wolf poll

[grundy53]

http://explorethebitterroot.com/the-wolf-pulled-over-our-eyes

Here you go lowedog

[wolfbait]

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.

 

First off I respect everyone on W-H, at times things have gotten hot n heavy, and we all have our own opinions, but thats what makes things interesting. I have learnd many things from all of you and enjoyed your stories.

I came on this site with wolves on my mind, to inform all of you of what was happening in my little part of WA. Since then I have met many great people, some of them have come to my home, where we discussed the modern day attire and such. I wished that I could have been a part of this site without the wolves, I honestly believe this is the best hunting web site that has been ever started.

I don't plan on arguing anymore on W-H about wolves, I have given you as much info as there is, if you still have doubts then you will always have them. Not makeing a decission is the same as doing nothing, and that is totally up to everyone of you.

Lowedog, I don't think you are pro-wolf and it would not matter if you were, the bottom line,  this is not the 100 years ago, and why would wolves come clear down from Alberta to the lower 48 where the wolves already had killed the hell out of everything. WHY!!! I won't be answering you but think about it. OK , Todd

[Special T]

One of the articles WB posted talked about the affect hunting had on the wolves on outside the denali NP in AK... It stated that hunting could only harvest 3-5% of the population and in order to hold a wolf population constant 30-50% harvest was needed. So even if we institute a hunting season NOW we CANNOT effect the rate of growth... So whats the big deal about protecting them??

[Gringo31]

I voted for eradication only because at this point I don't think it's possible.  It would be something that would keep them in check though.  The coyote is a good example.  You can shoot, hunt, call, trap, aerial gun etc.....year round, non stop, everyone takes a shot at em and they just keep coming back.

Attempted eradication is the best option in my opinion.

Gringo

[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....

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

rasbo I did misunderstand you and thought those were your feelings. My apologies for the misunderstanding on your thoughts, but those are my comments to those who do think that way. People who think that way are just messed up. That is like saying because I am a hunting guide my opinion should not count. That's very narrow minded.

I do put a lot of effort into trying to find what is best for wildlife. Unfortunately unregulated wolf numbers simply do not benefit wildlife.

[bearpaw]

Lowedog the bottom line is that I posted the links to the info proving which sub-species of wolves were native to Washington and which showed the size of native wolves in Washington and the size of wolves from Canaada, which are larger.

If you choose to ignore the facts that is your choice to act just like the pro-wolfers, not my doing. But the proof has been supplied if you are man enough to read it. Let your own concious guide you on that, I guess you can simply reply back again "show me the proof"....LOL

I also supplied you the address to my wolf website which has all the links to actual news stories and studies proving everything I have claimed. Where is your proof?

I am pretty busy right now and do not have time to get all the quotes for you, but they are all there. If you wanted to find them you could, but you obviously are closed minded on this, and find it easier to simply say "show me the proof" while ignoring the facts that have been supplied.

Since I have gotten involved and studied wolves I have become more opposed to them because the proof makes it obvious that wolves do not fit into the lower 48. Sorry but the facts speak for themself. Does that mean I want to see wolves extirminated from earth, heck no, but you will most likely try to twist my words into that.

At any rate, you are welcome to ignore the facts, but there are far more people who are learning from all the data that has been provided.

WDFW has blocked much info from Washingtonians, but the efforts of wolfbait and others is making a difference. I for one thank wolfbait for bringing so much info to light.

If you want to see the proof, it is all in the news and studies posted here:  http://graywolfnews.com/
But don't tell me I have not supplied the proof...LOL

[Gutpile]

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

Wow, membership doubled in one day after your post. Hopefully we'll get more folks on board.

Unfortunately on Facebook a lot of people just "liked" it instead of joining. Oh well.

[Lowedog]

Bearpaw, I read the info on the links you provided.  There is nothing there that answers the question I have asked.  I am not asking about the wolves that were introduced into Yellowstone which came from the Mackenzie Valley of Alberta.  They are also known as the Canadian Timber Wolf.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf



I am not trying to change your mind and I am not trying to twist your words.  There is nothing to suggest that the wolves in WA were introduced.  The packs in the NE and Methow more than likely originated in British Columbia and did not travel here over thousands of miles. 

My mind just wonders why, if the native wolves to the lower 48 (especially WA) was so much less threatening to live stock and game herds, they were wiped out.  In my opinion they weren't any less threatening and were basically the same wolf.  That or the lower 48 had both the larger sub species and the several other regional smaller sub species which at the time there was no distinction and all wolves were considered the same.

I am trying to be as open minded as possible about wolves.  I read info from both sides and try to sort through the extremist views coming from both sides.

I voted for sound management in this poll because to me that means using what ever means possible to deal with wolves.  I like others don't feel that hunting alone is an effective management tool for wolves.  Like I have said several times I do believe there is room in our wild lands for wolves.  By no stretch of the imagination does that mean I think we need wolf numbers like they are in other states. 

You ask me where my proof is.  I am not trying to prove anything.  I am not the one on here telling people they need to pull there heads out and insulting them when they don't share my views.  I have said I could post just as much pro wolf propaganda as you do anti.  That doesn't mean I believe everything I read on the pro wolf side either but it is out there. 

[grundy53]

Bearpaw, I read the info on the links you provided.  There is nothing there that answers the question I have asked.  I am not asking about the wolves that were introduced into Yellowstone which came from the Mackenzie Valley of Alberta.  They are also known as the Canadian Timber Wolf.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf



I am not trying to change your mind and I am not trying to twist your words.  There is nothing to suggest that the wolves in WA were introduced.  The packs in the NE and Methow more than likely originated in British Columbia and did not travel here over thousands of miles. 

My mind just wonders why, if the native wolves to the lower 48 (especially WA) was so much less threatening to live stock and game herds, they were wiped out.  In my opinion they weren't any less threatening and were basically the same wolf.  That or the lower 48 had both the larger sub species and the several other regional smaller sub species which at the time there was no distinction and all wolves were considered the same.

I am trying to be as open minded as possible about wolves.  I read info from both sides and try to sort through the extremist views coming from both sides.

I voted for sound management in this poll because to me that means using what ever means possible to deal with wolves.  I like others don't feel that hunting alone is an effective management tool for wolves.  Like I have said several times I do believe there is room in our wild lands for wolves.  By no stretch of the imagination does that mean I think we need wolf numbers like they are in other states. 

You ask me where my proof is.  I am not trying to prove anything.  I am not the one on here telling people they need to pull there heads out and insulting them when they don't share my views.  I have said I could post just as much pro wolf propaganda as you do anti.  That doesn't mean I believe everything I read on the pro wolf side either but it is out there. 

Did you go to the website I provided the link too?

[Lowedog]

I have now, thanks for the link. 

It is interesting though when you compare that information with the info found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf .  You can see in the link I posted that the Mackenzie Valley wolf (or Canadian Timber wolf) has a range extending to the US border with the acknowledgement that they are also the wolf that was introduced into Yellowstone and Idaho. 

My thought is that these larger wolves did not recognize the border pre-eradication and occupied much of the Rocky Mtn Range and other ares of the west. 

I do understand though that the sub species of wolf introduced into those areas is a predator that is unlike anything that was there for close to 100 years and needs to be aggressively managed.

[bearpaw]

Lowedog
FYI- The link I gave you specified which wolves were native to WA and what their size was. The native wolves killed livestock too. That's why they wiped them out too.   

But the native wolves were more adapted to this environment and possibly less impact on wildlife, that's my beef, also the wolves they brought in had Hydatid Disease, very stupid the way USFWS ignored warnings from qualified professionals.

Lewis and Clark nearly starved to death in the Rocky Mountains because game numbers were so low.
But wolves were wiped out because they all killed livestock, you know that so why do you argue?

FYI- I used to think that some wolves would be compatible, now I know it's not possible, mostly because wolf lovers will not let F&G keep numbers at managable levels in the areas with the least impact. They want them everywhere and in unlimited numbers. WDFW wolf plan is prime example.

[Lowedog]

BP, we will just have to disagree on the issue.  I read the info you provided and saw nothing that suggested that the larger sub species known as the Canadian Timber wolf was not inhabiting the lower 48.  If you read my last post you see what my opinion is on this particular part of the conversation is.  In reality it has nothing to do with what is going on now.  Wolves are here and they need to be dealt with.  Just how they are dealt with is where our opinions differ. 

I don't really follow your statement about Lewis and Clark...

Lewis and Clark nearly starved to death in the Rocky Mountains because game numbers were so low.
But wolves were wiped out because they all killed livestock, you know that so why do you argue?

I'm not sure what you are getting at there? 

[grundy53]

BP, we will just have to disagree on the issue.  I read the info you provided and saw nothing that suggested that the larger sub species known as the Canadian Timber wolf was not inhabiting the lower 48.  If you read my last post you see what my opinion is on this particular part of the conversation is.  In reality it has nothing to do with what is going on now.  Wolves are here and they need to be dealt with.  Just how they are dealt with is where our opinions differ. 

I don't really follow your statement about Lewis and Clark...

Lewis and Clark nearly starved to death in the Rocky Mountains because game numbers were so low.
But wolves were wiped out because they all killed livestock, you know that so why do you argue?

I'm not sure what you are getting at there? 

He's saying there was no game for Lewis and Clark expedition to eat cause the wolves had hunted them to such a low population numbers

[Lowedog]

So now were blaming wolves for Lewis and Clark being hungry for 11 days as they crossed the Lolo Trail? 

They hardly almost starved to death either.  They went hungry at times but they were not starving.  They crossed that trail in 11 days in late Sept.  They encountered snow storms and rough terrain.  They weren't exploring the mountain sides for game they were trudging their way to the west across those mountains as fast as they could travel. 

[rasbo]

while searching for elk populations in Idaho I clicked on one subject that popped up on goggle,and recieved an instant virus,took 3 days to get rid of it..Sorry I dont remember which it was,I was in a panic not to lose everything...And afraid to go back and look....