I love wolves. Seriously.

[kentrek]

Your comparing public lands in general and I'm comparing lands available to hunt which is what we should be comparing I'd think ....your saying if I'm pro wilderness then I must be anti access but you get to be pro access with out being anti wilderness.....we can agree to disagree and that's fine... the less pressured areas feed the pressured areas, it's pretty simple...i know we need some more less pressured areas..maybe that's not the case in the north east...but whether it's more walk in, more hunter distrabution, or less tags (last option)...i think it's the direction we need to go regardless if it's what's best for the majority

Because we are losing our voting power with the experiences people get with today's recreaction hunting

[buglebrush]

Your comparing public lands in general and I'm comparing lands available to hunt which is what we should be comparing I'd think ....your saying if I'm pro wilderness then I must be anti access but you get to be pro access with out being anti wilderness.....we can agree to disagree and that's fine... the less pressured areas feed the pressured areas, it's pretty simple...i know we need some more less pressured areas..maybe that's not the case in the north east...but whether it's more walk in, more hunter distrabution, or less tags (last option)...i think it's the direction we need to go regardless if it's what's best for the majority

Because we are losing our voting power with the experiences people get with today's recreaction hunting

Problem is that those private timber lands are only available to a limited amount of people, and for a substantial fee.  Too big a fee for most people. 

I hunt exclusively roadless and Wilderness areas myself.  I much prefer that type of hunting, but I am with Dale here.   We are physically fit and able, but most people aren't.  My grandpa can hardly walk anymore and good options for hunting are far more limited than mine.  Some day that will be you and I.
 

[Special T]

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

In Alaska you can hop in a tundra buggy and wheel all over the place. The Alaskan version of off roading has no comparison. Go off the road here and all he'll breaks loose!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[wolfbait]

As a side note, I can't help but mention the irony in showing me pictures of wolf kills as if it's evidence that wolves should be banned. 

That's the exact same tactic used by the anti-hunting crowd: they post photos of a gutted and half-butchered animal and accuse us all of being savages who should be banned.

The pictures I posted are facts, the only thing wolves have done since they were introduced is kill ungulates and livestock. Can you name any benefits the wolves have added to WA etc..?

If you don't like to see what wolves are really about, then you started the wrong thread.

[wolfbait]

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! 

On top of stealing the money to introduce the wolves, the USFWS dump wolves on a native species that were already expanding naturally.

[wolfbait]

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!

I wonder has it ever occurred to anyone that the environmental groups push the USFWS, USFS, etc. policies, making huge profits through grants, and suing etc.? So in reality it really isn't the environmental groups that are to blame they are just take taking heat for profit.

Same as the natural conservancy buys up land and then sells it for a huge profit to the feds, this way it doesn't look like the feds are buying up so much land.

I think it's what is described as fake environmental groups.

[bearpaw]

Your comparing public lands in general and I'm comparing lands available to hunt which is what we should be comparing I'd think ....your saying if I'm pro wilderness then I must be anti access but you get to be pro access with out being anti wilderness.....we can agree to disagree and that's fine... the less pressured areas feed the pressured areas, it's pretty simple...i know we need some more less pressured areas..maybe that's not the case in the north east...but whether it's more walk in, more hunter distrabution, or less tags (last option)...i think it's the direction we need to go regardless if it's what's best for the majority

Because we are losing our voting power with the experiences people get with today's recreaction hunting

You do not and should not have control over private lands. It's up to the private landowner if they choose to build roads or even allow access!

The public has rightful control and access to public owned lands. I showed that a huge percentage of public ownership is already roadless, the roadless crowd who are pushing for more roadless are trying to give the majority of users the shaft, TAKE AWAY FROM THE MAJORITY TO BENEFIT A FEW, nothing less than that!

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, no hard feelings, just a difference of opinions, I certainly will never agree with benefiting a few by taking opportunity away from the majority of users!

My apologies to the OP for hijacking the topic!

[KFhunter]

Yakimanoob you say you love wolves. You have heard a lot of reasons why some of the hunters have a dislike for them. Mainly because it severely curtails hunting opportunities. Tell us why you love this creature as stated. Do you not feel a threat to you right to hunt or your chance of harvesting an animal? When you create such a controversial topic on a hunting forum you have to expect a backlash. It might not have such a hot button as if you said I love grizzlies, seriously. I think you will find that if you were a serious hunter that hunts multiple states there is going to be opposition to your view because of the jeopardy to serious hunters resource.

I will say again that I have never challenged the idea that they're a threat to hunting opportunities.  I love them because they're amazing, intelligent creatures.  But that doesn't mean I think they should be in Washington or that there should be more of them in Washington or that they should be protected as endangered.  Again, my goal in posting the question was to learn why people seem to hate the animals themselves.  I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic to debate their presence in our state. 

If you're curious, I'm learning two major points by reading through the responses here:

1) There is a tremendous amount of political anger and offense at how these animals were re-introduced and are managed.  I'm struck by the comments calling the introduction illegal and the idea of this being part of a larger anti-hunting agenda.  It's not hard for me to see how easy it must be for people in Washington to go from feeling slighted, or maybe even abused, by their own government to hating the creatures at the center of that abuse.  I'm also learning that those who actually hate the wolves themselves are definitely the minority, and I only got the impression people hate the creatures because of the intensity of the anger over the situation. 

2) It seems the overall quality of conversation about the subject has degenerated to the level typical of political conversations today.  Those who disagree with you must be idiots or have some sinister motive that threatens your lifestyle.  Anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you must be your enemy and you'd rather them not speak.  I'm still chuckling at the comment about needing smacked upside the head and having my nose shoved in the mud, as if that would result in me seeing your side of the argument.  Banning people from the forum, accusing them of being dishonest, or otherwise lashing back at them is, if nothing else, an exceptionally ineffective way of convincing someone that they should change their mind.  That's the way you make enemies, not allies. 

And this is what seems the highest shame of this thread.  I'm a hunter and I'd like to see our rights and opportunities protected.  But we live in a republic, and the only hope we have to protect our rights is to ensure we have enough popular support to maintain those rights.  The minute we offend the majority is the minute we forfeit our rights.  So please, quit picking fights with people who disagree with you, and work to bridge the gap instead of widening it.

It looks as if you've found your answer.  We've debated this for years on hunting-washington and most have come to the realization that "wolves will be wolves", there's no point or purpose to hating them for being what they are, my focus is shining the light those who forced them upon us and what the real nature of the wolf is to those who are primarily educated by ©Disney and various pro-wolf propaganda.

[bearpaw]

Yakimanoob you say you love wolves. You have heard a lot of reasons why some of the hunters have a dislike for them. Mainly because it severely curtails hunting opportunities. Tell us why you love this creature as stated. Do you not feel a threat to you right to hunt or your chance of harvesting an animal? When you create such a controversial topic on a hunting forum you have to expect a backlash. It might not have such a hot button as if you said I love grizzlies, seriously. I think you will find that if you were a serious hunter that hunts multiple states there is going to be opposition to your view because of the jeopardy to serious hunters resource.

I will say again that I have never challenged the idea that they're a threat to hunting opportunities.  I love them because they're amazing, intelligent creatures.  But that doesn't mean I think they should be in Washington or that there should be more of them in Washington or that they should be protected as endangered.  Again, my goal in posting the question was to learn why people seem to hate the animals themselves.  I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic to debate their presence in our state. 

If you're curious, I'm learning two major points by reading through the responses here:

1) There is a tremendous amount of political anger and offense at how these animals were re-introduced and are managed.  I'm struck by the comments calling the introduction illegal and the idea of this being part of a larger anti-hunting agenda.  It's not hard for me to see how easy it must be for people in Washington to go from feeling slighted, or maybe even abused, by their own government to hating the creatures at the center of that abuse.  I'm also learning that those who actually hate the wolves themselves are definitely the minority, and I only got the impression people hate the creatures because of the intensity of the anger over the situation. 

2) It seems the overall quality of conversation about the subject has degenerated to the level typical of political conversations today.  Those who disagree with you must be idiots or have some sinister motive that threatens your lifestyle.  Anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you must be your enemy and you'd rather them not speak.  I'm still chuckling at the comment about needing smacked upside the head and having my nose shoved in the mud, as if that would result in me seeing your side of the argument.  Banning people from the forum, accusing them of being dishonest, or otherwise lashing back at them is, if nothing else, an exceptionally ineffective way of convincing someone that they should change their mind.  That's the way you make enemies, not allies. 

And this is what seems the highest shame of this thread.  I'm a hunter and I'd like to see our rights and opportunities protected.  But we live in a republic, and the only hope we have to protect our rights is to ensure we have enough popular support to maintain those rights.  The minute we offend the majority is the minute we forfeit our rights.  So please, quit picking fights with people who disagree with you, and work to bridge the gap instead of widening it.

It looks as if you've found your answer.  We've debated this for years on hunting-washington and most have come to the realization that "wolves will be wolves", there's no point or purpose to hating them for being what they are, my focus is shining the light those who forced them upon us and what the real nature of the wolf is to those who are primarily educated by ©Disney and various pro-wolf propaganda.

FYI - Very few people are actually banned from this forum, we have a strict policy of adhering to the rules regarding bans. Almost nobody is permanently banned, only in the most extreme cases, and usually only after multiple shorter bans for breaking forum rules.

[Dan-o]

Yamikanoob,

I do hope that you've taken form this thread that most "wolf hatred" is actually hatred of the dishonest people who brought back wolves.

Had they been honest and decent (kept to their word about the number of wolves they required) then I suspect that many people would feel differently.

But when you look at the way they've systematically lied to get more and more wolves (or for that matter, when you look at the Wa plan that does nothing to protect the livelihoods of those in the NE corner until enough are documented in other regions) it's a lot easier to just want no wolves.

 

[wolfbait]

Yamikanoob,

I do hope that you've taken form this thread that most "wolf hatred" is actually hatred of the dishonest people who brought back wolves.

Had they been honest and decent (kept to their word about the number of wolves they required) then I suspect that many people would feel differently.

But when you look at the way they've systematically lied to get more and more wolves (or for that matter, when you look at the Wa plan that does nothing to protect the livelihoods of those in the NE corner until enough are documented in other regions) it's a lot easier to just want no wolves.

Well Put

I would add it just isn't the NE corner of WA that has and is taking a beating from wolves, at this point many ranchers will not call WDFW if they have wolf problems.

[bearpaw]

Yamikanoob,

I do hope that you've taken form this thread that most "wolf hatred" is actually hatred of the dishonest people who brought back wolves.

Had they been honest and decent (kept to their word about the number of wolves they required) then I suspect that many people would feel differently.

But when you look at the way they've systematically lied to get more and more wolves (or for that matter, when you look at the Wa plan that does nothing to protect the livelihoods of those in the NE corner until enough are documented in other regions) it's a lot easier to just want no wolves.

  I absolutely agree!
In Idaho where wolves are now managed game herds are rebuilding, I have no issue with sharing the mountains with a managed population of wolves. But you simply cannot trust these agencies or wolf groups. USFWS illegally used sportsman dollars to plant wolves in Idaho and the former Idaho F&G director went against state legislated law by signing the permit for USFWS to plant the wolves in Idaho. It's the agencies and wolf groups that are the real problem! You cannot trust them!

[WAcoyotehunter]

@Bearpaw your comment about CNW being "partners" with BHA is bulI$hi+.  We haven't talked about wilderness in the Kettles for years, and when we did try to add wilderness in NE is was ALWAYS with support from timber industry and in areas that were not going to impact grazing alottments.  You could have participated at any time (I remember inviting you) and you didn't.

Don't drink the Stevens county cattleman's Kool aid.

[bearpaw]

@bearpaw your comment about CNW being "partners" with BHA is bulI$hi+.  We haven't talked about wilderness in the Kettles for years, and when we did try to add wilderness in NE is was ALWAYS with support from timber industry and in areas that were not going to impact grazing alottments.  You could have participated at any time (I remember inviting you) and you didn't.

Don't drink the Stevens county cattleman's Kool aid.

I think you are a good guy and I think you want to do what you think is best. But there are connections that you may not even know about! It's not that I want to take away any roadless areas, I'm just tired of the never ending expansion of roadless areas, the roadless crowd will never have enough!

BHA and CNW had Vaagens by the short hair, Vaagens had no choice but to go along to get any scraps you might allow them, they have to try and keep the mill running. I will not be a part of such a blackmail racket! Just because most people did not participate does not mean they agree, it's mostly because they were opposed! The local majority is opposed to more wilderness!

I remember looking into a job position with Back Country Hunters that at first sounded interesting, that was before I really knew who they were or what they were after, on the surface they sounded like a good group, it boiled down to they were looking for a paid employee to lobby USFS and local industry to get more wilderness! As soon as I started asking hard questions I never heard from them again! When I realized the real narrative of BHA I was glad I did not get involved and I fully understood why they never responded.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I don't suppose you know who got that position??  He was an outfitter and a former logging company owner, that works in lg sales still and is an active member of BHA. 

BHA has pushed for more logging on the Colville (from 30m bd ft to 80m bd ft) and has worked to make the South end motorized use project a possibility.  You probably don't know as much about BHA as you think.