho and Montana residents calling me to hunt in Utah or eastern Montana because their favorite hunting areas in Idaho and western Montana are wiped out, many hunters say all they see is wolves in some areas now.

Wolf control is the smartest move Idaho could make. For each wolf taken out there will be 44 less deer or 17 less elk eaten by wolves. That is money very well invested with a great return potential. Of course I expect the wolf lovers to complain and say it's not true. But it's hard to argue with the math when you figure how much hunters spend and how massive the wolf impacts have been in many areas.

In a few years we'll likely see the same scenario in Washington, WDFW will be lacking funding if wolves impact herds and many hunters will quit buying hunting licenses. Then WDFW will have to spend needed money on some form of wolf control just like they have already had to do in the wedge due to wolves killing cattle.

[Skyvalhunter]

Not to say there aren't poachers there but I am sure this is partly propaganda from the wolf hugging community

[idahohuntr]

Not to say there aren't poachers there but I am sure this is partly propaganda from the wolf hugging community

The quotes and information for the basis of the article comes from lifelong hunters...to attribute any of it to "propaganda from the wolf hugging community" is ridiculous.   

But you certainly are sticking to the wolf nutjob script of "If anyone says any factor besides wolves cause deer and elk mortality they are a wolf hugger" 

[pianoman9701]

Not to say there aren't poachers there but I am sure this is partly propaganda from the wolf hugging community

The quotes and information for the basis of the article comes from lifelong hunters...to attribute any of it to "propaganda from the wolf hugging community" is ridiculous.   

But you certainly are sticking to the wolf nutjob script of "If anyone says any factor besides wolves cause deer and elk mortality they are a wolf hugger" 

I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.

[bearpaw]

Not to say there aren't poachers there but I am sure this is partly propaganda from the wolf hugging community

The quotes and information for the basis of the article comes from lifelong hunters...to attribute any of it to "propaganda from the wolf hugging community" is ridiculous.   

But you certainly are sticking to the wolf nutjob script of "If anyone says any factor besides wolves cause deer and elk mortality they are a wolf hugger" 

I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.

piano you hit the nail on the head.... 

[JLS]

Idaho budgeted 2 million bucks to "control wolves" on top of current hunting/trapping seasons.

Idaho COs have been on mileage restrictions for over a year now, according to one that I talked to recently down on the Clearwater.

I don't blame the COs for being irritated.

The biggest reason Idaho has limited funding is due to wolf impacts. Hunters don't see many elk anymore in numerous wolf impacted zones, so many hunters quit hunting Idaho and western Montana. Meanwhile states with no wolves sell out of elk tags. I have Idaho and Montana residents calling me to hunt in Utah or eastern Montana because their favorite hunting areas in Idaho and western Montana are wiped out, many hunters say all they see is wolves in some areas now.

Wolf control is the smartest move Idaho could make. For each wolf taken out there will be 44 less deer or 17 less elk eaten by wolves. That is money very well invested with a great return potential. Of course I expect the wolf lovers to complain and say it's not true. But it's hard to argue with the math when you figure how much hunters spend and how massive the wolf impacts have been in many areas.

In a few years we'll likely see the same scenario in Washington, WDFW will be lacking funding if wolves impact herds and many hunters will quit buying hunting licenses. Then WDFW will have to spend needed money on some form of wolf control just like they have already had to do in the wedge due to wolves killing cattle.

....all of which has nothing really to do with the article.

Go back and read it with an open mind, particularly the quote about "not an attempt to downplay wolves".  Rather, they are simply trying to put into perspective the impact that poaching has and how little attention people pay to it. 

The opinions and quotes on here very much reinforce the point the COs were trying to make.  I'm sure it's all part of the grand attempt to cover everything up.

[idahohuntr]

:

I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.

 
You guys crack me up...you talk like anyone with any real decision making authority even reads stuff on this forum.  I assure you they do not...particularly decision makers outside of Washington State.  But mostly you continue to prove exactly what is in the article...people blow a gasket over wolves, they want control boards, increased funding, action plans to reduce wolf numbers, they want it discussed at every commission meeting, they vote for politicians that play the anti-wolf card etc.  However, if anybody mentions other limiting factors like poaching, habitat, whatever...its "a deflection to take the heat off wolves"    :chuckle  You are well trained lemmings I will give you that...watch out for the cliff       

PS - I posted it in the wolf section because the major point of the article related to wolf vs. poaching impacts to ungulates in N-C Idaho.  But I'm sure you can spin that into some kind of secret conspiracy led by DOW/CNW to throw you guys off...good thing you are so clever and caught on before total damage was done 

[pianoman9701]

:

I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.

 
You guys crack me up...you talk like anyone with any real decision making authority even reads stuff on this forum.  I assure you they do not...particularly decision makers outside of Washington State.  But mostly you continue to prove exactly what is in the article...people blow a gasket over wolves, they want control boards, increased funding, action plans to reduce wolf numbers, they want it discussed at every commission meeting, they vote for politicians that play the anti-wolf card etc.  However, if anybody mentions other limiting factors like poaching, habitat, whatever...its "a deflection to take the heat off wolves"    :chuckle  You are well trained lemmings I will give you that...watch out for the cliff       

PS - I posted it in the wolf section because the major point of the article related to wolf vs. poaching impacts to ungulates in N-C Idaho.  But I'm sure you can spin that into some kind of secret conspiracy led by DOW/CNW to throw you guys off...good thing you are so clever and caught on before total damage was done 

If you don't like what's posted or think it's stupid for us to discuss the incredible damage wolves are doing and will continue to do, please feel free to stop posting in this forum. We'll figure out a way to recover from the loss.

[cougarbart]

the only variable idahohunter that i have is did poaching just start up in 1995? My guess being around n-c idaho the last 40 years is that what the game dept. classifies as poaching has been going on in the regions for 100 years but now all of a sudden it has a big effect on the ungulate herd? I understand that yes it sounds like we only blame the wolf and there are alot of varibles in the equation, but the only new varible is the wolf so that has to be a huge factor!

[singleshot12]

You guys crack me up...you talk like anyone with any real decision making authority even reads stuff on this forum.  I assure you they do not...particularly decision makers outside of Washington State.  But mostly you continue to prove exactly what is in the article...people blow a gasket over wolves, they want control boards, increased funding, action plans to reduce wolf numbers, they want it discussed at every commission meeting, they vote for politicians that play the anti-wolf card etc.  However, if anybody mentions other limiting factors like poaching, habitat, whatever...its "a deflection to take the heat off wolves"    :chuckle  You are well trained lemmings I will give you that...watch out for the cliff       

PS - I posted it in the wolf section because the major point of the article related to wolf vs. poaching impacts to ungulates in N-C Idaho.  But I'm sure you can spin that into some kind of secret conspiracy led by DOW/CNW to throw you guys off...good thing you are so clever and caught on before total damage was done 

A differant perspective and a very good point,totally agree

[Special T]

The presence of wolves MAGNIFIES the problems with poatchers. Any time you have a Shrinking resource, with no reasonable ways to slow the shrinkage people will always turn to fighting for thier slice of the pie...

The real solution is to axe lots of predators to help the problem. I think its interesting because ID has slowly moved tword longer seasons and more liberal guidelines and it has not helped them recover.

[bearpaw]

Idaho budgeted 2 million bucks to "control wolves" on top of current hunting/trapping seasons.

Idaho COs have been on mileage restrictions for over a year now, according to one that I talked to recently down on the Clearwater.

I don't blame the COs for being irritated.

The biggest reason Idaho has limited funding is due to wolf impacts. Hunters don't see many elk anymore in numerous wolf impacted zones, so many hunters quit hunting Idaho and western Montana. Meanwhile states with no wolves sell out of elk tags. I have Idaho and Montana residents calling me to hunt in Utah or eastern Montana because their favorite hunting areas in Idaho and western Montana are wiped out, many hunters say all they see is wolves in some areas now.

Wolf control is the smartest move Idaho could make. For each wolf taken out there will be 44 less deer or 17 less elk eaten by wolves. That is money very well invested with a great return potential. Of course I expect the wolf lovers to complain and say it's not true. But it's hard to argue with the math when you figure how much hunters spend and how massive the wolf impacts have been in many areas.

In a few years we'll likely see the same scenario in Washington, WDFW will be lacking funding if wolves impact herds and many hunters will quit buying hunting licenses. Then WDFW will have to spend needed money on some form of wolf control just like they have already had to do in the wedge due to wolves killing cattle.

....all of which has nothing really to do with the article.

Go back and read it with an open mind, particularly the quote about "not an attempt to downplay wolves".  Rather, they are simply trying to put into perspective the impact that poaching has and how little attention people pay to it. 

The opinions and quotes on here very much reinforce the point the COs were trying to make.  I'm sure it's all part of the grand attempt to cover everything up.

   As easily as they made their statement "not an attempt to downplay wolves", I can make the statement "not an attempt to downplay poaching." Facts are facts, wolves kill more than poachers and it's documented. When you have a valid argument and something more than here say please enlighten us. 

[JLS]

As much as you'd like to report your numbers as "fact", here's the problem.  The article does not reference a defined geographical area, and as such you have no definitive population number.

So, at the end of the day, your "documented fact" is nothing more than an estimate, just like the COs estimate of the number of poached animals.