wolf poll

[rasbo]

Just curious here,sound management by hunting and more tactics if necessary to keep populations at a level that is good for all aspects of the conversations involved

[bearpaw]

rasbo, I tried to vote for all options that involved taking wolves but it wouldn't let me...  

The more involved I get in this wolf debate, the more painfully obvious it becomes that we need to oppose wolves all together, just in hopes of getting any reasonable management. It is going to take a lot of opposition to get any reasonable answer and then it's still doubtful. The Defenders of Wildlife have infiltrated our WDFW and the legal establishment, so the odds are stacked against any reasonable management.

It is absolutely imperative that people be very vocal on this wolf issue. We are at the same crossroads as Idaho was in the late 90's. In 5 to 10 years some areas in Washington will be a repeat of Idaho's Lolo zone. (90% loss of elk from pre-wolf population levels)

Thanks rasbo for your post keeping this issue in people's minds.

[runamuk]

if anything I am going to become more silent I am tired of being told I am no help to the problem when I dont think eradication is the answer.

Rasbo true sound management would include hunting this would be my choice.

[rasbo]

rasbo, I tried to vote for all options that involved taking wolves but it wouldn't let me...  :chuck:

The more involved I get in this wolf debate, the more painfully obvious it becomes that we need to oppose wolves all together, just in hopes of getting any reasonable management. It is going to take a lot of opposition to get any reasonable answer and then it's still doubtful. The Defenders of Wildlife have infiltrated our WDFW and the legal establishment, so the odds are stacked against any reasonable management.

It is absolutely imperative that people be very vocal on this wolf issue. We are at the same crossroads as Idaho was in the late 90's. In 5 to 10 years some areas in Washington will be a repeat of Idaho's Lolo zone. (90% loss of elk from pre-wolf population levels)

Thanks rasbo for your post keeping this issue in people's minds.

Its not in my opinion that they should be introduced here but they were,no changing that now.I believe no ground will be taken with the SSS or eradication of them mind set,not gonna happen and I believe it hurts the battle,same as peta,s whackos hurt their agenda...My voice will always be heard and was even at the Puyallup fair,sound management and management now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I really hear where you are coming from but its just not gonna fly that way..MHO

[Special T]

I voted sound MGT... However that means eradication of the Gray wolf... You could convince me that the indigenous timber wolf of the region Could/Should make a come back and deserves protection... That would be a honest debate.... The gray wolf is and invasive non native species like the Ferrel hogs in the south... They should be left no quarter just like the hogs... Gun em all down. I'm with BP i think we need to tow a hard line to get what is reasonable.. 

[rasbo]

I voted sound MGT... However that means eradication of the Gray wolf... You could convince me that the indigenous timber wolf of the region Could/Should make a come back and deserves protection... That would be a honest debate.... The gray wolf is and invasive non native species like the Ferrel hogs in the south... They should be left no quarter just like the hogs... Gun em all down. I'm with BP i think we need to tow a hard line to get what is reasonable.. 

same battle would be heard with the timber wolf...Just couldn't use the indigenous approach

[Special T]

If i remeber correctly from one of the articles that Wolfbait posted transplantation of indigenous timbers by the timber companies had been tried from the 60-late 70's but never took hold in these kinds of numbers.. Invasive species like mil-foil, zebra muscles, common carp etc are prolific because the come from a different eco system where there was balance.... I did say that "YOU COULD CONVINCE ME".... That is not the same as i think it is a good idea, or that i currently think we should spend our precious dollars on it.

[Lowedog]

Where is the proof that the gray wolf is a non native species to WA?  There has been no proof that wolves came to WA in no other way but on their own. 

If there were no gray wolves around before wolves in the lower 48 were eradicated 100 yrs ago and the timber wolf is nowhere near a threat as the gray then why were they wiped out in the first place?  I see that argument all the time.  The timber wolves don't form large packs and they don't prey on as large of animals, they are the only native wolf...  If that is the case and gray wolves were not here in the lower 48 and it was just timber wolves then why were they trapped and hunted to near extinction in the lower 48?

[jackelope]

DING DING DING

[ivarhusa]

I just started a thread (under Varmints) pointing to a Spokesman Review/Seattle Times story about a possible third wolf pack in the state.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/sep/13/wildlife-officials-suspect-third-wolf-pack/

[BlackRidge]

Rasbo true sound management would include hunting this would be my choice.

Mine as well, seem to be one in the same

[bearpaw]

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...

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/

[bearpaw]

Anyone wonder why people in Idaho and Montana are sick and tired of wolves. Read this, and then consider that Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jun/06/lethal-week-for-montana-wolves/

StoryComments June 6, 2010 in Outdoors
Lethal week for Montana wolves
15 killed, 18 more targeted from five packs to protect stock

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifteen gray wolves from five different packs were killed in Montana for preying on livestock between May 17 and May 21, making it one of the deadliest five-day stretches in 2010 for Canis lupus.

So far this year, 64 wolves have died, with the majority – 44 – being shot by federal agents for preying on livestock. The others were killed by cars or property owners or died from unknown causes.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials also have authorized the shooting of at least 18 more wolves from five packs. If successful, that will bring the total to 82 dead wolves in Montana so far this year.

“It seems a little heavy-handed, when at last count there were only 524 wolves in Montana and a lot more cows,” said Jesse Timberlake, with the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.

Liz Bradley, a Missoula-based wolf management specialist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, readily acknowledges that the state is acting more aggressively this year on control actions because more wolves are on the landscape than have been here in the past decade. It’s part of an ongoing upward trend; in 1999, when about 80 wolves were spotted on Montana’s landscape, 19 were killed for wildlife depredation. Ten years later, with more than 500 wolves in the Treasure State, that number rose to 145 wolves.

“More wolves in more places equals more conflicts,” Bradley said. “We’ve seen that trend over the years. We’re still trying to use preventive methods to reduce conflicts, but there are places that hasn’t worked.”

Limited wolf hunting was opened in Montana last year. Another season is scheduled to open in September.

[sisu]

  Oh woe is me the poor wolfy can't eat Angus, Holstein, Short Horn, Hereford, merino...

Oh, I want hunting seasons on them. Great pelt, good looking hats, vests, coats etc. Plus I can irritate the hell out of a greenie with wolf skin clothing!

[Lowedog]

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?