I love wolves. Seriously.

[jackelope]

I can't believe you just dropped a dry shave reference.

[yakimanoob]

@yakimanoob
How many threads in the wolf discussion have you read?  Even if you ignored all the personal comments and just read the articles you would be much better versed on the subject.

Not having read enough is a fair criticism.  I have a tendency to ask questions before doing a lot of research independently.  For that, I happily apologize.

[Gringo31]

So you start a thread saying "I love wolves. Seriously", admit you know little about it, but then get upset when people who know this party well get upset.


This is why people assumed you were a troll.


People on a hunting Washington forum have hunting in this state in common.  Short story is that opportunities are reduced with wolves.  Money is spent to reduce our opportunity.

That makes some people angry.  The fix isn't about grazing rights, increasing skill set as a hunter if elk have been reduced in your area and you can't find them, or..............

But then, I have to stop and remind myself I'm wasting my time trying to explain.   

[Special T]

I can't believe you just dropped a dry shave reference.

I couldn't help it... It's just such a great descriptor that paints a mental picture.

I haven't found a good concise way to use the Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown analogy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

So you start a thread saying "I love wolves. Seriously", admit you know little about it, but then get upset when people who know this party well get upset.


This is why people assumed you were a troll.


People on a hunting Washington forum have hunting in this state in common.  Short story is that opportunities are reduced with wolves.  Money is spent to reduce our opportunity.

That makes some people angry.  The fix isn't about grazing rights, increasing skill set as a hunter if elk have been reduced in your area and you can't find them, or..............

But then, I have to stop and remind myself I'm wasting my time trying to explain.   

Expanding further on this:

The USFWS used Pittman Robertson funds (dollars from sporting goods sales meant to bolster opportiunities in states) to illegally plant wolves in Idaho, those wolves multiplied and some of their offspring are now eating Washington moose! 

[bearpaw]

Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.

FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! 

How much packing business do you do?
How much of your hunting in this state is done on public land? I realize you probably don't have an exact ratio, but would you say half or 3/4 or 1/4 of your outfitting is done on public land?
The map that Kentrek provided makes a clear and concise statement on the amount of wilderness areas in this state. There may be 22 wilderness areas in this state but how many of those are of any significance in size? How many of those 22 are just one connected to another? Think the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the Wild Sky Wilderness. They're almost the same area west of the crest.
I'm not pushing for more wilderness. I'm fine with what we have now. What I don't want is what public land we do have that is not designated wilderness to be more and more chopped up with roads. I also don't want 4 wheelers bombing all over wherever they want.
There are places in the central Cascades where it's hard enough to get a mile from a road...nevermind miles and miles. Those places suck to hunt if you ask me, and they're littered with people who pay no attention to gates and run their quads and dirtbikes wherever they feel like.

I see no reason any atv or utv should not be able to go on any mountain road that any other motorized vehicle is allowed. Funny how certain people want to prevent the people who live in an area from being able to ride on roads where they live! I do not support offroad riding and fully understand and agree with preventing offroad riding except in designated areas for that purpose such as the motorized trail system east of Colville for motorcycles. There are people who even want to shut that down.

I have no problem with not adding new roads on public lands, I have a problem with removing existing roads from public lands in NE Washington or any other area where the majority of people benefit from having access! I also have a problem with green groups stopping logging and grazing and handicapping rural communities incomes and lifestyles. I've read your rants about being categorized, this is the reason you see E WA people complaining about coasters! For the most part we are tired of groups who mostly live in other areas controlling our access, incomes, and lifestyle! I'm not here to tell you what to do in the cascades, I don't live or work there, the people who live there know what they want.

If Conservation Northwest and their partner Backcountry Hunters have their way a huge portion of Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Orielle counties will become roadless wilderness. Because I'm afraid these green groups continually seem to win I have already positioned myself to benefit. Currently my horseback business is active in Idaho and sometimes I use horses for Utah hunts. I am permitted in Washington but have not been providing horseback hunts in WA, if the green groups don't somehow get horses outlawed (many of them would like to do that too) I could greatly benefit financially if the green lobby gets their way. Many hunters wanting to hunt the Kettle Crest, Abercrombie, Sullivan lake areas will need packed in after the roads are removed or they will have to share the even more crowded public lands that are still accessible.

Yes, I could benefit by more wilderness, but it would be at the cost of the average hunter and many other forest users. Most of my family, friends, and neighbors would all lose opportunity if the green lobby gets their way! Anyone who is not in top physical condition will lose a great deal of opportunity. Sadly, the green lobby could careless about all those thousands of people who will lose opportunity!

[bearpaw]

Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??

42.9% of WA is public land for public use. That means the general public does not have access to 47.1% of Washington, it's private land. Comparing total public lands (bottom) to unroaded public lands (top) clearly shows there is a huge percentage that's already roadless. Only a small percentage of forest users benefit from the roadless, the majority of the public lose access. To want more roadless, especially considering much of the roadless is already underused, to me screams of sheer greed and lack of compassion for others. I'm sorry but that's what it says to me!

http://publiclandsinventory.wa.gov/#Map

[KFhunter]

agree with all that just want to add property bordering these areas will be priced out of the reach of most folks, like MT, WY  (Flathead for example) will be gobbled up by rich folks.  Property taxes will go skyhigh.

[theleo]

Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.

FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! 

How much packing business do you do?
How much of your hunting in this state is done on public land? I realize you probably don't have an exact ratio, but would you say half or 3/4 or 1/4 of your outfitting is done on public land?
The map that Kentrek provided makes a clear and concise statement on the amount of wilderness areas in this state. There may be 22 wilderness areas in this state but how many of those are of any significance in size? How many of those 22 are just one connected to another? Think the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the Wild Sky Wilderness. They're almost the same area west of the crest.
I'm not pushing for more wilderness. I'm fine with what we have now. What I don't want is what public land we do have that is not designated wilderness to be more and more chopped up with roads. I also don't want 4 wheelers bombing all over wherever they want.
There are places in the central Cascades where it's hard enough to get a mile from a road...nevermind miles and miles. Those places suck to hunt if you ask me, and they're littered with people who pay no attention to gates and run their quads and dirtbikes wherever they feel like.

I have no problem with not adding new roads on public lands, I have a problem with removing existing roads from public lands in NE Washington or any other area where the majority of people benefit from having access! I also have a problem with green groups stopping logging and grazing and handicapping rural communities incomes and lifestyles. I've read your rants about being categorized, this is the reason you see E WA people complaining about coasters! For the most part we are tired of groups who mostly live in other areas controlling our access, incomes, and lifestyle! I'm not here to tell you what to do in the cascades, I don't live or work there, the people who live there know what they want.

If Conservation Northwest and their partner Backcountry Hunters have their way a huge portion of Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Orielle counties will become roadless wilderness. Because I'm afraid these green groups continually seem to win I have already positioned myself to benefit. Currently my horseback business is active in Idaho and sometimes I use horses for Utah hunts. I am permitted in Washington but have not been providing horseback hunts in WA, if the green groups don't somehow get horses outlawed (many of them would like to do that too) I could greatly benefit financially if the green lobby gets their way. Many hunters wanting to hunt the Kettle Crest, Abercrombie, Sullivan lake areas will need packed in after the roads are removed or they will have to share the even more crowded public lands that are still accessible.

The romance people like that for a "pristine" wilderness is so misplaced it's depressing. I'd personally love some commercial activity in a lot of the wilderness areas I've been in. Log them via helicopter, graze them in the summer, and light it on fire at the end of October. After a couple years of that the logging and grazing could be reduced or eliminated. The state of a lot of wilderness forests are in a sad state from our protection. Forest management and wolf management have the same issue, management from the "heart" not the head.

[grundy53]

To me, this thread and the resulting comments are more about people labeling others just because of differing views. Some hate wolves, some don't mind them and some love them. If you're not in the wolf haters club, you're labeled a lover. It happens. It's happened to me. It's happened to the guy who started this thread and now it's going to happen to the guy from WI.
 
That is unfortunate.

To be fair, the OP labeled himself a wolf lover. Read the title of this thread...

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[grundy53]

What you're missing is---> Wolves make it much harder to kill elk from the road...mic drop.

There appears to be a split on this issue. Just talked to a buddy in Alaska over the lunch hour. He's been up there 30 years and hunts every season. He thought the idea that wolves push animals closer to roads was complete nonsense.  He said it's the exact opposite, that they dig in even deeper and further away from other animals including man.

Comparing Alaska to Washington is comparing apples to oranges. Alaska has a hell of a lot less roads then we do. In most of Washington If the wolves push the elk away from one road they are pushing them closer to another.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[KFhunter]

How are Elk in Alaska going to "get further away from wolves" while "getting further away from man" doesn't make since unless wolves like to be near man?
 

[JimmyHoffa]

Elk in Alaska are on islands free of wolves.

[kentrek]

Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??

42.9% of WA is public land for public use. That means the general public does not have access to 47.1% of Washington, it's private land. Comparing total public lands (bottom) to unroaded public lands (top) clearly shows there is a huge percentage that's already roadless. Only a small percentage of forest users benefit from the roadless, the majority of the public lose access. To want more roadless, especially considering much of the roadless is already underused, to me screams of sheer greed and lack of compassion for others. I'm sorry but that's what it says to me!

http://publiclandsinventory.wa.gov/#Map

That demographic is not including the tree farms that are private but also open to public for a trespass fee....there is huge amounts of land open to the public that have oodles of roads....

I doubt we disagree as much as it comes off, we both agree everyone needs to have a place to go....we can't trust the majority with these issues....just as we can't trust the majority with choosing a president  (which I'm sure we can agree on there) but it applys to game & land management too....whats best for the majority is not always what's best for all

[bearpaw]

Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??

42.9% of WA is public land for public use. That means the general public does not have access to 47.1% of Washington, it's private land. Comparing total public lands (bottom) to unroaded public lands (top) clearly shows there is a huge percentage that's already roadless. Only a small percentage of forest users benefit from the roadless, the majority of the public lose access. To want more roadless, especially considering much of the roadless is already underused, to me screams of sheer greed and lack of compassion for others. I'm sorry but that's what it says to me!

http://publiclandsinventory.wa.gov/#Map

That demographic is not including the tree farms that are private but also open to public for a trespass fee....there is huge amounts of land open to the public that have oodles of roads....

I doubt we disagree as much as it comes off, we both agree everyone needs to have a place to go....we can't trust the majority with these issues....just as we can't trust the majority with choosing a president  (which I'm sure we can agree on there) but it applys to game & land management too....whats best for the majority is not always what's best for all

I think mostly we disagree on this and similar topics, and that's OK, no two people agree on everything anyway. 

Just so we are clear, I'm not advocating reducing roadless areas, we need to keep our roadless areas, but we also need to keep accessible areas for the masses. I'm talking public lands, that is what the public has control over, we don't have a right to tell private land owners how they must manage their lands. I compared a map of all public land to your map of roadless areas, it's very clear a large percentage of public lands are roadless. So you are saying the majority of the public who by most accounts already over use current roaded areas should lose more opportunity so the minority can have even more roadless areas (much of which has little use)?

roadless areas (top)
all public lands (bottom)