“Simply put, the government lied to minimize opposition to wolf recovery.”

[idahohuntr]

I don't know if it's comical or sad that one who claims to be a hunter can actually sit here and say that wolves have had no impact on ungulates.

What's funny is how contradictory he is. He'll make those comments, then in other threads say he's never said that. It's pretty entertaining.

Deer and elk are doing quite well in areas he says... The areas with no wolves! Ever notice that? We have a few units in wyoming, in the "trophy areas" near Yellowstone that are still teaming with elk. And guess what... Wolf sitings are rare! The only thing really helping them is the number of Grizzlies in the area. At least in my opinion. The management of wolves has helped immensely up there, not so much because of the reduction of wolves, but those suckers are smart and have now learned what it's like to be shot at or see others in their pack killed. Hopefully wyoming gets their act together and can get the wolves delisted again. And soon.

Do you guys tell these lies that I have ever said wolves can't impact ungulates because you actually believe them...or do you tell these lies because its too difficult for you to comprehend that there are more than 2 positions (pro and anti) to take on wolf management?

All the zones and units I hunt in Idaho have multiple confirmed wolf packs present, so your assumptions that I hunt away from wolves in places like very S. Idaho are again incorrect.

I'm not sure if anyone really cares where you hunt, if you hunt at all.

The only areas that wolves have not impacted the ungulates is where there are very few wolves or no wolves at all, thats a given. So what was your point again or do you even have a point?

After 18 plus years of wolves and the lies of the USFWS, state game agencies and environmentalists have told to promote wolves exposed, pro-wolfers can only BS the fans.

There are not to many fans on W-H anymore.

I thought we were past the bs where people tried to even remotely suggest I am not a hunter 

There is a ton of good hunting for elk and deer in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming...including areas where wolves are definitely present.  18 years after wolves have been reintroduced into those areas we still have a ton of good elk hunting...I understand how devastating this news is to folks who like to preach that wolves will end all hunting.  The fact that with each passing year your lies become harder to tell is really unimportant to the thousand and thousands of hunters who take to the woods this fall and kill great elk in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon...some are even posted on this very site for you to see.

[idahohuntr]

Name three...

Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs.

Do you know for a fact that the wolf packs you listed above were not from problem packs that the USFWS relocated?

You do know that the USFWS relocated some livestock killing wolves instead of killing them don't you? That was part of the non-lethal methods that were used in MT, WY and Idaho.

Remember the first wolves brought in, the first thing they did was start killing livestock.

Do you have proof that those packs have not killed stock?

How about you prove to me these packs have killed livestock...like I said, thats 6 off the top of my head...your turning this into a ridiculous argument whereby I could not possibly submit enough proof to the folks with securely fastened tinfoil hats.  No reported livestock kills, few or no grazing allotments...that will just be twisted into "the government is lying"...its impossible to prove a negative if folks won't accept reasonable evidence.  So...like I said, prove to me these packs have...just post a photo of livestock killed by each of these 6 packs...thats only 6 photos. 

Um, I am not the one making the claims, I asked a simple question. Anybody with a keyboard can do a google search of wolf pack names. I just asked you to prove out your claim of knowledge on these packs.

Ok, since its not your claim then you don't believe all wolf packs have killed livestock?  Or you are just here to stir the pot?  I'm confused. 

If you go to IDFG's website and review the Wolf status reports you will see the tables for wolf packs/zones and livestock/pet etc. losses.  There are entire zones (some of which have tons of wolves and wolf packs...like the Lolo and Selway  ) which have no confirmed or probable wolf losses.  Its not that wolves can't or don't kill livestock, its just another extremely exxagerated claim to suggest that 100% of wolf packs kill livestock.

[Woodchuck]

Name three...

Kelly Cr, Lochsa, Red Ives, Battle Ridge, Cedars, Deception Pt. packs...thats 6 off the top of my head and those are only Idaho packs.

Do you know for a fact that the wolf packs you listed above were not from problem packs that the USFWS relocated?

You do know that the USFWS relocated some livestock killing wolves instead of killing them don't you? That was part of the non-lethal methods that were used in MT, WY and Idaho.

Remember the first wolves brought in, the first thing they did was start killing livestock.

Do you have proof that those packs have not killed stock?

How about you prove to me these packs have killed livestock...like I said, thats 6 off the top of my head...your turning this into a ridiculous argument whereby I could not possibly submit enough proof to the folks with securely fastened tinfoil hats.  No reported livestock kills, few or no grazing allotments...that will just be twisted into "the government is lying"...its impossible to prove a negative if folks won't accept reasonable evidence.  So...like I said, prove to me these packs have...just post a photo of livestock killed by each of these 6 packs...thats only 6 photos. 

Um, I am not the one making the claims, I asked a simple question. Anybody with a keyboard can do a google search of wolf pack names. I just asked you to prove out your claim of knowledge on these packs.

Ok, since its not your claim then you don't believe all wolf packs have killed livestock?  Or you are just here to stir the pot?  I'm confused. 

If you go to IDFG's website and review the Wolf status reports you will see the tables for wolf packs/zones and livestock/pet etc. losses.  There are entire zones (some of which have tons of wolves and wolf packs...like the Lolo and Selway  ) which have no confirmed or probable wolf losses.  Its not that wolves can't or don't kill livestock, its just another extremely exxagerated claim to suggest that 100% of wolf packs kill livestock.

Wow, awful defensive when asked to answer simple questions about claims you made.  So if the govt agency says it's true, it must be huh? Interesting view....

[Special T]

Interesting article WB.

One of the stark contrasts i see on here, and a few other places, is the lack of rebuttal to articles like the one WB posted. Im for lively debate and think comparing facts is important. Over time i have seen WB post a huge volume of articles, many not written by people with an axe to grind, that leed people to be concerned about wolves. Aside from a little sniping with 1 or 2 articles on a given subject NO ONE  had made a good case for 1 Why wolves are great here in the lower 48, Where in the world wolves are benifical and accepted 2 Made a documented attempt to defend the wolf introduction into ID or YNP 3 how it has helped hunting here or other countries, say Canada.

I have read on here that "devil's advocates" do not have the time to waste digging up contrary evidence. Most are either 1 shot trolls that like to stir up the pot, or like to tell us OFTEN that we are wrong but provide scant eveidence to back up thier assertions.

While I do not suscribe to all of Wolfbaits Assertions I do know this. Non profits and Gov agencies are pushing this adgenda on people and in areas who do not want it. The slight of hand tactics, misleading and vauge explanations do NOT promote a trusting relationship  with hunters or those living in rural areas TRUST is the bedrock of ANY relationship, EVEN adversaries!

One can only assume that Wolves  are not the real issue but rather a wedge for some other purpose. What that purpose is, I could guess but it really does not matter.

[KFhunter]

100% of wolves will kill livestock given the right circumstances,  run a flock of sheep near any of those packs IDH mentions and see what happens 
Not sure why we're arguing about this?   


There's areas in WA, ID and MT that are capable of holding a well managed packs of wolves,  problem is we lack the management aspect so we find wolves down in livestock holding areas and have conflict. 

pro-wolf groups are against livestock on public property, if I'm not mistaken IDH holds this same position.  That's fine, it's your opinion and I don't share it; but the wolves don't know when they're on private or public lands - most livestock killed in Washington was killed while on private property.

As a hunter I want to see public lands grazing as it increases wildlife and benefits ungulates.  Some of the best hunting is on grazed areas.

Wolves are the best tool to date that anti-hunters, anti grazing folks have come up with.   Already ranchers and livestock owners are being driven off range, both private and public.
Hunters are already loosing opportunity in WA, in ID and MT there have been fantastic losses in hunting opportunity and hunting guides/outfitters put out of work, 2nd and 3rd generation hunting guides sent to walmart to look for work. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Yes it does...you keep repeating lies about how wolves are going to kill off ALL the game hoping that telling those lies repeatedly will make it come true...but all these folks keep posting pictures of all the bulls they are harvesting in id, mt, wy and it kind of ruins your exaggerated wolf claims.

I'm still waiting for the great Echinococcus tapeworm outbreak in humans that was supposed to happen because of wolves.

Meanwhile, I'm heading over to Idaho next week for some of their great elk and deer hunting. Hope I don't come home with worms!

PS it's not that wolves don't affect wildlife, Its that they don't affect it in the ways haters say they will and not to the extent that haters exaggerate.  Where wolves can be shown to have a dramatic negative effect, they should be dealt with. But other than that, hunting and trapping can usually keep them in check.

I also believe people should be able to protect their pets and livestock from wolves and wolves that prey on said animals should be permanently removed.

[KFhunter]

We don't have trapping or hunting in for wolves WA, and they are devastating certain areas here..
And killing livestock by the 100's,  WDFW capitulates to the pro-wolf groups and halts lethal removal as you've suggested.

So what now?

[idahohuntr]

Wow, awful defensive when asked to answer simple questions about claims you made.  So if the govt agency says it's true, it must be huh? Interesting view....

It wasn't my claim woodchuck...somebody posted that 100% of wolf packs kill livestocks.  Why don't you ask them to prove their claim...not me to prove unequivocally that claim is false since we all know proving a negative is impossible.  But you proved my other point...I can refer you to mountains of data, but of course you can explain it away with a generic..."the government lies" statement    Its ridiculous. 

[KFhunter]

Yes it does...you keep repeating lies about how wolves are going to kill off ALL the game hoping that telling those lies repeatedly will make it come true...but all these folks keep posting pictures of all the bulls they are harvesting in id, mt, wy and it kind of ruins your exaggerated wolf claims.

I'm still waiting for the great Echinococcus tapeworm outbreak in humans that was supposed to happen because of wolves.

Meanwhile, I'm heading over to Idaho next week for some of their great elk and deer hunting. Hope I don't come home with worms!

PS it's not that wolves don't affect wildlife, Its that they don't affect it in the ways haters say they will and not to the extent that haters exaggerate.  Where wolves can be shown to have a dramatic negative effect, they should be dealt with. But other than that, hunting and trapping can usually keep them in check.

I also believe people should be able to protect their pets and livestock from wolves and wolves that prey on said animals should be permanently removed.

100% of wolves will prey on domestic animals where packs form in populated rural areas.   The huckleberry pack prey'ed on 100's of sheep and weren't removed per your suggestion, the newly listed pack near republic killed many cattle yet none of those wolves are being killed.  Not all the wedge wolves were killed, neither were the smackout wolves killed.

Many areas in WA where wolves are more prolific are having a dramatic negative effect, yet none of them are being managed to negate that effect.


So??  I'm waiting for management to happen.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

We don't have trapping or hunting in for wolves WA, and they are devastating certain areas here..
And killing livestock by the 100's,  WDFW capitulates to the pro-wolf groups and halts lethal removal as you've suggested.

So what now?

Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done until delisting and that is frustrating. And trapping probably still won't be allowed here because leg holds and connibears and snares are the best way to trap wolves and they aren't allowed in this state. (which is ridiculous) Honestly? The best way this can be dealt with is to work to get laws changed and to get leaders in place who can see the problems and will deal with them. But hunters/farmers will never get laws changed as long as we are seen as bloodthirsty renegades who only want to kill. That is why I have preached since I've been on this board that the guys who talk about SSS and demonize wolves and exaggerate about them do us way more harm than good. If we want to be part of the solution, we cant be part of the problem.

[Woodchuck]

Wow, awful defensive when asked to answer simple questions about claims you made.  So if the govt agency says it's true, it must be huh? Interesting view....

It wasn't my claim woodchuck...somebody posted that 100% of wolf packs kill livestocks.  Why don't you ask them to prove their claim...not me to prove unequivocally that claim is false since we all know proving a negative is impossible.  But you proved my other point...I can refer you to mountains of data, but of course you can explain it away with a generic..."the government lies" statement    Its ridiculous.

First off, don't put words in my mouth. I never made that statement. I have not put words in yours. I have personally seen what wolves do to livestock and ungulates right here at home. Since our local agencies do not recognize that there is even a pack here there is no data one way or the other. So I don't put much stock in that.
There is a documented wolf that traveled from where it was tagged in NE Oregon clear into N. California. So I am to believe that an apex predator with that sort of documented range has or never will kill livestock? There is just plain no area that large left without some sort of population left.

[idahohuntr]

Wow, awful defensive when asked to answer simple questions about claims you made.  So if the govt agency says it's true, it must be huh? Interesting view....

It wasn't my claim woodchuck...somebody posted that 100% of wolf packs kill livestocks.  Why don't you ask them to prove their claim...not me to prove unequivocally that claim is false since we all know proving a negative is impossible.  But you proved my other point...I can refer you to mountains of data, but of course you can explain it away with a generic..."the government lies" statement    Its ridiculous.

First off, don't put words in my mouth. I never made that statement. I have not put words in yours. I have personally seen what wolves do to livestock and ungulates right here at home. Since our local agencies do not recognize that there is even a pack here there is no data one way or the other. So I don't put much stock in that.
There is a documented wolf that traveled from where it was tagged in NE Oregon clear into N. California. So I am to believe that an apex predator with that sort of documented range has or never will kill livestock? There is just plain no area that large left without some sort of population left.

What statement didn't you make that I "put words in your mouth"?  And who doesn't recognize a pack where?   I am saying, with supporting data posted on MT, ID, and WY websites, that it is a false claim to suggest 100% of confirmed wolf packs have killed livestock.  I did not think it would be difficult for folks to grasp the idea that where little or no livestock occurs, wolves won't kill them.     I guess I was wrong in that assumption.  Folks who are so blinded by their hatred for wolves are clearly incapable of seeing their hand in front of their face.

[KFhunter]

We don't have trapping or hunting in for wolves WA, and they are devastating certain areas here..
And killing livestock by the 100's,  WDFW capitulates to the pro-wolf groups and halts lethal removal as you've suggested.

So what now?

Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done until delisting and that is frustrating. And trapping probably still won't be allowed here because leg holds and connibears and snares are the best way to trap wolves and they aren't allowed in this state. (which is ridiculous) Honestly? The best way this can be dealt with is to work to get laws changed and to get leaders in place who can see the problems and will deal with them. But hunters/farmers will never get laws changed as long as we are seen as bloodthirsty renegades who only want to kill. That is why I have preached since I've been on this board that the guys who talk about SSS and demonize wolves and exaggerate about them do us way more harm than good. If we want to be part of the solution, we cant be part of the problem.

A guy needs to be able to protect his/her livestock.   Under the current law we on the east side can kill (1) wolf caught in the act,  but in doing so it brings a tremendous amount of bureaucracy down upon their heads.  I can't blame a person for killing a wolf and keeping quiet about it,  saving their family from public condemnation and death threats from the wolf groups.... and to trust in WDFW to not say it was a justified shooting       I would have to think long and hard before I made that phone call.

Even in doing all that the rest of the wolves continue to attack and harass your wildlife as shown in other cases, but you cannot shoot them because WDFW "compensates"; a legal precedence set in court about Elk damaging a farmers crop somehow equals wolves eviscerating livestock.  As I've said before "compensation" is but a small fraction of the actual real losses seen by wolves.

Given the current and broken climate I can't fault a guy for doing what needs to be done for his and hers on their private lands.  They're in a no win situation.

[Woodchuck]

I never said "the government lies".
Right here on the Wa side of the blues. There is not a recognized pack. They are here, I have seen them, gotten pictures of them, and have seen what they do. I don't hate wolves at all.
Please tell me where in this country, where there is an area big enough where wolves live, that there is no/little livestock within their documented range.

[KFhunter]

rest assured the Government does lie to you 

that's funny