collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Wolves  (Read 25888 times)

Offline Slider

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 2585
    • www.albinovest.com
Re: Wolves
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2009, 04:24:35 PM »
This is what the pro-wolf people are pretending not to understand. With wolves overpopulating the Rocky Mountains and the Cascades there is really no need for human hunting. That is the point, that is the goal. That is the reality. I believe there is a bloodless revolution going on in this country that is hell bent on changing America into something that I do not recognize. I have been ignoring those who call out like Paul Revere but I am beginning to understand that if we do not do something with in the next few years it will be to late and it will take generations to set things right.

+1
Stop Hunting 101
First Ban Hound Hunting and Baiting Bears.
Introduce and purchase land for Wolves.
When there are 2 many Black Bears bring in Grizzles. Yes Grizzleys do eat Black Bears!!!
When there are not eneough Deer,Elk and Moose from the Wolves and Grizzlies there will be no need to hunt!!!  :bdid:

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 4457
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: Wolves
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2009, 04:28:39 PM »
There is a reason that wolves were hunted to near extinction in the lower 48. It is because they are bad news.

Ok then...what was the reason people killed nearly all the elk, deer, turkeys, lions, bobcats, lynx, otter, caribou, passenger pigeons, bison,  mink.....   they must have been bad news as well.

 :liar:



Wolves are not compatible with humans. There is only room for one Apex predator in the chain.

Game is at an all time high now. Why is that?
Oh yeah- that's why there are no humans left in Canada or Alaska; we are all screwed.   ;)

I agree that wolf populations need managed.  They should be maintained at a level that allows enough surplus for hunters.  Game being at an all time high is not exactly indicitive of a healthy environment.  Wolves coming into WA is not the end of the world, or of our hunting.  As long as we can have a plan in place to control the population when it reaches the recovery goals we are OK.  I'll be interested to see the outcome of the anti's lawsuits on the recent delisting in MT and ID.  Hopefully the work they are doing is laying the way for WA to eventually move in that direction, but IMO it will be a long time before we get the #'s to delist.

Offline Wenatcheejay

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 4723
Re: Wolves
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2009, 04:40:38 PM »
Canada and Alaska have more land, and they allow hunting of the wolves. In Alaska they hunt them by plane. There is a lot we can agree on Yotehunter. Wolves can be managed. But m a n a g e d is the key word. That is not what is going on. That is my point. If it is yours, then we agree.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Offline Pathfinder101

  • The Chosen YAR
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 11931
  • Location: Southeast WA
  • Semper Primus
Re: Wolves
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2009, 04:47:37 PM »
Canada and Alaska also have sustainable populations of moose, which support a lot of the wolf populations.  If the predators we already have (cougar and black bear) are not hammering the deer and elk populations, then what happened to the Blues?
If wolves are introduced they will eventually start to reduce their own numbers through wolf on wolf violence, but not before going through the deer population (easier to catch than elk).  Washington can sustain a wolf population, but not until we go through some pain.  And the politics of wolf hunting is going to cause a $hitstorm when DFW starts to try to manage them.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.  That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

Offline WDFW-SUX

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 5724
Re: Wolves
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2009, 04:52:54 PM »
Ihave a joyfull pic from last weekend but sont have a puter with me in the yukon

I will send the pic to someone if they will post it but need the email posted can't check the pm's from the phone

SSS
THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SUCKS MORE THAN EVER..........

Offline WDFW-SUX

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 5724
Re: Wolves
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2009, 06:33:14 PM »
I don't think having wolves anywhere in in the lower 48 is a good idea. RMEF are fools if they support any number of wolves.  The dude in the pic is 5 10. 
THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SUCKS MORE THAN EVER..........

Offline Slider

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 2585
    • www.albinovest.com
Re: Wolves
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2009, 06:33:55 PM »
Here ya Go I posted for WDFW-SUX !!!

Offline Slider

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 2585
    • www.albinovest.com
Re: Wolves
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2009, 06:36:06 PM »
I Luv looking at DEAD WOLVES!!!  :)

Offline dontgetcrabs

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 1900
Re: Wolves
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2009, 06:38:35 PM »
Quote
:yeah:   :chuckle:

Offline WDFW-SUX

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 5724
Re: Wolves
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2009, 06:38:41 PM »
Me too the really scary think is that this. wolf is the same kind that is running around the west and in washington
THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SUCKS MORE THAN EVER..........

Offline Pathfinder101

  • The Chosen YAR
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 11931
  • Location: Southeast WA
  • Semper Primus
Re: Wolves
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2009, 09:27:39 AM »
Yeah, most people don't realize how big they actually are up close.  First time my wife saw one it was taxidermied in a bar in Jackson Hole, WY.  She said (not joking) "What the hell IS THAT?"  "A wolf." I said.  It took me about 5 minutes to convince here that it was really a wolf.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.  That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 4457
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: Wolves
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2009, 09:33:26 AM »
Me too the really scary think is that this. wolf is the same kind that is running around the west and in washington
The wolves moving in from canada are not that big.  Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.

Offline MichaelJ

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 3075
  • Location: Washington/Idaho
    • www.facebook.com/hellscanyonarmory
Re: Wolves
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2009, 10:33:38 AM »
Me too the really scary think is that this. wolf is the same kind that is running around the west and in washington
The wolves moving in from canada are not that big.  Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.

I've read they get around 110-120 lbs for a big mature wolf... 75 sounds a little on the LOW side.  Hell my pitbull is 65 lbs and she's not very big...

Michael
Hells Canyon Armory Custom Rifles
https://www.facebook.com/HellsCanyonArmory/
HCARifles@gmail.com

Offline fisheral87

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 727
  • Location: Mukilteo, WA
    • https://www.facebook.com/home.php
  • Groups: WSCPA, BHA
Re: Wolves
« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2009, 10:38:40 AM »
There are two types though, timber wolves and gray wolves, the gray wolves are the bigger ones and are pushing/killing the timbers out and really doing the damage. That one in the pic is a gray wolf.
"Luck is a dividend of sweat, the more you sweat the luckier you get." - Ray Kroc

Offline whacker1

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 5816
  • Location: Spokane
Re: Wolves
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2009, 10:43:31 AM »
Quote
The wolves moving in from Canada are not that big.  Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.

I disagree - The Canadian Grey wolf is what was transplanted to these various release sites in Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming.  They are the same genetic animal as the ones naturally crossing the BC/WA-ID borders.  The Idaho Game regs - state that the wolves are between 75-120 lbs in comparison to Coyotes being smaller.  But I believe they have recorded in Wyoming as well as Canada to being near 200 lbs on occasion.

A few items that were not factored in when they transplanted the grey wolf from Canada further south to the US:  First off, our winters are more mild than they are in BC & Alberta, purely based on geography.  So, the wolves don't have as difficult of winters to deal with from a survival standpoint, which makes their genetic power to evolve into large animals purely based on nutrition.  

Second, there were few big game predators of significance at the same level in the US as there were in Canada - Specifically the Grizzly or Brown Bear.  The populations of large predators in the US were so small in comparison to BC & Alberta and population of game animals quite high, which allowed the wolf to flourish with very little effort - again allowing their nutrition level to be at far higher levels than what they could achieve in BC & Alberta.

I am not a wildlife bio - but it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the nutritional value in our children today is far greater than they were 100 years ago, and that is why we are seeing generations of taller people achieved.  The same is true for the Canadian Grey wolf transplanted to a game rich and predator low environment.

One other factor that I don't felt was looked at carefully enough is the fact that our human population density per square mile is much greater in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming.  We don't have a large enough geographical area to maintain a carrying capacity of wolves with out human / wolf contact taking place.  

Lot of opinion on my part and some common sense - don't take it to the bank, but it should be plausible to most of you.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

I'm Going To Need Karl To Come up With That 290 Muley Sunscreen Bug Spray Combo by Karl Blanchard
[Today at 01:12:28 PM]


Toutle Quality Bull - Rifle by lonedave
[Today at 12:58:20 PM]


49 Degrees North Early Bull Moose by washingtonmuley
[Today at 12:00:55 PM]


MA 6 EAST fishing report? by washingtonmuley
[Today at 11:56:01 AM]


Kings by Gentrys
[Today at 11:05:40 AM]


Nevada bull hunt 2025 by High Climber
[Today at 10:32:52 AM]


2025 Crab! by ghosthunter
[Today at 09:43:49 AM]


AUCTION: SE Idaho DIY Deer or Deer/Elk Hunt by Dan-o
[Today at 09:26:43 AM]


Survey in ? by hdshot
[Today at 09:20:27 AM]


Bear behavior by brew
[Today at 08:40:20 AM]


Bearpaw Outfitters Annual July 4th Hunt Sale by bearpaw
[Today at 07:57:12 AM]


A lonely Job... by Loup Loup
[Today at 07:47:41 AM]


2025 Montana alternate list by bear
[Today at 06:06:48 AM]


Accura MR-X 45 load development by kyles_88
[Today at 05:27:26 AM]


Son drawn - Silver Dollar Youth Any Elk - Help? by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 09:42:07 PM]


MA-10 Coho by WAcoueshunter
[Yesterday at 02:08:31 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal