Free: Contests & Raffles.
Maybe Chase Gunnell should jump on here and make a comment. Very doubtful that he would or is just another of the lurkers. Probably too busy writing articles like this.
I think you should get 10 bonus points for killing a wolf in Washington!!
Yeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on April 12, 2016, 01:44:50 PMYeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.I agree with most of what you wrote above. However, the author in this article largely presented hunters/hunting in a positive light to what is probably a huge non-hunting audience - and distinguished them from poachers.
Quote from: idahohuntr on April 13, 2016, 08:57:44 AMQuote from: pianoman9701 on April 12, 2016, 01:44:50 PMYeah right. First of all, it's a one-sided article written by a pro-wolfer about a problem which doesn't even exist. He talks about a couple of poaching incidents and then speculates the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf packs in the N. Cascades is poaching. He says one poaching incident is "unprosecuted". How are stiffer penalties going to change that? Could it be that hydatid disease or maybe echinococcus granulosus that's keeping their numbers low? Maybe some other disease that the USFWS ignored when they allowed them to fan out from the GYA. Or could it be that wolves are reproducing at a healthy rate, a rate predetermined by the scientists who designed the recovery from the start? There's not a bit of evidence that either shows their so-called slow pack growth is due any more to poaching than anything else, or that there's a problem with the population growth at all. It quite obvious to anyone who knows how to look at a map that the areas of fastest pack growth are also areas where poaching would be a greater issue (were it an issue at all) - the NE section of the state, where there are more people and more public land open to grazing. But there has been very little poaching in that area over the almost decade since they started moving in over there.I agree with most of what you wrote above. However, the author in this article largely presented hunters/hunting in a positive light to what is probably a huge non-hunting audience - and distinguished them from poachers.The article has nothing to do with hunting. It doesn't matter whether the author mentions hunting in a good light or not. The anti-hunters will continue to associate poaching with hunting and the author has a solution for a problem which doesn't exist. He's just stirring up emotions for nothing.
Dosent matter if it's a million $ fine and life in prison. Very few people would turn it a wolf killer where there are wolves. If you live with them you don't see them as needing protection
Ever notice how common it is for anti-hunters/trappers to identify themselves as hunters when writing these type editorials? It is just a way to make themselves sound reasonable and they know there is no way someone can out them.
