More Deer Killed By Wolves Than By Hunters in 2019

[Humptulips]

I don't know what kind of trapping Colorado has but maybe people just wiped them quickly.

Colorado is a cage trapping only State in some ways worse than WA Of course they do have USDA and some permitted control of coyotes by ranchers. I would imagine some had some old stockpiles of 1080 but that must be about runned out by now.

[stlusn30-06]

More Deer Killed By Wolves Than By Hunters in 2019

https://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/articles/deer-news/more-deer-killed-by-wolves-than-by-hunters-in-2019?fbclid=IwAR1J4ZiHDSLOlCPK6WydJOqADRtK7wGx4EYf3SWX4ovrwFs5A00Rp0i5xOk#.XfvY_dx5BLA.facebook

Not really hear to weigh in on any of this, but does anyone actually read these articles? 1.) This article takes place in Wisconsin, not WA, so who really cares? Their landscape, management of whitetail, and wolf pops, are so vastly different than WA there is little to no correlation 2.) both Wisconsin and Michigan have super high deer per square mile populations (and both have had wolves on the landscape for a long time). So while I vehemently disapprove of .Orgs preventing science based management in any situation, this isn't a good example of "how wolves will destroy our deer woods". 3.) They only used the number of deer killed by gun hunters. Which is suspect at best. Leads me to believe that if they included archery numbers their headline of "More Deer Killed By Wolves Than By Hunters in 2019" (in 4 counties) wouldn't actually hold up. 4.) Last, but not least, the title is click bait. The article says wolves killed more than 50% in just 4 out of 17 counties in the North Woods region. Not only was it in a small number of the cited counties, but it has nothing to do with total numbers in Wisconsin. It may be that there are too many wolves in those counties. It may be that those counties have less hunting pressure than do others. It may be that like the rest of the country hunter participation levels are dropping in WI. The article doesn't say.

What was your intent here? To warn the hunters of WA that if we don't pay close attention wolves will out hunt gun hunters in a couple of counties? To warn us that there are 4 counties in WI where gun hunters killed less deer than wolves? To stir up the forum's endless anti-wolf vs. still keeping an open mind ire? Please don't say "I'm just posting the info out there, and leaving it up to others to read through the details." It's stupid when people do that. I'm legitimately worried about the predator situation here in WA, but this article does jack to inform me in either direction.   

Posting a click bait article that when read closely uses cherry picked data to form the narrative around the title is pretty lame. If anything it actually supports the pro-wolf agenda. In that, despite mismanagement, pro-wolfers preventing scientific management, the population being 5X the target, gun hunters (only) are still out killing wolves in all but 4 of Wisconsin's 72 counties. These kinds of articles, ensuing debates using crap data and bad readings, really only assist in misinforming the members of our forum, and reinforcing already established "thought bubble" opinions. Hopefully as these kinds of headlines pop up, we'll all use our critical thinking caps in assessing what the article actually says.

[KFhunter]

The article, as it pertains to Washington,  is far too generous.


Wolves are killing far more deer than hunters are, here. 

Unless you belive that each wolf only kills 20 deer anually and that there's only 126 wolves in Washington      Then wolves only kill 10% of what hunters kill   

I don't buy those numbers, so save your typing in your rebuttal. 

[stlusn30-06]

The article, as it pertains to Washington,  is far too generous.


Wolves are killing far more deer than hunters are, here.

Cool story bro.

[KFhunter]

No, its a sad story that has to do with the decline of hunting and the ending of rural people's way of life.  Bro.


I don't know how many wolves are in Washington, but I know that the 128 number that WDFW puts out is total bogus, 

but do we have 1287.05 wolves?  maybe not yet but I think we'll get there

1287.05 wolves x 20 (deer per wolf annually)  = 25,741 deer           which is the 2018 harvest report for all deer taken by hunters

[stlusn30-06]

Unless you belive that each wolf only kills 20 deer anually and that there's only 126 wolves in Washington      Then wolves only kill 10% of what hunters kill   

I don't buy those numbers, so save your typing in your rebuttal.

You're right. Let's disregard the science and say wolves actually kill a full twice as many deer a year each. So 40 deer, and that each deer on average weights 150lbs. So 6,000lbs of meat a year per wolf. A full 16lbs a day (to say nothing of all the elk they're killing too). And that there are in fact 5x as many wolves in WA than the official numbers (cuz fish & willuminati have been secretly dumping 100s & 100s of wolves). 40 kills a year and 630 wolves despite being mathematically outrageous feels right to my gut. So yes. Now that I've though it out and used my gut, it does make sense that wolves in fact killed more than 25,000 deer last year. Appreciate the thoughtful interjection to help deepen my understanding of the situation. By that I mean, I don't actually have to understand anything. I can just go with what feels right. My life just got a lot easier.

[KFhunter]

You make a lot of assumptions in your snarky reply, such as the wolves actually eating everything they kill. 

[stlusn30-06]

No, its a sad story that has to do with the decline of hunting and the ending of rural people's way of life.  Bro.

Apologies. When you wrote-

The article, as it pertains to Washington,  is far too generous.


Wolves are killing far more deer than hunters are, here.

I didn't read through to the subtext and realize this was in fact a quiet interjection on the decline of hunting and the ending of rural people's way of life. At first glance it appeared to be a baseless, non-factual claim about the state of wolf populations here in WA. Yet again detracting from a reality in which we we may be able to agree on, unite around, and then politically activate over to push elected officials in the right direction. Talk about having to eat your own words. Again, apologies and I will read more closely next time to make sure I am not missing what is between the lines.

[KFhunter]

Actually, what that was.....was me applying a heavily wolf impacted area to statewide numbers, and typing before I really thought about it. 

After I thought about it, yes its probably not plausible that wolves here are "killing far more deer than hunters", unless you apply it to certain geographical areas. 


but I do think we'll get there eventually, and we're closer than you think (or care to admit)

[idahohuntr]

I don't know what kind of trapping Colorado has but maybe people just wiped them quickly.

Well we know at least one was killed by poison, but no, I don't think "SSS" has been keeping CO free of wolves.

We know Colorado has great habitat, a ton of game and would be perfect for wolves.   We know wolves have migrated to Colorado.

Yet none have taken root,  maybe they need a conservation northwest chapter?   
Maybe Colorado fish and game isn't as corrupt as WDFW and didn't get a .ORG plant wolves? 


It's the only explanation I can think of.  Idahohunter contends there just hasn't been enough wolves migrating to Colorado to make a viable population due to a habitat barrier, but all it takes is a pair..... and I'm more than skeptical that there hasn't been dozens of wolves migrating to Colorado and back out again, but because they didn't have pups inside a fence and there was no other family groups of wolves they didn't stay. 


I don't think wolves disperse like they say they do, or Colorado would be loaded with them. 

They didn't do it naturally, so the wolf huggers want to help them, like they did in MT, ID and WY.   (and possibly WA and OR)

Habitat plays a large role in the distribution of wildlife.  Its not as simple as two wolves making the migration, mating, producing pups and then having a population explode.  Habitat and prey within Colorado is also not all just one panacea of deer and wolf friendly places.  But you don't even have to go as far as Colorado...just look at Idaho - there are loads more wolves in N. Idaho than S. Idaho.  How do you explain that?  Is it another pod of wolf planting conspiracies in N. Idaho but they don't do it in S. Idaho...because???  Or do you think maybe habitat plays a really big role on where wolves migrate and successfully establish?   

[stlusn30-06]

You make a lot of assumptions in your snarky reply, such as the wolves actually eating everything they kill. 

I have to be done with this now. But I agree. It was snarky of me to make the assumption that they eat everything they kill. Not sure it was quite as snarky as assuming there are 100s and 100s more wolves in WA than have been documented, and that wolves kill vast numbers more deer per year than the whole of reputable science agrees upon, but whatever. I gave the ludicrous buffer for a reason. Your info combined with mine now allows us to return the actual number of 20 deer eaten, and another 20 killed for other reasons each year to get us to your number of 25,000 deer killed.

btw despite the back and forth shots we're taking at each other, if I met you in person I'd by ya a round. In the end we're a couple dudes trying to bring info forward. Unfortunately we can't agree on what info is fact and what is not. Hopefully someday we will. Cheers KF

Lastly, didn't actually mean to get caught up in the conversation. Was just pointing out that the article that kicked off this thread was trash and irrelevant to WA hunters. Unless relevance means using anything necessary to get blood boiling over how wolves are taking over our land. It is possible wolfbait is a master troll. It is right there in his name. Maybe he just tossed this trash article and headline up knowing it would kick off this debate yet again. If so, my hat is off to you sir. Well played.

[KFhunter]

I don't know what kind of trapping Colorado has but maybe people just wiped them quickly.

Well we know at least one was killed by poison, but no, I don't think "SSS" has been keeping CO free of wolves.

We know Colorado has great habitat, a ton of game and would be perfect for wolves.   We know wolves have migrated to Colorado.

Yet none have taken root,  maybe they need a conservation northwest chapter?   
Maybe Colorado fish and game isn't as corrupt as WDFW and didn't get a .ORG plant wolves? 


It's the only explanation I can think of.  Idahohunter contends there just hasn't been enough wolves migrating to Colorado to make a viable population due to a habitat barrier, but all it takes is a pair..... and I'm more than skeptical that there hasn't been dozens of wolves migrating to Colorado and back out again, but because they didn't have pups inside a fence and there was no other family groups of wolves they didn't stay. 


I don't think wolves disperse like they say they do, or Colorado would be loaded with them. 

They didn't do it naturally, so the wolf huggers want to help them, like they did in MT, ID and WY.   (and possibly WA and OR)

Habitat plays a large role in the distribution of wildlife.  Its not as simple as two wolves making the migration, mating, producing pups and then having a population explode.  Habitat and prey within Colorado is also not all just one panacea of deer and wolf friendly places.  But you don't even have to go as far as Colorado...just look at Idaho - there are loads more wolves in N. Idaho than S. Idaho.  How do you explain that?  Is it another pod of wolf planting conspiracies in N. Idaho but they don't do it in S. Idaho...because???  Or do you think maybe habitat plays a really big role on where wolves migrate and successfully establish? 

Of course habitat plays a role, but what I think plays a bigger role is seeding ahead of the migration.   

If wolves take off dispersing and don't come across another pack of wolves they keep on truckin...migrating 1000's of miles seeking a new pack and territory having been driven from its own pack and without a mate.   

These wolves have hit Colorado, there is no doubt of that, but habitat wasn't the reason for their not staying there, it was because they didn't run into other wolves. 

Colorado wasn't seeded.   

wolves need 3 things:

eat
hide
hump

missing any of the three things above and dispersing wolves won't stay in an area. 

[idahohuntr]

I don't know what kind of trapping Colorado has but maybe people just wiped them quickly.

Well we know at least one was killed by poison, but no, I don't think "SSS" has been keeping CO free of wolves.

We know Colorado has great habitat, a ton of game and would be perfect for wolves.   We know wolves have migrated to Colorado.

Yet none have taken root,  maybe they need a conservation northwest chapter?   
Maybe Colorado fish and game isn't as corrupt as WDFW and didn't get a .ORG plant wolves? 


It's the only explanation I can think of.  Idahohunter contends there just hasn't been enough wolves migrating to Colorado to make a viable population due to a habitat barrier, but all it takes is a pair..... and I'm more than skeptical that there hasn't been dozens of wolves migrating to Colorado and back out again, but because they didn't have pups inside a fence and there was no other family groups of wolves they didn't stay. 


I don't think wolves disperse like they say they do, or Colorado would be loaded with them. 

They didn't do it naturally, so the wolf huggers want to help them, like they did in MT, ID and WY.   (and possibly WA and OR)

Habitat plays a large role in the distribution of wildlife.  Its not as simple as two wolves making the migration, mating, producing pups and then having a population explode.  Habitat and prey within Colorado is also not all just one panacea of deer and wolf friendly places.  But you don't even have to go as far as Colorado...just look at Idaho - there are loads more wolves in N. Idaho than S. Idaho.  How do you explain that?  Is it another pod of wolf planting conspiracies in N. Idaho but they don't do it in S. Idaho...because???  Or do you think maybe habitat plays a really big role on where wolves migrate and successfully establish? 

Of course habitat plays a role, but what I think plays a bigger role is seeding ahead of the migration.   

If wolves take off dispersing and don't come across another pack of wolves they keep on truckin...migrating 1000's of miles seeking a new pack and territory having been driven from its own pack and without a mate.   

These wolves have hit Colorado, there is no doubt of that, but habitat wasn't the reason for their not staying there, it was because they didn't run into other wolves. 

Colorado wasn't seeded.   

wolves need 3 things:

eat
hide
hump

missing any of the three things above and dispersing wolves won't stay in an area.

I don't disagree that lacking other wolves a wolf might keep moving even if food and habitat were good - which is why poor wolf habitat between their origin and CO would make it harder for them to establish in great numbers.  It also explains why wolves established pretty quickly in N.Idaho, NE WA...a lot of them could easily disperse there from their reintro sites.  Read up on metapopulations, sources, sinks etc...will give you some perspective on migratory populations like wolves. 

"Seeding" has nothing to do with it unless you are trying to expand wolf transplant conspiracies to include all of N. Idaho, Western MT, and other parts of Wyoming that were not part of the original reintro sites.

[KFhunter]

Wolves will go through terrible habitat dispersing, even dowtown spokane.  I dont buy that there needs to contiguous unending corridors for wolves to migrate, just follow the gps tracks of dispersing wolves

[KFhunter]

If you want a wolf to stop and setup a territory and pack, you gotta make a reason for it too.  It took this wolf three years to do so.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk