Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 11:21:40 AMQuote from: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 10:22:26 AMAgain, 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_Wolfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupusOK, 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.
Quote from: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 10:22:26 AMAgain, 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_Wolfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus
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?
I think they should be treated like connotes. Year round hunting and no bag limit. And lowedog the west is absolutely different then it was back when the original wolves were here. You are comparing apples to oranges. BTW do you work for DOW?
Quote from: grundy53 on Today at 10:41:58 AMI think they should be treated like connotes.
QuoteQuote from: grundy53 on Today at 10:41:58 AMI think they should be treated like connotes.What's a connote?
Agreed Sisu, and I think that is the basis that started the whole current discussion. I think to a certain degree most of us hunters are on the same line of thinking when it comes to wolves. Problem is when you have people who are very outspoken and on the extreme end of the wolf management issue insulting those that are for the most part on the same side of the issue you will have a very hard time having everyone coming to the same consensus.WB, I guess I am just not asking the question clearly enough. I am looking for proof that the "Canadian" wolf is not the same wolf that was eradicated from the lower 48 almost 100yrs ago. The argument is made over and over that the introduced wolves are an invasive non-native species and that the native species is more like what you described in your post. As for WDFW releasing wolves I would love to see proof of that.
