Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: AspenBud on January 07, 2015, 12:42:00 PMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:59 AMQuote from: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AMunless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Quote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:59 AMQuote from: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AMunless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Quote from: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AMunless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
Quote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 12:55:37 PMQuote from: AspenBud on January 07, 2015, 12:42:00 PMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:59 AMQuote from: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AMunless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it. But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.
First off how does anyone count wolves? The USFWS counted wolves at the bare minimum, when wolf numbers would be at their lowest, as does state game agencies that now have wolves.We really don't have a clue as to how fast wolves multiply as there has never been any honesty from either federal or state agencies confirming known wolf packs etc.. Remember what Ed Bangs said? "we will not count wolves that do not belong to a wolf pack". Remember the USFWS telling the lie that only the alpha male and female breed, and then we find out that some of the packs had up to three litters.WA wolves multiplied by one wolf in 2013 according to WDFW, now there's some accuracy.Since the wolf introduction much of the info. the USFWS presented for their push to introduce the wolves has been proven to be lies. You say the lower 48 has less then 10,000 wolves is that your count or the the USFWS's count?
The "public", do you mean the people who don't have skin in the game
Quote from: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 10:06:09 AMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 12:55:37 PMQuote from: AspenBud on January 07, 2015, 12:42:00 PMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:59 AMQuote from: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AMunless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it. But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season?
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. what you are scared of is ungulate populations. how much livestock has been lost to coyotes and cougar over the years? lots. yet noone seemed to rally around ranchers this adamantly on these issues before. i heard nothing before about the risks of coyotes spreading diseases. yet, apparently, wolves are a serious vector. as a hunter its a little annoying to see our community against native wildlife. its wilderness for a reason and if its too dangerous stay in the city, thats how i look at it. if you heard wolves around you and ran up a tree, you didnt get attacked. you just got scared and ran up a tree. maybe it would have been the first wolf attack in washington history, maybe not, we'll never know. better safe than sorry i guess.
Quote from: Dhoey07 on January 08, 2015, 11:24:52 AMQuote from: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 10:06:09 AMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 12:55:37 PMQuote from: AspenBud on January 07, 2015, 12:42:00 PMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:59 AMQuote from: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AMunless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it. But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season? No, but the poisons used to kill off wolves killed coyotes too. The traps used to catch wolves when they were eradicated caught coyotes too. The same hunters often killed coyotes too. And so on. One group of canines ceased to exist, the other carried on. One has a proven track record of handling just about anything that kills them, one does not.And again, there are 50,000 coyotes in Washington alone. Let me know when the wolf population gets that high in the lower 48 let alone one state. The animals, at present, are not comparable and the public won't support such hunting of wolves when the nation of Canada, a country with more empty space and fewer people, barely has more wolves than Washington does coyotes. It's an easy case to make and the people being convinced don't have to be tree hugging flower children to buy into it.
Quote from: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 03:35:22 PMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 08, 2015, 11:24:52 AMQuote from: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 10:06:09 AMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 12:55:37 PMQuote from: AspenBud on January 07, 2015, 12:42:00 PMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:59 AMQuote from: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AMunless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it. But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season? No, but the poisons used to kill off wolves killed coyotes too. The traps used to catch wolves when they were eradicated caught coyotes too. The same hunters often killed coyotes too. And so on. One group of canines ceased to exist, the other carried on. One has a proven track record of handling just about anything that kills them, one does not.And again, there are 50,000 coyotes in Washington alone. Let me know when the wolf population gets that high in the lower 48 let alone one state. The animals, at present, are not comparable and the public won't support such hunting of wolves when the nation of Canada, a country with more empty space and fewer people, barely has more wolves than Washington does coyotes. It's an easy case to make and the people being convinced don't have to be tree hugging flower children to buy into it.Who's been counting the coyotes A-bud?
Quote from: wolfbait on January 10, 2015, 09:22:33 AMQuote from: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 03:35:22 PMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 08, 2015, 11:24:52 AMQuote from: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 10:06:09 AMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 12:55:37 PMQuote from: AspenBud on January 07, 2015, 12:42:00 PMQuote from: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:59 AMQuote from: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AMunless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it. But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season? No, but the poisons used to kill off wolves killed coyotes too. The traps used to catch wolves when they were eradicated caught coyotes too. The same hunters often killed coyotes too. And so on. One group of canines ceased to exist, the other carried on. One has a proven track record of handling just about anything that kills them, one does not.And again, there are 50,000 coyotes in Washington alone. Let me know when the wolf population gets that high in the lower 48 let alone one state. The animals, at present, are not comparable and the public won't support such hunting of wolves when the nation of Canada, a country with more empty space and fewer people, barely has more wolves than Washington does coyotes. It's an easy case to make and the people being convinced don't have to be tree hugging flower children to buy into it.Who's been counting the coyotes A-bud? Are you saying you think the states are over counting coyotes now?