Elk will be gone in Idaho by 2012

[Special T]

Not gona happen KFHunter... Even tho I wish it would... They say Fences make good neighbors so Im Guessing that they will make better neighbors in Wa than Id. 

[KFhunter]

Not gona happen KFHunter... Even tho I wish it would... They say Fences make good neighbors so Im Guessing that they will make better neighbors in Wa than Id. 

I know I'm trying to push rope uphill.  There's just too big of a disconnect from W to E WA.

[jasnt]

Not gona happen KFHunter... Even tho I wish it would... They say Fences make good neighbors so Im Guessing that they will make better neighbors in Wa than Id. 

I know I'm trying to push rope uphill.  There's just too big of a disconnect from W to E WA.

its like a whole different country over there   the nerve we have for wanting to control predator numbers we're supposed to just shut up and deal with it

[idaho guy]

I agree it's unfortunate, if someone feels they can no longer afford to raise livestock on their land because of wolves. But I'm not sure how it can be said that it's "unacceptable." 

Even if wolves were taken off the state's endangered species list, and if there was an open hunting season on wolves, would that really change anything?

Would just having a hunting season all of a sudden stop all livestock loss to wolves? I very much doubt it.
[/quot






Kf is right at the very least a hunting season would put the fear of man into wolves and that alone would make them less bold. Give the rancher a chance to shoot on sight a wolf wether it's attacking something or not and livestock losses go way down not eliminated but greatly decreased. Add hunters doing their part and all of a sudden livestock losses are manageable again if your livelihood was taken away from your family for no logical reason I am pretty sure you would find that unacceptable not just unfortunate

[bobcat]

I guess I just don't feel that having a hunting season on wolves would make all that much difference in changing anything. I mean, they still have to eat.

Will they even know they're being hunted? And how long would the wolf hunting season be if we did have one? Maybe a couple months?

Bears, cougars, and coyotes are all hunted and they still cause problems. Why would wolves be any different?

[mfswallace]

I guess I just don't feel that having a hunting season on wolves would make all that much difference in changing anything. I mean, they still have to eat.

Will they even know they're being hunted? And how long would the wolf hunting season be if we did have one? Maybe a couple months?

Bears, cougars, and coyotes are all hunted and they still cause problems. Why would wolves be any different?

Yes they are all hunted but because of that they are double quick to get the yell out of dodge if humans are in the vicinity. So some change is better than throwing your hands up and doing nothing to effect any change 

[wolfbait]

I guess I just don't feel that having a hunting season on wolves would make all that much difference in changing anything. I mean, they still have to eat.

Will they even know they're being hunted? And how long would the wolf hunting season be if we did have one? Maybe a couple months?

Bears, cougars, and coyotes are all hunted and they still cause problems. Why would wolves be any different?

Yes they are all hunted but because of that they are double quick to get the yell out of dodge if humans are in the vicinity. So some change is better than throwing your hands up and doing nothing to effect any change 

Wolves should be hunted the same as coyotes.


The Rest of the Story


70% Human Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population

Two months after the 2008-2012 F&G Wolf plan was adopted by the Commission, wolf preservationists petitioned Montana Judge Donald Molloy to halt the 2008 wolf hunt before it began FWS wolf expert Dr. David Mech responded in a written statement to the court: “...28- 50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationery.”(emphasis added)

Mech’s 22-page “Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury” continued: “Indeed, the agencies outside the NRM (Northern Rocky Mountains) which are seeking to reduce wolf populations try to kill 70% per year (Fuller et al. 2003). Such extreme taking of the kind necessary to effectively reduce wolf populations is done via concerted and expensive government agency (Alaska, Y ukon Territories for example) programs using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Normal regulated public harvest such as is contemplated in the NRM is usually unable to reduce wolf populations (Mech 2001).”

F&G Knew <20% Harvest Would Not Reduce Wolves

Idaho biologists were aware that five scientists conducting a six year study of sport hunting and trapping of wolves in Alaska’s Brooks Range recorded removal of only ~29% of the wolves each year in addition to all other causes of death. They also knew that the liberal hunting and trapping seasons with multiple bag limits did not even reduce the rate of wolf population increase.

In his testimony to the Court, Mech explained: “Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but 3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir [lowest number]. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”



Dr. Kay: “Stop Spreading Misinformation”

In that article in the August 1993 issue of Petersen’s Hunting, Dr. Kay urged sportsmen, livestock operators and other concerned citizens to send their comments on the 1993 Wolf Environmental Impact Statement to FWS with copies to their Congressman and Senators. He emphasized that citizens should demand that the government stop spreading misinformation and begin telling the public the true impact of wolf recovery.

Yet for the next 15 years, federal, state and non- governmental wolf advocates continued to misrepresent the inevitable impact of wolves on our economy and our way of life and insist that wolf reintroduction was necessary to restore “healthy” ecosystems throughout the West. Only in the past few months have Idaho and Montana begun to admit that wolves are decimating some elk and deer herds and costing local economies millions of dollars every year in lost revenue.

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2035%20July-Nov%202009.pdf

[idaho guy]

I guess I just don't feel that having a hunting season on wolves would make all that much difference in changing anything. I mean, they still have to eat.

Will they even know they're being hunted? And how long would the wolf hunting season be if we did have one? Maybe a couple months?

Bears, cougars, and coyotes are all hunted and they still cause problems. Why would wolves be any different?
[/quote.



Fortunately bobcat we don't have to speculate on this. When the Feds stopped our first wolf hunt they were really bold . Wolves ate somebody's dog in their backyard out by wolf lodge. bow hunting for elk we spread apart to do some calling and a wolf came running in and my partner shot it. 2 days later a wolf chased a miulie right by us.a rancher freind who lives close to town had many sheep killed. since we have had a few seasons wolves do not act like this anymore. Unfortunately for hunting them they won't come running into any call anymore and definitely know they are being hunted, my rancher freind has had no more livestock losses. 3 wolves were killed by his place so that helps.And I don't hear anymore stories about wolves eating someone's pet in the backyard. there is even less hounds men losing dogs to wolves now which is great because I run dogs and most of the time you are running around wolves here wether you know it or not. so there are the facts based on what I have seen with our wolf season it does work. In fact the only wolf that acted bold and stupid was the one shot recently on rathdrum mt and I was wondering if he just came back over from Washington!

[AspenBud]

Hunting them gets rid of the more trusting and less wary ones. Getting a fear of man isn't quite what happens, instead you effectively cull the the aforementioned and are left with the ones that were never that trusting to start with, they breed, repeat cycle, they breed, repeat cycle, etc and soon one type of wolf becomes more prevalent than another. The net affect is the same however, you end up with animals that are much more cautious and difficult to hunt.

In places where dogs can be used on bear and cougar, that's where real lessons are taught. You hear dogs as a cat or a bear, you run, and since hound hunters often run their dogs during and out of season in a lot of places  you get a lot of animals that aren't necessarily killed but get the hell scared out of them. They make the connection.

[bobcat]

Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.

[AspenBud]

Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.

My guess is some holes have been dug and filled on some farms and ranches, yes. I'm convinced WDFW knows that will happen given the political mindset of eastern WA which is why they have such a high bar for delisting. One wolf is one too many for some so anything short of 0 means wolves will get shot. They are mitigating losses that they know will happen and never be reported. Stupid people run after wolves in a pickup and shoot them, stupid people try to send wolf pelts to Canada. Smarter ones keep a lower profile and a shovel handy. The state knows that I'm sure.

[mfswallace]

Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.

My guess is some holes have been dug and filled on some farms and ranches, yes. I'm convinced WDFW knows that will happen given the political mindset of eastern WA which is why they have such a high bar for delisting. One wolf is one too many for some so anything short of 0 means wolves will get shot. They are mitigating losses that they know will happen and never be reported.
   Stupid people run after wolves in a pickup and shoot them, stupid people try to send wolf pelts to Canada. Smarter ones keep a lower profile and a shovel handy. The state knows that I'm sure.

U must have meant Western Washington or rather Seattleites 

what a ridiculously unscientific methodology 

 I think those you are assuming SSS are just trying to keep family safe and way of life intact

[idahohuntr]

Aren't the less weary wolves already being shot? Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it's not happening.

Stupid people run after wolves in a pickup and shoot them, stupid people try to send wolf pelts to Canada.

Lets not leave out the really, really stupid people who put out poison.

[AspenBud]

U must have meant Western Washington 

 I think those you are assuming SSS are just trying to keep family safe and way of life intact

You bet. If the political poles were geographically different I'm betting you would see a different wolf plan. You'd also still have a problem with them.

Smarter people who see themselves as trying to keep family safe and life intact aren't reporting wolves they see to WDFW and they aren't making what they do visible to the world. They do what they think they should, dig a hole, and move on with life. It is no more unique than people who shoot hawks to protect chickens, shoot herons to protect $1,000 koi in a pond, whack sharks they catch on the head when fishing in the Sound, etc etc etc. Those things happen, the state knows it, and they make wildlife decisions with that in the calculus.

[mfswallace]

U must have meant Western Washington 

 I think those you are assuming SSS are just trying to keep family safe and way of life intact

You bet. If the political poles were geographically different I'm betting you would see a different wolf plan. You'd also still have a problem with them.

Smarter people who see themselves as trying to keep family safe and life intact aren't reporting wolves they see to WDFW and they aren't making what they do visible to the world. They do what they think they should, dig a hole, and move on with life. It is no more unique than people who shoot hawks to protect chickens, shoot herons to protect $1,000 koi in a pond, whack sharks they catch on the head when fishing in the Sound, etc etc etc. Those things happen, the state knows it, and they make wildlife decisions with that in the calculus.

I don't have a problem with wolves. I have a problem with WDFW wolf plan and anti's who won't let real control happen on all predators!! Minimum numbers are being used to continue protection of a predator that obviously doesn't need it because there are "possibly up to 200 wolves in Washington" already. This apex predator needs to be managed now not in another 6-7 yrs