wolf poll

[rasbo]

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.

[grundy53]

I think they should be treated like coyotes. 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?

[grundy53]

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.

His out of state hunters are not killing livestock.... or nearly as many game animals. 

[rasbo]

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.

His out of state hunters are not killing livestock.... or nearly as many game animals. 

grundy your missing the point,look at the battle outside our scope and how its viewed by those we are trying to sway towards a better management program..

[grundy53]

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.

His out of state hunters are not killing livestock.... or nearly as many game animals. 

grundy your missing the point,look at the battle outside our scope and how its viewed by those we are trying to sway towards a better management program..

Actually I thought we were trying to sway the wdfw

[woodswalker]

Lowedog, go read up on the european wolves in the dark ages during the little ice age, that will tell you why man has an innate fear....

[rasbo]

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.

His out of state hunters are not killing livestock.... or nearly as many game animals. 

grundy your missing the point,look at the battle outside our scope and how its viewed by those we are trying to sway towards a better management program..

Actually I thought we were trying to sway the wdfw

well them also,Im playing devils advocate sorta..its gonna take a national level on this topic I believe we are really battling city folk far and wide Im thinking

[bearpaw]

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

[sisu]

Rasbo, my wife has said this to me often. We, her & I as well as you) are a dying breed. The city raised are the majority & most will never fire a weapon of any sort much less take game to eat.

Hell you know the butcher just gets those roasts, steaks & burger from the bovine or lamb tree.

[bearpaw]

If you read the Outdoorsman that I posted and then read this news release, it brings to light the fact that Idaho F&G screwed up big time and they seem to be trying to side step responsibility. The IDFG were restricted by the Idaho legislature but still signed the agreement illegally to bring wolves into Idaho. The storm is still building on this whole issue, Malloys ruling only heightened the intenisty of the storm.

If you consider where Washington is at right now in the wolf process, Washington is about to make some of the same mistakes as Idaho, and I have to wonder if funding for the wolf program is being done legally in Washington.

IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID
Date:       September 3, 2010    
Contact:  Ed Mitchell
               (208) 334-3700    

F&G Commission: Open Letter to Hunters and Idahoans

Wildlife managers and biologists agree that the wolf population in Idaho recovered years ago, and that wolf numbers now need to be controlled to reduce conflicts with people and wildlife.
The recent court decision bypassed science and put Idaho wolves back under the protection of the Endangered Species Act based on a legal technicality. Now we must deal with a difficult situation.
The Endangered Species Act severely limits Idaho's abilities to manage wolves, and it is tempting to turn wolf management over to the federal government until wolves can be delisted again. But U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have told us they wouldn't manage wolves to protect Idaho elk herds, and they don't share our motivation to protect the interests of our ranchers, pet owners, hunters and rural communities.
We looked carefully at our options and potential consequences. We decided that as long as we are making a difference, we must stay engaged in wolf management to protect Idaho's interests and rights. Only as a last resort will we leave the fate of Idaho residents and wildlife entirely in the hands of the federal government.
Part of the reason we feel that way is because of how we got to where we are.
With the court decision to relist wolves for the second time, the federal system has failed us. Defenders of Wildlife and other special interest groups are using a parade of lawsuits to tie the federal government in knots, and the result is against common sense, responsible wildlife management, and the stated intent of the Endangered Species Act. While we will work within the rule of law; we will use all of our influence and authority to make this right and put wolf management back in Idaho's hands where it belongs.
Idaho's lawyers will ask a court of appeals to overturn U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy's ruling, but we believe the best solution is to change the law directly. We will work with Idaho's congressional delegation, Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and other states to resolve this problem through federal legislation. Solutions will probably not be easy or quick. We will need all of the support we can get to make this happen, and we will keep you posted as to how you can best help these efforts.
While we are pursuing change in the courts and in Congress, we will make the most of the authorities available to us. We support Gov. Otter's efforts to reach a new agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife to ensure as much flexibility as possible in managing wolves. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission recommended that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be in charge of Endangered Species Act enforcement while Idaho focuses on protecting its elk herds and reducing wolf conflicts. It should also be the federal government's role to fund wolf management, and we support restricting the use of hunters' license dollars for wolf management as long as wolves are federally protected.
We will continue to insist on population control, particularly in areas where wolf predation is hurting our wildlife. The processes for getting federal agency approvals involve considerable paperwork and time and impose requirements that are an additional source of frustration. For example, because of federal legal requirements, Idaho Fish and Game managers have to use wolf population estimates that are "minimum," so we know we are underestimating the number of wolves in Idaho.
Likewise, to control wolves to protect elk herds under the "10(j)" provision of the Endangered Species Act, Idaho must demonstrate wolf predation impacts based on data that takes time to collect. We must also have our proposals reviewed by at least five scientists outside our agencies. That means we end up a year or more behind the times, using data that often doesn't match up with what you see in the woods today. We have gotten to the point where we will soon submit a "10(j)" proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wolf control actions in the Lolo Zone, and other proposals are being developed. When delisting occurred previously, we were poised with a proposal then, too.
As you can tell, we are in a tough struggle to regain state management, with scientific and legal battles on many fronts. We are concerned that some matters are dividing our community when we need to be united. For example, there are some who want to argue about what happened in Idaho politics when wolves were introduced in 1994. While we commit to learning from history, we do not want to waste our energy trying to attack, defend, or change the past.
We are fighting a national battle of perception. It is easy to paint an ideal world of nature from a desk far away from rural Idaho. We need your help to explain why it is important to manage Idaho's wolf population, just like we manage other wildlife. Someone who wouldn't think twice about calling animal control to pick up stray dogs in the city may not think about how wolves are affecting the lives of Idahoans in similar ways - unless we tell them.

National activist groups try to portray the average Idahoan as a wolf exterminator, lazy hunter or crazy extremist. We need your help to prove them wrong, just as Idahoans did when we participated responsibly in the first wolf hunting season in the lower 48 states. We need your help to support change through social networks across the country.
If state authorities are further undermined by court decisions or inaction at the federal level, there may come a time where we decide the best thing to do is to surrender and leave wolf management up to the federal government until wolves are delisted. But for now we believe the best place to fix the system and protect Idaho's interests is by staying involved in management. We appreciate your support.

Idaho Fish and Game Commission

[rasbo]

Im hoping it can be turned over to the state,and would hope and help to avoid these problems here before its way outta hand..I would like to see the WDFG set a standard of good practice for management of the wolves,strict management Now....be a leader WDFG

[bearpaw]

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.

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.  

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....

[Special T]

Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong... Lets do a cost benefit analysis...
Costs....
lower # of deer & elk
Small number of moose in this state will be at risk
Small # of mountain caribou at risk
Higher cost to land owners due to stock issues
Eventually less revenue due to less hunters/less game
Less income revenue generated in rural areas from lack of lease, guide, gas, food, lodging etc Dollars generated.
Less safety in the woods, as we have experienced from lack of pressure on Cougars,bears and coyotes
Possible diseases being spread to pets, live stock, and people
 
I think we could all come up with many more if we wanted these are just the high lights.
Benefits....
See another species that we don't currently see... Debateably the "indigenous" one...
Possible hunting season

These are the only 2 benefits i can think of... pleas share if you think there are more...
I cannot think the increase of hunting tag rev or tourism for Wolves can over come the drop in rev from Main game animals Deer/Elk

So Indigenous or not, what are the real benefits of having wolves?

[sisu]

So Indigenous or not, what are the real benefits of having wolves?

There are none. This entire wolf deal is a bunny hugger, green beanie program done by college "wildlife" professors and researchers. I remember when the big shot at NMU started his wolf program in Yooperland. You'd of thought that JC was reborn and introduced in the biology department there. I can't remember his name now but he sure thought of a lot of himself. Walked around the dept. like he was a king. Had all the city folks from below the bridge kowtowing to him. It's about that time period I got disgusted and got a general science degree in biology to get the hell out of Dodge.

Dr. Robinson that was his name. I guess he keeps a real low profile in the outdoor community now, but there are those who hunt back in the UP that don't begrudge the wolf. All I know is the areas I used to stomp around in as a kid are nearly devoid of deer.

[bearpaw]

They got rid of wolves from the lower 48 for a reason. Bringing them back to the lower 48 has done nothing measurably good, only destruction has resulted.

Destruction to Game Herds
Destruction to Livestock
Destruction to Local Economies
Destruction to the health of other animals and potentially man.