Wolf Half-truths and Lies

[MR5x5]

Seems it's pretty easy to argue about what bad has/might come from re-introduction.  I'd sure be interested to see a list of potential good that might come from it??

[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.

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.

[wolfbait]

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.

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, the people who believe the same lies the USFWS told which is now being regurgitate by WDFW?

With more WDFW paid studies maybe they can change WA's wolves into a special wolf and if they publish their new studies over and over agin, will it change the outcome.

[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.

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? 

[AspenBud]

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?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you claiming there are more wolves in the lower 48 than coyotes? Or that at the very least their numbers are the same?

The public sees coyotes. They almost never see wolves.

The "public",  do you mean the people who don't have skin in the game

You can walk into Seattle and ask people if they're ever seen a coyote and many will tell you yes. Many will likely tell you they've seen them in the suburbs or the city itself. Good luck finding anyone with the same response regarding wolves there.

My point is it's easy to win hearts and minds over coyotes. Like I said, they are everywhere and not going away. People know that. It's a lot harder to convince people that an animal that they never see, that the official statistics show is small in number (I'm not saying those are right by the way), is in need of such drastic measures.

People might agree that the count is off, but many will look you in the eye and say "but what if you are wrong?"

It's something that HSUS preys on and why I think arguing for coyote like seasons is doomed to failure. If it comes to a ballot initiative, and it probably would, it would fail in a flash.

--------------------------------------------

The state of Washington estimates there are 50,000 coyotes here. That's one state with almost as many coyotes as all of Canada has in wolves...and Washington is not unique in the number of coyotes it has. Knowing that fact alone people, with skin in the game or not, won't back a 365/24/7 "season."

[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.

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.

[steen]

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.

You can shoot a cougar, bear and a coyote if it attacks but not a wolf? I'm not afraid of a cougar, bear, or coyote when in the woods cause I always have a tag to them!!!

[idahohuntr]

You can shoot anything that a reasonable person believes is about to cause significant bodily harm or death.  This includes cougars, humans, wolves, endangered species, neighborhood dogs...anything.  A tag or season should not influence your fear of an animal that is intent upon causing you harm.

[villageidiot]

A wolf at 600 yards is plenty close enough to consider fear of bodily harm.

[wolfbait]

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.

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? 

[KFhunter]

coyote rules make for wolves in WA is a good idea, not that it'll happen of course.

[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.

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? 

[wolfbait]

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.

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?

 
Well we have seen WDFW's accuracy at counting wolves, remember WDFW's one new wolf for 2013? I am curious at how they came to the 50,000 mark that you stated above, and how is it that they count these coyotes? Perhaps WDFW could learn to count wolves the same as they do coyotes.

Sounds like WDFW:

Feds Don’t Confirm Wolf Reports

Back in January, Statesman environmental reporter Rocky Barker interviewed federal Wolf Recovery Coordinator Carter Niemeyer concerning three packs of wolves that have reportedly been seen in the Boise foothills. Despite the sightings, Niemeyer said no (depredation) complaints had been filed so FWS made no effort to confirm the wolves‟ existence.

Read More @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%204%20June%202004%20Controlling%20predators.pdf

[Elkaholic daWg]

Wolf: What's to Misunderstand?
http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Misunderstand-Thomas-K-Remington/dp/150539709X/

All of this based on a fabricated recovery baseline of 300 wolves in the Northern Rockies. Due to corrupt manipulation of data, lawsuits and activist judges, wolves in the Northern Rockies have climbed to 3,000 – 6,000, depending on which lie you choose to believe. This book explores the actual history of wolves, including diseases and attacks on humans. I've laid out for the reader a truthful examination of events, as well as a break down of the Environmental Impact Statement for Wolf Reintroduction. I've included information about the corruption and politics that took place before wolves were removed from Federal protection in the Western Great Lakes. To bring wolves to the Yellowstone National Park area, somebody went to Canada to trap, tag and radio-collar gray wolves. Without the existence of a paper trail, it has become difficult to know exactly what took place. This book examines all the evidence, including testimony from those who say the wolf was brought into the U.S. illegally and full of disease. There is an entire chapter on some of the more prominent and vitally important diseases that wolves carry and spread to humans. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, refusing to examine historic documents that clearly show a world-wide problem with disease, instead told the citizens of this nation there was no evidence to support any claims on any serious threat to humans and other wildlife. Instead, their concerns were only for the wolf. In selling the public on placing wolves in the U.S., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completely ignored all of the human elements of what the event would do and bring. This action clearly shows the mindset of the wolf recovery team and those behind the push, against the wishes of a corrupt, inept United States Congress, to force humans to coexist with wolves. The world doesn't revolve around gray wolves or those that are in love with this vicious killer

[idahohuntr]

I think a better book title would be: Tom Remingtons half truths and lies.  You don't need to like wolves in any way to reject the guys who write this bs.    It is perfectly legitimate to want managed wolf numbers and harvest without resorting to these wild conspiracies which when repeated to non-hunters only serves to solidify the stereotypes antis peg us with.