Free: Contests & Raffles.
Too small
It must be a coyote print then just like the state says. So get the gun out and shoot them coyotes.
Quote from: HighlandLofts on December 04, 2018, 03:07:56 PMIt must be a coyote print then just like the state says. So get the gun out and shoot them coyotes.I’m not trying to start anything and I get what you’re saying but I never understand when people say to shoot them because the state says it’s a yote, when the dog in question is in a WDFW recognized wolf pack area. Don’t think they would call it a yote?
I mean- I get what he’s saying if it was a wet-side dog. But that’s not the case here.
Quote from: Scheindogg on December 04, 2018, 03:47:56 PMI mean- I get what he’s saying if it was a wet-side dog. But that’s not the case here.I don't think you do get it. back a few years ago on HW we were having a lot more wolf debates and discussion, part of that discussion was the fact that WDFW would refuse to declare a dead cow as having been killed by a wolf when the evidence was clear, in one instance the only tracks around the carcass was that of wolves, and the wolves were howling just a few hundred yards away yet WDFW officers still could not declare it wolf depredation, they actually had to call olympia and ask the big bosses there if they could call it a wolf kill. It started being a running joke that anything and everything killed that calf (rabid squirrel, badger, coyote...) To add to the running joke one HW poster said he'd seen a wolf and called WDFW, they told him that there's no wolves in the area.....Hunter calls WDFWHunter: "So if there's no wolves in the area they must in fact be coyotes so I'll shoot them"WDFW: "whoa wait, it's illegal to shoot wolves" Hunter: " you just said there's no wolves in the area, so how could I get in trouble for shooting coyotes?"So the joke is that it must just be large coyotes, and we can shoot them. It's just another take on SSSStill illegal weither WDFW say's there's wolves there or not. make since?
Meeh, I don't know about that. Doesn't look big enough for a wolf or the wolf is pretty small.Just not something you can look at and confidently tell it's a wolf...
Cant be wolf tracks, the state says there are none there, they are just large coyotes, so shoot as many as you can and dispose of them discreetly.
Next time be sure to use something to give comparable scale, it leaves less room for speculation.
Quote from: huntnphool on December 04, 2018, 11:24:58 PM Next time be sure to use something to give comparable scale, it leaves less room for speculation. You know that’s an old track when it’s an iPhone 1
Young wolf and I live in the area and .they are there.
I’m sure I’ll make someone feel bad, but that’s probably a German Shepherd or lab. Lol. If that’s a wolf that’s about the smallest one I’ve ever seen. There are certainly wolves in the area, not arguing that. I missed the part where he was 6 10. Hmmmm. Yeah, still not the normal shape though. 🤔
They are either coyotes or house pets unless the state says there are wolves there which they seldom do. So if I am in a area the state says there are no wolves that make any canine in that area fair game. It is what it is. Just because you think you seen a wolf or a wolf track doesn't mean you really seen a wolf or a wolf track.the state will tell you other wise. So I listen to what these liars say and take appropriate actions.
WDFW is literally creating the hate of wolves! If they would take care of problem animals and show equal consideration for our other wildlife, many people would be far more receptive to having a reasonable wolf population.
Quote from: HighlandLofts on December 05, 2018, 07:57:34 PM They are either coyotes or house pets unless the state says there are wolves there which they seldom do. So if I am in a area the state says there are no wolves that make any canine in that area fair game. It is what it is. Just because you think you seen a wolf or a wolf track doesn't mean you really seen a wolf or a wolf track.the state will tell you other wise. So I listen to what these liars say and take appropriate actions.Sooooooo......If a moose is standing in the middle of downtown Seattle, is it still a moose, or is it a deer because WDFW says there are no moose in downtown Seattle? Based on this logic, you’re ok shooting said mystery moose/deer creature in deer season because it’s not a moose?
Quote from: jackelope on December 05, 2018, 08:24:03 PMQuote from: HighlandLofts on December 05, 2018, 07:57:34 PM They are either coyotes or house pets unless the state says there are wolves there which they seldom do. So if I am in a area the state says there are no wolves that make any canine in that area fair game. It is what it is. Just because you think you seen a wolf or a wolf track doesn't mean you really seen a wolf or a wolf track.the state will tell you other wise. So I listen to what these liars say and take appropriate actions.Sooooooo......If a moose is standing in the middle of downtown Seattle, is it still a moose, or is it a deer because WDFW says there are no moose in downtown Seattle? Based on this logic, youre ok shooting said mystery moose/deer creature in deer season because its not a moose?jackelope.. While I understand where you are coming I also understand the frustration from those saying "no wolves, must be a coyote." In other states precedence has been set based off of assumed knowledge it is reasonable an animal could be mistaken that is not there based off of what wild life management assertions are. If they say they are not there, we reasonably would assume they are not there.. Not trying to argue your point, but agree that WDFW's failure to not identify kills and confirm wolves in an area where they certainly are could make for an interesting defense..https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/2017/11/13/missouri-girl-14-thought-she-shooting-deer-when-she-pulled-trigger/858472001/
Quote from: HighlandLofts on December 05, 2018, 07:57:34 PM They are either coyotes or house pets unless the state says there are wolves there which they seldom do. So if I am in a area the state says there are no wolves that make any canine in that area fair game. It is what it is. Just because you think you seen a wolf or a wolf track doesn't mean you really seen a wolf or a wolf track.the state will tell you other wise. So I listen to what these liars say and take appropriate actions.Sooooooo......If a moose is standing in the middle of downtown Seattle, is it still a moose, or is it a deer because WDFW says there are no moose in downtown Seattle? Based on this logic, youre ok shooting said mystery moose/deer creature in deer season because its not a moose?
Quote from: cavemann on December 06, 2018, 10:25:57 AMQuote from: jackelope on December 05, 2018, 08:24:03 PMQuote from: HighlandLofts on December 05, 2018, 07:57:34 PM They are either coyotes or house pets unless the state says there are wolves there which they seldom do. So if I am in a area the state says there are no wolves that make any canine in that area fair game. It is what it is. Just because you think you seen a wolf or a wolf track doesn't mean you really seen a wolf or a wolf track.the state will tell you other wise. So I listen to what these liars say and take appropriate actions.Sooooooo......If a moose is standing in the middle of downtown Seattle, is it still a moose, or is it a deer because WDFW says there are no moose in downtown Seattle? Based on this logic, you’re ok shooting said mystery moose/deer creature in deer season because it’s not a moose?jackelope.. While I understand where you are coming I also understand the frustration from those saying "no wolves, must be a coyote." In other states precedence has been set based off of assumed knowledge it is reasonable an animal could be mistaken that is not there based off of what wild life management assertions are. If they say they are not there, we reasonably would assume they are not there.. Not trying to argue your point, but agree that WDFW's failure to not identify kills and confirm wolves in an area where they certainly are could make for an interesting defense..https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/2017/11/13/missouri-girl-14-thought-she-shooting-deer-when-she-pulled-trigger/858472001/With all due respect, when they can't "confirm" wolves presence, does that mean the same thing as them saying there are no wolves? Or does it simply mean they can't confirm the presence of wolves in an area? I guarantee you, especially with all the crap they take from both sides of the aisle, WDFW is not going to say one way or the other, that an animal is a wolf without being able to scientifically verify or confirm it was in fact a wolf. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
Quote from: jackelope on December 05, 2018, 08:24:03 PMQuote from: HighlandLofts on December 05, 2018, 07:57:34 PM They are either coyotes or house pets unless the state says there are wolves there which they seldom do. So if I am in a area the state says there are no wolves that make any canine in that area fair game. It is what it is. Just because you think you seen a wolf or a wolf track doesn't mean you really seen a wolf or a wolf track.the state will tell you other wise. So I listen to what these liars say and take appropriate actions.Sooooooo......If a moose is standing in the middle of downtown Seattle, is it still a moose, or is it a deer because WDFW says there are no moose in downtown Seattle? Based on this logic, you’re ok shooting said mystery moose/deer creature in deer season because it’s not a moose?jackelope.. While I understand where you are coming I also understand the frustration from those saying "no wolves, must be a coyote." In other states precedence has been set based off of assumed knowledge it is reasonable an animal could be mistaken that is not there based off of what wild life management assertions are. If they say they are not there, we reasonably would assume they are not there.. Not trying to argue your point, but agree that WDFW's failure to not identify kills and confirm wolves in an area where they certainly are could make for an interesting defense..https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/2017/11/13/missouri-girl-14-thought-she-shooting-deer-when-she-pulled-trigger/858472001/
Quote from: jackelope on December 06, 2018, 11:13:17 AMQuote from: cavemann on December 06, 2018, 10:25:57 AMQuote from: jackelope on December 05, 2018, 08:24:03 PMQuote from: HighlandLofts on December 05, 2018, 07:57:34 PM They are either coyotes or house pets unless the state says there are wolves there which they seldom do. So if I am in a area the state says there are no wolves that make any canine in that area fair game. It is what it is. Just because you think you seen a wolf or a wolf track doesn't mean you really seen a wolf or a wolf track.the state will tell you other wise. So I listen to what these liars say and take appropriate actions.Sooooooo......If a moose is standing in the middle of downtown Seattle, is it still a moose, or is it a deer because WDFW says there are no moose in downtown Seattle? Based on this logic, youre ok shooting said mystery moose/deer creature in deer season because its not a moose?jackelope.. While I understand where you are coming I also understand the frustration from those saying "no wolves, must be a coyote." In other states precedence has been set based off of assumed knowledge it is reasonable an animal could be mistaken that is not there based off of what wild life management assertions are. If they say they are not there, we reasonably would assume they are not there.. Not trying to argue your point, but agree that WDFW's failure to not identify kills and confirm wolves in an area where they certainly are could make for an interesting defense..https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/2017/11/13/missouri-girl-14-thought-she-shooting-deer-when-she-pulled-trigger/858472001/With all due respect, when they can't "confirm" wolves presence, does that mean the same thing as them saying there are no wolves? Or does it simply mean they can't confirm the presence of wolves in an area? I guarantee you, especially with all the crap they take from both sides of the aisle, WDFW is not going to say one way or the other, that an animal is a wolf without being able to scientifically verify or confirm it was in fact a wolf. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.That's the problem... they should be objective and not influenced by crap from both sides.
Quote from: cavemann on December 06, 2018, 10:25:57 AMQuote from: jackelope on December 05, 2018, 08:24:03 PMQuote from: HighlandLofts on December 05, 2018, 07:57:34 PM They are either coyotes or house pets unless the state says there are wolves there which they seldom do. So if I am in a area the state says there are no wolves that make any canine in that area fair game. It is what it is. Just because you think you seen a wolf or a wolf track doesn't mean you really seen a wolf or a wolf track.the state will tell you other wise. So I listen to what these liars say and take appropriate actions.Sooooooo......If a moose is standing in the middle of downtown Seattle, is it still a moose, or is it a deer because WDFW says there are no moose in downtown Seattle? Based on this logic, youre ok shooting said mystery moose/deer creature in deer season because its not a moose?jackelope.. While I understand where you are coming I also understand the frustration from those saying "no wolves, must be a coyote." In other states precedence has been set based off of assumed knowledge it is reasonable an animal could be mistaken that is not there based off of what wild life management assertions are. If they say they are not there, we reasonably would assume they are not there.. Not trying to argue your point, but agree that WDFW's failure to not identify kills and confirm wolves in an area where they certainly are could make for an interesting defense..https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/2017/11/13/missouri-girl-14-thought-she-shooting-deer-when-she-pulled-trigger/858472001/With all due respect, when they can't "confirm" wolves presence, does that mean the same thing as them saying there are no wolves? Or does it simply mean they can't confirm the presence of wolves in an area? I guarantee you, especially with all the crap they take from both sides of the aisle, WDFW is not going to say one way or the other, that an animal is a wolf without being able to scientifically verify or confirm it was in fact a wolf. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
I spoke with a WDFW officer a few years ago. He flat out said his department was lying about the numbers and locations of wolves and that he hoped the locals would do what they needed to do. He blamed the biologist and told me the guys on the enforcement end are mostly hunters and don't want wolves around either. In my view the department is corrupt and has zero credibility. Would be nice to see something change but it won't.