Wolves, a good thing?

[DaveMonti]

I think I figured out how this board works:

If someone presents a position which is different than another individual's belief, the presenting person is a liberal, tree hugging anti-hunter who is secretly on this board trying to convince others to believe it's necessary to abolish the 2nd Amendment. 

Did I miss anything?

Don't forget about the guys who just like to  

I forgot that they are also Lying City Folk. 

Is there anything else "different" about folks with differing opinions?  Intentionally unemployed criminal welfare recipient?  Mentally unstable?  Anything else? 

Really, a "city boy" vs. "country boy" thing?  Really???

[KFhunter]

It's one thing to read about it, another thing to see a small glimpse of it 1 or 2 weeks a year and another thing to see it every day and something else entirely to see it effecting your livelihood. 

My favorite hunting areas took a big hit and I've seen numerous cattle carcasses

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

Old growth is good bedding and security habitat, but the canopy tends to block out the sunlight needed to grow nutrient rich food plants for the elk. You need a healthy mixture of age ranges of forest to provide the good security/bedding cover and more open new growth be it by logging or fire for feeding areas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree 

It's one thing to read about it, another thing to see a small glimpse of it 1 or 2 weeks a year and another thing to see it every day and something else entirely to see it effecting your livelihood. 

My favorite hunting areas took a big hit and I've seen numerous cattle carcasses

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Also agree, I know too many businesses, outfitters, motels, even restaurant owners who have went bankrupt due to wolves decreasing game herds!

Well stated Andrew. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I agree, but that doesn't negate the impact of wolves.   You act like the RAPID decline in elk populations had more to do with the GRADUAL changes in habitat than over predation.   Funny how areas where wolf numbers are reduced see a corresponding increase in ungulates.  Nobody is saying habitat doesn't matter,  but i guarantee you wolves are killing way more elk a lot faster than any gradual habitat change.   

The title of this thread is "wolves, a good thing"  The answer is unequivocally NO!!!! Why don't you simply grow a pair and admit you think the answer is yes? 

Exactly, to put it in perspective I just purchased another outfitting business last year in an area that had decades of history of all weapon seasons having either sex elk hunting, one of the top elk units in Idaho, but wolves over populated and elk in the area suffered great losses in just a few years, IDFG had to eliminate all cow elk opportunity to offset herd reductions mostly due to wolf predation, since the locals started killing wolves, and this is a very concerted effort by the locals, the elk are really coming back even though no changes have occurred with forest management. The game changer was the increase of wolf numbers and the decrease of wolf numbers. I expect cow elk hunting to be allowed again as wolf numbers decrease and elk numbers increase.

For anyone to deny the impacts of wolves given the data that has been documented by F&G agencies simply shows one or a combination of reasons, an unfortunate lack of knowledge, a wolf advocate, or someone simply looking to stir the pot.

[Kittman]

I think I figured out how this board works:

If someone presents a position which is different than another individual's belief, the presenting person is a liberal, tree hugging anti-hunter who is secretly on this board trying to convince others to believe it's necessary to abolish the 2nd Amendment. 

Did I miss anything?

Don't forget about the guys who just like to  

I forgot that they are also Lying City Folk. 

Is there anything else "different" about folks with differing opinions?  Intentionally unemployed criminal welfare recipient?  Mentally unstable?  Anything else? 

Really, a "city boy" vs. "country boy" thing?  Really???

It seems that if the stirring the pot thing comes from someone with a differing opinion than yours that strikes a big nerve and is somehow off limits?  This can work both ways.  I am coloring the kettle black and stand behind my statement.

I am interested in hearing how anyone who wants the wolves in WA, managed as they are currently, to share how one deals with canine depredation issues, and the experience gained, and also a share one's own real life personal example or two in how wolves have made things better for you personally in a positive way.

A city boy's perspective with his own experience would especially be welcome!   

[ribka]

I used to return home to WI to bowhunt the past 25 years. I stopped going 5 years ago because I saw very few deer. In fact the last few years I saw more wolves from my treestand than deer. All my hunting buddies, who have been putting up trail camscam the past 15 years, have recorded more wolves in cams than deer


The deer harvest in WI is down about 40 per cent since the reintroduction of wolves if you look at WI dDNR stats

Many WI outfitters have been out out of business just like in Mt Id.WY

Old growth has nothing to do with decline

I rarely grouse  hunt in WI anymore because of wolves trying to come and take dogs


So so much for your weak justification for more wolves


So lesser hunting opportunities for sportsmen and we should celebrate this?

Wolves will never be the end of hunting...

 That is a left wing political twist Idaho!

 Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?

No, I learnt that all on my own.

 Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then.

And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides."

That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations.  One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists.  The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that 

Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!

Where has hunting ended as a result of wolves?

There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....

Slowly but surely it has been happening

 Ah, but that's the genius behind his liberal assertion. Hunting has not "ended" per se, even though wolves have clearly been the determining factor behind quota and season declines.

 There will always be "hunting", which will allow liberals like Idahohunter to claim "theoretical" victory. However, the rest of us know the truth of the matter, wolves have and will continue to have a huge impact on ungulate numbers and the corelating hunting seasons.

I'm not a liberal and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that wolves will not end hunting and that many factors influence game populations.  Often wolves get all the blame for any decrease and the impacts they do have are frequently exxaggerated...it's pure political bs.  It's why you're resorting to name calling without discussing any factual information...you are behaving no differently than the bunny huggers who are frightened of fact based discussion and prefer to play to peoples emotions.

Predation AND habitat issues have contributed significantly to Lolo herd declines.  However, you can still buy otc any bull tags for a month long season.  So statements that hunting has ended are absurd, even if harvest is much lower than historic highs and you are limited to bulls only.  It's not just a 'theoretical' hunt ...certainly not for all the hunters who killed a bull in that zone last year.
[/quote]

[huntnphool]

Wolves will never be the end of hunting...

 That is a left wing political twist Idaho!

 Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?

No, I learnt that all on my own.

 Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then.

And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides."

That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations.  One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists.  The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that 

Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!

Where has hunting ended as a result of wolves?

There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....

Slowly but surely it has been happening

 Ah, but that's the genius behind his liberal assertion. Hunting has not "ended" per se, even though wolves have clearly been the determining factor behind quota and season declines.

 There will always be "hunting", which will allow liberals like Idahohunter to claim "theoretical" victory. However, the rest of us know the truth of the matter, wolves have and will continue to have a huge impact on ungulate numbers and the corelating hunting seasons.

I'm not a liberal and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that wolves will not end hunting

 That's just a another political play on words Idaho, nice try though.

[jmscon]

We can call each other names until cows fly but that wont help anything!

I think this needs to be talked about continuously since things change year to year. I think we all need to keep an open mind on this and be willing to look at this from other angles. My view might not be the right one but yours might be either.

What I keep reading over and over again is that, since the wolves are here whether we are ok with it or not, we need them to be managed responsibly.

I'm sure that a lot of people on here have already done this but we might need to do it on a regular basis. Write an email on the state and federal level to your rep. I'm going to start writing this weekend! Tell them how long you've been hunting; How much you spend each year on tags, gas, lodging, supplies, outfitters, etc. (they like numbers); What trends in wildlife you are seeing; If it's affecting your livelihood or it's on the line; How many days a year you spend scouting and hunting and how far you drive to do so; How many generations hunting has been in your family and how much you want to hand that down to your children and or grandchildren.

Don't mouth off, be civil!! More than likely your email will just get dumped if you do! Don't give a bunch of hearsay or links to websites. Facts and your person feelings on the subject.

Email monthly, quarterly at most! Squeaky wheel gets the grease!

I might be preaching to the choir but...

[idahohuntr]

  Ok phool - I give up.  You are right.  I was just being evasive with my language.  Hillary Clinton hired me to try and trick you into believing wolves are really nice animals that we should all hug every chance we get.  I have failed her, and am now forced to admit that for all practical purposes wolves HAVE ENDED Hunting in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and most of Eastern Washington.  All you guys should just stick west of the Cascades - and not apply for, or hunt any of the areas above...because if you do - you are just falling for the liberal propaganda I failed to promote effectively.

[JimmyHoffa]

Did wolves impact the herds?  Did that result in less hunting?  If wolves weren't aggressively managed there, what would have been the trend for impact and loss of opportunity?

[huntnphool]

Ok phool - I give up.  You are right.  I was just being evasive with my language.  Hillary Clinton hired me to try and trick you into believing wolves are really nice animals that we should all hug every chance we get.  I have failed her, and am now forced to admit that for all practical purposes wolves HAVE ENDED Hunting in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and most of Eastern Washington.  All you guys should just stick west of the Cascades - and not apply for, or hunt any of the areas above...because if you do - you are just falling for the liberal propaganda I failed to promote effectively.

  I figured as much.

  You are easy to figure out, purposely vague, and never directly addressing the questions posed at you because it would clearly shed light on which side of the wolf issue you are really on.

 If you would like to clear your stance up for everyone and set the record strait, how about explaining your definition of "end hunting"? 

 

[idahohuntr]

My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future.  Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.

What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates.  While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.

Lets stop the exaggerated bs.  Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should.  Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country. 

[ribka]

I have now for ten years so have many others

Problem is that arrogant and self important urban dwellers have no interest in the damage wolves have on game populations and the majority of people in urban areas like King and Pierce Counties control the politics and want to end all hunting and Ban firearms.


Look at web sites of our two senators and Gov and then convince me they are pro Hunter and pro firearms


I spent enough time in Seattle to understand their mindset

We can call each other names until cows fly but that wont help anything!

I think this needs to be talked about continuously since things change year to year. I think we all need to keep an open mind on this and be willing to look at this from other angles. My view might not be the right one but yours might be either.

What I keep reading over and over again is that, since the wolves are here whether we are ok with it or not, we need them to be managed responsibly.

I'm sure that a lot of people on here have already done this but we might need to do it on a regular basis. Write an email on the state and federal level to your rep. I'm going to start writing this weekend! Tell them how long you've been hunting; How much you spend each year on tags, gas, lodging, supplies, outfitters, etc. (they like numbers); What trends in wildlife you are seeing; If it's affecting your livelihood or it's on the line; How many days a year you spend scouting and hunting and how far you drive to do so; How many generations hunting has been in your family and how much you want to hand that down to your children and or grandchildren.

Don't mouth off, be civil!! More than likely your email will just get dumped if you do! Don't give a bunch of hearsay or links to websites. Facts and your person feelings on the subject.

Email monthly, quarterly at most! Squeaky wheel gets the grease!

I might be preaching to the choir but...

[ribka]

Same stuff from him when caught putting out false and misleading info

Less game , less opportunities for sportsmen is a good thing in his mind

It's like a religion to him and despite centuries of proof that wolves tend to decimate game populations he still insists they are wonderful creatures that benefit hunters

Like a broken record,,

Ok phool - I give up.  You are right.  I was just being evasive with my language.  Hillary Clinton hired me to try and trick you into believing wolves are really nice animals that we should all hug every chance we get.  I have failed her, and am now forced to admit that for all practical purposes wolves HAVE ENDED Hunting in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and most of Eastern Washington.  All you guys should just stick west of the Cascades - and not apply for, or hunt any of the areas above...because if you do - you are just falling for the liberal propaganda I failed to promote effectively.

  I figured as much.

  You are easy to figure out, purposely vague, and never directly addressing the questions posed at you because it would clearly shed light on which side of the wolf issue you are really on.

 If you would like to clear your stance up for everyone and set the record strait, how about explaining your definition of "end hunting"? 

[JimmyHoffa]

My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future.  Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.

What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates.  While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.

Lets stop the exaggerated bs.  Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should.  Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.

But lower game numbers means lower allowable harvest, then fewer successful hunters, so more people leave hunting which increases the non-hunting voter numbers.

[ribka]

A forty per cent reduction in opportunities for hunters is now " reasonable"?  And sportsmen should just shut up?

My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future.  Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.

What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates.  While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.

Lets stop the exaggerated bs.  Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should.  Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.