Post by: boneaddict on May 09, 2013, 10:44:37 AM
Mother nature is mother nature, but I still HATE these animals.
Post by: headshot5 on May 09, 2013, 10:50:08 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 09, 2013, 10:54:11 AM
When predaors are controlled everyone benifits, and as we have seen when they are not everyone loses.
Except of course those who are making money off of wolves, USFWS, IDFG, WDFW, and environmentalists
Maybe we just need more habitat for the game herds and livestock? :rolleyes:
Post by: 7mmfan on May 09, 2013, 11:16:10 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on May 09, 2013, 11:17:31 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 09, 2013, 11:30:05 AM
Post by: wsucowboy on May 09, 2013, 11:30:37 AM
I couldn't do what those guys did. I know mother nature has to be able to do her thing, but I physically couldn't stand there and watch, and I don't mean I would walk away...:yeah:
Post by: grundy53 on May 09, 2013, 11:37:45 AM
Yep me too.:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: AspenBud on May 09, 2013, 11:47:54 AM
Wolves vs coyote [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCvLzDNWz0#ws)
Post by: elkoholic1 on May 09, 2013, 12:03:36 PM
Post by: boneaddict on May 09, 2013, 12:30:30 PM
I couldn't do what those guys did. I know mother nature has to be able to do her thing, but I physically couldn't stand there and watch, and I don't mean I would walk away...
Yeah, I am pretty sure this Apex predator would have evened the odds a bit, even if I was having to swing the monopod
Post by: jackmaster on May 09, 2013, 12:33:22 PM
Post by: acnewman55 on May 09, 2013, 12:38:41 PM
Other than the fact that it means less game for hunters... It's simply competition then; and logically you should hate other hunters too.
Post by: boneaddict on May 09, 2013, 12:45:43 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on May 09, 2013, 12:59:52 PM
Post by: jackmaster on May 09, 2013, 03:10:03 PM
I realize it's a part of hunting culture to hate wolves, but I don't see the logic in hating them because they eat other animals.logically it is perfectly fine to hate wolves because not a hunter alive was around before the lower 48 were erradicated of wolves, there for we have never had to compete with them, not to mention all the work that has been put into elk and deer habitat and management and lets not even get started on the poor damn farmers, they were killed off for a reason, can anyone tell one good damn reason to let them inhabit the lower 48 again :dunno: and of course we arent gonna hate other hunters for the most part, that comparing apples to oranges, now cougars, bobcats and coyotes on the other hand are a differant story, since we lost hound hunting and baiting are wildlife has plenty to deal with without having to deal with friggin wolves....... SO I SAY KEEP ON HATIN BONE.....YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT :tup: :tup:
Other than the fact that it means less game for hunters... It's simply competition then; and logically you should hate other hunters too.
Post by: lucky33 on May 09, 2013, 03:15:13 PM
I think its the pack thing maybe. I occasionally want to club to death gang bangers that victimize the innocent as well. If someone wants to pay for my shrink I'd be glad to figure out why I hate them. :):yeah: Will for sure be buying a wolf tag in Idaho this year. Even if It bankrupts me. Look at the wolves tails wagging in the vid, its not just a hunt for food. They enjoy killing. Anyone who says they just kill to eat is full of it. It has been documented many times that they kill for the sheer fun of it, spree killings of elk, sheep ect. I dont say kill them all off, but they need to be managed very tightly. :twocents: Would have been great to see that moose stomp of few of them into the mud in the bottom of that pond. :bash:
Post by: boneaddict on May 09, 2013, 03:26:40 PM
Post by: acnewman55 on May 09, 2013, 04:12:34 PM
Quote
Look at the wolves tails wagging in the vid, its not just a hunt for food. They enjoy killing. Anyone who says they just kill to eat is full of it.
I find this totally ridiculous.
My dog kills squirrels every now and then. Loves doing it. Tail wagging the whole time. Doesn't make me want to shoot my dog.
What's wrong with enjoying the kill? Isn't that what hunting is about? Enjoying the process, the thrill of the hunt, and the prospect of meat in the belly afterwards?
Humans are allowed to enjoy killing but wild animals aren't?
Post by: gaddy on May 09, 2013, 04:15:33 PM
Post by: Johnb317 on May 09, 2013, 05:08:19 PM
What's scary is when food gets scarce we're on the menu.
If I go to Idaho I'll spend the extra for a wolf tag.
Post by: nocklehead on May 09, 2013, 05:15:33 PM
What's wrong with enjoying the kill? Isn't that what hunting is about? Enjoying the process, the thrill of the hunt, and the prospect of meat in the belly afterwards?
Humans are allowed to enjoy killing but wild animals aren't?Quote
Humans can LOSE the right to hunt for wasting game, wolves just go kill another full grown elk or moose just to eat the fetus and liver inside and go kill another.
Post by: wolfbait on May 09, 2013, 08:27:10 PM
What's wrong with enjoying the kill? Isn't that what hunting is about? Enjoying the process, the thrill of the hunt, and the prospect of meat in the belly afterwards?
Humans are allowed to enjoy killing but wild animals aren't?Quote
Humans can LOSE the right to hunt for wasting game, wolves just go kill another full grown elk or moose just to eat the fetus and liver inside and go kill another.
http://saveelk.com/wolf_030.htm (http://saveelk.com/wolf_030.htm)
Killed for the calf she carried
Post by: wolfbait on May 09, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
Post by: coachcw on May 09, 2013, 08:48:49 PM
Post by: acnewman55 on May 09, 2013, 09:21:02 PM
More deer are killed by cars speeding down highways. Don't see anyone taking up arms against drivers for not eating their road kill.
There was plenty of game in North America when wolves roamed freely. The reason we have less game now is a problem of development and overcrowding of winter range, not a handful of wolf packs in a handful of states.
I backpacked through Yellowstone two years ago and made camp less than a mile from a den. The barking up the new litter of pups kept me awake all night. It was one of the most memorable wilderness experiences of my life.
I don't believe that wilderness belongs only in national parks. I want that wilderness experience in my home state. If several hundred deer are killed and left for the birds to pick clean, I say that's a reasonable trade off for the chance to experience wilderness a little closer to what it was before our highways and cities destroyed it.
If we weren't parceling out the wilderness and containing wild animals into smaller and smaller ranges, there'd be plenty of game to go around, and we wouldn't have to wait half a lifetime to draw for a chance to hunt a trophy animal.
I don't think the wolf is our enemy, I think development is our enemy. I can't hate an animal for living according to it's nature.
Post by: grundy53 on May 09, 2013, 09:27:58 PM
Post by: slim9300 on May 09, 2013, 09:51:43 PM
It's all about checks and balance's, they have there place in national parks and zoo's but else where should be far game like yotes !
Exactly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: slim9300 on May 09, 2013, 09:54:48 PM
Again, all I see are hunters hating wolves because wolves kill game. Whether or not the eat the whole animal matters little to me.
More deer are killed by cars speeding down highways. Don't see anyone taking up arms against drivers for not eating their road kill.
There was plenty of game in North America when wolves roamed freely. The reason we have less game now is a problem of development and overcrowding of winter range, not a handful of wolf packs in a handful of states.
I backpacked through Yellowstone two years ago and made camp less than a mile from a den. The barking up the new litter of pups kept me awake all night. It was one of the most memorable wilderness experiences of my life.
I don't believe that wilderness belongs only in national parks. I want that wilderness experience in my home state. If several hundred deer are killed and left for the birds to pick clean, I say that's a reasonable trade off for the chance to experience wilderness a little closer to what it was before our highways and cities destroyed it.
If we weren't parceling out the wilderness and containing wild animals into smaller and smaller ranges, there'd be plenty of game to go around, and we wouldn't have to wait half a lifetime to draw for a chance to hunt a trophy animal.
I don't think the wolf is our enemy, I think development is our enemy. I can't hate an animal for living according to it's nature.
I glad most hunters disagree with you. You must be a liberal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on May 09, 2013, 09:57:11 PM
:yeah: Killem all!!!!!!!! :tup:It's all about checks and balance's, they have there place in national parks and zoo's but else where should be far game like yotes !
Exactly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on May 09, 2013, 09:59:57 PM
Post by: splitshot on May 09, 2013, 10:05:25 PM
Post by: acnewman55 on May 09, 2013, 10:14:44 PM
I glad most hunters disagree with you. You must be a liberal?
You paint a pretty narrow-minded picture of American politics if you define liberal or conservative views based whether or not you choose to hate wolves.
My friends would roll on the floor laughing if they heard someone accuse me of being a liberal.
I'm no liberal. I just don't see the logic in hating an animal for being an animal.
Post by: rtspring on May 09, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on May 09, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
Post by: Kola16 on May 09, 2013, 10:24:00 PM
....I just don't see the logic in hating an animal for being an animal.So can you be ok with a muslim that just killed 100 people? After all, they are just being a muslim....
Post by: acnewman55 on May 09, 2013, 10:28:42 PM
....I just don't see the logic in hating an animal for being an animal.So can you be ok with a muslim that just killed 100 people? After all, they are just being a muslim....
:rolleyes:
Post by: Kola16 on May 09, 2013, 10:40:49 PM
Post by: crazysccrmd on May 09, 2013, 11:38:40 PM
Again, all I see are hunters hating wolves because wolves kill game. Whether or not the eat the whole animal matters little to me.
More deer are killed by cars speeding down highways. Don't see anyone taking up arms against drivers for not eating their road kill.
There was plenty of game in North America when wolves roamed freely. The reason we have less game now is a problem of development and overcrowding of winter range, not a handful of wolf packs in a handful of states.
If we weren't parceling out the wilderness and containing wild animals into smaller and smaller ranges, there'd be plenty of game to go around, and we wouldn't have to wait half a lifetime to draw for a chance to hunt a trophy animal.
I don't think the wolf is our enemy, I think development is our enemy. I can't hate an animal for living according to it's nature.
I agree with this. Before the sprawl of humanity spread across the country there was plenty of game, and plenty of wolves. Humans have done far, far more damage to the wildlife population than a handful of wolves have done in recent years. I'm all for a managed hunting season on all game, wolves included, and better options available for controlling other large predators.
And no, I'm not a liberal hippie tree hugger.
As far as the muslim comment, that's just stupid.
Post by: Kola16 on May 10, 2013, 12:09:56 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on May 10, 2013, 01:07:15 AM
We dont need wolves, they will have nothing but a detrimental effect on todays society
Post by: jackmaster on May 10, 2013, 06:52:40 AM
Post by: raydog on May 10, 2013, 07:19:07 AM
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 07:21:17 AM
I glad most hunters disagree with you. You must be a liberal?
You paint a pretty narrow-minded picture of American politics if you define liberal or conservative views based whether or not you choose to hate wolves.
My friends would roll on the floor laughing if they heard someone accuse me of being a liberal.
I'm no liberal. I just don't see the logic in hating an animal for being an animal.
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.' Lol. Furthermore, you are in the minority of people that see wolves as an 'attraction.' The vast majority prefer to seek out elk and deer, and unlike wolves, elk and deer allow game agencies to be self-sustaining (the only government sector that I am aware of that is capable of this). Just take a look at Idaho's F&W revenues over the last few years as proof of the impact of wolves along with their declining elk numbers. Wolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return. What a great deal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 10, 2013, 07:21:46 AM
More deer are killed by cars speeding down highways. Don't see anyone taking up arms against drivers for not eating their road kill.
May want to change the RCW in regards to road kill before we do that!
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 07:25:35 AM
Plenty of game? Is that why Lewis and Clark survived off domestic dogs and salmon when they came to Washington? There was not plenty of game in the north west. Wolves play no significant part in todays day and age, there may have been a few before but they never thrived here.
We dont need wolves, they will have nothing but a detrimental effect on todays society
Exactly. People have this view that the white man was the one that wiped out all of North America's big game populations and before us, all animals were amazingly plentiful. Lewis and Clark could hardly find an animal to kill when they were anywhere near Indian 'traditional hunting grounds.' Which was most of their trip across the West. I wonder why that was?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 07:27:00 AM
I Don't much care for wolves but can you blame the wolf for doing what wolves do. No. Blame the jack wagons who brought them back :bash:
I think that should be obvious as most of us are debating the concept and not the animal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: lucky33 on May 10, 2013, 08:39:02 AM
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on May 10, 2013, 08:46:36 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 09:03:36 AM
If we weren't parceling out the wilderness and containing wild animals into smaller and smaller ranges, there'd be plenty of game to go around, and we wouldn't have to wait half a lifetime to draw for a chance to hunt a trophy animal.
I don't think the wolf is our enemy, I think development is our enemy.
I agree, but there's more to it than that. We don't manage habitat like we should.
In a lot of places where game is becoming more scarce you don't see logging trucks as much as you used to. Big undisturbed forests are nice to see, but they don't allow for a lot of undergrowth and become ecological deserts. Less food and cover for hiding means fewer animals including deer. As I see it we were already in trouble thanks to the Sierra Club and other groups that don't seem to understand habitat. Wolves, where they are occurring, have just made the problem more visible and worse in some cases.
At the end of the day this argument is really about whether we cultivate game for hunting or if we let nature take its course wolf or no wolf. It's about whether you should have a reasonable right to hunt for your own food or be forced into the grocery store and line farmers' and livestock producers' pockets instead. It is more complex than just the wolf, but most don't understand that.
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 09:08:05 AM
you wolf advocates dont see the big picture and you call hunters who dislike wolves narrow minded, hunters and most sportsman give endlessly to the survival of habitat and wildlife, wolves dont just stop with deer and elk, why dont you realize that, is it going to take a little kid playing in his yard and getting mauled by a wolf, or a tree huggin, wolf lovin, bunny humper getting picked off in the sticks by a wolf for you to realize that wolves no longer have a place in society in the lower 48 :dunno: why dont people realize that wolves were done away with because they are not your normal predator, they do not fear like cougars, bobcat and yotes do. wolves are testers, they become more braisin by the minute, they are constantly testing strengths and weaknesses and they exploit the weaknesses very efficiently. you wolve lovers need to wake up and see the big picture, i for one cant wait for mama and baby leaf licker to be at a feeding station and while they watch the elk in their winter grounds eating their hay a wolf pack comes in and start grubbin on baby elk and watch mama elk stand there and watch her baby get consumed, that should leave a wonderful longlastin memory for the leaflicker family. :tup: :twocents:
I don't see how you can think any of the above horror stories will make a difference. Adults, kids, dogs, cats, and so on regularly get attacked by mountain lions, coyotes, bear, and more in this country year in and year out. Unless it becomes a regular occurrence an errant wolf attack on a human being isn't going to change perceptions much among people who don't farm or hunt. Our society is fairly fatalistic about wild animals. If you don't think so you're not paying much attention.
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
It has further been shown in YNP how wolves will reduce local herds to such a level that they kill and eat each other or move to other areas for food. There are now little more than half as many wolves in YNP as there was before they decimated the elk and moose herds.
Wolves are best suited in wilderness areas and large parks where humans, pets, and livestock do not inhabit the landscape. If wolves are not managed, which this state refuses to do, then they will decimate herds, when food gets scarce is when livestock, pets, and even humans may become just to appealing.
Just yesterday I ran into a friend who lives where the Smackout pack has taken up residence, she walks daily near her home, last week she ran into a wolf while walking and this wolf had no fear of her, she was actually shouting and throwing rocks at this wolf to keep it back, lucky for her a truck happened along. She says she will never walk without a gun again, this scared the dickens right out of her. These wolves are living in too close of proximity to livestock, humans, and pets, it's just a matter of time and they will be in trouble.
Another case in point is the Wedge Pack. Those wolves have been there for several years and us locals have been telling that to WDFW, but as everyone knows, until a couple years ago WDFW denied wolves existence. Those wolves multiplied and heavily impacted local game herds to the point that it became far easier to eat cattle.
The biggest mistake is failing to manage wolves and keeping their numbers to a minimum that does not impact big game herds. Yet that is exactly what WDFW has in mind for Washington. The WDFW Colville meeting was held so that WDFW could basically tell us locals when herds declined they were not going to act on reducing wolf numbers, they plan to study the problem. Once wolves multiply and begin depleting herd numbers then the domino effect of significant herd reductions will begin and ultimately the inability of the herds to recover due to continued predation will prevail, thus the term predator pit.
If WDFW continues to allow herds to deplete they will be responsible for the predator pit as it grows in Washington. There is already a predator pit in certain areas of NE WA. We had two hard winters and WDFW refuses to manage cougars and wolves which are significantly increasing in numbers, it has been some years since those bad winters but our deer herds are having a hard time recovering and numbers are dropping further in localized areas where the wolves and cougars are multiplying.
I am the last person who wants to see cougars over hunted and I would not want to see wolves extinct, but I am smart enough to clearly see that WDFW is not managing in the interest of the big game herds or hunters. WDFW is suffering from a cancerous infection known as extreme environmentalism. Until the cancer is removed it will grow and threaten the mere survival of hunting in Washington.
Post by: acnewman55 on May 10, 2013, 09:44:09 AM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.
Quote
Wolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 09:46:47 AM
you wolf advocates dont see the big picture and you call hunters who dislike wolves narrow minded, hunters and most sportsman give endlessly to the survival of habitat and wildlife, wolves dont just stop with deer and elk, why dont you realize that, is it going to take a little kid playing in his yard and getting mauled by a wolf, or a tree huggin, wolf lovin, bunny humper getting picked off in the sticks by a wolf for you to realize that wolves no longer have a place in society in the lower 48 :dunno: why dont people realize that wolves were done away with because they are not your normal predator, they do not fear like cougars, bobcat and yotes do. wolves are testers, they become more braisin by the minute, they are constantly testing strengths and weaknesses and they exploit the weaknesses very efficiently. you wolve lovers need to wake up and see the big picture, i for one cant wait for mama and baby leaf licker to be at a feeding station and while they watch the elk in their winter grounds eating their hay a wolf pack comes in and start grubbin on baby elk and watch mama elk stand there and watch her baby get consumed, that should leave a wonderful longlastin memory for the leaflicker family. :tup: :twocents:
I don't see how you can think any of the above horror stories will make a difference. Adults, kids, dogs, cats, and so on regularly get attacked by mountain lions, coyotes, bear, and more in this country year in and year out. Unless it becomes a regular occurrence an errant wolf attack on a human being isn't going to change perceptions much among people who don't farm or hunt. Our society is fairly fatalistic about wild animals. If you don't think so you're not paying much attention.
Aspenbud you are correct, cougars, bear, and coyotes also need to be managed. When there is a lack of management of any predator, big game herds, and eventually livestock, pets, and even humans may suffer. The responsibility of WDFW is to manage predator numbers to coexist in today's modern ecosystems.
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 09:52:48 AM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.
You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
Up until a few years ago the government has done a great job of keeping wolves in remote areas and protecting big game herds, livestock, pets, and humans. It's pretty clear to me that you are simply a wolf lover, not even concerned about balanced management of all wildlife. :chuckle:
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
Post by: acnewman55 on May 10, 2013, 10:09:24 AM
You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?
You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right? What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right? Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 10:34:55 AM
You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?
You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right? What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right? Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.
Nice try. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Actually I like and enjoy any type of hunting. I enjoy still hunting around farmed and logged areas, packing on horses into more remote areas on our current forests, stand and blind hunting, and road hunting. Yes, I really do like to road hunt. Sometimes we get out of the truck, shoot an animal, load it up and drive home. That last method works particularly well for physically disabled and wounded hunters who have served in the military. Except when I have those type of hunters with me we often shoot from within the truck because they do not have the ability to walk at all. Other times I have hunters who are over weight or too old and cannot walk far, you may say that is their own fault for being overweight or that they should give up hunting because they are too old, but I am a bit more sensitive to peoples needs and feelings than that.
Wilderness effectively removes millions of Americans from ever enjoying that land because the first thing that happens is the roads are removed and access is limited. Under wilderness designation wildlife numbers do not benefit and human use is forever restricted. I think 22 is enough wilderness areas for Washington. :twocents:
We have vast areas of National Forest, a significant portion of the state which is closed to any kind of development. I wished they would do more logging though because that takes the place of forest fires on a smaller scale and wildlife benefits. Because you are a wilderness/wolf lover and obviously do not care about all wildlife, I do not expect you to understand the benefits of logging. But, FYI - The best big game herds thrive in logged areas. Most of the wolf packs in NE WA are thriving in previously logged areas which are home to big game herds. :IBCOOL:
Large portions of the National Forests are already off limits to logging and mining. But wilderness/wolf lovers do not like to admit that.
Please go on, your politics are amusing me. :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 10:35:55 AM
You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?
You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right? What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right? Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.
A reasonable and well thought out amount of logging creates needed habitat. Nature used to do that for us with fire. But we put those out now so logging is the only option.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 10, 2013, 10:37:40 AM
For anyone to say that there was a lot of game before this land was settled may be lacking some historic knowledge. It is clearly detailed in the Lewis & Clark journal how few animals there were in many areas of the west, particularly in the mountain regions where wolves were prevalent. Big game herds thrived after wolves were exterminated and cougars and bears were controlled.bear paw, do you get the feeling the wolf lovers on here didn't take the time to read your post? You nailed it when it comes to wolves, Iam a fellow wolf hater! The guys who loves wolves need to tell us what they find wrong with your comment, it's seems like when people post intelligent views and facts, they get ignored for some reason.?
It has further been shown in YNP how wolves will reduce local herds to such a level that they kill and eat each other or move to other areas for food. There are now little more than half as many wolves in YNP as there was before they decimated the elk and moose herds.
Wolves are best suited in wilderness areas and large parks where humans, pets, and livestock do not inhabit the landscape. If wolves are not managed, which this state refuses to do, then they will decimate herds, when food gets scarce is when livestock, pets, and even humans may become just to appealing.
Just yesterday I ran into a friend who lives where the Smackout pack has taken up residence, she walks daily near her home, last week she ran into a wolf while walking and this wolf had no fear of her, she was actually shouting and throwing rocks at this wolf to keep it back, lucky for her a truck happened along. She says she will never walk without a gun again, this scared the dickens right out of her. These wolves are living in too close of proximity to livestock, humans, and pets, it's just a matter of time and they will be in trouble.
Another case in point is the Wedge Pack. Those wolves have been there for several years and us locals have been telling that to WDFW, but as everyone knows, until a couple years ago WDFW denied wolves existence. Those wolves multiplied and heavily impacted local game herds to the point that it became far easier to eat cattle.
The biggest mistake is failing to manage wolves and keeping their numbers to ad minimum that does not impact big game herds. Yet that is exactly what WDFW has in mind for Washington. The WDFW Colville meeting was held so that WDFW could basically tell us locals when herds declined they were not going to act on reducing wolf numbers, they plan to study the problem. Once wolves multiply and begin depleting herd numbers then the domino effect of significant herd reductions will begin and ultimately the inability of the herds to recover due to continued predation will prevail, thus the term predator pit.
If WDFW continues to allow herds to deplete they will be responsible for the predator pit as it grows in Washington. There is already a predator pit in certain areas of NE WA. We had two hard winters and WDFW refuses to manage cougars and wolves which are significantly increasing in numbers, it has been some years since those bad winters but our deer herds are having a hard time recovering and numbers are dropping further in localized areas where the wolves and cougars are multiplying.
I am the last person who wants to see cougars over hunted and I would not want to see wolves extinct, but I am smart enough to clearly see that WDFW is not managing in the interest of the big game herds or hunters. WDFW is suffering from a cancerous infection known as extreme environmentalism. Until the cancer is removed it will grow and threaten the mere survival of hunting in Washington.
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 10:41:56 AM
You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?
You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right? What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right? Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.
A reasonable and well thought out amount of logging creates needed habitat. Nature used to do that for us with fire. But we put those out now so logging is the only option.
Thank you for reinforcing the truth. Isn't it just disgusting that logging benefits humans though. It would be so much better if fire destroyed all that timber so humans wouldn't get a chance to benefit themselves. I'm sorry for being so sarcastic, but the environmental/wolf lover ignorance and hatred towards mankind is just disgusting.
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 10:57:44 AM
For anyone to say that there was a lot of game before this land was settled may be lacking some historic knowledge. It is clearly detailed in the Lewis & Clark journal how few animals there were in many areas of the west, particularly in the mountain regions where wolves were prevalent. Big game herds thrived after wolves were exterminated and cougars and bears were controlled.bear paw, do you get the feeling the wolf lovers on here didn't take the time to read your post? You nailed it when it comes to wolves, Iam a fellow wolf hater! The guys who loves wolves need to tell us what they find wrong with your comment, it's seems like when people post intelligent views and facts, they get ignored for some reason.?
It has further been shown in YNP how wolves will reduce local herds to such a level that they kill and eat each other or move to other areas for food. There are now little more than half as many wolves in YNP as there was before they decimated the elk and moose herds.
Wolves are best suited in wilderness areas and large parks where humans, pets, and livestock do not inhabit the landscape. If wolves are not managed, which this state refuses to do, then they will decimate herds, when food gets scarce is when livestock, pets, and even humans may become just to appealing.
Just yesterday I ran into a friend who lives where the Smackout pack has taken up residence, she walks daily near her home, last week she ran into a wolf while walking and this wolf had no fear of her, she was actually shouting and throwing rocks at this wolf to keep it back, lucky for her a truck happened along. She says she will never walk without a gun again, this scared the dickens right out of her. These wolves are living in too close of proximity to livestock, humans, and pets, it's just a matter of time and they will be in trouble.
Another case in point is the Wedge Pack. Those wolves have been there for several years and us locals have been telling that to WDFW, but as everyone knows, until a couple years ago WDFW denied wolves existence. Those wolves multiplied and heavily impacted local game herds to the point that it became far easier to eat cattle.
The biggest mistake is failing to manage wolves and keeping their numbers to ad minimum that does not impact big game herds. Yet that is exactly what WDFW has in mind for Washington. The WDFW Colville meeting was held so that WDFW could basically tell us locals when herds declined they were not going to act on reducing wolf numbers, they plan to study the problem. Once wolves multiply and begin depleting herd numbers then the domino effect of significant herd reductions will begin and ultimately the inability of the herds to recover due to continued predation will prevail, thus the term predator pit.
If WDFW continues to allow herds to deplete they will be responsible for the predator pit as it grows in Washington. There is already a predator pit in certain areas of NE WA. We had two hard winters and WDFW refuses to manage cougars and wolves which are significantly increasing in numbers, it has been some years since those bad winters but our deer herds are having a hard time recovering and numbers are dropping further in localized areas where the wolves and cougars are multiplying.
I am the last person who wants to see cougars over hunted and I would not want to see wolves extinct, but I am smart enough to clearly see that WDFW is not managing in the interest of the big game herds or hunters. WDFW is suffering from a cancerous infection known as extreme environmentalism. Until the cancer is removed it will grow and threaten the mere survival of hunting in Washington.
trophyhunt I hear you. You know I never used to be so outspoken about wolves. But unmanaged populations of wolves have been forced into the landscape. The people responsible for this mismanagement and the lies used to fleece the public of our formerly abundant big game herds is what I really hate.
I think cougar, bear, coyotes, and even wolves are fascinating animals and like I said, I am the last person who wants them to be extinct. I simply want these enviro/hugger cult worshippers to quit sensationalizing one animal as being better than another. Manage them all so that there is an abundance of all animals. These huggers are so blinded by their Disney feelings for wolves frolicking with the butterflies that they cause the demise of big game herds which eventually causes famine and suffering and eventual reductions in the very animals they love due to a lack of big game to hunt.
Jeesh..... :rolleyes:
Post by: yakimarcher on May 10, 2013, 11:03:48 AM
I couldn't do what those guys did. I know mother nature has to be able to do her thing, but I physically couldn't stand there and watch, and I don't mean I would walk away...Absolutely my feelings!
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 11:06:17 AM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
Clearly I have you pegged pretty well. The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 11:06:49 AM
You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?
You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right? What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right? Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.
A reasonable and well thought out amount of logging creates needed habitat. Nature used to do that for us with fire. But we put those out now so logging is the only option.
Thank you for reinforcing the truth. Isn't it just disgusting that logging benefits humans though. It would be so much better if fire destroyed all that timber so humans wouldn't get a chance to benefit themselves. I'm sorry for being so sarcastic, but the environmental/wolf lover ignorance and hatred towards mankind is just disgusting.
I have friends who log and I see a funny thing happen starting in August and going into the Fall every year on places like Facebook. People start asking loggers where they are seeing game. As sure as the sun rises, the locations they give are at or near old clear cuts. Not old growth. If old growth (and I use that term loosely) is near, it's usually coincidental and part of a mixed age class plot. When I hop on Google Earth to look for places to drive to and check out, I don't simply look for any old forest land...
I don't think we should be raping the landscape of all resources, but what I see going on these days is, well, nothing...and that has about the same affect.
Post by: SkookumHntr on May 10, 2013, 11:12:15 AM
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 11:15:02 AM
You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?
You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right? What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right? Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.
You need to take a look at what the goal of the National Forrest Service is and was. They are a joke now but they were originally created to manage timber lands and HARVEST that timber! They still do to a small extent but that's mainly due to people like you that think logging is somehow bad. You know what letting timber land just sit unmolested does? It means huge fires, beetle kill, poor habitat for elk and deer and waisted resources.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 11:16:35 AM
The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.
I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's somewhat misguided. Private land holders have ZERO reason to help out hunters unless they're in the business of selling hunts on their land and even then they squeeze out the average Joe.
That said, government land that is not open to hunting and not managed well is of little benefit to hunters.
But at least if it's government owned, we have something of a say in the matter since we all own it then. (I realize there are flaws in that statement, but ultimately we do the electing...)
The flip side of course is something like a timber company on private timber land, they actually do a lot for us.
Post by: Northway on May 10, 2013, 11:20:43 AM
You wilderness lovers fail to realize that wilderness equals land of no use for most Americans. There are something like 22 wilderness areas and parks in Washington, just how much land of no use do you need?
You can hunt and backpack through the wilderness right? What you can't do is build, blast, log or mine right? Not sure how any of those things benefit hunters, unless you're the type that prefers to drive up a road, walk 50 feet and shoot, then drive home.
A reasonable and well thought out amount of logging creates needed habitat. Nature used to do that for us with fire. But we put those out now so logging is the only option.
Thank you for reinforcing the truth. Isn't it just disgusting that logging benefits humans though. It would be so much better if fire destroyed all that timber so humans wouldn't get a chance to benefit themselves. I'm sorry for being so sarcastic, but the environmental/wolf lover ignorance and hatred towards mankind is just disgusting.
I call myself an environmentalist. I understand millions of acres of this state will always be working forest and there are no issues as long as reasonable environmental standards are upheld that most likely the both of us could agree on.
I also support wolves in this state and accepted their management before the first "confirmed" wolves even set up shop here. I also believe that maintaining hunter opportunity should be factored into management decisions.
In my opinion, there is only a small minority of folks that have "hatred towards mankind". I believe extrapoliting the most extreme views of a few across an entire group makes it easier to despise the group as a whole.
Post by: Northway on May 10, 2013, 11:31:36 AM
The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.
I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's somewhat misguided. Private land holders have ZERO reason to help out hunters unless they're in the business of selling hunts on their land and even then they squeeze out the average Joe.
That said, government land that is not open to hunting and not managed well is of little benefit to hunters.
But at least if it's government owned, we have something of a say in the matter since we all own it then. (I realize there are flaws in that statement, but ultimately we do the electing...)
The flip side of course is something like a timber company on private timber land, they actually do a lot for us.
In my opinion, we have 50 years or so to decide how the remaining undeveloped land is utilized. Once it's developed, there's no going back.
For the maintenance of my own lifestyle, and the lifestyle maintenance of every man woman and child that recreates in any fashion on undeveloped lands, we need to make sure a significant portion of it remains free from development. We need to make sure that all the various stakeholders, whethers its recreationists or loggers, are incentivized to advocate towards that end.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2013, 11:33:17 AM
Post by: acnewman55 on May 10, 2013, 11:34:35 AM
For anyone to say that there was a lot of game before this land was settled may be lacking some historic knowledge. It is clearly detailed in the Lewis & Clark journal how few animals there were in many areas of the west, particularly in the mountain regions where wolves were prevalent. Big game herds thrived after wolves were exterminated and cougars and bears were controlled.bear paw, do you get the feeling the wolf lovers on here didn't take the time to read your post? You nailed it when it comes to wolves, Iam a fellow wolf hater! The guys who loves wolves need to tell us what they find wrong with your comment, it's seems like when people post intelligent views and facts, they get ignored for some reason.?
It has further been shown in YNP how wolves will reduce local herds to such a level that they kill and eat each other or move to other areas for food. There are now little more than half as many wolves in YNP as there was before they decimated the elk and moose herds.
Wolves are best suited in wilderness areas and large parks where humans, pets, and livestock do not inhabit the landscape. If wolves are not managed, which this state refuses to do, then they will decimate herds, when food gets scarce is when livestock, pets, and even humans may become just to appealing.
Just yesterday I ran into a friend who lives where the Smackout pack has taken up residence, she walks daily near her home, last week she ran into a wolf while walking and this wolf had no fear of her, she was actually shouting and throwing rocks at this wolf to keep it back, lucky for her a truck happened along. She says she will never walk without a gun again, this scared the dickens right out of her. These wolves are living in too close of proximity to livestock, humans, and pets, it's just a matter of time and they will be in trouble.
Another case in point is the Wedge Pack. Those wolves have been there for several years and us locals have been telling that to WDFW, but as everyone knows, until a couple years ago WDFW denied wolves existence. Those wolves multiplied and heavily impacted local game herds to the point that it became far easier to eat cattle.
The biggest mistake is failing to manage wolves and keeping their numbers to ad minimum that does not impact big game herds. Yet that is exactly what WDFW has in mind for Washington. The WDFW Colville meeting was held so that WDFW could basically tell us locals when herds declined they were not going to act on reducing wolf numbers, they plan to study the problem. Once wolves multiply and begin depleting herd numbers then the domino effect of significant herd reductions will begin and ultimately the inability of the herds to recover due to continued predation will prevail, thus the term predator pit.
If WDFW continues to allow herds to deplete they will be responsible for the predator pit as it grows in Washington. There is already a predator pit in certain areas of NE WA. We had two hard winters and WDFW refuses to manage cougars and wolves which are significantly increasing in numbers, it has been some years since those bad winters but our deer herds are having a hard time recovering and numbers are dropping further in localized areas where the wolves and cougars are multiplying.
I am the last person who wants to see cougars over hunted and I would not want to see wolves extinct, but I am smart enough to clearly see that WDFW is not managing in the interest of the big game herds or hunters. WDFW is suffering from a cancerous infection known as extreme environmentalism. Until the cancer is removed it will grow and threaten the mere survival of hunting in Washington.
I see a myriad of responses that tell me why I should dislike WDFW and biologists, and hippies and politicians but still no reasons why I should hate wolves. Anecdotes about some lady that saw one and was frightened isn't convincing to me. If I was a wolf I'd eat nothin but cattle - easy pick'ns.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 10, 2013, 11:52:42 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 11:55:53 AM
The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.
I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's somewhat misguided. Private land holders have ZERO reason to help out hunters unless they're in the business of selling hunts on their land and even then they squeeze out the average Joe.
That said, government land that is not open to hunting and not managed well is of little benefit to hunters.
But at least if it's government owned, we have something of a say in the matter since we all own it then. (I realize there are flaws in that statement, but ultimately we do the electing...)
The flip side of course is something like a timber company on private timber land, they actually do a lot for us.
In my opinion, we have 50 years or so to decide how the remaining undeveloped land is utilized. Once it's developed, there's no going back.
For the maintenance of my own lifestyle, and the lifestyle maintenance of every man woman and child that recreates in any fashion on undeveloped lands, we need to make sure a significant portion of it remains free from development. We need to make sure that all the various stakeholders, whethers its recreationists or loggers, are incentivized to advocate towards that end.
Agreed.
The interesting thing is you have a preview already available in the world if enough land goes private. Take a trip over to Europe. For example a country like Denmark really has no public land to hunt. You want to hunt, you pay someone for that privilege and you pay A LOT more than what WDFW currently charges. It may sound oxymoronic to some, but we really are blessed with public land hunting opportunities here. But we can do better and we shouldn't discount acquiring more.
Hunting should not be for the rich only nor should it be only available if you save for enough years.
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 12:06:21 PM
The government has no business acquiring any more land. They already have far to much in my opinion and have far overstepped their bounds by acquiring it. This is an environmental issue if you didn't realize it.
I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's somewhat misguided. Private land holders have ZERO reason to help out hunters unless they're in the business of selling hunts on their land and even then they squeeze out the average Joe.
That said, government land that is not open to hunting and not managed well is of little benefit to hunters.
But at least if it's government owned, we have something of a say in the matter since we all own it then. (I realize there are flaws in that statement, but ultimately we do the electing...)
The flip side of course is something like a timber company on private timber land, they actually do a lot for us.
In my opinion, we have 50 years or so to decide how the remaining undeveloped land is utilized. Once it's developed, there's no going back.
For the maintenance of my own lifestyle, and the lifestyle maintenance of every man woman and child that recreates in any fashion on undeveloped lands, we need to make sure a significant portion of it remains free from development. We need to make sure that all the various stakeholders, whethers its recreationists or loggers, are incentivized to advocate towards that end.
I agree and absolutely do not want to see all our open spaces developed. However, that isn't going to happen, we have huge public land masses. It doesn't take more wilderness areas to accomplish that end. Wilderness ends most all use, the national forest can remain a multiple use forest and still be a place of wild open spaces. The answer is reasonable amounts of logging and proper logging practices that benefit the forest, the animals, and humans.
I am an environmentalist myself, I just don't fit into the enviro whacko cultism. :twocents:
Post by: acnewman55 on May 10, 2013, 12:09:02 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 12:14:18 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.
Post by: JLS on May 10, 2013, 12:18:16 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.
They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area. However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting". BS. If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise. They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 12:18:53 PM
For anyone to say that there was a lot of game before this land was settled may be lacking some historic knowledge. It is clearly detailed in the Lewis & Clark journal how few animals there were in many areas of the west, particularly in the mountain regions where wolves were prevalent. Big game herds thrived after wolves were exterminated and cougars and bears were controlled.bear paw, do you get the feeling the wolf lovers on here didn't take the time to read your post? You nailed it when it comes to wolves, Iam a fellow wolf hater! The guys who loves wolves need to tell us what they find wrong with your comment, it's seems like when people post intelligent views and facts, they get ignored for some reason.?
It has further been shown in YNP how wolves will reduce local herds to such a level that they kill and eat each other or move to other areas for food. There are now little more than half as many wolves in YNP as there was before they decimated the elk and moose herds.
Wolves are best suited in wilderness areas and large parks where humans, pets, and livestock do not inhabit the landscape. If wolves are not managed, which this state refuses to do, then they will decimate herds, when food gets scarce is when livestock, pets, and even humans may become just to appealing.
Just yesterday I ran into a friend who lives where the Smackout pack has taken up residence, she walks daily near her home, last week she ran into a wolf while walking and this wolf had no fear of her, she was actually shouting and throwing rocks at this wolf to keep it back, lucky for her a truck happened along. She says she will never walk without a gun again, this scared the dickens right out of her. These wolves are living in too close of proximity to livestock, humans, and pets, it's just a matter of time and they will be in trouble.
Another case in point is the Wedge Pack. Those wolves have been there for several years and us locals have been telling that to WDFW, but as everyone knows, until a couple years ago WDFW denied wolves existence. Those wolves multiplied and heavily impacted local game herds to the point that it became far easier to eat cattle.
The biggest mistake is failing to manage wolves and keeping their numbers to ad minimum that does not impact big game herds. Yet that is exactly what WDFW has in mind for Washington. The WDFW Colville meeting was held so that WDFW could basically tell us locals when herds declined they were not going to act on reducing wolf numbers, they plan to study the problem. Once wolves multiply and begin depleting herd numbers then the domino effect of significant herd reductions will begin and ultimately the inability of the herds to recover due to continued predation will prevail, thus the term predator pit.
If WDFW continues to allow herds to deplete they will be responsible for the predator pit as it grows in Washington. There is already a predator pit in certain areas of NE WA. We had two hard winters and WDFW refuses to manage cougars and wolves which are significantly increasing in numbers, it has been some years since those bad winters but our deer herds are having a hard time recovering and numbers are dropping further in localized areas where the wolves and cougars are multiplying.
I am the last person who wants to see cougars over hunted and I would not want to see wolves extinct, but I am smart enough to clearly see that WDFW is not managing in the interest of the big game herds or hunters. WDFW is suffering from a cancerous infection known as extreme environmentalism. Until the cancer is removed it will grow and threaten the mere survival of hunting in Washington.
I see a myriad of responses that tell me why I should dislike WDFW and biologists, and hippies and politicians but still no reasons why I should hate wolves. Anecdotes about some lady that saw one and was frightened isn't convincing to me. If I was a wolf I'd eat nothin but cattle - easy pick'ns.
There are many good people in WDFW, the problem is that a few of them need weeded out which are misguiding the agency. Example: I think Phil Anderson is the best director we've had in years, but the Endangered Species Division greatly misguided the wolf plan. Some people within WDFW are moving it toward environmental extremism. There are too many within WDFW who seem to prefer predators over other wildlife. There are some great biologists and managers, but there are some who should be on the Peta payroll instead of the public payroll because they seem to be there to advocate for predators and to stop hunting rather than manage for the benefit of all wildlife and hunting. :twocents:
I don't even hate the wolves, as already stated I find them fascinating, but they need to be managed, WDFW is failing because they refuse to manage and they are ignoring the impacts in NE Washington.
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 12:20:35 PM
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 12:20:54 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 12:22:23 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.
They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area. However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting". BS. If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise. They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.
They are rising in ID and MT. Get a clue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 12:23:17 PM
I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo. :chuckle:
Post by: acnewman55 on May 10, 2013, 12:23:30 PM
Clear cutting isn't inherently good for a forest, it simply replicates some of the effects that healthy wildfires had before for the NFS went and messed all that up too. Poor human management of natural resources.
But at least if we allow clear cutting there will be plenty of roads through the forests so we can all shoot our game from our vehicles! :IBCOOL:
I loved that beetle-kill comment. (in red-neck southern accent) "the best way to stop the beetles is to cut down all the trees a'fore they git to'em"
Sorry - beetles are stopped by freezing temperatures, not by clear cutting.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 12:26:47 PM
What are you talking about. The wolves are not being controlled. They are reproducing faster than they can be killed. They may have slowed a bit, but that is far from saying they are being controlled.
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.
They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area. However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting". BS. If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise. They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.
Post by: acnewman55 on May 10, 2013, 12:27:36 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?
If it's your argument, make it yourself. :dunno:
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 12:27:54 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
By the way. 6000 wolf tags sold equated to 110 dead wolves. That's a 1.8% success on wolves that have never been hunted on any large scale. Way to prove your point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on May 10, 2013, 12:30:47 PM
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that clear cutting in SOME ways will benefit our forests and wildlife in the same way that fires once did. Now that development has forced us to contain the fires, the forests become choked, and they become dysfunctional habitat.
Clear cutting isn't inherently good for a forest, it simply replicates some of the effects that healthy wildfires had before for the NFS went and messed all that up too. Poor human management of natural resources.
But at least if we allow clear cutting there will be plenty of roads through the forests so we can all shoot our game from our vehicles! :IBCOOL:
I loved that beetle-kill comment. (in red-neck southern accent) "the best way to stop the beetles is to cut down all the trees a'fore they git to'em"
Sorry - beetles are stopped by freezing temperatures, not by clear cutting.
Nice attempt to twist the truth, visit the worst beetle kill areas, funny those areas have not been logged. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Like I said buddy, I like road hunting just as much as I like packing in on horses or still hunting. I also understand that many hunters do not have the physical ability to get away from roads, under your philosophy only our most physically fit people should have hunting access. :twocents: :bash: :bash:
Post by: acnewman55 on May 10, 2013, 12:31:22 PM
It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. :twocents:
I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo. :chuckle:
I know it's scary when people disagree with you. :'(
Post by: singleshot12 on May 10, 2013, 12:33:50 PM
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 12:35:16 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?
If it's your argument, make it yourself. :dunno:
43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves (http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 12:44:35 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?
If it's your argument, make it yourself. :dunno:
43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves (http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 12:46:28 PM
What are you talking about. The wolves are not being controlled. They are reproducing faster than they can be killed. They may have slowed a bit, but that is far from saying they are being controlled.
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.
They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area. However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting". BS. If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise. They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.
Exactly. But if you say it loud enough and with unrelenting repetition it becomes true. Just look at the gun violence polling in the US. 75% of people polled felt it was UP and the fact is that it's WAY down! We live in a country of drones that soak up the media message like a sponge.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: elk247 on May 10, 2013, 12:47:25 PM
255 hunted
124 trapped
Wolf harvest 2012-13
197 hunted
120 trapped
These are the numbers from idaho game and fish.
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 12:48:15 PM
Wolf harvest 2011-12
255 hunted
124 trapped
Wolf harvest 2012-13
197 hunted
120 trapped
These are the numbers from idaho game and fish.
Already posted. Now look at the number of tags issued.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 12:48:52 PM
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 12:51:09 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?
If it's your argument, make it yourself. :dunno:
43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves (http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...
Always a silver lining for a liberal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: acnewman55 on May 10, 2013, 12:55:09 PM
I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.
:rolleyes:
Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 12:59:58 PM
I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.
:rolleyes:
Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.
Guns had nothing to do with it. I'm confused? Please elaborate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 01:01:42 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?
If it's your argument, make it yourself. :dunno:
43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves (http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...
Always a silver lining for a liberal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not really, it was Obama who signed the document that delisted them. :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 01:02:44 PM
Even if they did so what. Wolves have superior eyesight, hearing and sense of smell. Humans have superior intellect. And we figured out a way to compete. It's still natural selection. Lucky for us intellect will usually win in the end.I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.
:rolleyes:
Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 01:07:37 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?
If it's your argument, make it yourself. :dunno:
43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves (http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...
Always a silver lining for a liberal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not really, it was Obama who signed the document that delisted them. :chuckle:
Obama had no idea, it was a rider. It was probably on page 1699 in the footnotes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: elk247 on May 10, 2013, 01:09:07 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2013, 01:11:05 PM
I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.
:rolleyes:
Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.
Actually, poison and traps had the biggest effect. Those work great! :tup: That's one reason the wolf plan for WA is so faulty. We'll never use poison on wolves again and the plan is so aggressive that when we finally do get to manage them, trapping and guns alone won't be able to keep up with them. And trapping will be maligned by the wolf lovers and there'll be a voter referendum where HSUS and the Defenders will spend millions of dollars in television lying and convince the general uninformed public that it's a barbaric practice and should be outlawed, and the public, most of whom live in Pierce and King counties and are unaffected by wolves, will believe their lies and pass it, just as they did with hounding and baiting in 1996.
It's not just wolves that people hate, it's the false information that their huggers use to lull the unthinking urbanites into supporting their plans to end hunting. That pisses me off, too.
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 01:12:44 PM
It only means 43,000 hunters want a chance to pop one. What does sucess percentage have to do with anything? Say 150,00 washington hunters purchase wolf tags here when they become available, and say the quota is 200. So what? I just hope the wdfw sets accurate limits and harvest numbers are met every year. It would really be great if the tags can be bought over the counter for a reasonable price. :twocents:
You missed the previous discussion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: slim9300 on May 10, 2013, 01:14:25 PM
I have always believed that if "mother nature" wanted wolves in the eco-system then they would have survived all along and not been wiped out. The fact that they were is natures selection that they were no longer needed.
:rolleyes:
Right. Guns had nothing to do with it.
Actually, poison and traps had the biggest effect. Those work great! :tup: That's one reason the wolf plan for WA is so faulty. We'll never use poison on wolves again and the plan is so aggressive that when we finally do get to manage them, trapping and guns alone won't be able to keep up with them. And trapping will be maligned by the wolf lovers and there'll be a voter referendum where HSUS and the Defenders will spend millions of dollars in television lying and convince the general uninformed public that it's a barbaric practice and should be outlawed, and the public, most of whom live in Pierce and King counties and are unaffected by wolves, will believe their lies and pass it, just as they did with hounding and baiting in 1996.
It's not just wolves that people hate, it's the false information that their huggers use to lull the unthinking urbanites into supporting their plans to end hunting. That pisses me off, too.
Exactly what I was going to point out. Guns did almost nothing in wiping out the wolves.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AspenBud on May 10, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?
If it's your argument, make it yourself. :dunno:
43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves (http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...
Always a silver lining for a liberal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not really, it was Obama who signed the document that delisted them. :chuckle:
Obama had no idea, it was a rider. It was probably on page 1699 in the footnotes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doesn't matter, he still signed it. :chuckle:
Post by: elk247 on May 10, 2013, 01:29:05 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2013, 01:30:52 PM
Post by: elk247 on May 10, 2013, 01:40:24 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2013, 01:55:40 PM
I do! :chuckle: I also hate Heiniken beer, craft singles, and blue cheese dressing. I don't think they belong in a wolf thread though.
Cooked wolf with Kraft (with a K) singles melted over them and wolf tenderloin medallions, marinated in Heineken, roasted and dipped in blue cheese? Oh, come on!
Post by: elk247 on May 10, 2013, 02:50:50 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2013, 02:52:39 PM
Post by: elk247 on May 10, 2013, 02:56:05 PM
Post by: Smossy on May 10, 2013, 03:06:05 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbowhunting.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2FZDog-Gone.jpg&hash=8825f617c5801659037c68556d457adb17feb3d2)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allmounts.com%2Fwolfkilledhounds2.JPG&hash=bdb5a0114abfe26e8da7dbfc9b3f78ea16865e78)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DH.5030210869919928%26amp%3Bpid%3D1.7&hash=eff0ebf4822aacbf3e084ad428893ebd2dab447e)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hunt101.com%2Fdata%2F500%2Fmedium%2Fkill5.JPG&hash=5277582771008d37ab1faf4148b0fe4c321179fa)
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 03:28:24 PM
Post by: Smossy on May 10, 2013, 03:51:21 PM
You know what they will say smossy. That those dogs were hunting dogs and therefore part of the food chain and deserved it.Probably but even if so, how does that justify that they deserved to be inhumanely ripped to pieces? Theyre not used to kill other animals. Theyre used for theyre amazing ability to track an animal, in which that animal is usually terminated as quickly and as humanely as possibly. Not ripped apart piece by piece. Some people are just retarded. If a wolf put a bullet into an animal right before they ate the entire thing. That would be different. Kinda lol, and a freak of nature but still.
Post by: Johnb317 on May 10, 2013, 04:06:03 PM
Like man they can hunt alone or in groups.
And like man they can hunt not only for food but for the sport of it. (Bird hunters .... notice how your dog loves to hunt)
Unlike man they recognize no boundaries or game laws. They don't self regulate.
We hunters are like canary in the mine... we quickly notice when game animals start disappearing and it was hunters that were the first to recognize the need for conservation, and habitat preservation.
Most tree huggers never go out into the woods, and if they do they hike quickly and noisily from place to place rarely seeing any large animals. So it's not until it's too late (and the wolves are hungry) when they might figure it out.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 04:19:10 PM
After man I'd hazard to say that wolves are the next most efficient predator. (okay so let's say in North America and Northern Europe)You couldn't be more correct on this. It amazes me how many "conservationists" or tree huggers I have talked to that go into the woods only in groups or in other ways that will almost insure that they rarely see an animal. So they don't truly see the impact on nature that the decisions they vote for or agree with cause. I camped and hiked in the woods all the time and it wasn't until I started hunting 5 years ago that I could truly appreciate nature.
Like man they can hunt alone or in groups.
And like man they can hunt not only for food but for the sport of it. (Bird hunters .... notice how your dog loves to hunt)
Unlike man they recognize no boundaries or game laws. They don't self regulate.
We hunters are like canary in the mine... we quickly notice when game animals start disappearing and it was hunters that were the first to recognize the need for conservation, and habitat preservation.
Most tree huggers never go out into the woods, and if they do they hike quickly and noisily from place to place rarely seeing any large animals. So it's not until it's too late (and the wolves are hungry) when they might figure it out.
Post by: gaddy on May 10, 2013, 04:39:59 PM
ever been attacked by a dog? its vicious. don't matter how cute & fuzzy they are.
when the wolf lovers start to get bit while visiting nature i bet things change.
Post by: JLS on May 10, 2013, 04:48:22 PM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.
They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area. However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting". BS. If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise. They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.
They are rising in ID and MT. Get a clue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Haha, I don't have a clue. Numbers from both states show numbers trending downward. I'm sure they're all made up though :rolleyes:
Post by: JLS on May 10, 2013, 05:11:59 PM
What are you talking about. The wolves are not being controlled. They are reproducing faster than they can be killed. They may have slowed a bit, but that is far from saying they are being controlled.
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.
They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area. However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting". BS. If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise. They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.
What are you talking about? If they were reproducing faster than they were being killed then the numbers would still be rising. They are not rising, therefore they are not reproducing faster than they are being killed. No matter how you want to argue semantics, that equates to the population being controlled to some extent by hunting.
Carry on.
Post by: KyleMB123 on May 10, 2013, 05:39:09 PM
Finem Respice
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 06:08:07 PM
I think your delusional. I have personally talked to a Idaho biologist who confirmed that the population is still increasing.What are you talking about. The wolves are not being controlled. They are reproducing faster than they can be killed. They may have slowed a bit, but that is far from saying they are being controlled.
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
Can't speak for Minnesota, but it's my understanding that, at least in the beginning, wolf hunters in Wisconsin were wildly more successful than the DNR out there thought they would be.
They were also successful in reducing numbers in Wyoming in the trophy hunt/controlled area. However, that doesn't seem to stop anyone from parrotting the internet mantra that "we'll never control wolf numbers with hunting". BS. If we couldn't control them, numbers would continue to rise. They aren't, so they are being controlled to some degree.
What are you talking about? If they were reproducing faster than they were being killed then the numbers would still be rising. They are not rising, therefore they are not reproducing faster than they are being killed. No matter how you want to argue semantics, that equates to the population being controlled to some extent by hunting.
Carry on.
Post by: JLS on May 10, 2013, 06:37:39 PM
Yes, I'm completely delusional.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 07:22:29 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 10, 2013, 07:31:44 PM
But as they get closer to the west side more folks are taking an active interest in them.
Best place in this topic is to watch it from the sidelines!!
Post by: crazysccrmd on May 10, 2013, 08:29:39 PM
Probably but even if so, how does that justify that they deserved to be inhumanely ripped to pieces? Theyre not used to kill other animals. Theyre used for theyre amazing ability to track an animal, in which that animal is usually terminated as quickly and as humanely as possibly. Not ripped apart piece by piece. Some people are just retarded. If a wolf put a bullet into an animal right before they ate the entire thing. That would be different. Kinda lol, and a freak of nature but still.
I know that no one likes it when their dog is killed, but it's what happens sometimes. There was a post on here not that long ago about a member's hound who was mauled pretty badly by a bear. No one blamed the bear, it's a risk you take when pursuing game with other animals (dogs). When anything in nature is killed and eaten it is ripped apart piece by piece, that isn't something wolves alone do. To single this out is just as bad as a wolf lover saying they don't kill cattle.
I'm ok with wolves, and a well managed season with quota caps that will allow enough harvest to keep the population in check. It means WDFW will actually have to do their job and forecast properly, so that might just be a pipe dream.
Post by: JLS on May 10, 2013, 08:51:33 PM
Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me) :dunno: At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html)
I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too. I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.
Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth. Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?
Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009. Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves. You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.
Post by: Scottystyle on May 10, 2013, 08:59:44 PM
I'm just waiting for the wolves to attack a hiker up on the Saddlerock Trail and hear WDFW say the hiker got hit by a car first... :chuckle: :chuckle:
This memo has already been pre-typed for when this occurence happens :chuckle: I see it reading somethin like this..... "The wolf was waiting to feed on the hiker with the broken leg. When officers arrived, they fired warning shots to scare the wolf away, interupting a meal.... now it will have to find another hiker to feed on" :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 09:43:51 PM
Your right that I have made up my decision and opinions already, but I have done it with info and opinions coming from those that are in the field and see what's going on. Forgive me if I don't believe the game depts that have been lying to us for years. What do we have to lose? A few meals, a story or two. The game depts stand to lose millions. That's why the numbers have been scewed or misrepresented for years. And if you don't think that has been happening you have your head in the sand and there is no point in debating this with you.Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me) :dunno: At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html)
I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too. I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.
Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth. Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?
Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009. Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves. You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.
Post by: JLS on May 10, 2013, 09:56:29 PM
Your right that I have made up my decision and opinions already, but I have done it with info and opinions coming from those that are in the field and see what's going on. Forgive me if I don't believe the game depts that have been lying to us for years. What do we have to lose? A few meals, a story or two. The game depts stand to lose millions. That's why the numbers have been scewed or misrepresented for years. And if you don't think that has been happening you have your head in the sand and there is no point in debating this with you.Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me) :dunno: At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html)
I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too. I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.
Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth. Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?
Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009. Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves. You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.
I don't know what you're getting at here bro, you think I have my head in the sand because I don't get all spun up in the emotions of wolves?
I am willing to bet I have as many, if not more contacts in the field who see and know what's going on. I could care less what opinions and decisions you've made. I could care less if you believe the game departments have lied to you so they don't lose millions. Rock on, believe whatever you want.
This all started because I called folks out on reciting the tried and true propoganda lines that wolf haters put out there. It's no different than trying to use numbers versus emotions on a gun control argument, except now many of you are on the emotional side of the fence ignoring facts and screaming conspiracy. I didn't ask you for a debate, I pointed out flaws in statements. Nothing more, nothing less. My stance on wolves has not wavered in one single post I have made, look it up.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 10, 2013, 10:07:41 PM
Good for you. :tup: Neither have I. You have your opinions and I have mine that's all it is. You present your side and I present mine and we see if we can sway each other. Sorry you didn't sway me. I think the numbers are bogus and you will not convince me other wise. I have seen our Idaho hunting ground wiped out.Your right that I have made up my decision and opinions already, but I have done it with info and opinions coming from those that are in the field and see what's going on. Forgive me if I don't believe the game depts that have been lying to us for years. What do we have to lose? A few meals, a story or two. The game depts stand to lose millions. That's why the numbers have been scewed or misrepresented for years. And if you don't think that has been happening you have your head in the sand and there is no point in debating this with you.Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me) :dunno: At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html)
I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too. I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.
Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth. Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?
Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009. Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves. You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.
I don't know what you're getting at here bro, you think I have my head in the sand because I don't get all spun up in the emotions of wolves?
I am willing to bet I have as many, if not more contacts in the field who see and know what's going on. I could care less what opinions and decisions you've made. I could care less if you believe the game departments have lied to you so they don't lose millions. Rock on, believe whatever you want.
This all started because I called folks out on reciting the tried and true propoganda lines that wolf haters put out there. It's no different than trying to use numbers versus emotions on a gun control argument, except now many of you are on the emotional side of the fence ignoring facts and screaming conspiracy. I didn't ask you for a debate, I pointed out flaws in statements. Nothing more, nothing less. My stance on wolves has not wavered in one single post I have made, look it up.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on May 10, 2013, 10:15:44 PM
I'm just waiting for the wolves to attack a hiker up on the Saddlerock Trail and hear WDFW say the hiker got hit by a car first... :chuckle: :chuckle:
This memo has already been pre-typed for when this occurence happens :chuckle: I see it reading somethin like this..... "The wolf was waiting to feed on the hiker with the broken leg. When officers arrived, they fired warning shots to scare the wolf away, interupting a meal.... now it will have to find another hiker to feed on" :chuckle:
You forgot the rest of the story: "The officers euthanized the hiker and removed him. The necropsy showed no evidence that the wolf broke his leg or fed on him." :chuckle:
Post by: Houndhunter on May 10, 2013, 11:07:12 PM
Probably but even if so, how does that justify that they deserved to be inhumanely ripped to pieces? Theyre not used to kill other animals. Theyre used for theyre amazing ability to track an animal, in which that animal is usually terminated as quickly and as humanely as possibly. Not ripped apart piece by piece. Some people are just retarded. If a wolf put a bullet into an animal right before they ate the entire thing. That would be different. Kinda lol, and a freak of nature but still.
I know that no one likes it when their dog is killed, but it's what happens sometimes. There was a post on here not that long ago about a member's hound who was mauled pretty badly by a bear. No one blamed the bear, it's a risk you take when pursuing game with other animals (dogs). When anything in nature is killed and eaten it is ripped apart piece by piece, that isn't something wolves alone do. To single this out is just as bad as a wolf lover saying they don't kill cattle.
I'm ok with wolves, and a well managed season with quota caps that will allow enough harvest to keep the population in check. It means WDFW will actually have to do their job and forecast properly, so that might just be a pipe dream.
When you pursue an animal like bear or lion, ya we know *censored* can happen. Heck a dog can fall off a cliff, stuff happens. But there's a big difference between a pack of wolves that your not pursuing comes in and kills all your dogs and a bear you were pursuing that killed a dog. Get what im saying? There's no comparing the two as its completely different scenarios
Post by: Scottystyle on May 10, 2013, 11:22:26 PM
hahaha !!! or did the hiker break a leg and die of complications of giving birth? hahaha!!!I'm just waiting for the wolves to attack a hiker up on the Saddlerock Trail and hear WDFW say the hiker got hit by a car first... :chuckle: :chuckle:
This memo has already been pre-typed for when this occurence happens :chuckle: I see it reading somethin like this..... "The wolf was waiting to feed on the hiker with the broken leg. When officers arrived, they fired warning shots to scare the wolf away, interupting a meal.... now it will have to find another hiker to feed on" :chuckle:
You forgot the rest of the story: "The officers euthanized the hiker and removed him. The necropsy showed no evidence that the wolf broke his leg or fed on him." :chuckle:
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 11, 2013, 01:47:20 AM
It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. :twocents:
I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo. :chuckle:
I know it's scary when people disagree with you. :'(
One thing I noticed immediately about this site; they ban you if you don't agree with the majority. IMO- it takes away from the creditability of the site. I always thought chat room sites were for everyone to share their opinions etc. The best chat rooms allow folks to disagree. Just because someone is for or aganist wolves, does not make them a tree hugger, wolf loving troll, etc. I happen to want ALL wolves wiped out, but I respect anyones opinion if they support wolves.
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 11, 2013, 01:52:13 AM
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
What you also fail to understand is that hunting and trapping alone will never come close to managing wolf populations. Killing them from planes and choppers or poisoning them is really the only way to effectively get it done (along with hunting and trapping of course). You have about a zero chance of walking out into the backcountry of MT, WY or ID and killing a wolf. The odds of success are like winning the lottery because wolves are smart. I have buddies in ID that have hunted them for 10 days straight and they knew where they were too, but couldn't get it done.
Didn't the recent 10 day season in MN result in 110 wolves down? Think I read that on the previous thread. Never heard of 110 people winning the lottery in 10 days. :chuckle:
You are either being naive or you are just ignorant. Lets look at the west here where the land and accessibility dynamic is FAR different. Look at the number of tags in ID and MT that were issued last year and then look at the harvest, then get back with me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why don't you post the number of tags in ID and MT vs the harvest and enlighten all of us, instead of continuing with the soap-box conjecture?
If it's your argument, make it yourself. :dunno:
43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves (http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't bode well for the argument that they are a threat to humans. If hunters, people who actively try to conceal themselves so they can shoot wolves, have that hard a time finding them...
Always a silver lining for a liberal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not really, it was Obama who signed the document that delisted them. :chuckle:
Obama had no idea, it was a rider. It was probably on page 1699 in the footnotes.
or on the TELEPROMPTER!!! LMFAO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KenPCPilot on May 11, 2013, 04:56:13 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 11, 2013, 07:49:21 AM
You will notice that they killed the collared one......I wonder why? :kneel:
I was more referring to your environmental views and apparent disgust for man. I'm sure the world would be better off if the government just started 'acquiring' millions of acres of undeveloped land and deemed it 'protected.'
You continue to make all sorts of assumptions about my beliefs and environmental views based on my opinion on wolves. I'm all for more protected :puke: wilderness. I can't see why any hunter would be against that, as long as costs to the taxpayer aren't out of proportion. I can think of many worse things we spend our tax dollars on.QuoteWolves COST the government (state and federal) millions to manage and provide detriment in return.
Mostly because the government has done a *censored* poor job of managing them. Didn't we just spend some $70,000+ to shoot a couple wolves from a helicopter last year because they killed cattle grazing on public land? I seem to remember something like that. Seems to me that one of the wolf haters on this forum would have done it for free. You going to blame poor government management on an animal too?
What's next? Wolves don't serve in the army? They don't pay their taxes? They aren't members of the NRA? THEY DON"T GO TO CHURCH!?!?!
Notice the puke.........
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 11, 2013, 08:07:30 AM
It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. :twocents:
I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo. :chuckle:
I know it's scary when people disagree with you. :'(
One thing I noticed immediately about this site; they ban you if you don't agree with the majority. IMO- it takes away from the creditability of the site. I always thought chat room sites were for everyone to share their opinions etc. The best chat rooms allow folks to disagree. Just because someone is for or aganist wolves, does not make them a tree hugger, wolf loving troll, etc. I happen to want ALL wolves wiped out, but I respect anyones opinion if they support wolves.
This is a hunting site. I know of no one who's been banned just for stating an opinion. I've seen some banned for making threats, continued obscenities, and for harassing other members. I understand that your lengthy tenure here of 32 posts is enough to make a judgment about the entire forum and how much it sucks. Feel free to log out anytime you like.
As I mentioned this is a hunting site. The repopulation of wolves into WA creates a whole new variable with regard to our ungulate resources. Many of us, based on our experience of the plans adopted by the states of MT, WY, and ID fear for the future of our passion. So, the wolf issue is about as contentious as they come for hunters who've dedicated a good part of their lives studying, improving habitat for, and hunting elk, deer, and moose. If you don't have the skin for it, don't participate in the discussion.
Had you been heavily involved in this site over the last month, you would perhaps seen what I've seen; that HuntWA is a forum filled with remarkable people who are knowledgeable, supportive, and unbelievably generous. In no other forum have I ever witnessed the depth of caring and integrity when the chips are down as I have here.
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 11, 2013, 10:56:49 AM
It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. :twocents:
I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo. :chuckle:
I know it's scary when people disagree with you. :'(
One thing I noticed immediately about this site; they ban you if you don't agree with the majority. IMO- it takes away from the creditability of the site. I always thought chat room sites were for everyone to share their opinions etc. The best chat rooms allow folks to disagree. Just because someone is for or aganist wolves, does not make them a tree hugger, wolf loving troll, etc. I happen to want ALL wolves wiped out, but I respect anyones opinion if they support wolves.
This is a hunting site. I know of no one who's been banned just for stating an opinion. I've seen some banned for making threats, continued obscenities, and for harassing other members. I understand that your lengthy tenure here of 32 posts is enough to make a judgment about the entire forum and how much it sucks. Feel free to log out anytime you like.
As I mentioned this is a hunting site. The repopulation of wolves into WA creates a whole new variable with regard to our ungulate resources. Many of us, based on our experience of the plans adopted by the states of MT, WY, and ID fear for the future of our passion. So, the wolf issue is about as contentious as they come for hunters who've dedicated a good part of their lives studying, improving habitat for, and hunting elk, deer, and moose. If you don't have the skin for it, don't participate in the discussion.
Had you been heavily involved in this site over the last month, you would perhaps seen what I've seen; that HuntWA is a forum filled with remarkable people who are knowledgeable, supportive, and unbelievably generous. In no other forum have I ever witnessed the depth of caring and integrity when the chips are down as I have here.
I have actually been reading this site since 2008; so I have plenty of Hunt-Wa expereince. I recently joined, because I DO see the value and I thought I would give it a shot. I certainately did not say this site was crap. If I thought that, then what the hell would I be doing on here wasting my time :dunno:.
Go in to the Wolf Topic and read some member comments over the years. Those who disagree, pro-wolf, or argue have been banned. The most recent member I can think of was SKYWALKER. He agreed with the forum, and was offering suggestions to be better heard; and banned. Yes, he was being a little antagonistic. But the majority of his posts where tonge and cheak humor. Other members on here have said the same. I have read far worse over the years between members, and they were not banned. Lighten up a little and let members say what they want.
Post by: boneaddict on May 11, 2013, 11:42:26 AM
I saw one yesterday. Hiking up on Red top mountain. I took the day off. I wanted to think clearly. I wanted a couple hours for myself and then time with my family. Wolf tracks and *censored* everywhere. Hardly worth noting these days. I was walking down the snow filled road with a backpack load of rocks, looked up and there he stood broadside in the road. Not even worth a post on here anymore. They seem to be everywhere. Not a single elk, only two deer and they were as spooky as spooky gets. Good thing I like rocks, because as far as I know, wolves don't eat those.
I wasn't packing a camera or a gun. The latter might have to be as important as TP one of these days.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 11, 2013, 12:57:30 PM
These days I think its probably more important than the TP bone. You can always tear the sleeves off your shirt in a pinch. :chuckle:
I wasn't packing a camera or a gun. The latter might have to be as important as TP one of these days.
Post by: boneaddict on May 11, 2013, 01:01:27 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 11, 2013, 01:05:01 PM
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 11, 2013, 10:50:21 PM
It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. :twocents:
I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo. :chuckle:
I know it's scary when people disagree with you. :'(
And 2/3 of your post was not even relevant to what I was talking about. Typical know it all, long winded Hunt Wa member. Shorten it up Pianoboy.
One thing I noticed immediately about this site; they ban you if you don't agree with the majority. IMO- it takes away from the creditability of the site. I always thought chat room sites were for everyone to share their opinions etc. The best chat rooms allow folks to disagree. Just because someone is for or aganist wolves, does not make them a tree hugger, wolf loving troll, etc. I happen to want ALL wolves wiped out, but I respect anyones opinion if they support wolves.
This is a hunting site. I know of no one who's been banned just for stating an opinion. I've seen some banned for making threats, continued obscenities, and for harassing other members. I understand that your lengthy tenure here of 32 posts is enough to make a judgment about the entire forum and how much it sucks. Feel free to log out anytime you like.
As I mentioned this is a hunting site. The repopulation of wolves into WA creates a whole new variable with regard to our ungulate resources. Many of us, based on our experience of the plans adopted by the states of MT, WY, and ID fear for the future of our passion. So, the wolf issue is about as contentious as they come for hunters who've dedicated a good part of their lives studying, improving habitat for, and hunting elk, deer, and moose. If you don't have the skin for it, don't participate in the discussion.
Had you been heavily involved in this site over the last month, you would perhaps seen what I've seen; that HuntWA is a forum filled with remarkable people who are knowledgeable, supportive, and unbelievably generous. In no other forum have I ever witnessed the depth of caring and integrity when the chips are down as I have here.
Post by: wolfbait on May 12, 2013, 07:43:47 AM
For those of you who don't hate wolves yet, I would have to say you haven't suffered any personal losses from wolves. I wonder how you would feel if you had to spend countless hours trying to protect your livestock, and then have the wolves sneak in and kill a few, just to have the USFWS or state game agencies deny it was wolves time after time. Or have them lie and tell you there aren't any wolves in your area and if there were wolves they wouldn't kill your cows?
I wonder how you would feel if you could no longer use dogs to move your cows? Or let your dog/dogs sleep on the porch? How would you feel if your kids couldn't go for hikes out of sight of the house, or sleep in the backyard anymore? How would you like these wolves chitting in your yard knowing what EG is?
You say you don't hate wolves, do you like thieves also? The wolves are thieves protected by the feds and WDFW. How would you like having to stand guard over your home 24/7 so that thieves wouldn't break in and steal your things? And when they did get caught how would you like it if the cops said it wasn't thieves, or when they caught the thieves they turned them loose, to see if they would steal from you again and again. My guess is that pretty soon you would learn to hate thieves. How would you feel about the people who allowed this to happen to you time and time again and then ran to the newspaper and lied their azz off.
In 2004 when we started seeing wolves on a regular bases, I thought it was kind of cool, I knew nothing about these new wolves or the wolf introduction. Nine years later I have the lowest opinion of wolves and those who introduce them and then protect them with lies.
I don't think hate is the proper word, as it goes much deeper.
Same wolf game just a different state
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 12, 2013, 08:11:33 AM
Post by: slim9300 on May 12, 2013, 08:47:23 AM
The environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies have allowed the wolves to become the most hated animal in the rural lower 48 by introducing them and then protecting them above all else.
For those of you who don't hate wolves yet, I would have to say you haven't suffered any personal losses from wolves. I wonder how you would feel if you had to spend countless hours trying to protect your livestock, and then have the wolves sneak in and kill a few, just to have the USFWS or state game agencies deny it was wolves time after time. Or have them lie and tell you there aren't any wolves in your area and if there were wolves they wouldn't kill your cows?
I wonder how you would feel if you could no longer use dogs to move your cows? Or let your dog/dogs sleep on the porch? How would you feel if your kids couldn't go for hikes out of sight of the house, or sleep in the backyard anymore? How would you like these wolves chitting in your yard knowing what EG is?
You say you don't hate wolves, do you like thieves also? The wolves are thieves protected by the feds and WDFW. How would like having to stand guard over your home 24/7 so that thieves wouldn't break in and steal your things? And when they did get caught how would you like it if the cops said it wasn't thieves, or when they caught the thieves they turned them loose, to see if they would steal from you again and again. My guess is that pretty soon you would learn to hate thieves. How would you feel about the people who allowed this to happen to you time and time again and then ran to the newspaper and lied their azz off.
In 2004 when we started seeing wolves on a regular bases, I thought it was kind of cool, I knew nothing about these new wolves or the wolf introduction. Nine years later I have the lowest opinion of wolves and those who introduce them and then protect them with lies.
I don't think hate is the proper word, as it goes much deeper.
Great post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: asl20bball on May 12, 2013, 08:51:03 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 12, 2013, 09:01:52 AM
It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. :twocents:
I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo. :chuckle:
I know it's scary when people disagree with you. :'(
And 2/3 of your post was not even relevant to what I was talking about. Typical know it all, long winded Hunt Wa member. Shorten it up Pianoboy.
One thing I noticed immediately about this site; they ban you if you don't agree with the majority. IMO- it takes away from the creditability of the site. I always thought chat room sites were for everyone to share their opinions etc. The best chat rooms allow folks to disagree. Just because someone is for or aganist wolves, does not make them a tree hugger, wolf loving troll, etc. I happen to want ALL wolves wiped out, but I respect anyones opinion if they support wolves.
This is a hunting site. I know of no one who's been banned just for stating an opinion. I've seen some banned for making threats, continued obscenities, and for harassing other members. I understand that your lengthy tenure here of 32 posts is enough to make a judgment about the entire forum and how much it sucks. Feel free to log out anytime you like.
As I mentioned this is a hunting site. The repopulation of wolves into WA creates a whole new variable with regard to our ungulate resources. Many of us, based on our experience of the plans adopted by the states of MT, WY, and ID fear for the future of our passion. So, the wolf issue is about as contentious as they come for hunters who've dedicated a good part of their lives studying, improving habitat for, and hunting elk, deer, and moose. If you don't have the skin for it, don't participate in the discussion.
Had you been heavily involved in this site over the last month, you would perhaps seen what I've seen; that HuntWA is a forum filled with remarkable people who are knowledgeable, supportive, and unbelievably generous. In no other forum have I ever witnessed the depth of caring and integrity when the chips are down as I have here.
Calling me Pianoboy is childish. I hope you found it satisfying. Someone who posts on a site which they think is BS is an idiot with nothing better to do with their time. I have no time to debate either an idiot or a child. Have fun. :tup:
Post by: rtspring on May 12, 2013, 09:19:41 AM
Take it with a grain of salt, we all get heated and never do we all Agree. Thats life!
This is an amazing site, take the good with the bad.
Just a heads up from a fellow hunter!
Rtspring
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 12, 2013, 09:20:48 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 12, 2013, 09:42:50 AM
Post by: KyleMB123 on May 12, 2013, 06:03:36 PM
Post by: jackmaster on May 13, 2013, 06:55:39 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 13, 2013, 07:53:01 AM
http://www.backcountryrebels.com/showthread.php?p=891284&posted=1#post891284 (http://www.backcountryrebels.com/showthread.php?p=891284&posted=1#post891284)
Post by: Northway on May 13, 2013, 10:34:34 AM
It is common knowledge that enviro whacko's like to masquerade as hunters to discredit and persuade hunting conversations. :twocents:
I wonder if acnewman55 even knows the name of the hunter in his/her profile photo. :chuckle:
I know it's scary when people disagree with you. :'(
One thing I noticed immediately about this site; they ban you if you don't agree with the majority. IMO- it takes away from the creditability of the site. I always thought chat room sites were for everyone to share their opinions etc. The best chat rooms allow folks to disagree. Just because someone is for or aganist wolves, does not make them a tree hugger, wolf loving troll, etc. I happen to want ALL wolves wiped out, but I respect anyones opinion if they support wolves.
I think this site is actually moderated pretty well. Light moderation is absolutely necessary to maintain any kind of control over the debate that goes on in a thread. I've been to websites that brag about being completely unmoderated discussing controversial issues, and things degrade into a complete s**t show 80% of the time.
There's no such thing as a website that moderates from a completely unbiased position. Can you get away with a bit more as an anti-wolfer on this site than as a pro-wolfer? Of course you can! I don't believe that detracts from the quality of the website at all, however. It's a site created for, and used primarily by hunters. There are similar sites representing the other side that allow dissenting opinions, but essentially moderate the same way.
If you are a pro-wolfer, you have to acknowledge that this blog is noteworthy in the sense that it is probably the most tolerant site representing folks who are generally anti-wolf on the internet. If you disagree, post a link to the blog and prove me wrong.
Post by: boneaddict on May 13, 2013, 10:39:29 AM
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 13, 2013, 12:25:49 PM
i agree, start realeasing wolves in the areas where seattlites hang out, like the parks by lake washington, whats it called green lake, then the wolf lovers can go see them all the time. you guys wanted them then you guys provide the area for them. sportsman do more for are wildlife so we will continually be able to do what we love, sportsman didnt ask for wolves and its kind B.S. that this kinda stuff isnt brought to a vote.... i would even think that your typical bunny lovin, tree huggin, butterfly catchin types have enough common sense to where they wouldnt have even passed somethin like this, especially when there is a very good chance of young kids especially being targeted by wolves, WHICH WILL HAPPEN MIND YOU, but also the toll that they are and will take on are deer and elk heards and the tons of money that will be getting payed out every year to farmers who lives stock pay the ultimate price....
How does releasing wolves around Seattle make any sense?
All you bitter eastsider's make me laugh. Natuarally if you are going to reintroduce an animal, you are going to relocate/release them in areas where there is plenty of prey. The population numbers don't lie. You guys talk as if the entire westside came together to create a ploy to screw the eastsider's. LMFAO
If they want to relocate them out in the Olympic Mountains, St. Helens, or around Southwestern Washington, then that makes sense; if the game can withstand wolves. IMO- NO game population can withstand wolves without being managed. Wolves will just wipe out everything and move on to the next GMU and do the same thing. They will be heavily populated on the westside at some point if they are not managed.
Post by: jackmaster on May 13, 2013, 12:34:11 PM
Post by: headshot5 on May 13, 2013, 12:34:59 PM
Quote
How does releasing wolves around Seattle make any sense?
Because, the East siders want the West siders specifically King, and Pierce County, to be exposed to the cute and cuddley wolves. Historically, King and Pierce voters have the votes for legislation. However they do consider/care about the consequences to the rest of the state.
It is a perspective thing. If the folks living in King and Pierce get exposure to wolves, maybe they will understand where the East Side folks are coming from.
People on the Eastside are being forced to live with wolves whether they want to or not. So, the Eastside folks want to spread that joy with those living in Seattle. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2013, 12:42:01 PM
UMMMMMM yeah i live on the westside, well the wolves being introduced to seattle would take care of the feral cat problem perhaps, and yes ya said it youself about wolves wiping out everything, the problem you dont seem to understand is that wolves WONT be managed properly and by the time they get to 15 breeding pairs it will be TO DAMN LATE :dunno: :dunno: :bash:
It's already too late, it was too late in 2008 when WDFW came out with the first wolf pack in 70 year lie. As far as the westside, you folks have plenty of wolf packs also. Do you need WDFW's first hand confirmation before your believe people with knowledge of this.
The wolf introduction as many of you know was never about the wolves, so try to think ahead of the game a little ways.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 13, 2013, 12:50:18 PM
:yeah: DING, DING, DING. We have a winner.QuoteHow does releasing wolves around Seattle make any sense?
Because, the East siders want the West siders specifically King, and Pierce County, to be exposed to the cute and cuddley wolves. Historically, King and Pierce voters have the votes for legislation. However they do consider/care about the consequences to the rest of the state.
It is a perspective thing. If the folks living in King and Pierce get exposure to wolves, maybe they will understand where the East Side folks are coming from.
People on the Eastside are being forced to live with wolves whether they want to or not. So, the Eastside folks want to spread that joy with those living in Seattle. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Post by: acnewman55 on May 13, 2013, 01:10:06 PM
Those dogs got killed/eaten because a wolf's instincts are to kill and eat things. They don't make moral decisions about the things they kill and eat. They make rational decisions based on how much energy they'll burn to kill the animal vs. how much safety/food/territory they'll get out of the kill. Cost vs. Benefit. Not Right vs. Wrong.
To judge an animal as you might judge a human is ridiculous. In this country you can plead insanity to a crime- which basically you means you weren't capable of making a decision on the morality of your actions. In this country we understand that some folks who commit crimes just can't help themselves. This is true even for those guilty of heinous crimes like murder. Those folks are treated differently than those capable of moral judgement. Sure, they're still removed from society for the protection of the population.
That should go for wolves as well. You should want to relocate them, manage their populations, etc. If that's not getting done, whose fault is that? Certainly not the wolf's fault. That fault lies with WDFW, taxpayers, voters, politicians. Distaste for some of these decision makers is warranted, and logical.
Hating a wolf for being a wolf though? Well that's just unintelligent :dunno:
Post by: headshot5 on May 13, 2013, 01:16:53 PM
Post by: AspenBud on May 13, 2013, 02:01:11 PM
Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot. :rolleyes: It's an emotionally driven argument.
Hunting dogs die. It's something my Dad warned me about as a kid when we contemplated taking the family dog out as a rabbit hunter and also something several hardcore bird dog guys have said to me over the years. I accept it.
As an upland hunter I'm sensitive to the risks, it's why I want the right to defend myself and my dogs from wolves if, God forbid, an encounter occurred. Good gun dogs are expensive to buy and train and there is no price on the emotional attachment if they are a family pet.
But wolf or no wolf you always roll the dice when taking man's best friend hunting. People who can't handle the fact that their dog might die from any number of causes while hunting should probably not be hunting with dogs.
Post by: AspenBud on May 13, 2013, 02:04:51 PM
You guys need to get over who legally or illegally introduced wolves to the state, if it happened at all, it is completely irrelevant at this point. They are here regardless.
You also need to stop worrying about what WDFW is or is not doing. NONE of that will matter if you don't find a way to stop the initiative process from preventing a right to self defense from wolves and/or wolf hunting.
The state of Michigan has actually provided a blue print for that and your time would be better spent finding ways to follow their lead on the matter rather than p&%$ing and moaning about the rest.
Mark my words, if WDFW opened a season on the animals today HSUS and PETA would be here in force with out of state funding to get the citizens of our state to ban any shooting of wolves like they got hound hunting banned. You all better pay attention to that and get on the stick or you can expect things to get worse when talk of a season finally does start.
It's easier to convince a few biologists or change out management at a state agency than it is to convince the public that they should not be playing wildlife biologist.
Post by: billdo5 on May 13, 2013, 02:20:25 PM
Post by: elk247 on May 13, 2013, 02:24:07 PM
Post by: acnewman55 on May 13, 2013, 02:44:55 PM
43,000 wolf tags were sold in ID in 2012 and 375 wolves were killed or trapped. That's less than 1% success rate (since doing the math might not mean me making the argument myself). Trapping success was much better than traditional hunting too, so the numbers are further skewed.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves (http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/04/03/rockybarker/idaho_hunters_and_trappers_kill_375_wolves)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Hunters killed 252 wolves, and trappers 123, for a total of 375 wolves."
375 wolves killed. that's approximately 40% of the original population of 945 (based on biologist estimates), or 20% if you're one of em that thinks there were really more than 1200 out there.
I'd say wiping out 20-40% of the wolf population in a single season of hunting and trapping is pretty effective. I'm not going to loose any sleep about wolves taking over the continent, snatching our children from their beds, or committing insurance fraud. Hunting and trapping will do enough to control populations.
Your figures about less than 1% success rate also assume a whole lot. You assume every hunter that purchased a tag hunted. You also assume that every hunter purchased one tag. I believe every hunter can purchase up to 5 tags. If every hunter did this, then only 8660 hunters purchased tags (I'm sure there were a lot more hunters involved) and then you're looking at a hunter success rate of 4.33% assuming every hunter actually hunted.
I think most folks would agree then that success rates fell somewhere in between 1%-5%. Since Idaho has only just ended it's 4th wolf hunting season, it's safe to say that most hunters have little or no experience in hunting wolves, and even fewer have had experience with success. Many of those "wolf hunters" are just average joes that stuck a wolf tag in their pockets while out on their other hunts, just in case they ran into one. Not every one of those hunters is out there specifically targeting wolves.
In a couple of years, as more hunters get wolf-hunting experience under their belts, and more resources are available to aid these hunters, those percentages will inevitably rise. The wolves will get smarter too, no doubt, like any species would. Currently, a 1-5% success rate eliminating 20-40% of the population is plenty to keep the wolf population down.
Seems to me, once those success rates increase, if the same number of hunters are going out after wolves you could easily see 400-600 wolves getting killed - 40 -75% of the population in a single season.
And some of you don't think we can control wolves with hunting/trapping? Doesn't make sense to me.
Post by: Johnb317 on May 13, 2013, 02:54:57 PM
If I go to Idaho I'm getting a wolf tag
Post by: jackmaster on May 13, 2013, 03:22:44 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2013, 03:40:28 PM
Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot. :rolleyes: It's an emotionally driven argument.
Those dogs got killed/eaten because a wolf's instincts are to kill and eat things. They don't make moral decisions about the things they kill and eat. They make rational decisions based on how much energy they'll burn to kill the animal vs. how much safety/food/territory they'll get out of the kill. Cost vs. Benefit. Not Right vs. Wrong.
To judge an animal as you might judge a human is ridiculous. In this country you can plead insanity to a crime- which basically you means you weren't capable of making a decision on the morality of your actions. In this country we understand that some folks who commit crimes just can't help themselves. This is true even for those guilty of heinous crimes like murder. Those folks are treated differently than those capable of moral judgement. Sure, they're still removed from society for the protection of the population.
That should go for wolves as well. You should want to relocate them, manage their populations, etc. If that's not getting done, whose fault is that? Certainly not the wolf's fault. That fault lies with WDFW, taxpayers, voters, politicians. Distaste for some of these decision makers is warranted, and logical.
Hating a wolf for being a wolf though? Well that's just unintelligent :dunno:
You can blame the pictures of dogs being killed by wolves as emotional, but it is also fact. What about dogs that arn't hunting and are killed or chewed up by wolves? Is that not also a truth about wolves and there lust just to kill? Or is it emotional propaganda?
What about pictures of livestock killed by wolves? Is that emotional or fact?
If you look at the past history of the Illegal wolf introduction you will find many cases of wolves killing, Just to kill. Would you like to call that emotional also? Or fact?
The history of wolves go back many years, not much of the true wolf history hasn't been known in the last 80 years. Instead the American people have gotten a fake wolf to worship, the USFWS wolf.
No one has to releases wolves any where the USFWS and WDFW have already done that.
Post by: gonehuntin68 on May 13, 2013, 04:31:38 PM
Post by: acnewman55 on May 13, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot. :rolleyes: It's an emotionally driven argument.
Those dogs got killed/eaten because a wolf's instincts are to kill and eat things. They don't make moral decisions about the things they kill and eat. They make rational decisions based on how much energy they'll burn to kill the animal vs. how much safety/food/territory they'll get out of the kill. Cost vs. Benefit. Not Right vs. Wrong.
To judge an animal as you might judge a human is ridiculous. In this country you can plead insanity to a crime- which basically you means you weren't capable of making a decision on the morality of your actions. In this country we understand that some folks who commit crimes just can't help themselves. This is true even for those guilty of heinous crimes like murder. Those folks are treated differently than those capable of moral judgement. Sure, they're still removed from society for the protection of the population.
That should go for wolves as well. You should want to relocate them, manage their populations, etc. If that's not getting done, whose fault is that? Certainly not the wolf's fault. That fault lies with WDFW, taxpayers, voters, politicians. Distaste for some of these decision makers is warranted, and logical.
Hating a wolf for being a wolf though? Well that's just unintelligent :dunno:
You can blame the pictures of dogs being killed by wolves as emotional, but it is also fact. What about dogs that arn't hunting and are killed or chewed up by wolves? Is that not also a truth about wolves and there lust just to kill? Or is it emotional propaganda?
What about pictures of livestock killed by wolves? Is that emotional or fact?
If you look at the past history of the Illegal wolf introduction you will find many cases of wolves killing, Just to kill. Would you like to call that emotional also? Or fact?
The history of wolves go back many years, not much of the true wolf history hasn't been known in the last 80 years. Instead the American people have gotten a fake wolf to worship, the USFWS wolf.
No one has to releases wolves any where the USFWS and WDFW have already done that.
I'm not sure I understand what your point was here... :dunno:
It's the argument that is emotional. A fact can't really be emotional... It's just a fact. I'm saying that reacting emotionally about the actions of wolves is the wrong way to approach the issue. No biologist / scientist / politician / F&W official with a college degree is going to take outdoorsmen seriously if we keep making arguments like that.
You have to win these arguments with fact and logic, not emotional responses. Outdoorsmen don't help themselves by appearing as a rabble of rednecks that post photos of their dead hunting dogs and repeatedly just post "KILL EM ALL!"
You aren't doing yourselves any favors. It's no wonder to me that nobody is listening to you.
Maybe you folks know better than the biologists and scientists with their masters degrees and PhDs. The hunting public certainly represents a lot more boots and eyes on the ground than the state can bring to bear, so it's not ridiculous to assume that hunters know plenty that the biologists aren't aware of. The problem is, when you enter an argument with your emotions instead of your heads, it makes it really tough to convince anybody of anything, especially a scientist.
You're already fighting an uphill battle, you've noted that many of the folks that run this state don't really give a damn what you think. To make things worse, as soon as anybody makes an argument you don't like, you jump all over him and call him "wolf lover, hippie, tree-hugger."
Well, maybe they think ya'll are a bunch of inbred, uneducated, rednecks. My point is that you should try a little harder to come off as educated rednecks, and make logical arguments instead of emotional arguments, so that the folks in charge might listen to you. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2013, 05:55:48 PM
Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot. :rolleyes: It's an emotionally driven argument.
Those dogs got killed/eaten because a wolf's instincts are to kill and eat things. They don't make moral decisions about the things they kill and eat. They make rational decisions based on how much energy they'll burn to kill the animal vs. how much safety/food/territory they'll get out of the kill. Cost vs. Benefit. Not Right vs. Wrong.
To judge an animal as you might judge a human is ridiculous. In this country you can plead insanity to a crime- which basically you means you weren't capable of making a decision on the morality of your actions. In this country we understand that some folks who commit crimes just can't help themselves. This is true even for those guilty of heinous crimes like murder. Those folks are treated differently than those capable of moral judgement. Sure, they're still removed from society for the protection of the population.
That should go for wolves as well. You should want to relocate them, manage their populations, etc. If that's not getting done, whose fault is that? Certainly not the wolf's fault. That fault lies with WDFW, taxpayers, voters, politicians. Distaste for some of these decision makers is warranted, and logical.
Hating a wolf for being a wolf though? Well that's just unintelligent :dunno:
You can blame the pictures of dogs being killed by wolves as emotional, but it is also fact. What about dogs that arn't hunting and are killed or chewed up by wolves? Is that not also a truth about wolves and there lust just to kill? Or is it emotional propaganda?
What about pictures of livestock killed by wolves? Is that emotional or fact?
If you look at the past history of the Illegal wolf introduction you will find many cases of wolves killing, Just to kill. Would you like to call that emotional also? Or fact?
The history of wolves go back many years, not much of the true wolf history hasn't been known in the last 80 years. Instead the American people have gotten a fake wolf to worship, the USFWS wolf.
No one has to releases wolves any where the USFWS and WDFW have already done that.
I'm not sure I understand what your point was here... :dunno:
It's the argument that is emotional. A fact can't really be emotional... It's just a fact. I'm saying that reacting emotionally about the actions of wolves is the wrong way to approach the issue. No biologist / scientist / politician / F&W official with a college degree is going to take outdoorsmen seriously if we keep making arguments like that.
You have to win these arguments with fact and logic, not emotional responses. Outdoorsmen don't help themselves by appearing as a rabble of rednecks that post photos of their dead hunting dogs and repeatedly just post "KILL EM ALL!"
You aren't doing yourselves any favors. It's no wonder to me that nobody is listening to you.
Maybe you folks know better than the biologists and scientists with their masters degrees and PhDs. The hunting public certainly represents a lot more boots and eyes on the ground than the state can bring to bear, so it's not ridiculous to assume that hunters know plenty that the biologists aren't aware of. The problem is, when you enter an argument with your emotions instead of your heads, it makes it really tough to convince anybody of anything, especially a scientist.
You're already fighting an uphill battle, you've noted that many of the folks that run this state don't really give a damn what you think. To make things worse, as soon as anybody makes an argument you don't like, you jump all over him and call him "wolf lover, hippie, tree-hugger."
Well, maybe they think ya'll are a bunch of inbred, uneducated, rednecks. My point is that you should try a little harder to come off as educated rednecks, and make logical arguments instead of emotional arguments, so that the folks in charge might listen to you. :twocents:
You make several good points, AC.
Personaly, I think the only WA wolf management we will ever get is the SS-shoot&shut up. That being said how many wolves will be shot?-not nearly enough
There is one thing that many people seem to miss with wolves and that is the Fact that 50 to 70% need to be culled each year in order to control them. And the Fact that wolves increase 50% each year makes this very difficult when they are hunted as a big game animal, even if they were hunted as a predator the goal would not be met. So with that being said, what makes anyone think our game herds have a chance once WDF&Wolves and the USFWS finally decide there are enough wolves in WA and you can hunt them as a big game animal? :rolleyes:
By the time WDFW and the USFWS get finished with WA there will be nothing left to hunt, it's called genecide by wolves.
That doesn't mean we quit fighting, it's just an example of what we are up against.
Post by: raydog on May 13, 2013, 06:03:20 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2013, 06:09:40 PM
Quick question: If I shoot a wolf in the woods and no one is around to hear it, is it still illegal? :chuckle: :chuckle:
The wolves were introduced illegally, it's open season :bfg:
Post by: gaddy on May 13, 2013, 06:10:35 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2013, 06:15:34 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
Have you watched a dog get killed in the field? I watched one get stretched by a pair of coyotes before I could get to her. It's damn emotional and I suspect it's easy for you to sit back and think "we all take risks when we turn loose" ect... but I gurantee if you watched your pet/companion/hunting partner get wiped out, you would be emotional about the topic too.Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot. :rolleyes: It's an emotionally driven argument.
Hunting dogs die. It's something my Dad warned me about as a kid when we contemplated taking the family dog out as a rabbit hunter and also something several hardcore bird dog guys have said to me over the years. I accept it.
As an upland hunter I'm sensitive to the risks, it's why I want the right to defend myself and my dogs from wolves if, God forbid, an encounter occurred. Good gun dogs are expensive to buy and train and there is no price on the emotional attachment if they are a family pet.
But wolf or no wolf you always roll the dice when taking man's best friend hunting. People who can't handle the fact that their dog might die from any number of causes while hunting should probably not be hunting with dogs.
Wolves kill dogs when the opportunity exists. It's a topic that we will be dealing with for a while and not one to be dismissed easily. I have not lost a hound to wolves yet, but I know it could happen the next time I turn loose. Let's try to be somewhat sympathetic for thier loss.
Thats fine an dandy WAcoyotye, where is your sypathy for the the Methow valley deer? or the cows and calves that WDF&Wolves kill, and their lies that follow? What happened to your idea of more habitat?
I agree with AC, leave your emotions on your trigger pull, and deal with the wolf issue without any emotion.
Take Me and the Methow Valley as an example, in the past I showed my true feelings, fought like hell to try an make people understand. It did no good. I have watched as WDFW's wolves slaughter the deer each winter and summer while one of their prize employees lie.
I don't have any more emotion to give , I have seen what the people of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have seen. A lying USFWS and a lying WDFW and many wolves.
Welcome to Washington
Post by: bearpaw on May 13, 2013, 07:16:36 PM
Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me) :dunno: At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html)
I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too. I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.
Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth. Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?
Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009. Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves. You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.
The only reason Idaho's wolf population increase has been slowed is because many Idahoans opened year around season after Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting the first time. It's all the extra wolves that are being killed that is slowing the growth of the population. :twocents:
The problem in Idaho is that wolves in the less inhabited areas are not being controlled, so certain herds are still in trouble. Herds in more populated areas may have a chance because locals are waging war on wolves.
It saddens me that the people have had to take wolf management into their own hands to save the herds, that is not in the best interest of game management.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 13, 2013, 07:25:26 PM
Wenatchee Pack
..... Tonight King 5 has Gary Chiittam Up what looks Like near Wheeler Ridge or the Stemilt Basin camping, looking to call the Bastiges in so he can be thrilled about thier presence! There is a story from tonight on their website and I'm sure they will have more tomorrow, especially if they get their wish and get an answer or see them. Never did care much for Chittam and this just made it worse. Stupid Pugetropolans!!
Post by: JLS on May 13, 2013, 07:55:38 PM
Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me) :dunno: At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html)
I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too. I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.
Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth. Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?
Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009. Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves. You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.
The only reason Idaho's wolf population increase has been slowed is because many Idahoans opened year around season after Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting the first time. It's all the extra wolves that are being killed that is slowing the growth of the population. :twocents:
The problem in Idaho is that wolves in the less inhabited areas are not being controlled, so certain herds are still in trouble. Herds in more populated areas may have a chance because locals are waging war on wolves.
It saddens me that the people have had to take wolf management into their own hands to save the herds, that is not in the best interest of game management.
Habitat is a very pressing problem that is difficult to separate away from the issue or perception of wolf impacts. Much of the habitat in northern Idaho has been decreasing in quality over the last 100 years. Look at how much elk numbers have increased in the Palouse zone, which is a mix of agricultural and private timberlands. Yet at the same time in the Lochsa, Selway and upper Clearwater elk numbers are remaining depressed and have for a very long time from before wolves.
I'm not saying wolves aren't having an impact, but I believe the biggest impact is habitat quality. Following the fires of the early 1900's the upper Selway had one of the largest elk herds in North America.
Post by: bearpaw on May 13, 2013, 09:08:22 PM
Rich Landers. Ha there's a reliable source. I have shook my head at that guys columns for years. I as well as many others I know have thought that he has been in the pockets of both Idaho and Washington F&G for years. That guy will say anything they want him to in order to maintain the almost exclusive reporting (for outdoors) for this entire area. Now let's read between the lines of his article. Wolf populations are down but breeding packs are up. While possible just doesn't make sense to me. In order for more packs to be established you generally need more wolves. This is likely due to established packs getting to big to be able to feed themselves so they branch off and start new packs. (Doesn't sound like a reduction to me) :dunno: At the same time that Idaho's population is supposedly declining Washington's is going thru the roof. Coincidence? I don't think so. And let's for arguments sake say that maybe it's all legit. If there are more breeding packs in Idaho than before do you suppose that will then increase the population. My guess is yes. Let's recap shall we. Idaho's population has grown every year with one in question and that particular year has seen a massive increase in sightings in Washington (which is very close you know). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here. STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html (http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/idaho-wolf-tally-shows-percent-decline-in/article_1f5e95de-9c92-11e2-b117-0019bb2963f4.html)
I guess the Missoulian is in the pocket of folks too. I think you are trying to make a connection between dots that doesn't exist with the "conclusions" you've come to.
Any new wolf population will go through a period of nearly exponential growth. Every state with a colonizing wolf populations has experienced this, so why would it take a rocket scientist to assume Washington would too?
Idaho's population has been decreasing since 2009. Yes, pack numbers are up which simply means you have a larger number of packs that contain a smaller number of wolves. You can try and draw whatever parallels you wish.
The only reason Idaho's wolf population increase has been slowed is because many Idahoans opened year around season after Judge Malloy shut down wolf hunting the first time. It's all the extra wolves that are being killed that is slowing the growth of the population. :twocents:
The problem in Idaho is that wolves in the less inhabited areas are not being controlled, so certain herds are still in trouble. Herds in more populated areas may have a chance because locals are waging war on wolves.
It saddens me that the people have had to take wolf management into their own hands to save the herds, that is not in the best interest of game management.
Habitat is a very pressing problem that is difficult to separate away from the issue or perception of wolf impacts. Much of the habitat in northern Idaho has been decreasing in quality over the last 100 years. Look at how much elk numbers have increased in the Palouse zone, which is a mix of agricultural and private timberlands. Yet at the same time in the Lochsa, Selway and upper Clearwater elk numbers are remaining depressed and have for a very long time from before wolves.
I'm not saying wolves aren't having an impact, but I believe the biggest impact is habitat quality. Following the fires of the early 1900's the upper Selway had one of the largest elk herds in North America.
Typical agency style response, :chuckle: blame everything but the wolves, shift the blame to anything other than the real problem, a lack of predator management. I agree that habitat is a concern, but please explain the YNP elk herd. No habitat control there by humans, yet until man introduced wolves there were strong elk/moose herds before the fire and after the fire. Now that man introduced wolves they have reduced the herds, the wolves are eating each other and moving to new areas, the YNP has far fewer ungulates or wolves because of a lack of management. :bdid:
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 13, 2013, 09:15:53 PM
Post by: JLS on May 13, 2013, 09:25:43 PM
Habitat is a very pressing problem that is difficult to separate away from the issue or perception of wolf impacts. Much of the habitat in northern Idaho has been decreasing in quality over the last 100 years. Look at how much elk numbers have increased in the Palouse zone, which is a mix of agricultural and private timberlands. Yet at the same time in the Lochsa, Selway and upper Clearwater elk numbers are remaining depressed and have for a very long time from before wolves.
I'm not saying wolves aren't having an impact, but I believe the biggest impact is habitat quality. Following the fires of the early 1900's the upper Selway had one of the largest elk herds in North America.
Typical agency style response, :chuckle: blame everything but the wolves, shift the blame to anything other than the real problem, a lack of predator management. I agree that habitat is a concern, but please explain the YNP elk herd. No habitat control there by humans, yet until man introduced wolves there were strong elk/moose herds before the fire and after the fire. Now that man introduced wolves they have reduced the herds, the wolves are eating each other and moving to new areas, the YNP has far fewer ungulates or wolves because of a lack of management. :bdid:
Is that obvious enough for you now? I'm not shifting blame simply because I don't agree with you, I have repeatedly explained my stance and we obviously differ in our opinions and beliefs. I don't feel the need to mock you, sorry that you do.
I've explained my views and observations on the northern YNP herd to you and you will believe what you want to believe. I'm good with that. The reality is you had a huge population spike following the '88 fires, and then years of hunters shooting the snot out of the elk when they came out of the park, followed by an exponential growth of wolf numbers. If the population is so dismal, why is that particular elk management unit within acceptable parameters in the state of Montana? There are no emergency closures for elk hunting in this area. People still continue to come from across the country to hunt it. Maybe the reality is that it's not so bad after all.
Post by: JLS on May 13, 2013, 09:29:57 PM
Not exactly all correct there JLS. Just so happens I have a friend that hunts the Clearwater area. He and his family have hunted this land for over 20 years. He says that the elk herds were very healthy until the wolves moved in. And that they started to really decline about 4-5 years ago.
Your friend may very well be correct. I am speaking in a broader sense in regards to the whole Selway, Lochsa, and Clearwater basins. Do some reading. The upper Selway boasted one of the nations largest elk herds following the huge fires in the early 1900s. Much of the habitat is a ceanothus jungle that is worthless to elk. My humble opinion is that the localized decline your friends are seeing is a combination of continued habitat degredation and predators.
Why are elk numbers so robust in the Palouse zone?
Post by: brianb231 on May 13, 2013, 09:33:10 PM
Ridiculous!
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 13, 2013, 09:38:17 PM
Not exactly all correct there JLS. Just so happens I have a friend that hunts the Clearwater area. He and his family have hunted this land for over 20 years. He says that the elk herds were very healthy until the wolves moved in. And that they started to really decline about 4-5 years ago.
Your friend may very well be correct. I am speaking in a broader sense in regards to the whole Selway, Lochsa, and Clearwater basins. Do some reading. The upper Selway boasted one of the nations largest elk herds following the huge fires in the early 1900s. Much of the habitat is a ceanothus jungle that is worthless to elk. My humble opinion is that the localized decline your friends are seeing is a combination of continued habitat degredation and predators.
Why are elk numbers so robust in the Palouse zone?
Absolutely has nothing to do with habitat in his area. It hasn't changed. But I know you will never admit that the wolves could actually be the problem. You have to stop believing everything F&G tells you. They have proven to be crooked liars.Not exactly all correct there JLS. Just so happens I have a friend that hunts the Clearwater area. He and his family have hunted this land for over 20 years. He says that the elk herds were very healthy until the wolves moved in. And that they started to really decline about 4-5 years ago.
Your friend may very well be correct. I am speaking in a broader sense in regards to the whole Selway, Lochsa, and Clearwater basins. Do some reading. The upper Selway boasted one of the nations largest elk herds following the huge fires in the early 1900s. Much of the habitat is a ceanothus jungle that is worthless to elk. My humble opinion is that the localized decline your friends are seeing is a combination of continued habitat degredation and predators.
Why are elk numbers so robust in the Palouse zone?
Post by: JLS on May 13, 2013, 09:45:04 PM
Not exactly all correct there JLS. Just so happens I have a friend that hunts the Clearwater area. He and his family have hunted this land for over 20 years. He says that the elk herds were very healthy until the wolves moved in. And that they started to really decline about 4-5 years ago.
Your friend may very well be correct. I am speaking in a broader sense in regards to the whole Selway, Lochsa, and Clearwater basins. Do some reading. The upper Selway boasted one of the nations largest elk herds following the huge fires in the early 1900s. Much of the habitat is a ceanothus jungle that is worthless to elk. My humble opinion is that the localized decline your friends are seeing is a combination of continued habitat degredation and predators.
Why are elk numbers so robust in the Palouse zone?Absolutely has nothing to do with habitat in his area. It hasn't changed. But I know you will never admit that the wolves could actually be the problem. You have to stop believing everything F&G tells you. They have proven to be crooked liars.Not exactly all correct there JLS. Just so happens I have a friend that hunts the Clearwater area. He and his family have hunted this land for over 20 years. He says that the elk herds were very healthy until the wolves moved in. And that they started to really decline about 4-5 years ago.
Your friend may very well be correct. I am speaking in a broader sense in regards to the whole Selway, Lochsa, and Clearwater basins. Do some reading. The upper Selway boasted one of the nations largest elk herds following the huge fires in the early 1900s. Much of the habitat is a ceanothus jungle that is worthless to elk. My humble opinion is that the localized decline your friends are seeing is a combination of continued habitat degredation and predators.
Why are elk numbers so robust in the Palouse zone?
I've met several of the COs in the Clearwater region. They hunt just like you and I. The echo the SAME sentiments that I have. I met a retired IDFG wildlife manager (pre wolf era) elk hunting in the Lochsa one year. He also said the same thing. I guess all of these passionate hunters are still crooked liars. Glad you have an open mind and don't pigeon hole people.
And for the record, I will never try and tell anyone that wolves do no have an impact. Ever. So I don't have a clue what you are talking about me admitting that wolves could be a problem. However, I also believe there are very few cases where they are the ONLY problem.
Habitat is always changing. If it's not changing for the better it's obviously changing for the worst.
You still keep dodging my question about the Palouse zone.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 13, 2013, 09:51:05 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 13, 2013, 09:56:43 PM
Post by: JLS on May 13, 2013, 10:04:21 PM
And again your getting your info from state officials who have a vested interest in feeding you a line of crap. I'm out for tonight. Good luck trying to convince people of you line of thinking. We all know better.
Wow. You can make this blanket statement about people you have never met? People who are just as passionate, if not more, about elk hunting than many of us here? People who I've gotten to know as friends with a common interest in hunting elk? How brave of you to stand behind an anonymous name and label them crooked liars.
I am in no way anticipating that I will convince you of anything. You know everything apparently, maybe you should go run Idaho Fish and Game. Then people like yourself, who think they know better than you could label you a crooked liar.
Post by: AspenBud on May 13, 2013, 10:10:43 PM
Absolutely has nothing to do with habitat in his area. It hasn't changed.
The fact that it hasn't changed is the problem JLS is talking about. Poor habitat often means easy pickings for predators like wolves.
Post by: AspenBud on May 13, 2013, 10:33:39 PM
It is now an issue that must be addressed. Good or bad, right or wrong, wolves have exposed a problem outside of themselves.
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2013, 11:01:24 PM
Have you watched a dog get killed in the field? I watched one get stretched by a pair of coyotes before I could get to her. It's damn emotional and I suspect it's easy for you to sit back and think "we all take risks when we turn loose" ect... but I gurantee if you watched your pet/companion/hunting partner get wiped out, you would be emotional about the topic too.Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot. :rolleyes: It's an emotionally driven argument.
Hunting dogs die. It's something my Dad warned me about as a kid when we contemplated taking the family dog out as a rabbit hunter and also something several hardcore bird dog guys have said to me over the years. I accept it.
As an upland hunter I'm sensitive to the risks, it's why I want the right to defend myself and my dogs from wolves if, God forbid, an encounter occurred. Good gun dogs are expensive to buy and train and there is no price on the emotional attachment if they are a family pet.
But wolf or no wolf you always roll the dice when taking man's best friend hunting. People who can't handle the fact that their dog might die from any number of causes while hunting should probably not be hunting with dogs.
Wolves kill dogs when the opportunity exists. It's a topic that we will be dealing with for a while and not one to be dismissed easily. I have not lost a hound to wolves yet, but I know it could happen the next time I turn loose. Let's try to be somewhat sympathetic for thier loss.
Thats fine an dandy WAcoyotye, where is your sypathy for the the Methow valley deer? or the cows and calves that WDF&Wolves kill, and their lies that follow? What happened to your idea of more habitat?
I agree with AC, leave your emotions on your trigger pull, and deal with the wolf issue without any emotion.
Take Me and the Methow Valley as an example, in the past I showed my true feelings, fought like hell to try an make people understand. It did no good. I have watched as WDFW's wolves slaughter the deer each winter and summer while one of their prize employees lie.
I don't have any more emotion to give , I have seen what the people of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have seen. A lying USFWS and a lying WDFW and many wolves.
Welcome to Washington
HAHA- So, Wolfbait- are you agreeing to leave emotion out if your posts from now on? You fought like hell to sell people a BS story about the WDFW planting wolves from a van... And you had no evidence to that...and you were suprised that people didn't believe your story??? Really?
My idea of more habitat is absolutely the only way that we will have robust populations of game available to hunting. Without well managed habitat we won't have anything at all. Right?
I don't get too wound up about a deer getting killed by wolves. It's the natural order of things. Wolves that kill pets and livestock should be dealt with quickly.
I think you some how missed the point WAcoyote, I didn't say anything about WDFW releasing wolves on the Golden Doe, but since you brought it up. You are right and I was wrong about WDFW releasing the wolves at that time. It was actually the USFWS who released the wolves as WDFW watched.
And as you and a few of your friends know their have been many releases and relocated wolves throughout WA.
Have you been following the Benghazi coverup, WAcoyote? If you have, wait until the USFWS and WDFW are in the hot seat. Can you look into the near future and see your job as a pro-wolf bio going up the chimmney? I can see it from here. It truely puts a smile on my face. Don't worry though, fitkin can probably get you a job sweeping floors for good old mitch-fried-man at conservation wolverine. :chuckle:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAcoyote>My idea of more habitat is absolutely the only way that we will have robust populations of game available to hunting. Without well managed habitat we won't have anything at all. Right?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me, what kind of habitat has wolf repellent? Do you and WDFW plan on putting in some wolf fencing? Do you plan on city habitat, because thats where most of the deer are found? Or are you going to get some well behaved wolves?
I think your buddy fitkin said his wolves were well behaved, of course that was after he lied about the wolves killing the Golden Doe cow and calf. well actualy the USFWS lied also, but who's counting anymore.
Whats one more lie from the USFWS or WDFW?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WC>I don't get too wound up about a deer getting killed by wolves. It's the natural order of things. Wolves that kill pets and livestock should be dealt with quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural order you say, well thats all cool until the chit hits the fan and the wolves don't have nothing to eat any more. As far as wolves killing pets and livestock and being delt with, you junior' are now the laughing stock of many, just like WDFW.
I know for a fact that more ranchers are pulling the trigger on their own wolf problems now, and WDFW are happy about this because they don't have to confirm more wolf packs. Not that it really matters anymore.
Post by: wolfbait on May 13, 2013, 11:52:26 PM
Here's an example for WAcoyote and Fitkin: I put my broncs in one pasture until the habitat was ate down, and then I moved them to a different pasture so that the ate down habitat could grow back up. Are you with me so far? I see you both have your hands raised :hello::hello:, whats your question?
No, wolves don't manage habitat like you were taught in school, I see this all the time with people who spend most of their time reading books written by the USFWS. Here's your asignment for tomarrow, read the whole article, fitkin make sure junior reads it also :chuckle:
Are The Northern Rockies In A Predator Pit?
Just what is a "Predator Pit"?
Wolf researchers have come to use the term when referring to an area where predators have pulled prey populations down so low that recovery of those populations is impossible, unless there is a drastic reduction in the number of predators. The situation results from how predators affect prey numbers in two different ways. One is the manner in which predators, especially wolves, kill far more adult prey animals than needed to survive, commonly referred to as "surplus killing". The second is the destruction of the prey age class, due to the loss of newborn young of the year. And the loss of that recruitment can be either due to outright killing of fawns and calves in the spring (with excessive surplus killing), or due to the stress predators (especially wolves) place on pregnant females in winter, causing them to abort their fetuses. In the classic predator pit situation, a rising number of predators results in a constant decline in prey numbers, with the average age of surviving prey animals becoming older and older with each passing year - to the point that reproductive growth becomes impossible and the prey base begins to die off from old age.
This accurately describes the situation in much of the Northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming today.
Through the 1970s and 1980s, populations of elk, moose and other big game had recovered well from the record lows of the early 1900s, and by the mid 1990s many areas of the Northern Rockies boasted record wildlife populations. And through all of that recovery from the market hunting era of the late 1800s, there were still viable populations of mountain lions, black bear, and in some areas even a few grizzlies. The only missing predator was the wolf. America's sportsmen had poured billions of dollars into modern conservation projects, many of which took decades to accomplish, and they had been rewarded with an abundance of game. So much so, that during the 1980s and 1990s many joked that "The Good Ol' Days Are Now!".
Now, they know there was more to that feeling than anyone at that time could have realized.
Against the wishes of the vast majority of sportsmen in this country, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began releasing wolves back into the Northern Rockies in 1995. And as wolf numbers quickly grew, thanks to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, the dynamics of the predator to prey ratio likewise quickly changed. When the first 31 wolves were dumped back into Yellowstone National Park (1995-1996), close to 20,000 elk made up the northern Yellowstone elk herd. Today, there are more than 400 wolves within the Greater Yellowstone Area - and the northern Yellowstone elk herd, which is one of several herds in the region, has plummeted to fewer than 6,000 remaining animals. And those that have managed to survive the constant pursuit of wolf packs, some of which are now known to number 20 or more adults, have become a very geriatric herd. In 1995-96, the average age of that elk herd was around 4 years of age, today the remaining animals are an average of 8 to 9 years of age. Calf recruitment in the spring is presently near zero.
Yellowstone's elk herds are dying. And so are the elk herds in many other areas of western Montana, northwestern Wyoming, and the northern half of Idaho. The area is definitely well into a predator pit situation. And the elk aren't the only big game that's now quickly disappearing. Moose, which were once plentiful in the Northern Rockies, have become nearly non-existent. In fact, within Yellowstone National Park, they could probably qualify as an "Endangered Species". Likewise, throughout the entire region, mule deer, bighorn sheep and mountain goat populations are also in serious decline - and the problem is wolf depredation.
Sportsmen and others who are concerned about the future of wildlife in this once wildlife rich region of the country are now beginning to organize to take on those who seem to have one goal in mind - and that is to put an end to sport hunting. Who are the enemies?
Topping the list is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We now know that when Congress denied funding for capturing Canadian wolves and transplanting them into Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, USFWS literally stole the money needed for the project from the excise taxes sportsmen paid on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing gear, through what is known as the Pitman-Robertson Act. These funds are to be used exclusively for wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement. USFWS helped itself to somewhere between $60- and $70-million dollars to finance several unauthorized uses - including the funding needed to dump wolves back into the Northern Rockies ecosystem.
Right there with USFWS is a long list of anti-hunting "environmental" organizations, including the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Human Society of the United States, and a few dozen others. These groups have learned to use wolf impact on big game populations as a tool to put an end to hunting. Without a surplus of big game, there's no need for hunters. It's that simple. And one former upper echelon USFWS division chief, who blew the whistle on the theft of millions from Pitman-Robertson funds, also says that USFWS has entered into under-the-table agreements with the environmentalists - those who want more wolves, and fewer hunters.
And as absurd as it may sound, several of the state wildlife agencies which sportsmen have funded and supported since those agencies were founded have also bought into all the lies, deceit and theft that has now been associated with the Wolf Recovery Project of the Northern Rockies. And as these same sportsmen learn more about all that's wrong with introducing non-native, non-endangered Canadian wolves into Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, upper management within a couple of these agencies continues the cover up of the damage wolves have already dealt big game populations, livestock impact due to wolf depredation, the loss of hunting opportunities, how USFWS manipulated wolf science to justify the introduction of an invasive wolf subspecies, the true number of wolves in their respective states, and what it is going to take to gain control of this problem.
Perhaps the worst of the state wildlife agency lot has been Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Sportsmen in this state have become extremely agitated at MT FWP's inability to get a handle on the impact wolves are dealing elk, moose and other big game - and that was very evident at one of the agency's regional meetings to discuss wolves and wolf "management" on June 2, 2010. That meeting took place in Missoula, for the state's Region 2 management unit.
A presentation by Regional Supervisor Mack Long, Regional Wildlife Manager Mike Thompson, and Regional Wolf Coordinator Liz Bradley, to detail the impact wolves were having on big game populations and various proposed wolf season harvest quotas, only tended to further agitate the 150 or so attending the meeting. Their anger was very evident, and some of the accusation very pointed. It was clear that they had had enough of wolves, and enough of losing the wildlife populations they had funded to build. And they wanted something done, and done quickly to turn things around.
But, there was no encouragement from those making the presentation. They presented three different levels of harvest. If the statewide quota was set at 153, they claimed it would reduce the number of wolves in the state by only 9-percent. Should FWP go with a harvest quota of 186 wolves, that would reduce the state wolf population by 13-percent. If the quota was set at 216, Thompson claimed that the overall state wolf population would be reduced by 20-percent.
But, 9-, 13- or 20-percent of what? The sportsmen of Montana are fully aware of the fact that MT FWP does not have a clue about the true number of wolves within the state. During an Environmental Quality Committee meeting at the State Capitol Building in Helena in early March, the agency admitted they had not done an official wolf count since 2008. The Chairman of that committee questioned the accuracy of their counts when he shared that two years ago, when he asked how many wolf packs were in the area of his home in northwest Montana, FWP told him just one. Then, this past winter they admitted they knew of at least six, maybe eight packs there.
Extremely few of the sportsmen in that room for the meeting bought FWP's claim of having just 500-550 wolves in the state. Most feel there are at least twice that many, as evidenced by the loss of big game numbers all along the western side of Montana.
Attending the meeting was Bob Ream, Chairman of the MT FWP Commission, who had willingly worked with the introduction of the non-native Canadian wolves throughout the Northern Rockies at the start of the project. He angered the crowd even more when he stated, "More than 60-percent of the wolves now in Montana came here from Canada on their own."
If that's true, why did USFWS feel so compelled to embezzle more than $60-million dollars from the funds provided by sportsmen for improving wildlife and fisheries habitat - in order to introduce wolves? Many of those at the meeting felt that it was just more of the agency's cover up of a mad-scientist experiment gone bad.
So, what would it take to bring Montana's (along with Idaho's and Wyoming's) elk, moose and other big game populations out of the predator pit situation they've been thrown into by misguided federal and state wildlife agencies? One thing is for certain, it'll take a heck of a bigger reduction of wolf numbers than 20-percent!
Before writing his acclaimed book, "Wolves in Russia - Anxiety Through the Ages", author Will Graves spent several decades researching and studying wolves and their impact in that country. He shares that to reverse the negative impact wolves have on wildlife populations, livestock production, plus the emotional, health and safety threat to human inhabitants of a wolf populated region, the Russian government found it necessary to reduce wolf populations by as much as 80-percent. And they did so by using semi- and full-auto gunfire from helicopters. During Grave's research, wolf control in that country carried a price tag of about $45-million annually.
Will Graves claims, "Wolves cannot be managed...they have to be controlled!"
In his May 2008 declaration for the wolf delisting hearing and pending "wolf management hunts", Dr. L. David Mech stated, "It has not been demonstrated that 'a substantial reduction' in wolf abundance will occur, and my opinion is that it will not because merely to hold a wolf population stationary requires an annual take of 28-50% per year."
Mech went on to declare that wildlife agencies outside of the Northern Rockies recovery area try to kill 70% of the wolf population annually in order to achieve a reduction in wolf numbers. He was referring to what it takes to keep wolf levels low enough to prevent a predator pit situation in Alaska and areas of Canada. According to this wolf biologist and researcher, who is considered by many to be the top wolf expert in the world, sport hunting as currently being implemented by the wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho normally do nothing to reduce wolf populations.
Even if MT FWP goes into the 2010 wolf season with a quota of 216 wolves, and that quota is met, it simply means that by next spring there will be still more wolves on the landscape of Montana than there are as this is written - and that western Montana's predator pit situation will only worsen. More elk, more moose, more deer, more bighorn sheep, more mountain goats will be lost to the wolves, and those animals that do manage to survive the continuous onslaught of those apex predators will inch one more year closer to being lost to old age. The big game populations that have provided food for western families, an opportunity for sportsmen to harvest the surplus bounty and enjoy time afield with family and friends, and which have simply provided viewing enjoyment for countless wildlife watchers are dangerously close to being lost forever.
Sportsmen fully realize what they are losing, and they feel those who they have entrusted to wisely manage these wildlife resources are now asleep at the wheel - or just don't care anymore. Wolf impact on the Northern Rockies is a bomb that's about ready to explode, and the fuse keeps getting shorter and shorter. - Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
Post by: bearpaw on May 14, 2013, 05:05:24 AM
Habitat is a very pressing problem that is difficult to separate away from the issue or perception of wolf impacts. Much of the habitat in northern Idaho has been decreasing in quality over the last 100 years. Look at how much elk numbers have increased in the Palouse zone, which is a mix of agricultural and private timberlands. Yet at the same time in the Lochsa, Selway and upper Clearwater elk numbers are remaining depressed and have for a very long time from before wolves.
I'm not saying wolves aren't having an impact, but I believe the biggest impact is habitat quality. Following the fires of the early 1900's the upper Selway had one of the largest elk herds in North America.
Typical agency style response, :chuckle: blame everything but the wolves, shift the blame to anything other than the real problem, a lack of predator management. I agree that habitat is a concern, but please explain the YNP elk herd. No habitat control there by humans, yet until man introduced wolves there were strong elk/moose herds before the fire and after the fire. Now that man introduced wolves they have reduced the herds, the wolves are eating each other and moving to new areas, the YNP has far fewer ungulates or wolves because of a lack of management. :bdid:
Is that obvious enough for you now? I'm not shifting blame simply because I don't agree with you, I have repeatedly explained my stance and we obviously differ in our opinions and beliefs. I don't feel the need to mock you, sorry that you do.
I've explained my views and observations on the northern YNP herd to you and you will believe what you want to believe. I'm good with that. The reality is you had a huge population spike following the '88 fires, and then years of hunters shooting the snot out of the elk when they came out of the park, followed by an exponential growth of wolf numbers. If the population is so dismal, why is that particular elk management unit within acceptable parameters in the state of Montana? There are no emergency closures for elk hunting in this area. People still continue to come from across the country to hunt it. Maybe the reality is that it's not so bad after all.
That's misleading and untruthful, the wolf impacts are very well documented, all the late cow hunts have been eliminated because the northern Yellowstone herd has declined from roughly 20,000 to 4,000.
Post by: boneaddict on May 14, 2013, 05:41:54 AM
Quote
Hating a wolf for being a wolf though? Well that's just unintelligent :dunno:
I dink he callin me stooped. :chuckle:
Post by: Arnbo on May 14, 2013, 06:49:30 AM
Again, all I see are hunters hating wolves because wolves kill game. Whether or not the eat the whole animal matters little to me.
More deer are killed by cars speeding down highways. Don't see anyone taking up arms against drivers for not eating their road kill.
There was plenty of game in North America when wolves roamed freely. The reason we have less game now is a problem of development and overcrowding of winter range, not a handful of wolf packs in a handful of states.
I backpacked through Yellowstone two years ago and made camp less than a mile from a den. The barking up the new litter of pups kept me awake all night. It was one of the most memorable wilderness experiences of my life.
I don't believe that wilderness belongs only in national parks. I want that wilderness experience in my home state. If several hundred deer are killed and left for the birds to pick clean, I say that's a reasonable trade off for the chance to experience wilderness a little closer to what it was before our highways and cities destroyed it.
If we weren't parceling out the wilderness and containing wild animals into smaller and smaller ranges, there'd be plenty of game to go around, and we wouldn't have to wait half a lifetime to draw for a chance to hunt a trophy animal.
I don't think the wolf is our enemy, I think development is our enemy. I can't hate an animal for living according to it's nature.
Well said..... I too have had a simular experience.
Post by: Sawbuck on May 14, 2013, 06:59:32 AM
Mods should move this to the jokes sectionAgain, all I see are hunters hating wolves because wolves kill game. Whether or not the eat the whole animal matters little to me.
More deer are killed by cars speeding down highways. Don't see anyone taking up arms against drivers for not eating their road kill.
There was plenty of game in North America when wolves roamed freely. The reason we have less game now is a problem of development and overcrowding of winter range, not a handful of wolf packs in a handful of states.
I backpacked through Yellowstone two years ago and made camp less than a mile from a den. The barking up the new litter of pups kept me awake all night. It was one of the most memorable wilderness experiences of my life.
I don't believe that wilderness belongs only in national parks. I want that wilderness experience in my home state. If several hundred deer are killed and left for the birds to pick clean, I say that's a reasonable trade off for the chance to experience wilderness a little closer to what it was before our highways and cities destroyed it.
If we weren't parceling out the wilderness and containing wild animals into smaller and smaller ranges, there'd be plenty of game to go around, and we wouldn't have to wait half a lifetime to draw for a chance to hunt a trophy animal.
I don't think the wolf is our enemy, I think development is our enemy. I can't hate an animal for living according to it's nature.
Well said..... I too have had a simular experience.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 14, 2013, 07:47:50 AM
The fact of the matter JLS is that they have lied to the public for years. I frankly don't care if they are hunters or not. If they work for or with the F&G dept then they are probably never going to tell the truth. That whole dont bite the hand that feeds you thing. And frankly I don't blame them. But to suggest that they have been truthful is laughable. I did a quick search this morning and found a 2010 IF&G newsletter that shows a study of wolf populations and elk populations in the Lolo and Sawtooth areas of Idaho since 1995. Now these were two of the best elk hunting zones in the state. Believe it or not the study showed that as wolf population rose the elk population declined in conjunction with that. Now they to say that it was due to habitat loss but you have to read between the lines. The study also says that in order to maintain a healthy population in that region that cow elk survival rates needed to be about 88%. Yet they also say that they can attribute almost 40% of the causes of death to wolves. The numbers don't lie. Before wolves the elk populations were stable and healthy, since re-introduction they have steadily declined. Now is that just a coincidence. The answer is no.And again your getting your info from state officials who have a vested interest in feeding you a line of crap. I'm out for tonight. Good luck trying to convince people of you line of thinking. We all know better.
Wow. You can make this blanket statement about people you have never met? People who are just as passionate, if not more, about elk hunting than many of us here? People who I've gotten to know as friends with a common interest in hunting elk? How brave of you to stand behind an anonymous name and label them crooked liars.
I am in no way anticipating that I will convince you of anything. You know everything apparently, maybe you should go run Idaho Fish and Game. Then people like yourself, who think they know better than you could label you a crooked liar.
Post by: JLS on May 14, 2013, 07:59:15 AM
Is that obvious enough for you now? I'm not shifting blame simply because I don't agree with you, I have repeatedly explained my stance and we obviously differ in our opinions and beliefs. I don't feel the need to mock you, sorry that you do.
I've explained my views and observations on the northern YNP herd to you and you will believe what you want to believe. I'm good with that. The reality is you had a huge population spike following the '88 fires, and then years of hunters shooting the snot out of the elk when they came out of the park, followed by an exponential growth of wolf numbers. If the population is so dismal, why is that particular elk management unit within acceptable parameters in the state of Montana? There are no emergency closures for elk hunting in this area. People still continue to come from across the country to hunt it. Maybe the reality is that it's not so bad after all.
That's misleading and untruthful, the wolf impacts are very well documented, all the late cow hunts have been eliminated because the northern Yellowstone herd has declined from roughly 20,000 to 4,000.
What's misleading and untruthful? Hunters shot the absolute crap out of the elks herds migrating out of the park for a large number of years. I lived there and saw it.
Here is an abstract that looks at Northern Yellowstone elk population data over a 70 year period
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4495221?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102282399347 (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4495221?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102282399347)
Here is an article where Tom Lemke, longtime biologist in the Yellowstone Valley, talks about the different factors that contributed to a decrease in elk numbers in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2008/02/17/robert-fanning-has-his-say/ (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2008/02/17/robert-fanning-has-his-say/)
Post by: JLS on May 14, 2013, 08:03:57 AM
The fact of the matter JLS is that they have lied to the public for years. I frankly don't care if they are hunters or not. If they work for or with the F&G dept then they are probably never going to tell the truth. That whole dont bite the hand that feeds you thing. And frankly I don't blame them. But to suggest that they have been truthful is laughable. I did a quick search this morning and found a 2010 IF&G newsletter that shows a study of wolf populations and elk populations in the Lolo and Sawtooth areas of Idaho since 1995. Now these were two of the best elk hunting zones in the state. Believe it or not the study showed that as wolf population rose the elk population declined in conjunction with that. Now they to say that it was due to habitat loss but you have to read between the lines. The study also says that in order to maintain a healthy population in that region that cow elk survival rates needed to be about 88%. Yet they also say that they can attribute almost 40% of the causes of death to wolves. The numbers don't lie. Before wolves the elk populations were stable and healthy, since re-introduction they have steadily declined. Now is that just a coincidence. The answer is no.And again your getting your info from state officials who have a vested interest in feeding you a line of crap. I'm out for tonight. Good luck trying to convince people of you line of thinking. We all know better.
Wow. You can make this blanket statement about people you have never met? People who are just as passionate, if not more, about elk hunting than many of us here? People who I've gotten to know as friends with a common interest in hunting elk? How brave of you to stand behind an anonymous name and label them crooked liars.
I am in no way anticipating that I will convince you of anything. You know everything apparently, maybe you should go run Idaho Fish and Game. Then people like yourself, who think they know better than you could label you a crooked liar.
My last exchange with you on this. I have a few very good friends that work for different state wildlife agencies. Each of them is an avid hunter. If you think that they simply toe the party line and spew mistruths then you are incredibly mistaken. I frankly have no use for the close mindedness and stereotyping that you continue to exhibit.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 14, 2013, 08:24:10 AM
It's not close minded at all. It's simply the facts of what has been going on for years. You may have good friends that tell you what they think, but the agency they work for only cares about one thing and that is the all-mighty dollar. I am also not saying they are liars maybe they are misinformed, but they are wrong in my opinion. And that has been proven over and over. The proof is in the pudding my friend and the facts are that once wolves were introduced the ungulate population started a steep decline. That is not in dispute. Idaho F&G has acknowledged that. You can try and blame it on whatever you like that helps you sleep better but that vast majority of us see thru the BS.The fact of the matter JLS is that they have lied to the public for years. I frankly don't care if they are hunters or not. If they work for or with the F&G dept then they are probably never going to tell the truth. That whole dont bite the hand that feeds you thing. And frankly I don't blame them. But to suggest that they have been truthful is laughable. I did a quick search this morning and found a 2010 IF&G newsletter that shows a study of wolf populations and elk populations in the Lolo and Sawtooth areas of Idaho since 1995. Now these were two of the best elk hunting zones in the state. Believe it or not the study showed that as wolf population rose the elk population declined in conjunction with that. Now they to say that it was due to habitat loss but you have to read between the lines. The study also says that in order to maintain a healthy population in that region that cow elk survival rates needed to be about 88%. Yet they also say that they can attribute almost 40% of the causes of death to wolves. The numbers don't lie. Before wolves the elk populations were stable and healthy, since re-introduction they have steadily declined. Now is that just a coincidence. The answer is no.And again your getting your info from state officials who have a vested interest in feeding you a line of crap. I'm out for tonight. Good luck trying to convince people of you line of thinking. We all know better.
Wow. You can make this blanket statement about people you have never met? People who are just as passionate, if not more, about elk hunting than many of us here? People who I've gotten to know as friends with a common interest in hunting elk? How brave of you to stand behind an anonymous name and label them crooked liars.
I am in no way anticipating that I will convince you of anything. You know everything apparently, maybe you should go run Idaho Fish and Game. Then people like yourself, who think they know better than you could label you a crooked liar.
My last theychange with you on this. I have a few very good friends that work for different state wildlife agencies. Each of them is an avid hunter. If you think that they simply toe the party line and spew mistruths then you are incredibly mistaken. I frankly have no use for the close mindedness and stereotyping that you continue to exhibit.
Post by: Northway on May 14, 2013, 08:46:08 AM
So, the USFWS released the wolves on the Golden Doe? I'm interested to hear this story... Was it the UPS truck again? :)Have you watched a dog get killed in the field? I watched one get stretched by a pair of coyotes before I could get to her. It's damn emotional and I suspect it's easy for you to sit back and think "we all take risks when we turn loose" ect... but I gurantee if you watched your pet/companion/hunting partner get wiped out, you would be emotional about the topic too.Posting photos of dogs killed by wolves is exactly the sort of argument I expected from this lot. :rolleyes: It's an emotionally driven argument.
Hunting dogs die. It's something my Dad warned me about as a kid when we contemplated taking the family dog out as a rabbit hunter and also something several hardcore bird dog guys have said to me over the years. I accept it.
As an upland hunter I'm sensitive to the risks, it's why I want the right to defend myself and my dogs from wolves if, God forbid, an encounter occurred. Good gun dogs are expensive to buy and train and there is no price on the emotional attachment if they are a family pet.
But wolf or no wolf you always roll the dice when taking man's best friend hunting. People who can't handle the fact that their dog might die from any number of causes while hunting should probably not be hunting with dogs.
Wolves kill dogs when the opportunity exists. It's a topic that we will be dealing with for a while and not one to be dismissed easily. I have not lost a hound to wolves yet, but I know it could happen the next time I turn loose. Let's try to be somewhat sympathetic for thier loss.
Thats fine an dandy WAcoyotye, where is your sypathy for the the Methow valley deer? or the cows and calves that WDF&Wolves kill, and their lies that follow? What happened to your idea of more habitat?
I agree with AC, leave your emotions on your trigger pull, and deal with the wolf issue without any emotion.
Take Me and the Methow Valley as an example, in the past I showed my true feelings, fought like hell to try an make people understand. It did no good. I have watched as WDFW's wolves slaughter the deer each winter and summer while one of their prize employees lie.
I don't have any more emotion to give , I have seen what the people of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have seen. A lying USFWS and a lying WDFW and many wolves.
Welcome to Washington
HAHA- So, Wolfbait- are you agreeing to leave emotion out if your posts from now on? You fought like hell to sell people a BS story about the WDFW planting wolves from a van... And you had no evidence to that...and you were suprised that people didn't believe your story??? Really?
My idea of more habitat is absolutely the only way that we will have robust populations of game available to hunting. Without well managed habitat we won't have anything at all. Right?
I don't get too wound up about a deer getting killed by wolves. It's the natural order of things. Wolves that kill pets and livestock should be dealt with quickly.
I think you some how missed the point WAcoyote, I didn't say anything about WDFW releasing wolves on the Golden Doe, but since you brought it up. You are right and I was wrong about WDFW releasing the wolves at that time. It was actually the USFWS who released the wolves as WDFW watched.
And as you and a few of your friends know their have been many releases and relocated wolves throughout WA.
Have you been following the Benghazi coverup, WAcoyote? If you have, wait until the USFWS and WDFW are in the hot seat. Can you look into the near future and see your job as a pro-wolf bio going up the chimmney? I can see it from here. It truely puts a smile on my face. Don't worry though, fitkin can probably get you a job sweeping floors for good old mitch-fried-man at conservation wolverine. :chuckle:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAcoyote>My idea of more habitat is absolutely the only way that we will have robust populations of game available to hunting. Without well managed habitat we won't have anything at all. Right?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me, what kind of habitat has wolf repellent? Do you and WDFW plan on putting in some wolf fencing? Do you plan on city habitat, because thats where most of the deer are found? Or are you going to get some well behaved wolves?
I think your buddy fitkin said his wolves were well behaved, of course that was after he lied about the wolves killing the Golden Doe cow and calf. well actualy the USFWS lied also, but who's counting anymore.
Whats one more lie from the USFWS or WDFW?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WC>I don't get too wound up about a deer getting killed by wolves. It's the natural order of things. Wolves that kill pets and livestock should be dealt with quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural order you say, well thats all cool until the chit hits the fan and the wolves don't have nothing to eat any more. As far as wolves killing pets and livestock and being delt with, you junior' are now the laughing stock of many, just like WDFW.
I know for a fact that more ranchers are pulling the trigger on their own wolf problems now, and WDFW are happy about this because they don't have to confirm more wolf packs. Not that it really matters anymore.
Habitat that is robust and well managed can support more ungulates (following me?) which will support wolves and hunting. Habitat that has escape cover, available browse, thermal cover, and contiguous travel corridors will encourage more robust prey populations and support ALL the wildlife better than degraded habitat. It's really a no brainer. I'm not sure why the concept becomes a joke... Wolf repellant is not necessary- wolf management will be a part of that, as is ungulate management. I am failing to make the connection between your "Bronc pasture" and a wildland...
"Me and my Friends" know that there was not a release, and often chuckle about the conspiracy theories that surround the idea of one in WA. Thanks for providing that entertainment.
As far as habitat goes, a while back someone made a compelling argument about why they believe lack of quality winter range was the biggest problem holding back the size of some herds, aside from the argument over impact of predators. Previously I had always wondered about whether abusive grazing practices that were improperly monitored by the BLM/Forest Service on summer allotments were having an impact.
Post by: Northway on May 14, 2013, 08:54:58 AM
Habitat is a very pressing problem that is difficult to separate away from the issue or perception of wolf impacts. Much of the habitat in northern Idaho has been decreasing in quality over the last 100 years. Look at how much elk numbers have increased in the Palouse zone, which is a mix of agricultural and private timberlands. Yet at the same time in the Lochsa, Selway and upper Clearwater elk numbers are remaining depressed and have for a very long time from before wolves.
I'm not saying wolves aren't having an impact, but I believe the biggest impact is habitat quality. Following the fires of the early 1900's the upper Selway had one of the largest elk herds in North America.
Typical agency style response, :chuckle: blame everything but the wolves, shift the blame to anything other than the real problem, a lack of predator management. I agree that habitat is a concern, but please explain the YNP elk herd. No habitat control there by humans, yet until man introduced wolves there were strong elk/moose herds before the fire and after the fire. Now that man introduced wolves they have reduced the herds, the wolves are eating each other and moving to new areas, the YNP has far fewer ungulates or wolves because of a lack of management. :bdid:
Is that obvious enough for you now? I'm not shifting blame simply because I don't agree with you, I have repeatedly explained my stance and we obviously differ in our opinions and beliefs. I don't feel the need to mock you, sorry that you do.
I've explained my views and observations on the northern YNP herd to you and you will believe what you want to believe. I'm good with that. The reality is you had a huge population spike following the '88 fires, and then years of hunters shooting the snot out of the elk when they came out of the park, followed by an exponential growth of wolf numbers. If the population is so dismal, why is that particular elk management unit within acceptable parameters in the state of Montana? There are no emergency closures for elk hunting in this area. People still continue to come from across the country to hunt it. Maybe the reality is that it's not so bad after all.
That's misleading and untruthful, the wolf impacts are very well documented, all the late cow hunts have been eliminated because the northern Yellowstone herd has declined from roughly 20,000 to 4,000.
So aside from the biological questions of whether 20,000 elk in the Northern Yellowstone area was too many, or whether the equilibrium of elk vs. wolves & other predators levels off around 4,000 - 6,000, how much opportunity should hunters be entitled to in regards to the NY herd? Maybe an unfair question if you don't frequent the area or hunt the herd, but I think it's still an interesting question. 8,000 elk? 10,000? This is an all else being equal question. Let's assume a healthy, sustainable herd, with good calf recruitment, etc.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 14, 2013, 08:56:02 AM
Wacoyote....
"Habitat that is robust and well managed can support more ungulates (following me?) which will support wolves and hunting. Habitat that has escape cover, available browse, thermal cover, and contiguous travel corridors will encourage more robust prey populations and support ALL the wildlife better than degraded habitat. It's really a no brainer."
As for Habitat and WDFW ....why have they allowed so damn MUCH The cover to be destroyed in the Naneum, and Quilomene areas of the Colockum elk herd then? this area used to belong to the Dept of Game (donated by the Coffin Family) when I started hunting that area,but since has been traded to the DNR who has done the damage to it. And since the herd has been suffering the consequenses, along with their other brain fart....Spike only which created the Native American trophy farm.
Do you think I trust WDFW?????
One other thing.......I have hunted the 105 Kelly Hill for 25 years and have seen where that in the last 5 years or so the Deer population had decreased 70-80% due to DFW's pets....... that they poo pooed their existence for HOW long? and they are so concerned about frogs and bats! (last weeks email)
Post by: JLS on May 14, 2013, 09:24:27 AM
http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/ (http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 14, 2013, 09:31:23 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 14, 2013, 09:34:12 AM
A very interesting study that WY Game and Fish is working on that shows trends consistent with the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, ie. an aging cow population and low calf recruitment.
http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/ (http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/)
A very interesting study that WY Game and Fish is working on that shows trends consistent with the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, ie. an aging cow population and low calf recruitment.THANKS MAN. The way I read that article it kinda proves our point.
http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/ (http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/)
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 14, 2013, 09:51:29 AM
Habitat is a very pressing problem that is difficult to separate away from the issue or perception of wolf impacts. Much of the habitat in northern Idaho has been decreasing in quality over the last 100 years. Look at how much elk numbers have increased in the Palouse zone, which is a mix of agricultural and private timberlands. Yet at the same time in the Lochsa, Selway and upper Clearwater elk numbers are remaining depressed and have for a very long time from before wolves.
I'm not saying wolves aren't having an impact, but I believe the biggest impact is habitat quality. Following the fires of the early 1900's the upper Selway had one of the largest elk herds in North America.
Typical agency style response, :chuckle: blame everything but the wolves, shift the blame to anything other than the real problem, a lack of predator management. I agree that habitat is a concern, but please explain the YNP elk herd. No habitat control there by humans, yet until man introduced wolves there were strong elk/moose herds before the fire and after the fire. Now that man introduced wolves they have reduced the herds, the wolves are eating each other and moving to new areas, the YNP has far fewer ungulates or wolves because of a lack of management. :bdid:
Is that obvious enough for you now? I'm not shifting blame simply because I don't agree with you, I have repeatedly explained my stance and we obviously differ in our opinions and beliefs. I don't feel the need to mock you, sorry that you do.
I've explained my views and observations on the northern YNP herd to you and you will believe what you want to believe. I'm good with that. The reality is you had a huge population spike following the '88 fires, and then years of hunters shooting the snot out of the elk when they came out of the park, followed by an exponential growth of wolf numbers. If the population is so dismal, why is that particular elk management unit within acceptable parameters in the state of Montana? There are no emergency closures for elk hunting in this area. People still continue to come from across the country to hunt it. Maybe the reality is that it's not so bad after all.
That's misleading and untruthful, the wolf impacts are very well documented, all the late cow hunts have been eliminated because the northern Yellowstone herd has declined from roughly 20,000 to 4,000.
How many years did it take to go from 20K to 4k?
What is the estimated wolf population, which is responsible for the decrease in population?
Post by: magnanimous_j on May 14, 2013, 10:18:29 AM
I think one of the biggest unspoken misconceptions held by environmentally minded people (and many conservatives as well) is that the state of nature was a perfect equilibrium before man showed up; perfectly synergistic and sustainable until the sun goes nova. In reality, the state of nature is in constant flux and mankind is just the latest species to have the ability to completely crash an ecosystem.
Just like everywhere else on the planet, the plants and animals in the PNW have been in constant evolutionary arms race since the day the first living things arrived. For example, the wild sheep and goat have a common ancestor that was easily the most terrifying murderbeast since the dinosaurs went extinct. Point being, animals come and go. I don’t know if we have any way to track it, but I seriously doubt that wolves have been around here that long, on the geographic time scale anyway.
So take the wolf: breeds quickly, intelligent, kills often, and effortlessly handles the worst weather the Northwest can throw at it. Back in the day before western settlement, it’s only evolutionary barrier was starvation and other predators (and disease I suppose). There wasn’t the abundance of game then that there is today (to a point, I’m not convinced the PNW was as barren as some have suggested. I don’t think the Lewis and Clark expedition, total newbies to the area, at one particular time in history is a good enough sample to definitively make that known). However, inability to locate game was the main limiting force to keeping wolf populations in check.
Obviously they no longer have that issue. Livestock, pets, and humans are available year round and can be located effortlessly. A cattle ranch might as well be a QFC. Without diligent human management, the wolf has no barriers to explosive population growth.
Wolves to have the quality of picking off the weak, old and diseased of the herd, effectively increasing the overall herd health, but due to their lack of environmental restraint, they have nothing to limit them from just eating everything. Given the thousands of years required, game animals could evolve strategies effective against the wolf. But they don’t have that much time.
If we had highly effective human management, the wolf could be an invaluable player in the ecosystem of the PNW, but I doubt we have the resources OR ability to actually do that. So at least for now, purposely introducing wolves seems like a staggeringly horrible idea.
Post by: billdo5 on May 14, 2013, 10:28:55 AM
JLS please go hug a tree and just to let you know if i see one im shooting it... report me please :)... I would love to know what u think about the hoof disease in the St. Helens Herd... notAnd again your getting your info from state officials who have a vested interest in feeding you a line of crap. I'm out for tonight. Good luck trying to convince people of you line of thinking. We all know better.
Wow. You can make this blanket statement about people you have never met? People who are just as passionate, if not more, about elk hunting than many of us here? People who I've gotten to know as friends with a common interest in hunting elk? How brave of you to stand behind an anonymous name and label them crooked liars.
I am in no way anticipating that I will convince you of anything. You know everything apparently, maybe you should go run Idaho Fish and Game. Then people like yourself, who think they know better than you could label you a crooked liar.
Post by: AspenBud on May 14, 2013, 10:34:01 AM
This is really about whether we cultivate elk and deer like a crop or if we accept that their numbers, in a balanced situation, will be lower.
Without a top tier apex predator ungulates "thrive." That doesn't mean that you're looking at the healthiest of animals or the strongest, but a lot can survive even in what is sub par habitat since the only real threat is people, disease, the occasional cougar, weather, and starvation. To someone who isn't familiar with what is truly good habitat is, things can look great given a high population. But it can well be that the animals aren't getting as much to eat as they should or that the escape cover doesn't exist and those can be mutually exclusive or exist at the same time, but if an area is lacking in one or both, it's bad news with the introduction of a real predator. All of that would go unnoticed in the absence of something like wolves.
Wolves expose the problems. They expose the poor quality of the habitat in places and they expose just how unhealthy many ungulates really are, without them you would never know the difference.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong. But it is worthy of consideration.
This also does not mean they should not be managed through hunting or that people shouldn't be allowed to protect what is there's and themselves from them.
But dismissing the habitat issue and how wolves have shown some of the issues out there is very shortsighted. Put another way, it's not just the wolves that have been mismanaged, it's also the habitat.
Post by: AspenBud on May 14, 2013, 10:39:05 AM
I would love to know what u think about the hoof disease in the St. Helens Herd...
The St. Helens herd may well be a good place to learn some things about habitat if wolves stay out of there (which is unlikely). The herd came back with a vengeance after the mountain blew its top off and that makes sense since the blast had the affect of one giant clear cut. It will be interesting to see how they fair as the landscape continues to age and the herd grows in size. Hoof rot may well be a symptom of a bigger problem going on there.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 14, 2013, 10:41:09 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 14, 2013, 10:43:09 AM
Wolves are already in St. Helens.
That's the rumor. I haven't seen or heard any, but I know guys outside of this forum who claim to have.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 14, 2013, 10:44:14 AM
Post by: JLS on May 14, 2013, 10:50:07 AM
JLS please go hug a tree and just to let you know if i see one im shooting it... report me please :)... I would love to know what u think about the hoof disease in the St. Helens Herd... not
Not sure where you come up with the tree hugger label pal, but whatever floats your boat. I've been a proponent of liberal wolf hunting for a long time, and have repeatedly voiced my opinion that I think hunters got a raw deal when one considers how much money they've put into habitat improvements and winter range acquisitions.
I guess all of that is lost on you though.
Post by: Worldhunter on May 14, 2013, 10:58:57 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 14, 2013, 11:00:50 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 14, 2013, 11:17:29 AM
The largest single problem facing habitat improvement are the limitations that were put on logging public lands in the early 90s, in conjunction with super-effective fire fighting techniques which have been improved greatly since they started 80 years or so ago. This is a disastrous combination which again, has been created by enviro-wackos who have no skin in the game. That, and the ESA, which has been used by these people, not to protect critters, but to forward their personal environmental agendas - and our government has been all too happy to allow it. There is no balance in nature because the very people who pretend to be there to balance it only balance that which suits their interests. Allowing wolves to repopulate as a measure to allow nature's balance to happen is false. We continue to unbalance nature when we don't 1. allow fire to create habitat, or 2. allow logging to create habitat where we fight fire. Adding the wolf into a "balance" scenario that didn't exist the last time wolves were here is like adding an invasive species. Each time we do something different without increasing habitat, the balance disappears.
:yeah:
Except for the bit about balance not existing the last time wolves were here. I think people simply eradicated them back then because that's what you did with wolves. Balance, or a lack of it, played no role in that whatsoever.
It doesn't really matter. You're right about the rest and the thing a lot of people fail to understand and accept is that the landscape is entirely different today. 50 years ago there were half as many people in this country and there was a lot more open and undeveloped space. Even more 50 years before that.
Love them or hate them, wolves have to be managed through some amount of hunting at the very least. We've changed the landscape over the years too much to not allow it.
Post by: bobcat on May 14, 2013, 11:32:21 AM
The largest single problem facing habitat improvement are the limitations that were put on logging public lands in the early 90s, in conjunction with super-effective fire fighting techniques which have been improved greatly since they started 80 years or so ago. This is a disastrous combination which again, has been created by enviro-wackos who have no skin in the game.
Actually I wouldn't blame the "enviro-wackos" for the lack of fire. This is an issue that can be blamed on the general public, who have been influenced by the Smokey the Bear campaign, and still believe that forest fires are evil.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 14, 2013, 11:35:41 AM
Post by: headshot5 on May 14, 2013, 11:41:49 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 14, 2013, 11:42:31 AM
Could you imagine the hunting opportunities we would have if all the time and money spent fighting fires in the middle of nowhere were instead spent on wildlife and habitat
If we'd stop fighting those fires, we wouldn't need to dump that money into habitat.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 14, 2013, 11:46:39 AM
Not in those areas but we could use it to improve areas that we can't just allow to burn. Like maybe open areas around farms for upland hunting.Could you imagine the hunting opportunities we would have if all the time and money spent fighting fires in the middle of nowhere were instead spent on wildlife and habitat
If we'd stop fighting those fires, we wouldn't need to dump that money into habitat.
Post by: billdo5 on May 14, 2013, 02:26:10 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 14, 2013, 02:55:46 PM
Blah Blah Blah Johnny BravoWhat? :dunno:
Post by: billdo5 on May 14, 2013, 02:59:01 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 14, 2013, 03:00:16 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on May 14, 2013, 03:15:05 PM
I glad most hunters disagree with you. You must be a liberal?.
I'm no liberal. I just don't see the logic in hating an animal for being an animal.
When you can't hunt elk and deer anymore, don't complain!
Post by: JLS on May 14, 2013, 03:19:25 PM
I glad most hunters disagree with you. You must be a liberal?.
I'm no liberal. I just don't see the logic in hating an animal for being an animal.
When you can't hunt elk and deer anymore, don't complain!
So if I offered to give you my Montana deer/elk combo and told you the only caveat was you had to hunt in the western half of the state where there are wolves, would you turn it down?
Hirshey wrote up a great story on a great deer hunt that is smack in the middle of wolf central in Idaho. I guess their group didn't get the memo there were no animals left?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 14, 2013, 03:19:51 PM
http://www.nwcn.com/news?fId=207313021&fPath=%2Fnews%2Flocal&fDomain=10212 (http://www.nwcn.com/news?fId=207313021&fPath=%2Fnews%2Flocal&fDomain=10212)
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 14, 2013, 03:26:01 PM
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 14, 2013, 03:55:11 PM
According to the media and wildlife managers, everything is just fine, as long as we subsidize the ranchers to pen their cattle and feed them hay until the wolves go away and eat all of the wild ungulates. God! :bash: :bash:
http://www.nwcn.com/news?fId=207313021&fPath=%2Fnews%2Flocal&fDomain=10212 (http://www.nwcn.com/news?fId=207313021&fPath=%2Fnews%2Flocal&fDomain=10212)
I saw that news story air last night on King 5 News. They basically said the game department is HOPING the wolves follow the deer and elk into the wilderness areas away from the local ranches, homes, etc. The wolves are not going to do that, until they have too! Our game department is so messed up!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 14, 2013, 04:07:26 PM
Ungulate Herds at the Hand of Wolves
The pictures you will see in this notebook have been taken in the Lolo Zone in Idaho, Units 10 and 12, except for the first section of pictures of the 6 x 8 bull elk, which were taken 30 miles outside Libby, Montana in the Winter of 2008. None of the pictures are easy to look at; they are actually quite gruesome, quite horrible, but tell a tale of what
Source: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/maps/unitzone.cfm (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/maps/unitzone.cfm)
A Sad Tale Needing to be Told
2 | P a g e
deer and elk have endured at the hand of wolves in Idaho and Montana.
The people who took the pictures you are about to see of the slaughter in the Lolo Zone of Idaho, showed them to Idaho Fish and Game officials who refused to listen, refused to acknowledge what was obviously rapidly becoming a crisis situation with regard to the health of the Lolo Zone elk herds.
Had Idaho Fish and Game officials been traveling the Lolo Zone as these sportsman were; had they been checking on the health of the herds, as they should have been; they could not have helped but see what these sportsmen saw, they could not have helped but be as alarmed as the sportsmen were and are.
Following are the approximate number of elk in Lolo Zone, Units 10 and 12 —1994 versus 2010. These numbers tell a tale of an already declining herd on which wolves were set and allowed to prey, uncontrolled.
Zone
1994
2010
% Decline
10
9729
1473
84.9%
12
3832
705
81.6%
As you look at the following pictures, it is obvious that these elk were not hard to find, that there were many more, just like them, scattered throughout the Lolo Zone, Units 10 and 12; that these are but a representative sampling of the damage that has been done by wolves to the elk herds in this zone.
It is inconceivable, looking at these pictures, that anyone could believe that wolves only prey on the sick, the old, the injured. It is inconceivable that a political agenda could so blind people to the reality of what wolves, in uncontrolled numbers, do to ungulate herds, that they could stand by and watch this happen with no compunction to stop it.
Following are the words of Steve Nadeau, Idaho Fish and Game large predator manager. On May 22, 2008, Nadeau was given the employee of the year award for outstanding management/leadership and coordination by IDFG director Cal Groen.
"There are so many factors affecting elk populations, and wolves are only one of them, and likely not the most important one…"1
"The majority of what hunters are seeing are behavioral changes rather than
1 "Hunters get organized in an effort to control wolves; Associated Press; June 21, 2004.
A Sad Tale Needing to be Told
3 | P a g e
population changes…"2
"Despite the presence of wolves, some of the ailing elk herds in the Clearwater basin
are beginning to show modest signs of improvement…"3
"It's likely elk populations will break through that bottleneck and start to expand
again."4
"We really don't fear wolves or other predators are going to drive any populations
of big game animals to extinction…"5
"They will cause some level of predation within those populations that may or may
not affect the status of that population."6
"The department and tribe are monitoring elk and wolf populations. If it's
determined wolves are having too severe an impact on elk, he [Nadeau] says, new
rules proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service would allow some wolves to be
removed."7
Now that the Lolo Zone elk herds are at dangerously low levels, Idaho Fish and Wildlife
officials are trying to claim they've been concerned all along. The following is from an
article published in the Idaho Mountain Express on February 27, 20098:
"Since the reintroduction of wolves to Idaho in 1995, Fish and Game has expressed
concerns about declining elk numbers in the agency's Lolo elk zone—which covers
big game units 10 and 12—in the north-central part of the state. Fish and Game
blames wolves for the herds' inability to rebound."
To date, there has been no lethal control measures taken in the Lolo Zone. The
following appeared on KTVI, Boise, March 20109:
"LEWISTON, Idaho (AP) -- The director of Idaho Fish and Game says more wolves
need to be killed in the Lolo area of the Clearwater River basin to stop the decline in
elk populations.
2 Ibid.
3 "Wolves thrive in Minnesota"; Eric Barker, April 26, 2004.
4 Ibid.
5 "Anti-Wolf at the door"; Eric Barker, April 25, 2004.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005125045 (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005125045)
9 http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12096829 (http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12096829)
A Sad Tale Needing to be Told
4 | P a g e
"Cal Groen says state wildlife managers will recommend significant changes to wolf seasons in the Lolo and other zones where elk numbers are not at management levels.
"He says management tools could include increased harvest limits, multiple tags, trapping, and asking outfitters to help reduce wolf numbers.
"Groen says eight of the state's 29 elk hunting zones are below the department's population objectives.
"He says five of those have significant wolf populations, including the Lolo, Selway and Sawtooth zones.
"The hunting changes could be put in place next fall."
In the 2009/2010 wolf season, ending on March 31, 2010, the quota for the Lolo Zone was 27 wolves10; of which only 13 have been taken as of March 24, 2010. This number is insufficient to stop the decimation of the Lolo Zone ungulate herds.
What has happened to the ungulate herds in the Lolo Zone, Units 10 and 12, should never have been allowed to happen but has happened because of a political agenda that favors wolves at the expense of ungulate herds, sportsman, hunters, farmers and ranchers.
Post by: merlo105 on May 15, 2013, 12:36:57 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on May 15, 2013, 03:35:53 PM
I glad most hunters disagree with you. You must be a liberal?.
I'm no liberal. I just don't see the logic in hating an animal for being an animal.
When you can't hunt elk and deer anymore, don't complain!
So if I offered to give you my Montana deer/elk combo and told you the only caveat was you had to hunt in the western half of the state where there are wolves, would you turn it down?
Hirshey wrote up a great story on a great deer hunt that is smack in the middle of wolf central in Idaho. I guess their group didn't get the memo there were no animals left?
Which state has more animals? Which state has more people and less land too hunt? Apples to oranges comparison. Also MT has started to shoot those hairy buggers. WA will not manage the population correctly. THAT I am convinced of. It is their liberal way of reducing hunting to zero.
Post by: Smossy on May 16, 2013, 09:10:30 AM
Post by: JLS on May 16, 2013, 09:36:57 AM
A very interesting study that WY Game and Fish is working on that shows trends consistent with the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, ie. an aging cow population and low calf recruitment.
http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/ (http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/)A very interesting study that WY Game and Fish is working on that shows trends consistent with the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, ie. an aging cow population and low calf recruitment.THANKS MAN. The way I read that article it kinda proves our point.
http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/ (http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/)
I thought they were all crooked liars just pushing their own agenda, regardless of truth?
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 16, 2013, 09:41:23 AM
Post by: JLS on May 16, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
The factors that limit elk pregnancy are poorly understood in the region, so we have focused much of our attention on this issue. One potential alternative explanation for low pregnancy rates is the risk of wolf predation. A recent hypothesis for such "stress" or "fear" effects is that wolves reduce elk forage intake in winter by causing elk to be vigilant or to shift into poor-quality refuge habitats, leading to reduced body-fat levels and, ultimately, to lost pregnancies. The previous research on this question used somewhat indirect, short-term measures of elk nutrition and reproduction (e.g. from fecal pellets and urine) and broad-scale indices of wolf predation risk (e.g. wolf-elk ratios). To gain more direct insights, we tracked the simultaneous movements of elk and wolves using GPS collars, while also monitoring elk body-fat levels and reproduction through biannual recaptures and closely observing winter elk behavior.
Our results indicate that elk in the migratory subpopulation respond to wolves, but only when wolves approach within about 1 km. We see small increases in vigilance behavior, movement rates, and displacement, but no changes in elk habitat use (which is dependent mainly on the time of day). And even though migratory Clarks Fork elk experience higher wolf-elk ratios than most elk in YNP, an individual migratory elk encounters a wolf within 1 km less than once a week. Together with modest behavioral responses, this relatively low encounter rate suggests we should not expect to see large, cumulative nutritional losses due to wolves.
Along these lines, our analysis indicates that elk body-fat losses over winter are not related to the frequency of 1-km wolf encounters. Instead, the starting body-fat levels of a cow elk in autumn - that is, the amount of fat she was able to gain on summer range - is a much stronger predictor of over-winter fat loss and March body-fat levels. We also found that the frequency of wolf encounters is not related to pregnancy status. These findings cast doubt on any link between the "fear" or "stress" of wolf predation and recent changes in the distribution, productivity, and abundance of Yellowstone elk. Among the elk we study (as discussed above), it seems more likely that the severe drought of the past decade, acting on an ageing elk population, reduced elk pregnancy - and that predators, particularly bears, kill many of the newborn elk calves.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 16, 2013, 10:02:00 AM
You forgot this part. I guess I still read it differently than you. I read it that wolves are pushing elk out of fear and that there aren't any real answers as to what is causing the decline. The only thing that is agree on is that when wolves were introduced the elk population decreased. Yeah no connection there. I don't know why you are taking this so personal with me. I am not the only one who believes your beloved wolves are responsible. I get it you don't want them to take all the blame. That's cool and they very well may not be solely at blame but they are responsible for the largest portion of it. We can find conflicting articles all day long the fact remains when they came the ungulates left. That fact has never been in dispute.
Post by: JLS on May 16, 2013, 10:21:35 AM
I don't know why you call them my beloved wolves? I've never said I like wolves, nor that I am happy we have them. Ever.
However, as a hunter, I am represented by all other hunters and by their words and their actions. That I care about.
Yes, there are conflicting articles and one must sift through it with an open and objective mind. It's fairly disingenious to cherry pick the articles you think support your stance, but then when one contradicts it to say that the folks behind it are just lying to make more money.
Post by: AspenBud on May 16, 2013, 11:35:02 AM
The lack of a hunting and/or trapping season is missed opportunity. But once either starts, you can bet they'll be here to stay.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 16, 2013, 11:41:42 AM
All I know is if people want wolves in the lower 48 some hunting has to be allowed. It's in the wolf's own self interest to be a game animal like cougars. People will pay to hunt them and as time goes on the money will be too lucrative to not keep them around at some acceptable number. Outfitters will get paid to take people to them, the state will make money, sporting goods suppliers will make money selling products used to hunt and trap them, and taxidermists should make out well too.I agree. Even the wolf huggers have to know this is in their best interest. I will say that if they get a lot worse I will probably quit hunting. I don't hunt for trophies or just to hunt. I hunt for food, that's why I have no problem shooting a doe. I'm not saying trophy hunting is wrong at all. It's just not my thing. Don't get me wrong though if a doe or cow walk up with a stud in tow she's getting a pass this year. The only trophy hunt I want to go on is a big ole Canadian moose.
The lack of a hunting and/or trapping season is missed opportunity. But once either starts, you can bet they'll be here to stay.
Post by: billdo5 on May 16, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2013, 11:44:07 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 16, 2013, 05:49:17 PM
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 17, 2013, 09:18:07 PM
All I know is if people want wolves in the lower 48 some hunting has to be allowed. It's in the wolf's own self interest to be a game animal like cougars. People will pay to hunt them and as time goes on the money will be too lucrative to not keep them around at some acceptable number. Outfitters will get paid to take people to them, the state will make money, sporting goods suppliers will make money selling products used to hunt and trap them, and taxidermists should make out well too.I agree. Even the wolf huggers have to know this is in their best interest. I will say that if they get a lot worse I will probably quit hunting. I don't hunt for trophies or just to hunt. I hunt for food, that's why I have no problem shooting a doe. I'm not saying trophy hunting is wrong at all. It's just not my thing. Don't get me wrong though if a doe or cow walk up with a stud in tow she's getting a pass this year. The only trophy hunt I want to go on is a big ole Canadian moose.
The lack of a hunting and/or trapping season is missed opportunity. But once either starts, you can bet they'll be here to stay.
1) You might as well turn in your hunting license now, because it is going to get worse.
2) If you quit hunting, then you are doing exactly what the tree-hugging wolf lovers want. They don't want any animals killed. Wolves just happen to be the current story, because of their reintroduction and have made a massive comeback across the US.
3) I don't think the wolf impact has made that big of dent on our big game animals in Wa thus far. I think it will definately happen at some point, whether they are managed or not.
4) If Wa wants to host wolves, then fine; but they had better be monitoring the crap out of each GMU and the herd numbers. I would EXPECT that if they are going to force wolves upon Wa, that they had better be prepared to manage them before they get out of control.
If I see a wolf.....it is getting shot and I will keep on walking. I do everything by the book when I hunt, but when it comes to bears, wolves, or cougars; sorry! I am not showing up in the news. I am not taking my chances of being attacked with my 2 young boys. I will take my chances with the law.
Post by: 20 Minutes on May 17, 2013, 09:21:27 PM
Another wolf on a trailcam a few hundred yards from where the calf was killed.
Time to get out some elk meat, peanut butter, and DECON!!!
Post by: slim9300 on May 18, 2013, 10:01:32 AM
http://m.helenair.com/news/opinion/should-montana-expand-its-wolf-hunting-season-to-six-and/poll_feab4212-b373-11e2-b199-0019bb2963f4.html?fb_action_ids=438177249612330&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=.UZQYvTGjG3E.send&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582?mobile_touch=true (http://m.helenair.com/news/opinion/should-montana-expand-its-wolf-hunting-season-to-six-and/poll_feab4212-b373-11e2-b199-0019bb2963f4.html?fb_action_ids=438177249612330&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=.UZQYvTGjG3E.send&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582?mobile_touch=true)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 22, 2013, 10:10:14 AM
Wolf attacks lead to state of emergency in Russia's Siberia region
The governor of Russia's largest region has declared a state of emergency after a surge of wolf attacks.
Yegor Borisov, head of the Sakha Republic, a vast and sparsely populated region of eastern Siberia, has called for an urgent cull of wolves after the predators swamped populated areas in a search for food.
The local government has announced a three month "battle against wolves" to be launched on January 15.
Special task forces will be put together and the hunting season extended all year round in a bid to tackle what the local authorities have described as a "mass migration" of the creatures.
The governor has even promised a six-figure cash prize for the hunters who bring back the most skins.
The sparsely populated Sakha Republic, also known as Yakutia, has seen several dramatic confrontations between humans and the animals in recent years.
Last January a "super pack" of 400 wolves laid siege to the remote town of Verkhoyansk, forcing locals to mount patrols on snow mobiles until the government could send in extra help.
Wolves usually hunt in small groups of just six or seven, and naturalists believe only a serious failure of the usual food supply could have brought such a large pack together to tackle larger prey.
This year naturalists say a shortage of the wolves' traditional pretty – especially blue hares – has seen vast numbers of the hungry animals migrating from their mountainous hunting grounds to central parts of the republic.
While scientists agree a food shortage is at the root of the problem, it is not clear what has impacted the small mammal population. Some naturalists have pointed to cyclical fluctuations in the population of small mammals, but others have suggested unusually harsh winters could have played a role.
There are thought to be about 3,500 wolves in the Sakha Republic, which covers an area larger than Argentina. The local government says the territory can realistically support no more than 500.
While no attacks on humans have been reported recently, the influx of predators into more populated regions has had a big impact on agriculture – especially the region's traditional reindeer herders.
Wolves killed 313 horses and over 16,000 reindeer in 2012, according to the agriculture ministry.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on May 26, 2013, 02:53:45 PM
I don't hate them, I just don't want them around.... :twocents:
Post by: Smossy on May 26, 2013, 09:13:12 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9783783/Wolf-attacks-lead-to-state-of-emergency-in-Russias-Siberia-region.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9783783/Wolf-attacks-lead-to-state-of-emergency-in-Russias-Siberia-region.html)Sounds like something out of a horror movie. A plague of wolves, Overtaking entire towns and eating the townspeople.
Wolf attacks lead to state of emergency in Russia's Siberia region
The governor of Russia's largest region has declared a state of emergency after a surge of wolf attacks.
Yegor Borisov, head of the Sakha Republic, a vast and sparsely populated region of eastern Siberia, has called for an urgent cull of wolves after the predators swamped populated areas in a search for food.
The local government has announced a three month "battle against wolves" to be launched on January 15.
Special task forces will be put together and the hunting season extended all year round in a bid to tackle what the local authorities have described as a "mass migration" of the creatures.
The governor has even promised a six-figure cash prize for the hunters who bring back the most skins.
The sparsely populated Sakha Republic, also known as Yakutia, has seen several dramatic confrontations between humans and the animals in recent years.
Last January a "super pack" of 400 wolves laid siege to the remote town of Verkhoyansk, forcing locals to mount patrols on snow mobiles until the government could send in extra help.
Wolves usually hunt in small groups of just six or seven, and naturalists believe only a serious failure of the usual food supply could have brought such a large pack together to tackle larger prey.
This year naturalists say a shortage of the wolves' traditional pretty – especially blue hares – has seen vast numbers of the hungry animals migrating from their mountainous hunting grounds to central parts of the republic.
While scientists agree a food shortage is at the root of the problem, it is not clear what has impacted the small mammal population. Some naturalists have pointed to cyclical fluctuations in the population of small mammals, but others have suggested unusually harsh winters could have played a role.
There are thought to be about 3,500 wolves in the Sakha Republic, which covers an area larger than Argentina. The local government says the territory can realistically support no more than 500.
While no attacks on humans have been reported recently, the influx of predators into more populated regions has had a big impact on agriculture – especially the region's traditional reindeer herders.
Wolves killed 313 horses and over 16,000 reindeer in 2012, according to the agriculture ministry.
Post by: Kowsrule30 on May 27, 2013, 11:44:52 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2013, 11:54:35 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 27, 2013, 01:34:57 PM
That's what socialism, banning gun ownership, and unmanaged wolves get you! :twocents:
If you still have your guns, you shouldn't have too many wolves :bfg: :yike: :sry: fitkin
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 27, 2013, 05:32:51 PM
Hate them? Wolves are just being Wolves, just like Coyotes are just being Coyotes, Starlings are just being Starlings, etc.:yeah:x2
I don't hate them, I just don't want them around.... :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on May 27, 2013, 06:55:06 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 27, 2013, 08:57:55 PM
That's what socialism, banning gun ownership, and unmanaged wolves get you! :twocents:Made me think of a picture I saw today....
Post by: dreamingbig on August 15, 2013, 05:30:01 AM
Post by: KB88 on August 15, 2013, 09:00:16 AM