Deer and Elk Hunting in Idaho and Montana After Wolf Introduction

[ICEMAN]

Sitka, please post your credentials.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The letter after "R", when three are strung together with no spaces between them, typically refers to illegal behavior. This site does not condone illegal behavior.

I see. So it can't even be mentioned to argue against the practice huh? Even tho those who condone it and encourage it find plenty of creative ways to get around the ban?

Pretty cheesy argument if you ask me. I wonder if I say bank robbing is a horrible thing if bank robbing will be censored since it's an illegal activity?

Or what about poaching? I see lots of posts and even threads here that talk about poaching and that is an illegal activity. Shouldn't the word poaching be banned too?

Why not just say any post that advocates an illegal activity gets nuked? Then hunters could discuss issues related to an illegal activity, like say how to prevent it or what the punishment could be for it?

But thanks for the explanation!

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sitka, please post your credentials.

Why? Do my credentials make my opinion and the facts I dig up any more or less valid? If so, then maybe everybody who posts here should post their credentials.

[ICEMAN]

Sitka, please post your credentials.

Why? Do my credentials make my opinion and the facts I dig up any more or less valid? If so, then maybe everybody who posts here should post their credentials.

Sheesh, touchy....

I will provide my credentials;

I did not study but a few bio classes in college, but rather political science and criminal justice.

I have not worked in any field related to wildlife or any similar venture, but rather HVAC, construction, and "criminal justice" related fields.

Every thing I espouse is related to what I have simply observed in the wild, in society and in government.

You have differing opinions than I, and you argue them differently. I am simply interested in where you have gained your knowledge or experiences from. Pretty simple.

[Bob33]

The letter after "R", when three are strung together with no spaces between them, typically refers to illegal behavior. This site does not condone illegal behavior.

I see. So it can't even be mentioned to argue against the practice huh? Even tho those who condone it and encourage it find plenty of creative ways to get around the ban?

Pretty cheesy argument if you ask me. I wonder if I say bank robbing is a horrible thing if bank robbing will be censored since it's an illegal activity?

Or what about poaching? I see lots of posts and even threads here that talk about poaching and that is an illegal activity. Shouldn't the word poaching be banned too?

Why not just say any post that advocates an illegal activity gets nuked? Then hunters could discuss issues related to an illegal activity, like say how to prevent it or what the punishment could be for it?

But thanks for the explanation!

To be honest, it's a lot easier to simply ban members that continue to intentionally take actions that are counter productive.

[NWBREW]

Sitka, please post your credentials.

Why? Do my credentials make my opinion and the facts I dig up any more or less valid? 

They may....since you are the one who started this thread. If you can please answer the question I asked earlier.

How much of an impact did the wolf have in the decline of the Bitteroot, Bighorn and Yellowstone elk herds? Seems to be a valid question.

[deerslyr]

Sitka where do you live? Obviously you dont live in MT or Idaho. I would love for you to come out here and tell all of the ranchers, hunters, and small business owners that are related to the hunting industry that wolves have a minimal impact on our deer and elk herds as well as live stock depredation.

[Knocker of rocks]

Just curious, why is it every time I type the three s it gets censored? I'm certainly not advocating it. And I see others encouraging  it all over this board and others.

The letter after "R", when three are strung together with no spaces between them, typically refers to illegal behavior. This site does not condone illegal behavior.

That's what I do in the morning:
S***, Shower and Shave    I hope the man doesn't bust down my door

[furbearer365]

I heard there were people who really liked the idea of wolves being brought back but you sir (sitka) take the cake.  How dare you name yourself after a deer and in the same breath argue FOR wolves.  Stop hunting the game the rest of us love and go live with them, i bet you they dont love you as much as you love them.

[JohnVH]

 It's one reason we have great management today. 

 

[Knocker of rocks]

Sitka, please post your credentials.

That would be in the pre'cis forum

[CedarPants]

Honestly I'm with Sitka on this one - his credentials don't really matter.  That said Sitka, they would be beneficial when you state things like "I am here to tell you that line of thinking is wrong" as well as when you state numerous biological based "facts".  Your credentials don't honestly matter at all one bit if you believe what you are saying, but they may matter if your point is to educate people.  If your point isn't to educate people here, then what are you attempting to accomplish?

Keep in mind, what is "fact" to one group may not be to another.  One group cites the "fact" that there were x number of elk in a certain region prior to wolves and now that there are wolves there are way fewer than x elk in said region and that hunting opportunities are diminishing.  That's a fact, and it can be proven.

Another group can say sure, there were not wolves in a certain region before and now there are - but the elk numbers in said region are just in a normal fluctuation state when viewed historically, and that wolves are not causing an unacceptable decline and that the elk numbers are at successful management levels.  That is a fact and can be proven.

So which fact is correct, and which fact is false?  Neither - and both.  It all depends on your opinion and your viewpoint.  If you don't hunt and don't care if hunting is affected by wolves, then your facts are accurate.  If you do hunt and see your heritage taking a hit, then your facts are accurate.  At the end of the day its a matter of opinion, and you can't tell someone their opinion is wrong simply because you hold an opposing viewpoint.

Rambling, I know - my point is we can tell each other we're wrong till we're blue in the face and it solves nothing.  Nobody wins in the long run

[jackmaster]

what wins in the long run is leave the wolves the hell out of washington, i dont remember getting to vote on the reintroduction of wolves, its nice to know that are goverment only lets us vote on cetain things, its time to vote out are current managemant at wdfw and vote people in that actually care about the survival of are deer and elk heards, and vote people in that want to create jobs by logging and creating more habitat, and the wolves were eradicated by people with obviosly alot more damn common sense

[Bob33]

One group cites the "fact" that there were x number of elk in a certain region prior to wolves and now that there are wolves there are way fewer than x elk in said region and that hunting opportunities are diminishing.  That's a fact, and it can be proven.

Another group can say sure, there were not wolves in a certain region before and now there are - but the elk numbers in said region are just in a normal fluctuation state when viewed historically, and that wolves are not causing an unacceptable decline and that the elk numbers are at successful management levels.  That is a fact and can be proven.

I consider your first example a fact: "x" elk then, "y" elk now.  I don't consider the second example a fact because an "unacceptable decline", "wolves not causing..", and "successful management levels" are matters of opinion.  To some, no elk may be acceptable, and that's the problem: a portion of those who want to increase wolf populations don't care if game animals suffer severely.

Your point is well taken.  Thanks.

[CedarPants]

I completely agree with you Bob.  Glad you understood my rambling