collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: wolf poll  (Read 28593 times)

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9187
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2010, 01:45:13 PM »
Bottom Line whether you like it or not.
Wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 because they caused too much damage to livestock growers. In the process we found that our other wildlife flourished without wolves eating them all the time. That wolf removal has worked pretty darn well for nearly 100 years and our lower 48 has evolved into a modern environment. I do not think you can ever take the lower 48 back to a pre-1800's type of environment, let's be real here... :chuckle:

My Opinion
I have hunted Idaho since the 80's and I must say the Idaho of the 80's was far better than the Idaho of today. Whether you like it or not, the northern wolves are a larger sub-specie and they seem to run in larger packs. There is documentation breaking wolves into numerous sub-species just as there is for whitetail deer or moose or any other widely distributed specie. It is common knowledge that sub-species adapt to their environment in many ways. This could include their ability to compete for prey. When you bring a more competitive sub-specie into another sub-species area that evolved around the carrying capcity of that area, you risk upsetting the balance. That is the beef about canadian wolves.

I have said at least a dozen times on this forum that we have had wolves in NE WA for years. They were a much different critter. We never saw packs of 10 to 20 wolves, they were smaller and seemed to run in singles and doubles. This is the difference, these bigger northern wolvs are more successful. Now you may not like my next comment, but if you still can't understand the differences, you probably need to do a little studying about wolves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

Now please consider, if you took Alberta whitetails to Arizona and Florida, would that not screw up those native sub-species and affect other species in those areas?
Let's take Alaskan Moose and put them in Idaho and Washington, what will happen to the Shiras Moose?

Doesn't seem to complicated to me. By trying to replace one sub-specie with another, they are screwing up wolves natural evolution and submitting the other animals in the new environment to non-natural predation. There are stories about this too, if you take the time to research and read them.

http://graywolfnews.com/

You are dead on BPaw, anyone who cannot understand this needs to go back to school! ;)

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 38427
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2010, 02:14:30 PM »
After Idaho and Montana people have lived with wolves for 15 years and watched their favorite elk zones ruined, I would like to see how they would vote on this.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9187
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2010, 02:16:10 PM »
The Canadian wolves were not introduced to balance anything, they were introduced to ruin the west, drive cattle ranchers out of business and ruining hunting is just one of many reasons these wolves were moved down. When I first brought the wolf discussion to H-W I included the web site http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html. But no one wanted to go there, I remember comments like of "Oh yeah that" and noone was really interested in talking wolves around that site. So I switch back to wolves alone, and everyone was real interested. Do any of you think that sitting on your asses will accomplish anything? I have never seen it done except for maybe in Washington DC.

What these wolves are doing to this country is disgusting, but what is more disgusting is watching people who can make a difference sit around with thumb up ass trying to fugure out what is staring them right in the face. You think this is to big of an issue and you know that there is nothing that YOU can do? *censored*! What the FK has happened to this country that we have people who no longer give a *censored*? These wolves will never be killed off even if you gave everyone a gun and said go kill wolves, hell the USFWS have trouble running down wolves by air, how is it you think hunting these wolves as a predator will hurt the population? IDFG played the defenders of BS game and now they are being forced to admit it, they are getting drug through the mud big time and they don't have a leg to stand on, and they know it. WDFW are going the same route that IDFG took, anyone who can't see that needs to get some new glasses. Hunting these wolves as a big game animal will NOT control wolf numbers, I doubt that hunting them as a predator will. There will be a need for special hunts just like Alaska does in order to keep the game herds from going into the predator pit and below. The USFWS don't want anything to do with the wolves they brought in, they have one hell of a mess going and it is their fault. In my opinion the USFWS should be held accountable in getting rid of these wolves, the wolf they introduced does not belong down here period.

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 38427
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2010, 02:28:17 PM »
Very well put wolfbait, how many times have I seen it on this forum where hunters said they are not going back to some place in Idaho because of the wolves, then you see these other guys trying to say we are just Crying Wolf.

All of Idaho has not been ruined yet, but it's just a matter of time unless enough SSS happens by the locals. That is happening and even the governor told the USFWS that Idaho is going to let it happen unless USFWS get off their butts and manage wolves. Why would the governor write that letter if it was an imaginary problem... :bash: :bash: :bash:

Speaking of which...

Crying Wolf

Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline jackelope

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 50146
  • Location: Duvall, WA
  • Groups: jackelope
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2010, 02:30:18 PM »
One thing is for sure IMO.
We need more management than just hunters if we end up with management on a state level. Hunters can't do it alone. That was proven in Idaho this last year with the relatively very small number of wolves that were killed by hunters. It would also be proved by another survey asking who has actually seen a wolf in the woods here that they could have shot. My guess would be very very few. You'd need state assistance in the form of trappers or shooters or helicopters or something more than just us hunters.
The other thing I agree with Dale on is that if we as outdoorsmen go after complete eradication, we are more likely to get sound management as a result than if we were to go initially after sound management. Then we'd end up with nothing but what we have now.
:fire.:

" In today's instant gratification society, more and more pressure revolves around success and the measurement of one's prowess as a hunter by inches on a score chart or field photos produced on social media. Don't fall into the trap. Hunting is-and always will be- about the hunt, the adventure, the views, and time spent with close friends and family. " Ryan Hatfield

My posts, opinions and statements do not represent those of this forum

Offline grundy53

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Posts: 12854
  • Location: Lake Stevens
  • Learn something new everyday.
    • facebook
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2010, 02:34:03 PM »
One thing is for sure IMO.
We need more management than just hunters if we end up with management on a state level. Hunters can't do it alone. That was proven in Idaho this last year with the relatively very small number of wolves that were killed by hunters. It would also be proved by another survey asking who has actually seen a wolf in the woods here that they could have shot. My guess would be very very few. You'd need state assistance in the form of trappers or shooters or helicopters or something more than just us hunters.
The other thing I agree with Dale on is that if we as outdoorsmen go after complete eradication, we are more likely to get sound management as a result than if we were to go initially after sound management. Then we'd end up with nothing but what we have now.


I agree 100%
Molôn Labé
Can you skin Grizz?

The opinions expressed in my posts do not represent those of the forum.

Offline buglebrush

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Posts: 1614
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2010, 02:37:34 PM »
One thing is for sure IMO.
We need more management than just hunters if we end up with management on a state level. Hunters can't do it alone. That was proven in Idaho this last year with the relatively very small number of wolves that were killed by hunters. It would also be proved by another survey asking who has actually seen a wolf in the woods here that they could have shot. My guess would be very very few. You'd need state assistance in the form of trappers or shooters or helicopters or something more than just us hunters.
The other thing I agree with Dale on is that if we as outdoorsmen go after complete eradication, we are more likely to get sound management as a result than if we were to go initially after sound management. Then we'd end up with nothing but what we have now.

me too.  Let's face it if no action is taken my kids will never hunt the Rocky Mountain Elk.   >:( >:( >:(

I agree 100%

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 38427
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #37 on: September 14, 2010, 03:03:57 PM »
jackelope that is my exact postion, thanks for saying it so simply... :hello:


Jim Beers   (former USFWS employee turned whistleblower on illegal use of Pitman-Robertson funds)

Wolves, Guns, Gorillas & Grouse - Part II

Yesterday morning I wrote the following 2 letters to the 2 Twin Cities
newspapers about their Sunday Sports Page articles crediting the decade-long
decline in grouse hunter numbers despite high grouse numbers to everything
from ATV's and obesity to the love of young people to text message and watch
The Vikings. I tried to point out that they had avoided the subject of wolf
impacts like the mention of the bird-eating habits of avian predators at an
Audubon Society Banquet.

I just hung up on a friend from Iowa who called to ask if I knew about the
publicized wolf-information phone number in Wisconsin FOR ANYONE PLANNING TO
HUNT WITH A DOG OR DOGS? While he said he had expected it to be some
private wolf group, he was surprised to find it was two Wisconsin DNR ladies
(Dawn and Stacey). The service they offer is to advise anyone hunting with
dogs (like grouse?, bears, pheasants, raccoons, rabbits, ducks, geese, etc.)
WHERE THE WOLVES ARE MOST ACTIVE SO THAT THEY AVOID THOSE AREAS (3/4 of the
state?) or keep their dogs so close that they are of little use. DUH! This
from the state that recently announced it is live trapping their elk herd
and moving it to another part of the SAME National Forest where there is
less wolf activity. That is like deciding that all the neighborhood kids
are too fat so you will move the Ice Cream stand and pie shop over one
block.

So there you have it! Minnesotans are propagandized by government and the
media that wolves are in no way involved in the decline of woodland grouse
hunters while just across the River in Wisconsin the bureaucrats have a wolf
hot line to further restrict and eventually eliminate hunting dogs as well
as hunters and hunting and 2nd Amendment supporters as they all morph into
obese football fans texting each other on fall afternoons. Man, you couldn't
make this stuff up if you sat up all night trying.

As an aside, my Iowa friend has no computer and was unaware of these 2
letters. He is a dog hunter that runs rabbits with his hounds. He came
across this Wisconsin phone number in a Fur, Fish, & Game magazine. He and
I have shared his concern about how the USFWS and its subcontractors (with
IA DNR support) have been and continue to burn all upland game bird and
rabbit nesting habitat and winter habitat on both public and private (IA has
lots of absentee landowners) land. His area is now devoid of pheasants - an
Invasive Species that went unprotected by "Pheasants Forever" - as the
government "only intended to restore the 'native ecosystem'" (among
wind-swept Iowa fields?) Sure. Just like the wolves in Minnesota and
Wisconsin are "good" for the state, burning all the pheasant, rabbit, and
turkey habitat in Iowa will one day make Iowa go "Poof!" and there will once
again be buffalo in prairie flowers up to their belly and wolf pups playing
with Indian children on the edge of a bucolic village.

In just 24 hours the corrupt nature and hidden agendas of three adjoining
states has been exposed yet again. These DNR's and the media are under the
thumb of federal bureaucracies that are forcing wolves where they are not
wanted, burning hunting and wintering habitat to eradicate highly-prized
game animals, and simultaneously making state DNR employees into Quislings
administering Vichy state fish and wildlife programs. The DNR's, outdoor
writers, and the "conservation media" are simply self-serving cowards
ingratiating themselves to what they see as the agendas of powerful
interlopers that they mistakenly believe will always be here.

A concerned and informed citizenry is our only hope. If you read
yesterday's Part I you can just skip the following. Please consider sharing
this with friends and others that might join us in bringing our state
agencies back under state control and placing wildlife back under state
authority where the US Constitution wisely put it. When that happens,
reforming state agencies back into State Agencies becomes a mere
administrative matter and the media will follow along as they sense the way
the wind will have changed.

-What Gun?

Rural America is being mugged and hijacked everywhere by wolves and like the
anti-gun advocate in a bad neighborhood or the pacifist on a Midwestern
farm; ignoring the true situation and not allowing it to be mentioned at the
table is like the storied ostrich reaction to danger while standing on a
sand dune.

It is Sunday morning here in Minnesota and I have just finished the
following two letters to the St. Paul and the Minneapolis papers. Each has
published a "grouse hunters are disappearing in spite of high grouse
populations and woe is hunting" "outdoor article" (it IS September, you
know). If you are interested in the insidious nature of disinformation from
state agencies and outdoor writers and newspapers you might find these
letters worth reading. The chances of seeing them elsewhere or hearing them
answered is on par with the "transparency" of the past two years of Federal
legislating in Washington.

1. THE 800 LB. GORILLA
Your "Grouse Booster" article about DNR plans to arrest the 10-year decline
in the numbers of grouse hunters despite abundant grouse numbers makes one
thing abundantly clear, like your front-page article many months ago blaming
global warming for the steady decline in moose: increasing wolf populations
are invisible and are only mentioned much like sightings of the extinct
Ivory-billed Woodpecker or Sasquatch.

Since returning to Minnesota 2 years ago, I have talked grouse hunting with
three former grouse hunters. One lost a dog to wolves and the other two had
close calls with wolves trying to kill their dogs. They want to be out in
the woods shooting grouse more than anything - except seeing their dog
killed or maimed right before their eyes. As one put it, "hunting those
woods with dogs is like trolling for muskies with a big spoon".

Like reversing the moose decline (wolves killing cows and calves each year
plus a few adults in winter snow is all it takes) or the declining deer
numbers for northern hunters, each of which has occurred as wolves have
increased; ignoring the safety of hunters and their dogs due to abundant
wolf populations cannot be disregarded

While wolf advocates either deny this or call it an "unintended
consequence", I for one know it is a very "intended consequence" and when
the DNR and newspapers either purposely or ignorantly avoid this fact, not
only grouse hunters, grouse hunting, and grouse dogs are put in jeopardy.

Jim Beers

2. INTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Your Sunday "hunting" article "Ruffed grouse hunting crowd is thinning" is
way off the mark in two ways: what it says and what it doesn't say. The ten
year decline in grouse hunter numbers is not due to "ATV's", "the woodcock
limit", hunters "wallets", baby boomer "aging", "obesity", young hunters
preferring to send "text messages", or the "Vikings" "success or lack of
success". Your writer redeems himself somewhat by ending with an admission
that it is "likely" "other factors as well". There is another "factor",
wolves.

Since returning to Minnesota 2 years ago after 30 plus years as a federal
biologist and 55 plus years as a hunter, I have spoken to lots of guys about
hunting and places to hunt. Three of those guys were "former" grouse
hunters that were sad that they no longer hunted the woods. Why? Because
one had lost a dog to wolves and the other two had confrontations with
wolves interested in killing their dogs. Those three out of my little
sample were concerned about not only their dogs but their own safety where
wolves were present.

It is disgraceful that the DNR and hunting organizations and newspapers act
as if wolves are extinct in the state or that hearing or seeing them is akin
to sighting a Great Auk or glimpsing and Ivory-billed Woodpecker, each of
which are extinct. Minnesota's robust and widely spread wolf population is
responsible for the moose decline and the paucity of northern deer as well
as the death of many rural dogs from watchdogs to hunting dogs as well as
human behavior modifications from solitary outdoor childhood behavior
(disappearing) to certain hunting safety participation in woodlands with
family dogs while carrying light-load shotguns with open chokes (declining).

While you may believe that such things are not occurring or that they are an
"unintended consequence" of some sort of semi-religious movement to "restore
native species", take my word that the wolf advocates and their cohorts in
the DNR and nationally are all too aware of these "intended consequences".

Jim Beers
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 38427
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #38 on: September 14, 2010, 03:10:55 PM »
Why in the world are county commissioners, ranchers, and other people taking the time to file a lawsuit in New Mexico, could it be that wolves are a problem?


Posted: Saturday, September 4, 2010 5:00 am | Updated: 12:52 am, Sat Sep 4, 2010.
Karen Warnick - The Independent | 0 comments

APACHE COUNTY - The Board of Commissioners of Catron and Otero counties, the Gila National Forest Livestock Permittees' Association, the group Americans for Preservation of the Western Environment (APWE), and several ranches filed a lawsuit in New Mexico federal district court against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and its Director Benjamin Tuggle and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF) and its Director Tod Stevenson over their handling of the reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf program.

The 40-page lawsuit was filed, Aug. 27 Daniel Bryant attorney for the law firm Bryant, Schneider-Cook. The case alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. "The defendants have through actions and omissions violated the enabling rules and altered the program without completing the environmental review or other environmental documentation required by NEPA and its implementing regulations, and these actions are therefore arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law..." according to the brief.

In a phone interview, Bryant said he has spent 32 years battling the federal government over land issues. "I'm the one waving my hands at the federal land managers telling them they have to give us a voice and pay attention to how their decisions affect the people."

The wolf reintroduction program has cost taxpayers at least $20 million since 1998 according to an article in the Arizona Daily Star in June.

The following statements were made and quoted from the program's April 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Final Rule:
The FEIS and the Final Rule both were designed with "considerable management flexibility to reduce the potential conflicts between wolves and the activities of governmental agencies, livestock operators, hunters and others."

The FEIS also states that the initial release of stock of wolves will be "surplus" Mexican wolves from the captive population. "A surplus wolf is one whose loss or removal will not significantly adversely affect the genetic or demographic make-up of the population." Under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS classified the wolves as a nonessential experimental population.

The Final Rule states, "Nonessential experimental designation enables the Service to develop measures for management of the population that are less restrictive than the mandatory prohibitions that protect species with ‘endangered' status."

The Final Rule states, "The Service finds that even if the entire experimental population died this would not appreciably reduce the prospects for future survival of the subspecies in the wild. That is, the captive population could produce more surplus wolves and future reintroductions still would be feasible..."

Catron County commission Chairman Ed Wehrheim has been battling the wolf issue in his county for years. At issue is the USFWS not following its own rules, especially concerning the removal of wolves that have preyed upon livestock three times. "They haven't removed any wolves since 2007 and they've been changing their policies without going through the proper channels," he said.

Wehrheim went on the say that private property owners are not being compensated for the loss of livestock and the USFWS admitted that for every confirmed kill, there are seven more not confirmed.

Other issues stated in the lawsuit are the lack of funding available for the program and how it's adversely affecting the monitoring. This includes how the lack of funding and personnel has resulted in reduced wolf monitoring in the areas of radio-collaring, year-end population counts and response to wolf sightings.

Further charges in the lawsuit include, "The USFWS and the NMDGF (New Mexico Game and Fish) have ignored the scientific data contained in their own files regarding hybridization between wolves and coyotes, and have withheld such information from Plaintiffs and the general public, continuing to assert that there is no evidence of this type of hybridization."

The lawsuit asks that the judge, Robert Brack, issue a preliminary injunction preventing the Defendants from proceeding with any management decisions which are in violation of the law, to fully fund the required actions on wolf removals and population counts, declaring the Defendants' deviation from the rules as unlawful, and asking for reasonable attorney fees, interest and costs.

The next step in the case is the 20 to 60 days the defendants have to answer the charges. Bryant estimates that it will take eight months to a year before all the preliminary issues are handled and a court date is set.

•Reach the reporter at kwarnick@wmicentral.com.
 
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline Tman

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 629
  • Location: Washington
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #39 on: September 14, 2010, 03:17:29 PM »
The never should've been brought back, we have enough predators with the current restrictions on bear/cougar.

Offline rasbo

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 20144
  • Location: Grant county
  • In God I trust...Try taking that away from me!
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #40 on: September 14, 2010, 03:19:36 PM »
Not to sound vicious but,you and many others make a living on the killing of game animals for sport,and you bring in many outta state hunters to kill the game at a high price.Much like bringing the wolves from somewhere else that kills the states animals...Is that not what the other side has for fodder to the argument.I cant make it work in my mind where you have a dog in the fight other than for monetary pourposes..isn't it how the masses that we need to sway might see it.

WHAT - This is the kind of comment that really does a lot to unite hunters. :bash: :bash: :bash:

I spend a good deal of my time trying to do what is best for wildllife, that comment is just dispicable and disgusting. I will refrain from really speaking my mind, but maybe you will get the idea anyway. >:( >:( >:( >:(

Quite frankly I get tired of this cheap shot idiotic stupid mentality. I donate more hunts to good causes to support wildlife than you even know, in addition to the deals and hunts I have offered to this forum.  :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

Yes you hit a nerve.....

FYI - Most of my clients are resident hunters who work average jobs here in Washington. They save up all year so they can go on a good hunt. Probably 1/3 of my hunters go on meat hunts with no trophies involved. What really pi$$es me off is half the people with this attitude pay guides to hunt out of state or they hire fishing guides right here in Washington or buy books to get info on where to hunt. Talk about a bunch of double standard hypocrits. If you have never paid a guide for hunting or fishing help or bought books on how to improve your hunting in Washington or elsewhere, then I guess you can complain about me fairly, but if you ever have, you are just a hypocrit. So the next time someone is thinking this, I suggest you look in the mirror before you open your mouth. Furthermore, WDFW empolyees are all making a living off wildlife too. I don't sell wildlife, WDFW sells wildlife, I sell my experience and professional help to hunters who want a good experience and a better chance of success. It is a choice to purchase my services, it's not required. I felt like saying a bit more but I hope I got my point across so I will leave it at this.

Yes, it did sound very vicous....
well you seem to think, or maybe I didnt write it well enough,those are my thoughts at what the other side is thinking...all my posts on here have been diredcted at what is used for fodder...as I have stated,if Im wrong please show me where...If you dont make a living on the wildlife then my post was wrong...Also I think you have the backing on everyone on this site,just how its done is the only debate I see here

Offline runamuk

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2008
  • Posts: 17878
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #41 on: September 14, 2010, 03:22:37 PM »
I am not sure what this latest round of wolf banter was intended to create but it has essentially left a nasty taste in my mouth ....I have other things in my immediate life that are far more important than who wins the wolf wars....and honestly I think wolves are the least of this states problems right now.....

and there will never be sound management of jack until the treaties are eradicated .....I will continue to pour my emotions into that battle...


Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 38427
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #42 on: September 14, 2010, 03:28:16 PM »
Support Responsible Wolf Management in Washington
1 week, 98 members, trying to make it 100 today.

http://www.causes.com/causes/523546?recruiter_id=132141072
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 38427
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #43 on: September 14, 2010, 03:30:45 PM »
I am not sure what this latest round of wolf banter was intended to create but it has essentially left a nasty taste in my mouth ....I have other things in my immediate life that are far more important than who wins the wolf wars....and honestly I think wolves are the least of this states problems right now.....

and there will never be sound management of jack until the treaties are eradicated .....I will continue to pour my emotions into that battle...



I agree there's lots of problems, but wolves are important too, I am a hunter and I can see we are where Idaho was only a few short years ago.
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline Lowedog

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 2624
Re: wolf poll
« Reply #44 on: September 14, 2010, 03:34:33 PM »
Again, where is the proof that the wolves in WA are anything other than wolves who have moved here from north of the border and that wolves that were here before eradication were any different.  Were not talking thousands of miles here, we are not FL or AR, you and I could walk from where we live to where "Canadian" wolves are supposedly native.  

Yes, wolves were wiped out because they were competition to cattle men but also because they were competition to hunters and because historically man has always had a fear of wolves.  

There were areas that after predators were wiped that the game animals flourished and became the holy grail of hunting like the Kaibab.  Guess what happened there though, the animals overgrazed and almost wiped themselves out and if not for intervention of man rehabilitating the landscape it would have become a wasteland.  

I ask again, if wolves that were native to the lower 48 were the smaller sub species that we call timber wolves that are so much smaller and hunted in singles and doubles and not in large packs why were they eradicated?  How could those animals have been such a threat to cattle men and hunters that they felt they had to wipe out every last one of them?  

OK I will repeat again...

Bottom Line whether you like it or not.
Wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 because they caused too much damage to livestock growers. In the process we found that our other wildlife flourished without wolves eating them all the time. That wolf removal has worked pretty darn well for nearly 100 years and our lower 48 has evolved into a modern environment. I do not think you can ever take the lower 48 back to a pre-1800's type of environment, let's be real here...

I will also point you to the links that explain that wolves from varying areas are double the size of others. Proof is in print.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

OK, I will repeat again...where is the proof that wolves in the lower 48 were anything different than what are here now?  You throw out the argument that the wolves you used to see were a different sub species which was much less threatening than what are here now.  You also argue that the wolves currently in the lower 48 now are a non native invasive species.  What I'm failing to understand here is why, if the wolves that you say were native to the lower 48 are so much less of a threatening sub species, they were seen as such a great threat and eradicated.   Could it be because they were the same wolves that are here now?  

I'm not pro wolf and by no means do I think that things can go back to what it was before settlers came west.  I also think this country has evolved past the days when American pioneers had to compete with wolves for survival.  In my opinion wolves have a place in our wild country and they should be dealt with when they are a burden.


You and WB can post up all the anti wolf propaganda you want.  I will read it and form my own opinion which will probably be different than yours.  If I really wanted to make you guys mad I could post up just as much pro wolf propaganda as you do anti.  Then you could tell me how my head is buried in the sand and I better wake up before its too late and all that pro wolf stuff is just lies spewed out by those who are trying to ruin our country with wolves.  


"Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal."
— Aldo Leopold

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Knight ridge runner by riverrun
[Today at 09:47:51 PM]


Anybody breeding meat rabbit? by jackelope
[Today at 08:54:26 PM]


1oz cannon balls by hookr88
[Today at 07:40:51 PM]


Best/Preferred Scouting App by MADMAX
[Today at 06:57:28 PM]


Any info on public land South Dakota pheasant hunts? by follow maggie
[Today at 05:27:14 PM]


Oregon spring bear by Twispriver
[Today at 04:32:22 PM]


Search underway for three missing people after boat sinks near Mukilteo by Platensek-po
[Today at 01:59:06 PM]


Desert Sheds by MADMAX
[Today at 11:25:33 AM]


Nevada Results by cem3434
[Today at 11:18:49 AM]


Last year putting in… by JimmyHoffa
[Today at 11:07:02 AM]


Sportsman’s Muzzloader Selection by VickGar
[Yesterday at 09:20:43 PM]


Vantage Bridge by jackelope
[Yesterday at 08:03:05 PM]


wyoming pronghorn draw by 87Ford
[Yesterday at 07:35:40 PM]


Wyoming elk who's in? by go4steelhd
[Yesterday at 03:25:16 PM]


New to ML-Optics help by Threewolves
[Yesterday at 02:55:25 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal