Lawsuit: Timber sale threatens den where Oregon's wandering wolf has settled to

[idahohuntr]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000

A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only.   (example)

Wolves reduce hunter opportunity.  I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.

Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).

I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite"    I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite.  My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue.  I think it's closer to elite than not.  Maybe Shockey would yawn 

I am an outfitter and part of my living comes from packing in drop campers to hunt in roadless areas. I agree that it's great that we have those areas, but I have to agree with KFhunter that there is an "elitist" attitude similar to the type of attitude you see with purist fly fishers who look down on other fishers, that you aren't really hunting unless you carry a backpack and hike 10 miles in to hunt. Anyone who can't do that is somehow less of a hunter and did not deserve the animals they have taken.

Most hunters do not have the luxury of owning horses, they are simply out of reach for many hunters and many simply cannot hike 10 or 20 miles with a backpack to recreate. One of the primary reasons I am opposed to expanding wilderness, it will force even more people into already crowded areas with easier access. We have a pretty good balance if we don't go too far one way.

In all my years hunting I can not think of a single incident where anyone I ever ran into in the wilderness displayed an elitist attitude because they were hunting in the wilderness.  I have run across the occasional snobby fly fisherman, usually the guys who flew into the Middle Fork Salmon Basin and felt they owned the river...but never have I encountered someone in a wilderness area that suggested or had a tone in their voice that they were better than any other hunter.  To the contrary, I have run into a few folks on more accessible public land who are extremely disrespectful and full of attitude when it comes to hunting.    When I go hunt the Wenaha East in the wilderness this fall with my in-laws who drew a quality bull tag I will keep an eye out for these elitists...maybe mtncook has run across these guys...I sure haven't...nothing but absolutely stand up people that I've ever encountered.

I do consider it extraordinarily offensive for KF to suggest that I am or come from a family who is "elitist" because we have hunted wilderness areas.  Its hard work to hunt wilderness areas, a lot more work than hunting more accessible public ground...just because someone has a desire to hunt those areas does not mean they are elitist...we all have different reasons for hunting where and when we do...I see no value in judging where and when others want to hunt...never have, never will...but apparently some feel it is their prerogative to pass judgement about someone based on where they might have hunted.  Sad. 

[bearpaw]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000

A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only.   (example)

Wolves reduce hunter opportunity.  I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.

Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).

I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite"    I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite.  My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue.  I think it's closer to elite than not.  Maybe Shockey would yawn 

I am an outfitter and part of my living comes from packing in drop campers to hunt in roadless areas. I agree that it's great that we have those areas, but I have to agree with KFhunter that there is an "elitist" attitude similar to the type of attitude you see with purist fly fishers who look down on other fishers, that you aren't really hunting unless you carry a backpack and hike 10 miles in to hunt. Anyone who can't do that is somehow less of a hunter and did not deserve the animals they have taken.

Most hunters do not have the luxury of owning horses, they are simply out of reach for many hunters and many simply cannot hike 10 or 20 miles with a backpack to recreate. One of the primary reasons I am opposed to expanding wilderness, it will force even more people into already crowded areas with easier access. We have a pretty good balance if we don't go too far one way.

In all my years hunting I can not think of a single incident where anyone I ever ran into in the wilderness displayed an elitist attitude because they were hunting in the wilderness.  I have run across the occasional snobby fly fisherman, usually the guys who flew into the Middle Fork Salmon Basin and felt they owned the river...but never have I encountered someone in a wilderness area that suggested or had a tone in their voice that they were better than any other hunter.  To the contrary, I have run into a few folks on more accessible public land who are extremely disrespectful and full of attitude when it comes to hunting.    When I go hunt the Wenaha East in the wilderness this fall with my in-laws who drew a quality bull tag I will keep an eye out for these elitists...maybe mtncook has run across these guys...I sure haven't...nothing but absolutely stand up people that I've ever encountered.

I do consider it extraordinarily offensive for KF to suggest that I am or come from a family who is "elitist" because we have hunted wilderness areas.  Its hard work to hunt wilderness areas, a lot more work than hunting more accessible public ground...just because someone has a desire to hunt those areas does not mean they are elitist...we all have different reasons for hunting where and when we do...I see no value in judging where and when others want to hunt...never have, never will...but apparently some feel it is their prerogative to pass judgement about someone based on where they might have hunted.  Sad.

I have met a few hunters in the wilderness that exhibited some attitude, but the worst I've seen are hikers near MT Baker that seemed to think they own the wilderness and have told me hunters should not be there. I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.

If you are saying you don't see yourself as better than other hunters and have not commented in that way then some of your posts and comments about other hunters, about outfitters, and about certain persons being liars, may have come across the wrong way. 

[idahohuntr]

I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.

Well, I can't speak to your vague reference of past comments where elitist attitudes have been implied by apparent unnamed wilderness users. All I see in this thread is someone saying that I look down on overweight, disabled, and elderly people because I have hunted in the wilderness and don't think it is a place reserved for the elite.  I'm not going to sugar coat it, it is a downright offensive lie to suggest I look down on disabled folks when probably the strongest influence on my hunting ambitions as a youngster was my disabled grandpa who lost a great deal of mobility serving his country in WWII.  To suggest I don't think disabled or elderly people or whoever "deserve" to hunt the same places I do...what an absolutely sick joke. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000

A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only.   (example)

Wolves reduce hunter opportunity.  I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.

Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).

I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite"    I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite.  My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue.  I think it's closer to elite than not.  Maybe Shockey would yawn 

I am an outfitter and part of my living comes from packing in drop campers to hunt in roadless areas. I agree that it's great that we have those areas, but I have to agree with KFhunter that there is an "elitist" attitude similar to the type of attitude you see with purist fly fishers who look down on other fishers, that you aren't really hunting unless you carry a backpack and hike 10 miles in to hunt. Anyone who can't do that is somehow less of a hunter and did not deserve the animals they have taken.

Most hunters do not have the luxury of owning horses, they are simply out of reach for many hunters and many simply cannot hike 10 or 20 miles with a backpack to recreate. One of the primary reasons I am opposed to expanding wilderness, it will force even more people into already crowded areas with easier access. We have a pretty good balance if we don't go too far one way.

In all my years hunting I can not think of a single incident where anyone I ever ran into in the wilderness displayed an elitist attitude because they were hunting in the wilderness.  I have run across the occasional snobby fly fisherman, usually the guys who flew into the Middle Fork Salmon Basin and felt they owned the river...but never have I encountered someone in a wilderness area that suggested or had a tone in their voice that they were better than any other hunter.  To the contrary, I have run into a few folks on more accessible public land who are extremely disrespectful and full of attitude when it comes to hunting.    When I go hunt the Wenaha East in the wilderness this fall with my in-laws who drew a quality bull tag I will keep an eye out for these elitists...maybe mtncook has run across these guys...I sure haven't...nothing but absolutely stand up people that I've ever encountered.

I do consider it extraordinarily offensive for KF to suggest that I am or come from a family who is "elitist" because we have hunted wilderness areas.  Its hard work to hunt wilderness areas, a lot more work than hunting more accessible public ground...just because someone has a desire to hunt those areas does not mean they are elitist...we all have different reasons for hunting where and when we do...I see no value in judging where and when others want to hunt...never have, never will...but apparently some feel it is their prerogative to pass judgement about someone based on where they might have hunted.  Sad.

THIS fits in well in liberal America...


"I do consider it extraordinarily offensive for KF to suggest that I am or come from a family who is "elitist" because we have hunted wilderness areas.  Its hard work to hunt wilderness areas, a lot more work than hunting more accessible public ground"


 First claim to be offended ..........then prove the offender was right

[bearpaw]

I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.

Well, I can't speak to your vague reference of past comments where elitist attitudes have been implied by apparent unnamed wilderness users. All I see in this thread is someone saying that I look down on overweight, disabled, and elderly people because I have hunted in the wilderness and don't think it is a place reserved for the elite.  I'm not going to sugar coat it, it is a downright offensive lie to suggest I look down on disabled folks when probably the strongest influence on my hunting ambitions as a youngster was my disabled grandpa who lost a great deal of mobility serving his country in WWII.  To suggest I don't think disabled or elderly people or whoever "deserve" to hunt the same places I do...what an absolutely sick joke.

No joke, but I think you are mistaken, please read my post again, I didn't specify anyone in my post, I was referencing various comments I've seen about lazy overweight hunters and other degrading comments that I considered distasteful. There definitely appears to be a failure of consideration for the consequences to the elderly and handicapped when the wilderness advocates rail to create more wilderness in areas currently road accessible by the elderly and handicapped, don't you agree with that? Have you seen any mention of that lost opportunity?

Unless you've made those types of comments about hunters or unless you've failed to consider the loss of opportunity to the elderly and handicapped, then you appear to be taking my generalized comment way too personal. Please read my post again, thanks.

[idahohuntr]

I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.

Well, I can't speak to your vague reference of past comments where elitist attitudes have been implied by apparent unnamed wilderness users. All I see in this thread is someone saying that I look down on overweight, disabled, and elderly people because I have hunted in the wilderness and don't think it is a place reserved for the elite.  I'm not going to sugar coat it, it is a downright offensive lie to suggest I look down on disabled folks when probably the strongest influence on my hunting ambitions as a youngster was my disabled grandpa who lost a great deal of mobility serving his country in WWII.  To suggest I don't think disabled or elderly people or whoever "deserve" to hunt the same places I do...what an absolutely sick joke.

No joke, but I think you are mistaken, please read my post again, I didn't specify anyone in my post, I was referencing various comments I've seen about lazy overweight hunters and other degrading comments that I considered distasteful. There definitely appears to be a failure of consideration for the consequences to the elderly and handicapped when the wilderness advocates rail to create more wilderness in areas currently road accessible by the elderly and handicapped, don't you agree with that? Have you seen any mention of that lost opportunity?

Unless you've made those types of comments about hunters or unless you've failed to consider the loss of opportunity to the elderly and handicapped, then you appear to be taking my generalized comment way too personal. Please read my post again, thanks.

Not your post bearpaw...KFs.  We were not discussing expanding wilderness areas...merely that I set foot to hunt in wilderness and did not think of it as being elitist...that somehow meant I looked down on elderly, disabled people. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.

Well, I can't speak to your vague reference of past comments where elitist attitudes have been implied by apparent unnamed wilderness users. All I see in this thread is someone saying that I look down on overweight, disabled, and elderly people because I have hunted in the wilderness and don't think it is a place reserved for the elite.  I'm not going to sugar coat it, it is a downright offensive lie to suggest I look down on disabled folks when probably the strongest influence on my hunting ambitions as a youngster was my disabled grandpa who lost a great deal of mobility serving his country in WWII.  To suggest I don't think disabled or elderly people or whoever "deserve" to hunt the same places I do...what an absolutely sick joke.

No joke, but I think you are mistaken, please read my post again, I didn't specify anyone in my post, I was referencing various comments I've seen about lazy overweight hunters and other degrading comments that I considered distasteful. There definitely appears to be a failure of consideration for the consequences to the elderly and handicapped when the wilderness advocates rail to create more wilderness in areas currently road accessible by the elderly and handicapped, don't you agree with that? Have you seen any mention of that lost opportunity?

Unless you've made those types of comments about hunters or unless you've failed to consider the loss of opportunity to the elderly and handicapped, then you appear to be taking my generalized comment way too personal. Please read my post again, thanks.

Not your post bearpaw...KFs.  We were not discussing expanding wilderness areas...merely that I set foot to hunt in wilderness and did not think of it as being elitist...that somehow meant I looked down on elderly, disabled people. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You specifically quoted my post so I was under the impression you were commenting to my post. 

[jackelope]

Nice thread jacking. Nice squabbling like a bunch of old hens.
Really can't figure this group out sometimes anymore. Hunters alienating fellow hunters. Unreal.

[idahohuntr]

You specifically quoted my post so I was under the impression you were commenting to my post. 

Yes, I can understand how you would have interpreted it as directed at you.  My mistake. 

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

This specifically is what angered me.  I find it very offensive, particularly given so much of my hunting influence came from a disabled grandpa.  Did we not just have a little discussion yesterday about how unnecessary personal attacks were in these discussions? 

[jackelope]

Uncalled for comment with no sound reason for it.

[bearpaw]

You specifically quoted my post so I was under the impression you were commenting to my post. 

Yes, I can understand how you would have interpreted it as directed at you.  My mistake. 

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

This specifically is what angered me.  I find it very offensive, particularly given so much of my hunting influence came from a disabled grandpa.  Did we not just have a little discussion yesterday about how unnecessary personal attacks were in these discussions?

Yes, we all need to make an effort to reduce personal attacks. 

Nice thread jacking. Nice squabbling like a bunch of old hens.
Really can't figure this group out sometimes anymore. Hunters alienating fellow hunters. Unreal.

You are right....

To get back to the original topic, I think this shows that the enviro's will use any reason to prevent logging. We had wolves coming into Ione this winter and breeding with dogs. Wolves come into ranching operations regularly and attack livestock. I doubt logging will cause them to be unsuccessful and from everything I've read if they are uncomfortable they will just move them. So, if anything, the logging will increase local game herds which will benefit hunters and predators.

[AspenBud]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Same with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Wyoming. If you live in the upper Midwest they are a fact of life, have been for years long before any release, and by God it hasn't stopped anyone from hunting. But all of those states do now manage wolves to one degree or another.

Not exactly true! I have a lot of family in WI/MN and most no longer go north to hunt because they all say there are too few deer. The last time one brother-in-law hunted northern MN he saw nothing but wolves from his favorite tree stand. Some quit hunting altogether, some have gone elsewhere in the state, none of them, not one of them still goes to northern MN/WI to hunt.

I have family in Michigan and I can tell you that wolves haven't caused "the end of all hunting" in the UP whatsoever. I'm sure some deer hunters are seeing fewer deer but they are still going out and hunting. Heck, it's a grouse hunter's paradise there with the state DNR launching their GEMS project to increase grouse habitat and increase hunter access up there.

I'm sure Minnesota and Wisconsin may have people who have decided to give up on certain areas but I'm equally sure others have not and I know for sure that grouse hunters wade right into wolf country there with their dogs. If you don't believe that last point ask people if they do on Upland Journal or any of the sites directed towards Midwestern hunters. Sure, some will say they won't touch those areas, but many will say they don't let wolves stop them.

I'm not saying wolves haven't had an impact in some areas out there, but they didn't bring about the "end of all hunting" as some would suggest. If anything you can about throw a rock and hit a white tail in those states, especially closer to farm country, and now that they do have seasons on wolves it's something of a dead issue, no pun intended.

[KFhunter]

You specifically quoted my post so I was under the impression you were commenting to my post. 

Yes, I can understand how you would have interpreted it as directed at you.  My mistake. 

I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum. 
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?

This specifically is what angered me.  I find it very offensive, particularly given so much of my hunting influence came from a disabled grandpa.  Did we not just have a little discussion yesterday about how unnecessary personal attacks were in these discussions?

I was just giving you back a little of your own medicine when you called me a poacher   

Nope.  A poacher is a poacher.  Just because you follow all the other rules does not entitle you to poach wildlife.  As frustrating as it may be, we have laws in this country for a reason.  If you don't like them, then work to change them.  Poaching wolves simply ramps up the rhetoric for the anti's...I hope any wolf poachers at this fragile point in wolf management get the book thrown at them...take their guns, truck, make them serve jail time and invoke a lifetime hunting license ban 

If you want to see what a personal attack looks like........

You are sad and pathetic.  I hunt in WA too you moron.  I was part of 6 successful (in terms of harvest) buck hunts, one was my first muzzleloader kill, and 2 successful bull hunts...all in WA.  Then I hunt Idaho and kill a bull and help my dad kill a muley.  I did eat my Idaho deer tag this year...just never found one as big as I was after...but I had lots of opportunities. 

So all your bs about not "hacking" it in Idaho or WA or wherever...give me a break.  Sounds to me like you sit up in NE Wa and cry about hunting...my guess is your just a lousy hunter.  I hunt multiple states for lots of reasons, and where I hunt has more to do with friends and family...almost nothing in my hunting plans revolve around wolves.

Last, we do agree on the efficacy of hunting to "control" wolves in NE Wa...the key difference is you think this will cause the extinction of elk and I think you don't know chit about elk if you believe that.

  *note*   - I didn't run to the mods with that personal attack,  I didn't hit the Report to moderator button like what's been going on with wolfbait.  Some of you guys have really been trying hard to bait him into a ban. 


My comment was unfair, I've never seen you put down other hunters for being too heavy or disabled.  Like I said I'm guilty of personalizing issues same as you; so for sticking a "you" on there I apologize.   
Bearpaw is correct though, I've seen it done many times on this forum typically in ATV threads.   Wilderness is a loss of access and where I was going with that is you're in favor of increased wilderness,  you're also in favor of blazing trails through private property to access land locked public non-recreational lands.  Some contentious points in there I can't come to terms with.   In my experience those with your line of thinking do look down on us uneducated neanderthals and many comments from you suggest rural folks need more education so they can understand what you know.  It's evident that you look down your nose at rural living folks.  I'm a white collar worker who could have worked just about anywhere in the world,  I choose to move back home.  Without a white collar job I could never have afforded to pick up the old family ranch, or a good portion of it anyways.

[bearpaw]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Same with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Wyoming. If you live in the upper Midwest they are a fact of life, have been for years long before any release, and by God it hasn't stopped anyone from hunting. But all of those states do now manage wolves to one degree or another.

Not exactly true! I have a lot of family in WI/MN and most no longer go north to hunt because they all say there are too few deer. The last time one brother-in-law hunted northern MN he saw nothing but wolves from his favorite tree stand. Some quit hunting altogether, some have gone elsewhere in the state, none of them, not one of them still goes to northern MN/WI to hunt.

I have family in Michigan and I can tell you that wolves haven't caused "the end of all hunting" in the UP whatsoever. I'm sure some deer hunters are seeing fewer deer but they are still going out and hunting. Heck, it's a grouse hunter's paradise there with the state DNR launching their GEMS project to increase grouse habitat and increase hunter access up there.

I'm sure Minnesota and Wisconsin may have people who have decided to give up on certain areas but I'm equally sure others have not and I know for sure that grouse hunters wade right into wolf country there with their dogs. If you don't believe that last point ask people if they do on Upland Journal or any of the sites directed towards Midwestern hunters. Sure, some will say they won't touch those areas, but many will say they don't let wolves stop them.

I'm not saying wolves haven't had an impact in some areas out there, but they didn't bring about the "end of all hunting" as some would suggest. If anything you can about throw a rock and hit a white tail in those states, especially closer to farm country, and now that they do have seasons on wolves it's something of a dead issue, no pun intended.

So to condense your reply, grouse are multiplying because of habitat work and even though wolves have impacted deer populations there are still some people deer hunting in the north woods.

That all makes sense, obviously some north woods residents probably can't travel to the farmlands to hunt and must still hunt in the north if they hunt. Since my wife's family all live central, I can tell you they and most all their friends quit going north to hunt, they all now hunt farm country where there are no wolves. In essence wolves have killed much of the deer hunting in the north woods (pun intended) and much of the tourism from deer hunters. (much like the effects of wolves in parts of ID/MT/WY)

I have never asked family members if deer hunters in those states also hunt grouse like here in WA? Could it be if one reason you see more grouse is because half as many deer hunters are in the woods so far fewer grouse are being taken by hunters?

[jackelope]

Deer hunting is going to hell in northern upstate NY too. Has been for years. Pretty sure there are no wolves there.
My dad and all of his buddies made an annual trip up there. Now it's pretty much turned into a poker and whiskey trip due to a major lack of deer.