I love wolves. Seriously.

[bearpaw]

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.

Yes, I remember hearing who took the job but I didn't know the person and at that point had decided I wanted nothing to do with BHA. I do realize that as control of an organization changes over time that the goals of the organization might change. For example years ago I donated hunting trips to help support RMEF, then they started going green and turned into more of a preservationist org than a supporter of hunters, I quit donating hunts for 10 or 15 years. Since David Allen took over RMEF is on a much more hunter oriented pathway that I have again supported.

What you stated sounds like a good direction, have they quit wanting to convert big portions of NE WA to wilderness? That in itself is the most important issue, is BHA just maneuvering to get their ultimate goal of more wilderness by feeding a little timber to the sawmills now?

Please keep in mind, I fully support keeping all our old growth and all our current roadless public lands, I'm opposed to the never ending feeding frenzy for more wilderness!

[WAcoyotehunter]

The only wilderness option right now (and it's not an option politically at all) is a 13k acre expansion on the Salmo Priest, but it's already designated roadless and managed as de facto wilderness... So it's a moot point and we are not going to burn social capital on it. 

BHA was not a part if the collaboration when the Kettles and all of the Abcrombie hooknose areas were proposed.   We joined when those areas were already on the maps and were supportive because we were part if the collaboration.  Don't get the idea that it was BHA that asked for the universe with the original proposal

[buglebrush]

The only wilderness option right now (and it's not an option politically at all) is a 13k acre expansion on the Salmo Priest, but it's already designated roadless and managed as de facto wilderness... So it's a moot point and we are not going to burn social capital on it. 

BHA was not a part if the collaboration when the Kettles and all of the Abcrombie hooknose areas were proposed.   We joined when those areas were already on the maps and were supportive because we were part if the collaboration.  Don't get the idea that it was BHA that asked for the universe with the original proposal

Not a moot point at all!  Maybe someday it could've been logged.  The Salmo Priest Wilderness supports less animals all the time.  If BHA gets there desires we will have to depend solely on forest fires, and with the overabundance of fuel those fires will probably sterilize the soil.

[WAcoyotehunter]

It's a moot point because it's not going to be logged.  It's designated roadless, its high elevation subalpine fir with little value, and the colville NF has a moratorium on cutting trees >21".

Put into context, 13k acres doesn't mean anything to this industrial forest.  The value of the logs on that land can/should be made up for elsewhere. 

Depend solely on forest fires for what? 

[yakimanoob]

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.

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 do have my answer, KFhunter, and, Dan-o, that's exactly the realization I've had reading the thoughful discussion on this thread.  Thanks again to everyone who took the time to read and comment -- I know it got a little hairy at times, but such is the nature of the discussion I suppose.  I really have learned a lot. 

No need for an apology on the side-track, bearpaw.  Public/roadless/wilderness lands is a really interesting topic I'm only recently starting to research, so I've enjoyed reading the back-and-forth.  Coming from Alabama where we have very very little public land and even less wilderness, it certainly seems to me that WA is rich with wilderness areas and I would have a hard time understanding why we should remove more roads.  But I totally get the point of reducing pressure on the animals, especially during winter/birthing times.  Like I said, an interesting subject! 

[yakimanoob]

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.

I think you misunderstood my point, wolfbait.  I don't mind seeing photos of wolf kills.  And I maintain my position of ignorance on whether or not wolves have provided any benefit.  The damages and challenges they pose are obvious; I have never disputed them. 

I know that wolves are predators, just as I am a predator.  You may all have been more offended by the sloppy job I did skinning and field dressing my elk than you are at wolf kill pics.  Both situations are gruesome, but their visceral quality has no bearing on my opinions. 

[Skyvalhunter]

Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.

[wolfbait]

Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.

Nine years of BS from the pro-wolfers, and most people have the reasons behind wolves figured out, those who pretend wolves are a good thing, support the agenda of no hunting etc..

[2MANY]

and drive Subaru's.

[Special T]

and drive Subaru's.

Pound sand. Look up the pic of my Bratt on here I rocked for a long time. They are awesome hunting rigs!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Seahawk12]

and drive Subaru's.

Pound sand. Look up the pic of my Bratt on here I rocked for a long time. They are awesome hunting rigs!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The outback is a great vehicle. I drove one to Colorado a few years ago to ski and made my way through a massive winter storm. I can't tell you how many vehicles lost traction while my outback handled all of it great.
I've taken it up into some pretty rough areas and never had any kind of issues.
Good fuel economy.
Holds its resale value.
Very easy to drive.
Stays on the road better than many.
Handles a wide variety of terrain well.
I like ours.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.

Nine years of BS from the pro-wolfers, and most people have the reasons behind wolves figured out, those who pretend wolves are a good thing, support the agenda of no hunting etc..

So far most of the BS and stupid predictions have came from the wildly anti wolf folks here (you) including the big lawsuit you had planned, the decimation of elk populations w/in ten years, and the end of hunting in WA state.  You guys were wrong.
Wolves are just another piece of wildlife, when they are recovered we need to manage them. Eliminating them isn't an option.

[elkboy]

Not a moot point at all!  Maybe someday it could've been logged.  The Salmo Priest Wilderness supports less animals all the time.  If BHA gets there desires we will have to depend solely on forest fires, and with the overabundance of fuel those fires will probably sterilize the soil.
[/quote]

At one time in North America, deer and elk habitat did rely on forest and range fires.  Even severe fire can be a great thing, and is usually variable enough to allow for all kinds of post-fire habitat to develop (from 0% tree mortality to 100% tree mortality).  The fires of 1910 were incredibly severe and widespread, but the habitat they created still supported elk herds until late in the 20th century.  Fire-created elk habitat lasts a lot longer than that created by industrial timber harvest.   I wouldn't worry about soil sterilization holding back habitat development- if anything, it would prevent conifer establishment, and favor establishment by nitrogen-fixers like buck-brush.  Deer and elk would certainly vote for that! 

[b0bbyg]

Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.

Nine years of BS from the pro-wolfers, and most people have the reasons behind wolves figured out, those who pretend wolves are a good thing, support the agenda of no hunting etc..

So far most of the BS and stupid predictions have came from the wildly anti wolf folks here (you) including the big lawsuit you had planned, the decimation of elk populations w/in ten years, and the end of hunting in WA state.  You guys were wrong.
Wolves are just another piece of wildlife, when they are recovered we need to manage them. Eliminating them isn't an option.

Eliminating them is an option just very unlikely in todays political climate.  After all history does kind of indicate they were eliminated once before. 

I will let others argue with you over the word "recovered" 

[gaddy]

I am all for elimination of them in Washington. I have not seen or heard about any benefit of having them here. They kill indiscriminately, distribute disease through their scat, harass and scatter every thing from moose, to livestock and even pets. Hunting aside, I see them as a pest that needs to be swatted.
I had one that sided me at twenty yards until I got to the truck, where was the rest of the pack ? Did I get to enjoy my outing, No.
Am I now worried about taking my dogs for a walk in the woods that I have been going to for years ? Do I worry about grand children wandering around as my kids did ? Where did my quality of life go.
I understand the odds but, as far as I'm concerned, Kill them all. I don't need them and I don't think they are good for Washington.