Wolf Half-truths and Lies

[Special T]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

What you see here on this site is a push back against the WDFW. Many of us realize that the WDFW COULD have done several things to passify sportsmen but instead chose to side with Anti hunting groups. Since 50-70% of the wolf population needs to be harvested EACH YEAR inorder to keep wolf numbers stable(zero growth or loss) according to a study i have posted on here before (as has Wolfbait) done outside of Denali NP. According to that same survy only 3-7% of the popoulation can be harvested by hunting alone. Since this state essentially has no real trapping the WDFW could have at least SEEMED more hunter friendly by delisting the NE corner (rockies) when the Feds did... They chose not to. The WDFW COULD have told everyone they had the right to defend thier property from the beginning. Since it is very hard to actually hunt them,(as we have seen in ID) then it makes very little difference from a harvest standpoint. 

[pianoman9701]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

Not sure where you came from, but I have to call BS on your post. Many of us don't want wolves here and the WDFW and the greenies don't care. The whole way through the process of formulating the outrageous wolf plan, they didn't listen to a single, well-prepared argument against their wolf plan. And, as far as posing a minimal threat is concerned, that's because you're not a rancher and the wolves have only been back a relatively short time. Give them a chance. The threat will increase very quickly and it's getting bigger. The ungulate herds are threatened. The way of life of ranchers is threatened. The economies of communities that survive on hunting and hunting-related commerce are threatened. Hunters are already being threatened.

[idahohuntr]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

I agree with your general view that wolves do not pose a significant threat to hunters...certainly not more than a myriad of other potential dangers.

Be preapred to be villified if you make reasonable comments about a controversial species like wolves.  Many folks who engage on wolf topics can not tolerate the idea that wolves are not as good or as bad as the extremists on both sides like to portray them.

 

[bearpaw]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.

If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. 

One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.

So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. 

[idahohuntr]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.

If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. 

One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.

So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. 

Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger.  If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety.  Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf.  This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective.  Lightning strikes kill too.  Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? 

[bearpaw]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.

If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. 

One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.

So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. 

Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger.  If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety.  Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf.  This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective.  Lightning strikes kill too.  Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? 

HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.

You are somewhat correct, in addition to wolves, cougars and other predators have impacted my neighbors and fellow residents in Stevens County. WDFW has no kudos coming for predator management, Washington predator management is laughable at best.

[jasnt]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.

If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. 

One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.

So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. 

Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger.  If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety.  Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf.  This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective.  Lightning strikes kill too.  Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? 

HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.

You are somewhat correct, in addition to wolves, cougars and other predators have impacted my neighbors and fellow residents in Stevens County. WDFW has no kudos coming for predator management, Washington predator management is laughable at best.

couldn't agree more.  Our predator laws are a joke! I dont think wdfw are our enemy, but they sure haven't shown they are allies!  Seems like they are starting to realize the cougar problems but not making much if any head way.  We need to take hunting regulations and laws out of the hands of voters! We need much more aggressive predator plans.  The deer and elk populations are our money makers.  Why would we not be fighting to raise heard numbers and health?  They complain that Washington's hunters are declining, non residents are low.  Wdfw should be fighting hand over fist to raise numbers and quality game, improving habitat and opportunities.  Washington is a sad state in many of these categories. We need some serious changes soon! 

[idahohuntr]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.

If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. 

One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.

So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. 

Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger.  If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety.  Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf.  This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective.  Lightning strikes kill too.  Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? 

HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.

Perceived risk and actual risk are very different things bearpaw.  I can't speak to how your guides or neighbors perceive the risk of wolves...all I can rely on is decades of data that demonstrate the dangers of slipping and falling in your shower are about 10,000x more likely to kill you than a pack of wolves.  About the only thing that would make me behave differently or really think about wolves is if I were running hounds where wolves frequent.

I remember several years ago outside the Selway Bar in Kooskia a guy telling me the wolves had gotten so bad that he figured he would probably die fairly young as a result of those crazy monster packs stalking and killing him.  We went back inside and he lit up another Marlboro and ordered a double whiskey. 

[pianoman9701]

It's easy to say that it's a perceived risk when you have zero at stake. I understand how much you love the wolves, and your lopsided stance is based solely on the fact that you personally have nothing to lose with regards to the comeback of wolves in WA. It's easy for you to tirelessly defend them and the WDFW's outrageous wolf plan and poor responses to wolf/human interaction because it's someone else's stock that will be killed, or someone else's pets or possibly next, someone else's kids.

[bearpaw]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.

If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. 

One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.

So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. 

Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger.  If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety.  Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf.  This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective.  Lightning strikes kill too.  Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? 

HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.

Perceived risk and actual risk are very different things bearpaw.  I can't speak to how your guides or neighbors perceive the risk of wolves...all I can rely on is decades of data that demonstrate the dangers of slipping and falling in your shower are about 10,000x more likely to kill you than a pack of wolves.  About the only thing that would make me behave differently or really think about wolves is if I were running hounds where wolves frequent.

I remember several years ago outside the Selway Bar in Kooskia a guy telling me the wolves had gotten so bad that he figured he would probably die fairly young as a result of those crazy monster packs stalking and killing him.  We went back inside and he lit up another Marlboro and ordered a double whiskey. 

Nice try with the perceived risk baloney, you never give up on protecting wolves. 

[idahohuntr]

Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.

But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.

You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.

The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.

The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.

If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. 

One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.

So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. 

Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger.  If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety.  Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf.  This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective.  Lightning strikes kill too.  Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? 

HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.

Perceived risk and actual risk are very different things bearpaw.  I can't speak to how your guides or neighbors perceive the risk of wolves...all I can rely on is decades of data that demonstrate the dangers of slipping and falling in your shower are about 10,000x more likely to kill you than a pack of wolves.  About the only thing that would make me behave differently or really think about wolves is if I were running hounds where wolves frequent.

I remember several years ago outside the Selway Bar in Kooskia a guy telling me the wolves had gotten so bad that he figured he would probably die fairly young as a result of those crazy monster packs stalking and killing him.  We went back inside and he lit up another Marlboro and ordered a double whiskey. 

Nice try with the perceived risk baloney, you never give up on protecting wolves. 

You're right.  Its really, really dangerous out there.  You and Piano should get all of your friends, family, and clients to stop hunting...its just too dangerous.   

[clockwork]

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.

[Dhoey07]

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.

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?

[AspenBud]

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.

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.

[Dhoey07]

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.

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.