Post by: wolfbait on September 21, 2013, 09:43:20 AM
Land that has always supported deer through the summer is now void of deer. I talk to a guy a few days ago who has owned 200 acres up the Twisp river for 52 years he said this year is the first year that there are zero deer on his land.
From another land owner in the Methow Valley:
These are 5 of the 11 Twisp town bucks hanging together all summer . They come through my yard about once a week of which I adjoin the town. I have not seen a single doe all summer on my 980 acres, only this group of bucks living in town. This is also the first year since 1990 I have not had any bear come onto the place and clean off the choke cherries and apples. It was only 6 yrs ago I had as many as 60 does eating out of my alfalfa field all at the same time. Now I have none. I do have two trail cameras set on some game trails. I did get one buck picture a couple coyote pictures and several wolf pictures. I do believe something has severely affected the deer population.
Had some trouble posting picture, the link below shows bucks
http://s22.postimg.org/42a31s3ch/Town_Bucks.jpg (http://s22.postimg.org/42a31s3ch/Town_Bucks.jpg)]
Post by: buckfvr on September 21, 2013, 09:46:50 AM
Post by: Birdguy on September 25, 2013, 07:38:45 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2013, 08:49:52 AM
Just really sad...
And just think Birdguy there are a few of us who have had a front row seat, we watch as WDFW's wolves decimate the deer herds and WDFW run to the local news paper claiming just the opposite. It has been heartbreaking for some, for others there is a cold resolve.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 26, 2013, 10:55:49 AM
For several years now the Methow Valley has had deer living in towns, something that never occurred before wolves were released.Wolves were not released.
http://s22.postimg.org/42a31s3ch/Town_Bucks.jpg (http://s22.postimg.org/42a31s3ch/Town_Bucks.jpg)]
Post by: et1702 on September 26, 2013, 11:16:59 AM
While we were out hunting, one guy had six wolves come under his tree stand; two adults (one of them collared) and four juvenile wolves.
Damn things are expanding everywhere!
ET
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2013, 11:25:13 AM
:yeah: No wolves have been released in Washington State. They have migrated from other areas (including Idaho) where wolves were released.For several years now the Methow Valley has had deer living in towns, something that never occurred before wolves were released.Wolves were not released.
http://s22.postimg.org/42a31s3ch/Town_Bucks.jpg (http://s22.postimg.org/42a31s3ch/Town_Bucks.jpg)]
Post by: AspenBud on September 26, 2013, 12:03:46 PM
For several years now the Methow Valley has had deer living in towns, something that never occurred before wolves were released.
This is a fascinating statement. Mostly because I've seen deer live in and around west side towns for decades. Heck, Longview even has elk wandering through their country club occasionally.
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 12:30:16 PM
:yeah: No wolves have been released in Washington State. They have migrated from other areas (including Idaho) where wolves were released.For several years now the Methow Valley has had deer living in towns, something that never occurred before wolves were released.Wolves were not released.
http://s22.postimg.org/42a31s3ch/Town_Bucks.jpg (http://s22.postimg.org/42a31s3ch/Town_Bucks.jpg)]
false
There have been plenty released in WA - no one can prove (or disprove) if WDFW had a hand in it or not but "locals" have released wolfs.
WDFW at the minimum turned a blind eye or at least failed to investigate it, in my mind that makes them derelict or even culpable.
Since it's illegal to have true "wolf" they label them hybrid wolf dogs - same thing they run and kill stuff in packs.
15-20 years ago you could hear these things howling from their pens hidden up in the mountains, then they'd be turned loose and promptly gunned down by neighbors but they didn't get them all.
Most of our current population is migrated, but honestly I haven't pushed this or argued much about it because WHO CARES how they got here, in the words of Hillary "what does it matter now?"
Post by: buckfvr on September 26, 2013, 12:55:50 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2013, 01:11:09 PM
But I am tired of all of these garbage conspiracies because it undermines the credibility of sportsmen who want to work to minimize effects of wolves on ungulate populations.
Let me get this straight though, you are alleging with no real proof that groups of people raised and released wolves in the mountains of washington? but the locals shot most of them as soon as they were released? and maybe wdfw supported this or at least knew about it and did nothing? And this unidentified group got away with it by calling them hybrids? This kind of stupid bull s#!& is not helpful in addressing wolf problems. Have a few pets gone stray and killed deer or other game? Yes. Was there some grand wolf raising/release conspiracy...give me a break.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2013, 01:16:41 PM
Correct, regardless of how they got here wolves are here and they aren't going away any time soon.
But I am tired of all of these garbage conspiracies because it undermines the credibility of sportsmen who want to work to minimize effects of wolves on ungulate populations.
Let me get this straight though, you are alleging with no real proof that groups of people raised and released wolves in the mountains of washington? but the locals shot most of them as soon as they were released? and maybe wdfw supported this or at least knew about it and did nothing? And this unidentified group got away with it by calling them hybrids? This kind of stupid bull s#!& is not helpful in addressing wolf problems. Have a few pets gone stray and killed deer or other game? Yes. Was there some grand wolf raising/release conspiracy...give me a break.
:yeah: Just makes those of us who oppose the wolf plan sound nuts. My :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 26, 2013, 02:03:36 PM
Correct, regardless of how they got here wolves are here and they aren't going away any time soon.
But I am tired of all of these garbage conspiracies because it undermines the credibility of sportsmen who want to work to minimize effects of wolves on ungulate populations.
Let me get this straight though, you are alleging with no real proof that groups of people raised and released wolves in the mountains of washington? but the locals shot most of them as soon as they were released? and maybe wdfw supported this or at least knew about it and did nothing? And this unidentified group got away with it by calling them hybrids? This kind of stupid bull s#!& is not helpful in addressing wolf problems. Have a few pets gone stray and killed deer or other game? Yes. Was there some grand wolf raising/release conspiracy...give me a break.
LOL... yep.
Post by: AspenBud on September 26, 2013, 02:20:10 PM
Correct, regardless of how they got here wolves are here and they aren't going away any time soon.
But I am tired of all of these garbage conspiracies because it undermines the credibility of sportsmen who want to work to minimize effects of wolves on ungulate populations.
Let me get this straight though, you are alleging with no real proof that groups of people raised and released wolves in the mountains of washington? but the locals shot most of them as soon as they were released? and maybe wdfw supported this or at least knew about it and did nothing? And this unidentified group got away with it by calling them hybrids? This kind of stupid bull s#!& is not helpful in addressing wolf problems. Have a few pets gone stray and killed deer or other game? Yes. Was there some grand wolf raising/release conspiracy...give me a break.
:yeah: Just makes those of us who oppose the wolf plan sound nuts. My :twocents:
:yeah:
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/calling-bs-on-a-wolf-story/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/calling-bs-on-a-wolf-story/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2013, 02:34:43 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2013, 06:36:26 PM
And really? It doesn't matter. They're here and they're ruining our state's resources. If the wolf lovers say they weren't planted, agree. It doesn't matter. Go on from there.
I agree, the truth is going to come out in the end as it always does.
Now what do we do about an out of control wolf population in WA? WDFW refuse to confirm known wolf packs, they refuse to confirm wolf killed livestock and they refuse to acknowledge the impact wolves are having on the game herds.
WDFW are following the USFWS Illegal Wolf Introduction Rules
Existence of Many Wolves Ignored
Bangs also explained that it was too difficult to locate individual wolves or small groups of wolves that were not packs and emphasized that the existence of these wolves was not important to recovery. Once the transplanted wolves began pairing and successfully raising young, the Nez Perce and FWS recovery teams declined to investigate sightings of individual wolves or groups of wolves unless they involved livestock killing.
But even then, if the livestock was moved to a different location and/or the wolf predation stopped, any investigation abruptly ceased. In some parts of Idaho where wolf populations are excessive, including the county we live in, local citizens report frustration over the Wolf Teams’ refusal to investigate reports of apparent pack activity unless there is evidence of at least two pups.
The excuse used by the FWS/NezPerce Team for its failure to investigate such activity is that it is too expensive but it also is not interested in recording wolves unless they meet the confirmed wolf criteria agreed upon by Bangs, Ted Koch and Steve Fritts in 1994. The exception is the need to radio-collar one or more wolves to facilitate removal of one or more members of a pack that continues to kill livestock. http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 07:06:20 PM
Correct, regardless of how they got here wolves are here and they aren't going away any time soon.
But I am tired of all of these garbage conspiracies because it undermines the credibility of sportsmen who want to work to minimize effects of wolves on ungulate populations.
Let me get this straight though, you are alleging with no real proof that groups of people raised and released wolves in the mountains of washington? but the locals shot most of them as soon as they were released? and maybe wdfw supported this or at least knew about it and did nothing? And this unidentified group got away with it by calling them hybrids? This kind of stupid bull s#!& is not helpful in addressing wolf problems. Have a few pets gone stray and killed deer or other game? Yes. Was there some grand wolf raising/release conspiracy...give me a break.
I could walk you right to the old kennels, wear your bullet proof vest though because it's buried deep in no mans land behind locked gates.
Last time I was in there I had a gun pointed at me.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2013, 07:33:01 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on September 26, 2013, 07:33:30 PM
I could walk you right to the old kennels, wear your bullet proof vest though because it's buried deep in no mans land behind locked gates.
Last time I was in there I had a gun pointed at me.
Behind locked gates? So you were trespassing?
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 07:44:12 PM
I just don't think all of the rhetoric really helps our cause is my main point. The liberal politicians in washington make it difficult for WDFW to manage wolves like most of us would prefer...but WDFW is not the enemy. The eco-groups and their complaining to liberal legislators and governor are what is preventing more desirable wolf management. If folks want to turn up the heat...focus it on all the deception and lies from groups like Defenders of Wildlife...write and call the wolf loving legislators and governor and governor appointed commissioners and tell them how unhappy you are with wolf management and that you vote! That will be more effective than accusing wdfw of various conspiracies and getting other hunters spun up on such stories.
agree'd - as I stated in my previous post but you took exception to it anyways, akin to calling me a liar.
sitka now your just irritating me
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2013, 08:26:24 PM
I just don't think all of the rhetoric really helps our cause is my main point. The liberal politicians in washington make it difficult for WDFW to manage wolves like most of us would prefer...but WDFW is not the enemy. The eco-groups and their complaining to liberal legislators and governor are what is preventing more desirable wolf management. If folks want to turn up the heat...focus it on all the deception and lies from groups like Defenders of Wildlife...write and call the wolf loving legislators and governor and governor appointed commissioners and tell them how unhappy you are with wolf management and that you vote! That will be more effective than accusing wdfw of various conspiracies and getting other hunters spun up on such stories."WDFW is not the enemy"
Really? What part of WDFW do you work for? Do you know how many wolf packs WDFW confirmed before the wolves started killing cows? Do you believe there is one wolf pack in the Methow Valley as WDFW would have you believe? WDFW are just another finger of the USFWS, run by environmentalists. Do your home work!
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 08:45:46 PM
I just don't think all of the rhetoric really helps our cause is my main point. The liberal politicians in washington make it difficult for WDFW to manage wolves like most of us would prefer...but WDFW is not the enemy. The eco-groups and their complaining to liberal legislators and governor are what is preventing more desirable wolf management. If folks want to turn up the heat...focus it on all the deception and lies from groups like Defenders of Wildlife...write and call the wolf loving legislators and governor and governor appointed commissioners and tell them how unhappy you are with wolf management and that you vote! That will be more effective than accusing wdfw of various conspiracies and getting other hunters spun up on such stories."WDFW is not the enemy"
Really? What part of WDFW do you work for? Do you know how many wolf packs WDFW confirmed before the wolves started killing cows? Do you believe there is one wolf pack in the Methow Valley as WDFW would have you believe? WDFW are just another finger of the USFWS, run by environmentalists. Do your home work!
"WDFW is not the enemy" ROFL
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com%2Fdailyrecordnews.com%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2F1%2Fc2%2F1c28ce10-8010-11e1-af9a-0019bb2963f4%2F4f7f2b67c8426.image.jpg&hash=4e62a657967982537b2d612d7934e9d90f81418f)
Shana Winegeart, the L.T. Murray Wildlife Area manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife
NOPE - no wolf hugger here :rolleyes:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 26, 2013, 08:59:29 PM
I could walk you right to the old kennels, wear your bullet proof vest though because it's buried deep in no mans land behind locked gates.
Last time I was in there I had a gun pointed at me.
Behind locked gates? So you were trespassing?
Behind locked gates doesn't mean you're trespassing as confirmed by all the righteous hunters on this site. :tup:
Post by: wadu1 on September 26, 2013, 09:04:28 PM
I just don't think all of the rhetoric really helps our cause is my main point. The liberal politicians in washington make it difficult for WDFW to manage wolves like most of us would prefer...but WDFW is not the enemy. The eco-groups and their complaining to liberal legislators and governor are what is preventing more desirable wolf management. If folks want to turn up the heat...focus it on all the deception and lies from groups like Defenders of Wildlife...write and call the wolf loving legislators and governor and governor appointed commissioners and tell them how unhappy you are with wolf management and that you vote! That will be more effective than accusing wdfw of various conspiracies and getting other hunters spun up on such stories."WDFW is not the enemy"
Really? What part of WDFW do you work for? Do you know how many wolf packs WDFW confirmed before the wolves started killing cows? Do you believe there is one wolf pack in the Methow Valley as WDFW would have you believe? WDFW are just another finger of the USFWS, run by environmentalists. Do your home work!
"WDFW is not the enemy" ROFL
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com%2Fdailyrecordnews.com%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2F1%2Fc2%2F1c28ce10-8010-11e1-af9a-0019bb2963f4%2F4f7f2b67c8426.image.jpg&hash=4e62a657967982537b2d612d7934e9d90f81418f)
Shana Winegeart, the L.T. Murray Wildlife Area manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife
I don't think it's the WDFW at the management level it's at the senior management level bring forced by liberals at the capitol. :twocents:
NOPE - no wolf hugger here :rolleyes:
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 09:11:59 PM
No it doesn't prove she's a wolf hugger, but you'd have a hard time convincing me otherwise.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2013, 10:13:07 PM
I just don't think all of the rhetoric really helps our cause is my main point. The liberal politicians in washington make it difficult for WDFW to manage wolves like most of us would prefer...but WDFW is not the enemy. The eco-groups and their complaining to liberal legislators and governor are what is preventing more desirable wolf management. If folks want to turn up the heat...focus it on all the deception and lies from groups like Defenders of Wildlife...write and call the wolf loving legislators and governor and governor appointed commissioners and tell them how unhappy you are with wolf management and that you vote! That will be more effective than accusing wdfw of various conspiracies and getting other hunters spun up on such stories."WDFW is not the enemy"
Really? What part of WDFW do you work for? Do you know how many wolf packs WDFW confirmed before the wolves started killing cows? Do you believe there is one wolf pack in the Methow Valley as WDFW would have you believe? WDFW are just another finger of the USFWS, run by environmentalists. Do your home work!
Darn, you caught me. I am actually the director. There are 97 wolf packs in the Methow Valley and I have to go report to the USFWS now so we can hear from Green Peace on how many wolves they want me to release from the secret kennels in the mountains behind locked gates where we raise hundreds of wolves secretly imported under the guise of being hybrid dogs. :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 10:30:05 PM
I just don't think all of the rhetoric really helps our cause is my main point. The liberal politicians in washington make it difficult for WDFW to manage wolves like most of us would prefer...but WDFW is not the enemy. The eco-groups and their complaining to liberal legislators and governor are what is preventing more desirable wolf management. If folks want to turn up the heat...focus it on all the deception and lies from groups like Defenders of Wildlife...write and call the wolf loving legislators and governor and governor appointed commissioners and tell them how unhappy you are with wolf management and that you vote! That will be more effective than accusing wdfw of various conspiracies and getting other hunters spun up on such stories."WDFW is not the enemy"
Really? What part of WDFW do you work for? Do you know how many wolf packs WDFW confirmed before the wolves started killing cows? Do you believe there is one wolf pack in the Methow Valley as WDFW would have you believe? WDFW are just another finger of the USFWS, run by environmentalists. Do your home work!
Darn, you caught me. I am actually the director. There are 97 wolf packs in the Methow Valley and I have to go report to the USFWS now so we can hear from Green Peace on how many wolves they want me to release from the secret kennels in the mountains behind locked gates where we raise hundreds of wolves secretly imported under the guise of being hybrid dogs. :bash:
jackazzedness doesn't help anything :bash:
so hard to believe a bunch of hippies could aquire some wolves, breed em and turm em loose :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 10:32:58 PM
In case you didn't know about the red wolves they were introduced in the Carolina's.
:stup:
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 10:36:31 PM
Feds Now Proposing To Turn
Wolves Loose In The Northeast
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 10:37:06 PM
Feds Plan To Turn More Wolves
Loose In New Mexico, Arizona
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2013, 10:44:33 PM
Melanie and her mom, the founder of the local wolf rescue organization, WHAR, have been working with Nishka for three years. She was rescued along with her mom from Washington State. The Paso Robles compound is a place where wolves and hybrids come to learn how to live with people. Some are re-adopted while others stay there for life.
Post by: KFhunter on October 04, 2013, 11:23:46 PM
:mor:
I just went back through this thread and read the hit piece on wolfbait - pathetic diatribe, garbage of an article that does the exact thing it professes to be against...drive a wedge between sportsmen and women.
That crap should have never seen the light of day much less be seen on northwest sportsmen :bash:
Post by: mulehunter on October 04, 2013, 11:29:54 PM
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 12:19:52 AM
I also saw elk. I don't know what they were doing, they must not have gotten the memo that all the elk in Montana were dead.
I also saw a Schwann's truck on the Interstate. Maybe he was bringing more wolves to Washington?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 05, 2013, 05:14:09 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 09:40:03 AM
I drove through Montana today. I was scared to get out of my truck and go into Sportsman's Warehouse, as I didn't have a firearm with me and I felt it was highly probable I would be attacked by wolves.
I also saw elk. I don't know what they were doing, they must not have gotten the memo that all the elk in Montana were dead.
I also saw a Schwann's truck on the Interstate. Maybe he was bringing more wolves to Washington?
Go ahead make light of it, I shouldn't have gotten irritated :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 09:42:09 AM
Lets just all do this ...lets all start raising some Hybrids and turn about 1000 loose ... then when they over take the country , the dumb arzes calling all the shots will have to declare on anything coming close to looking like a wolf .....a wolf is an over grown coyote to me :hunter: :hunter: :hunter: :mor:
You can still buy wolf "hybrids" evidently with 98% wolf DNA
I'm sure that 2% other than wolf will be all the difference :tup:
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 09:44:19 AM
I drove through Montana today. I was scared to get out of my truck and go into Sportsman's Warehouse, as I didn't have a firearm with me and I felt it was highly probable I would be attacked by wolves.
I also saw elk. I don't know what they were doing, they must not have gotten the memo that all the elk in Montana were dead.
I also saw a Schwann's truck on the Interstate. Maybe he was bringing more wolves to Washington?
Go ahead make light of it, I shouldn't have gotten irritated :chuckle:
It is the interweb after all where you don't have to face someone face to face to call them a liar.
but hey, you don't know me - no reason for you to think my word is gold. I can understand if a city boy can't believe in some backwoods story.
I'm not calling you a liar? And, if I needed to call someone as such I would gladly do it in person as opposed to a keybody.
Also, your city boy assumption might be a little off :)
Post by: predatorpro on October 05, 2013, 09:47:42 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 09:49:45 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 09:58:15 AM
Writing a trash piece against a fellow hunter in print isn't helping a dang thing, we're all adults here if you don't like wolfbaits method don't click the links - your mind is pretty well made up anyways.
Telling me I didn't see a kennel full of wolves 20 years ago in the mountains isn't helping either, asking me if I was trespassing to see these wolves :dunno: wtheck?
All it does is pizz people off and you loose their support. Am I going to follow Andy Wolgomont or idahohntr if I'm pizzed at them? If I ran into them at a wolf meeting we'd have to talk about being a d-bag to their fellow hunters and alienating them. How is that furthering the cause? How does that help get them delisted?
Are we not all on the same team?
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 10:16:04 AM
How does it further our cause to continue with the same old propoganda, regardless of it's truth and accuracy (or lack thereof)?
You're right, my mind is made up. I think WDFWs plan was too oriented towards addressing WA wolves as a stand alone population. I think we should have been hunting wolves in 2009 on a general tag. I think we should be worrying more about creating better and more habitat for our ungulates. I think the cries that wolves will become extinct is nonsense. I think John Tester and Mike Simpson did a hell of a job on the delisting process.
Continued spreading of rumors and mistruths sure won't help get them delisted.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 05, 2013, 10:22:38 AM
I just had to laugh at the poster in the background.:yeah:They've been infiltrating the DFW,USFWS,USFS, for MANY years
No it doesn't prove she's a wolf hugger, but you'd have a hard time convincing me otherwise.
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 10:27:00 AM
Well, I can pretty well guarantee you that I am not going to follow or cast my lot with someone that I think is on the wacko fringe (i.e. Wolfbait, Toby Bridges). I choose to make my arguments based on facts, logic, and reason. Thus far I have seen neither.
How does it further our cause to continue with the same old propoganda, regardless of it's truth and accuracy (or lack thereof).
You're right, my mind is made up. I think WDFWs plan was too oriented towards addressing WA wolves as a standl alone population. I think we should have been hunting wolves in 2009 on a general tag. I think we should be worrying more about creating better and more habitat for our ungulates. I think the cries that wolves will become extinct is nonsense. I think John Tester and Mike Simpson did a hell of a job on the delisting process.
Continued spreading of rumors and mistruths sure won't help get them delisted.
I guess I'm wacko fringe then for seeing them in a kennel and friends of mine telling me they all got turned loose.
Then shortly later all the complaints of them running deer and calls to shoot them on sight.
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 10:29:25 AM
If there have been wolves in the Okanogan for 20 years now, shouldn't the ungulates all be extinct?
Post by: wolfbait on October 05, 2013, 10:40:18 AM
Everything I said would happen three years ago has happened, and yet the same pro-wolf propaganda is being spread, by the same people.
The lies of pro-wolf people three years ago are some of the same lies today, except most of them have been proven to be lies. I didn't prove them liars, the wolves did.
These days if you want to separate pro-wolfers from hunters etc. mention the fact that the USFWS along with WDFW have been releasing wolves in WA for several years now.
The argument that deer, elk, moose etc. need more habitat now is just more propaganda that supports WDFW, USFWS, etc buying up private land. With more predators and less game, there is more "habitat".
Post by: JLS on October 05, 2013, 10:46:44 AM
The lies of pro-wolf people three years ago are some of the same lies today, except most of them have been proven to be lies.
These days if you want to separate pro-wolfers from hunters etc. mention the fact that the USFWS along with WDFW have been releasing wolves in WA for several years now.
The argument that deer, elk, moose etc. need more habitat now is just more propaganda that supports WDFW, USFWS, etc buying up private land. With more predators and less game, there is more "habitat".
So if a lie is proven to be a lie, is that then a double negative and the lie proven to be a lie is now a truth?
I'm glad you can fit everyone into the two boxes of either a hunter or a pro wolfer. I guess since I don't believe wolves have been being released for several years that I am not a hunter.
I'm sure it's all a conspiracy to simply buy more land.
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 11:15:06 AM
I've got more, I won't share those I learn fast.
Like I said before it doesn't matter how they got here, we just need to move forward from here.
baby steps
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 05, 2013, 11:17:56 AM
Well bickering isn't helping anything, wish I hadn't shared my story now.
I've got more, I won't share those I learn fast.
Like I said before it doesn't matter how they got here, we just need to move forward from here.
baby steps
Seems your learning Grasshopper. :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 11:20:00 AM
Well bickering isn't helping anything, wish I hadn't shared my story now.
I've got more, I won't share those I learn fast.
Like I said before it doesn't matter how they got here, we just need to move forward from here.
baby steps
Seems your learning Grasshopper. :chuckle:
ya, I need to just get the hell off H-W
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 05, 2013, 11:33:48 AM
Well bickering isn't helping anything, wish I hadn't shared my story now.
I've got more, I won't share those I learn fast.
Like I said before it doesn't matter how they got here, we just need to move forward from here.
baby steps
Seems your learning Grasshopper. :chuckle:
ya, I need to just get the hell off H-W
:chuckle:
No it's like trying to teach music to a student who has no interest in Music!!
It wastes your time and just annoys the student.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 05, 2013, 12:53:23 PM
Where is your voice now idahohuntr? choking on crow?
:mor:
No, I am not choking on crow actually. I am choosing not to continue arguing with clueless idiots.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 05, 2013, 12:55:44 PM
We get people on here that have read some B.S. propaganda about wolves and believe it 100%, when they actually don't have a clue.
Post by: woodman on October 05, 2013, 01:00:21 PM
I think a poll should be started to ask who has actually seen a wolf in the wild on the eastside of the Cascades, not tracks or scat.
We get people on here that have read some B.S. propaganda about wolves and believe it 100%, when they actually don't have a clue.
I have, then I shot it.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 05, 2013, 01:04:39 PM
I think a poll should be started to ask who has actually seen a wolf in the wild on the eastside of the Cascades, not tracks or scat.
We get people on here that have read some B.S. propaganda about wolves and believe it 100%, when they actually don't have a clue.
I have, then I shot it.
Good man !!
Post by: mrolen on October 05, 2013, 01:43:57 PM
Post by: mountainman on October 05, 2013, 08:18:04 PM
yes, there were hybrids raised in the methow thru the 70's and 80's. were they released?? Cant confirm. watched six chasing a whitetail in the early 80"s in the riverbottom by Goudy grade. they went swimming as they crossed the Methow to get away.....actually, this was my post, not Mrolen. Darn
community work computers
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 08:52:29 PM
Where is your voice now idahohuntr? choking on crow?
:mor:
No, I am not choking on crow actually. I am choosing not to continue arguing with clueless idiots.
Well that may be, I've been called worse by better people I suppose.
I've read most of your stuff on wolves and agree with some of it, a lot of it really. We do need cohesion, we need to work together and we need to stop bickering and fighting. You even comment on this very thing but fail to pratice what you preach when you go right into attack mode on wolfbait and others like him whom you deem "wacko" see www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocriteCachedSimilara person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs
Me not really knowing all this or your personal fight in the wolf debate, told a story of personal experience and you jumped all up in my grill so to speak. All you've manage to do is alienate folks like myself who've seen or heard things over the years - in my case witnessed things, a person who is for all things on your team. I myself support state managed wolf hunting and other control methods. I know they are here to stay and accept that, I've never called for complete annihilation.
Heck I want to hunt them!
Wolfbait has accused you of being a WDFW insider, a defender of wildlife worker and who knows what other things and I can see why, but I say you're far worse than that.
I would much rather you be a defenders of wildlife spokesperson because I know how to fight those people and I know where they come from; but your something else entirely.
You see there isn't much worse than a person on your own team who won't listen to his teamates, who creates dischord and who fractures the team.
The most damage always comes from within, well inside your own protective walls.
Post by: bigmacc on October 05, 2013, 10:14:07 PM
I think a poll should be started to ask who has actually seen a wolf in the wild on the eastside of the Cascades, not tracks or scat.
We get people on here that have read some B.S. propaganda about wolves and believe it 100%, when they actually don't have a clue.
seen one in 1991...ramsey creek, about half way to the end of the road..it was thanksgiving weekend and my dad,myself and one of our huntin pards drove up ramsey in about a foot of snow. got stuck when we were pushin snow with the front bumper..had our cameras and a video camera..my buddy and me got out and started digging. out of the corner of my eye about 15 ft up the embankment some movement caught my eye. it was moving paralel to us thru the trees. hung a left a came down the embankment onto the road and stood there squared off, looking at us from about 50 ft. i grabbed the video camera and started recording. you can here us whistling at it and all of us saying how big this YOTE was! i have a 110 pound lab and i can tell you this "yote" looked twice the size!. you can here the comments on the video of how "BIG" this yote was! I have about 3 minutes of video of him(or her :dunno:)that thing stood in the road staring us down and eventually walked to the side of the road and dropped over the side.
Post by: mountainman on October 05, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 05, 2013, 10:57:29 PM
You see there isn't much worse than a person on your own team who won't listen to his teamates, who creates dischord and who fractures the team.
The most damage always comes from within, well inside your own protective walls.
Just because we're all hunters doesn't make us teammates. People who promote breaking the law (SSS for starters), or bring negative attention to hunters by name calling and disrespecting non hunters with differing views, or trying to cyber-bully other hunters for having a different view on issues are not my teammates. You didn't draft me and I didn't volunteer. There are a lot worse things a hunter can do to the hunting community than asking other hunters to quit the hyperbole and exaggeration and work within the system to get things done.
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 11:05:45 PM
It's not like I printed up a bunch of shirts.
Fact is, if you support wolf hunting and management, them I'm in your side. That's all I was trying to get across.
If you want to get things done in the system you need numbers, alienating other hunters doesn't swell the ranks.
Post by: KFhunter on October 05, 2013, 11:19:29 PM
I just don't think all of the rhetoric really helps our cause is my main point. The liberal politicians in washington make it difficult for WDFW to manage wolves like most of us would prefer...but WDFW is not the enemy. The eco-groups and their complaining to liberal legislators and governor are what is preventing more desirable wolf management. If folks want to turn up the heat...focus it on all the deception and lies from groups like Defenders of Wildlife...write and call the wolf loving legislators and governor and governor appointed commissioners and tell them how unhappy you are with wolf management and that you vote! That will be more effective than accusing wdfw of various conspiracies and getting other hunters spun up on such stories."WDFW is not the enemy"
Really? What part of WDFW do you work for? Do you know how many wolf packs WDFW confirmed before the wolves started killing cows? Do you believe there is one wolf pack in the Methow Valley as WDFW would have you believe? WDFW are just another finger of the USFWS, run by environmentalists. Do your home work!
Darn, you caught me. I am actually the director. There are 97 wolf packs in the Methow Valley and I have to go report to the USFWS now so we can hear from Green Peace on how many wolves they want me to release from the secret kennels in the mountains behind locked gates where we raise hundreds of wolves secretly imported under the guise of being hybrid dogs. :bash:
How the these hybrids get in the nooksack?
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=79244.0;attach=201977;image)
After a lengthy conversation with a biologist about wolves in the Nooksack a member here sent me these 2 pics taken in the Nooksack... Biologist says they are "hybrids"....
Post by: bigmacc on October 06, 2013, 12:00:23 AM
that year we seen very few deer tracks also,the snow had been on the ground awhile and hardley any deer sign..
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 06, 2013, 12:07:09 AM
Hey if a little team building bromance is too much for you call it something else :chuckle:
It's not like I printed up a bunch of shirts.
Fact is, if you support wolf hunting and management, them I'm in your side. That's all I was trying to get across.
If you want to get things done in the system you need numbers, alienating other hunters doesn't swell the ranks.
I have no problem with wolf hunting or management. But if you're idea of management is to make all wolves disappear, you're banging your head on a brick wall, cuz it isn't going to happen.
And if you want to get things done you need more than other hunters on your side, you need non hunters on your side too, because they far outnumber hunters. What Idahohuntr was trying to say is, it doesn't help gain non hunter support by being unreasonable or radical. There's a reason non hunters as a whole don't like PETA and see them as a joke at best. PETA takes radical and unreasonable stances and it turns people off. Many in the hunting community do the same thing. Anyone who does that is not on my side.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2013, 09:23:16 AM
Hey if a little team building bromance is too much for you call it something else :chuckle:
It's not like I printed up a bunch of shirts.
Fact is, if you support wolf hunting and management, them I'm in your side. That's all I was trying to get across.
If you want to get things done in the system you need numbers, alienating other hunters doesn't swell the ranks.
I have no problem with wolf hunting or management. But if you're idea of management is to make all wolves disappear, you're banging your head on a brick wall, cuz it isn't going to happen.
And if you want to get things done you need more than other hunters on your side, you need non hunters on your side too, because they far outnumber hunters. What Idahohuntr was trying to say is, it doesn't help gain non hunter support by being unreasonable or radical. There's a reason non hunters as a whole don't like PETA and see them as a joke at best. PETA takes radical and unreasonable stances and it turns people off. Many in the hunting community do the same thing. Anyone who does that is not on my side.
I wrote this a couple posts up
I myself support state managed wolf hunting and other control methods. I know they are here to stay and accept that, I've never called for complete annihilation.
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2013, 10:17:58 AM
Had the elk disappear from my trail cameras twice this year. Once for 2.5 weeks this summer, and again starting two days before the archery elk season. Hunted Rim Rock unit for years and never had this happen previously. FYI, one of my cameras had over 1300 pics of elk in week before season opener, and then two days before season started it went completely blank for entire season. Even after the heavy rainstorm we had up there, no elk tracks what so ever!
While we were out hunting, one guy had six wolves come under his tree stand; two adults (one of them collared) and four juvenile wolves.
Damn things are expanding everywhere!
ET
I know a guy that was involved in one of the big studies about wolves and cougars. He told me there is documented proof that when wolves move into a drainage everything, even cougar start moving out of the drainage.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2013, 01:26:22 PM
That's why we have hunters saying "omg!! the wolves killed everything!! there used to be deer/elk all over this area last year"
then another hunter who's seeing plenty of game in the same GMU and thinks "hmmm I don't what all this wolf hysteria is about, I see plenty of deer/elk"
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 06, 2013, 01:37:38 PM
Had the elk disappear from my trail cameras twice this year. Once for 2.5 weeks this summer, and again starting two days before the archery elk season. Hunted Rim Rock unit for years and never had this happen previously. FYI, one of my cameras had over 1300 pics of elk in week before season opener, and then two days before season started it went completely blank for entire season. Even after the heavy rainstorm we had up there, no elk tracks what so ever!
While we were out hunting, one guy had six wolves come under his tree stand; two adults (one of them collared) and four juvenile wolves.
Damn things are expanding everywhere!
ET
I know a guy that was involved in one of the big studies about wolves and cougars. He told me there is documented proof that when wolves move into a drainage everything, even cougar start moving out of the drainage.
So the just of that is, the animals are still there, not gone. They just moved or changed their habits to avoid the wolves.
Hunters need to adjust their game plan accordingly. I used to see this all the time in Alaska. The predators can only be in so many places at one time. Figure out where the prey animals have moved to and there you go.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2013, 01:47:25 PM
No time to stop and browse, they are harassed almost 24/7. The Elk weaken and the wolves feed, bump and run over and over.
If you want to see the true story get out there in the winter, in the Elk ranges when the snows are belly deep.
Herd sizes are taking a big hit, but if your the lucky hunter who happens to be in the drainage the Elk ran into to avoid the wolves a drainage or two over you won't notice unless you hung in there long enough to see the wolves come in and your drainage then vacate.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 06, 2013, 02:04:11 PM
-And funny how when Europeans first came to America the game herds were just fine even with all the predators. Humans are the only predator that has reduced game animals to a level where hunting had to be restricted. The reason we even started having game laws was to bring herds back from devastation caused by hunting AFTER most large predators were removed from the lower 48.
Now if you want to look at the natural order of thing, herds of prey animals moving to avoid predators is one of nature's ways of preventing herbivores from staying in one area and and causing damage to their habitat. It also helps prevent animals from congregating too much and spreading disease. Think brucelosis, blue tongue, chronic wasting disease and others.
Post by: JLS on October 06, 2013, 02:20:15 PM
You're forgetting, those were the kinder and more peaceful wolves that lived in harmony with everything.
Post by: JLS on October 06, 2013, 02:34:34 PM
Predators have had a negative impact on recruitment and populations.
Winterkill several years ago had a very big detrimental impact on recruitement and populations.
Numbers of both deer and elk are steadily improving.
Calf and fawn recruitment is steadily improving.
The quality of hunting is still very good.
Outfitter clients are regularly seeing elk.
Elk and Deer harvest numbers have stayed relatively steady and are not showing and significant downward trends.
Hunter participation has dropped.
Wolf numbers have decreased.
The perceived number of wolves is much greater than the actual number of wolves.
People that still get out and hunt hard and hunt smart kill very good animals.
People who were bad hunters before wolves are likely still bad hunters now, except now they blame wolves instead of weather, other hunters, bears, lions, Native Americans, the moon, the sun, etc.
Toby Bridges is a complete hack.
This is worth whatever you paid for it.....
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 06, 2013, 03:15:46 PM
Sitka,+
You're forgetting, those were the kinder and more peaceful wolves that lived in harmony with everything.
Yup today's wolves are a super vicious lot created by greenie scientists to ruin hunting for us blood thirsty hunters. And they can only be killed with a silver bullet.
Post by: wolfbait on October 06, 2013, 04:39:55 PM
We the People didn't have to do anything. The Wolves proved David Mech, the world renowned wolf specialist was a liar, he was even forced to admit he lied to further the wolf agenda. The Canadian wolves have made liars out of everyone who pushed them.
In the past W-H said it was good that the pro-wolf crowd ask questions! But now the wolves have answered all of the questions, and still we have those who claim to be ignorant
The environmentalist who have made millions with the wolf lie, are now moving to the wolverine.
More Habitat? More lawsuits? $$$$$$$$$$$$ And the ignorance continues!
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/calling-bs-on-a-wolf-story/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/calling-bs-on-a-wolf-story/)
Andy Walgamott
October 25, 2012 at 9:17 am · Reply
It’s very appropriate for wildlife advocates of all stripes to speak up in their defense — hunters, anglers, birdwatchers, the wolfies, urban, suburban, rural, etc., etc. A quote that’s been circulating of late points out that even if we’re all suspicious of each other, it’s a helluva lot better than if we were apathetic over the natural world:
“I’d much sooner have a world filled with people who are so vitally concerned with wildlife that they fight all the time about it than a world in which nobody gives a damn,” said Shane Mahoney at Idaho Fish & Game’s Wildlife Summit.
But the problem that my article gets at is that this wolf reintroduction story that Wolfbait is circulating is a flat-out lie and hurts the above efforts in the Methow Valley.
His fantasy aims to create an air of mistrust with the agency that has actually focused a ton of its energy, time and money in the valley to do what? Buy lowland ranches/undeveloped property from willing sellers to set it aside as crucial winter range for the state’s most important mule deer herd. They’ve done a fantastic job ensuring that the migratory and local animals have a place to live in a beautiful valley that’s highly attractive to getaway home buyers. Below the national forest there are now 31,000 acres along the sides of the valley from Mazama to Carlton set aside and which primarily benefit the deer I hunt every fall.
Besides the suspicious name, Wolfbait’s actions are counterproductive. And they have the potential to be economically harmful to a region that depends, partially, on hunter revenue in fall. We’ve seen in the Northern Rockies what the mere whiff of the word “decimate” applied way too broadly and eagerly to game herds by those with agendas has done to nonresident hunter numbers, though to be fair increased license prices and the recession are also to blame.
You can be rightfully angry at fish and game departments for any number of good reasons, but being angry and making up stories about nefarious activities that are completely implausible is not helpful.
Defending those who lie is not helpful either.
AW
NWS
Post by: wolfbait on October 06, 2013, 06:25:11 PM
Post by: mountainman on October 06, 2013, 06:52:16 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2013, 07:31:59 PM
What would happen however is we'd have smarter wolves with a healthy fear of humans.
WDFW got a taste of that chasing around the cattle killing wedge wolves, they had to have a radio collared "alpha" and a helicopter to get small portion of the wedge wolves. Anyone outdoor type person living in the wedge knows the WDFW are full of crap, heck I came across wolves just weeks after they were supposedly eliminated, WDFW has since retracted their statements they "killed the wedge wolf pack" because they didn't even get half the pack.
Not only that but there are several different packs.
Post by: wolfbait on October 06, 2013, 07:55:32 PM
Even if they allowed year around hunting with no bag limit (Coyote rules) and allowed body grip traps/snares the wolves would thrive - we couldn't get them all, not even close.Idaho Wolf 2013-2014 Hunting / Trapping Season
What would happen however is we'd have smarter wolves with a healthy fear of humans.
WDFW got a taste of that chasing around the cattle killing wedge wolves, they had to have a radio collared "alpha" and a helicopter to get small portion of the wedge wolves. Anyone outdoor type person living in the wedge knows the WDFW are full of crap, heck I came across wolves just weeks after they were supposedly eliminated, WDFW has since retracted their statements they "killed the wedge wolf pack" because they didn't even get half the pack.
Not only that but there are several different packs.
Updated: October 1, 2013
Trapping is closed.
By Hunting = 33 By Trapping = 0 Harvest total = 33
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getpage=121 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getpage=121)
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Montana Wolf Hunting/Trapping Season Status
Updated: October 4, 2013
Trapping is closed.
By Hunting = 16 By Trapping = 0 Harvest total = 16
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/wolf/ (http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/wolf/)
An environmentalist running the USFWS who is now the CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, who stole up to 70 million $$$ from hunters providing funding for wildlife, has managed to kill most of the wildlife around her Illegally introduced wolves.
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 06, 2013, 07:56:23 PM
Even if they allowed year around hunting with no bag limit (Coyote rules) and allowed body grip traps/snares the wolves would thrive - we couldn't get them all, not even close.
What would happen however is we'd have smarter wolves with a healthy fear of humans.
WDFW got a taste of that chasing around the cattle killing wedge wolves, they had to have a radio collared "alpha" and a helicopter to get small portion of the wedge wolves. Anyone outdoor type person living in the wedge knows the WDFW are full of crap, heck I came across wolves just weeks after they were supposedly eliminated, WDFW has since retracted their statements they "killed the wedge wolf pack" because they didn't even get half the pack.
Not only that but there are several different packs.
Balderdash I say!!! :tinfoil:
Post by: bigmacc on October 06, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
Fact is, go to the areas in the Methow where wolves are seen, and what the deer herds are like in those areas....anyone can by into things they read..I believe what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears....wolf bait has more insight then most one this forum. Ask just about anyone who lives, hunts, and has grown up in the area if you want honest observations...the rest of you, we'll, keep your shades on, you sound like most that like to argue for the sake of arguing ....any other locals with opinion?Im not a local but someone who has spent over 40 years hunting,fishing and hiking the valley and learning(and still learning) the deers habits,haunts,migration routes and when i hunt them i try to think like them.The time i spend in the woods either hunting them with my weapon or with a camera i'm thinking like the bigest,badest buck in the woods and considering time of year,weather etc where should i be at that time. My primary concerns would be food,water,cover,escape routes etc and all of them add up to one common concern and that is survival.As said they are a tough resilliant animal and have bounced back from herd reductions due to bad winters,fires,drought and other issues going back thru the years.The predetor issue as a whole has taken its toll on the methow herd the last 2 to 3 years and probably even so prior to that,now with another predetor in the mix and in my opinion the one who has and will do the most damage to a herd in the shortest amount of time the future may look bleak. Thinking like a deer,i've got to survive,my habits may need to change,my haunts will change and my migration routes may need to change just to "survive".A percentage will weather this PREDETOR STORM but like many have said and i agree with,the glory days of the methow herd are gone and i dont really know if they will ever(or be allowed) to bounce back from this issue. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2013, 12:04:53 PM
18 years of facts on the ground have proven that the USFWS, IDFG, MT, WY, OR and WDFW- state game agencies are liars where the Illegally Introduced Wolves are concerned.
We the People didn't have to do anything. The Wolves proved David Mech, the world renowned wolf specialist was a liar, he was even forced to admit he lied to further the wolf agenda. The Canadian wolves have made liars out of everyone who pushed them.
In the past W-H said it was good that the pro-wolf crowd ask questions! But now the wolves have answered all of the questions, and still we have those who claim to be ignorant
The environmentalist who have made millions with the wolf lie, are now moving to the wolverine.
More Habitat? More lawsuits? $$$$$$$$$$$$ And the ignorance continues!
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/calling-bs-on-a-wolf-story/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/calling-bs-on-a-wolf-story/)
Andy Walgamott
October 25, 2012 at 9:17 am · Reply
It’s very appropriate for wildlife advocates of all stripes to speak up in their defense — hunters, anglers, birdwatchers, the wolfies, urban, suburban, rural, etc., etc. A quote that’s been circulating of late points out that even if we’re all suspicious of each other, it’s a helluva lot better than if we were apathetic over the natural world:
“I’d much sooner have a world filled with people who are so vitally concerned with wildlife that they fight all the time about it than a world in which nobody gives a damn,” said Shane Mahoney at Idaho Fish & Game’s Wildlife Summit.
But the problem that my article gets at is that this wolf reintroduction story that Wolfbait is circulating is a flat-out lie and hurts the above efforts in the Methow Valley.
His fantasy aims to create an air of mistrust with the agency that has actually focused a ton of its energy, time and money in the valley to do what? Buy lowland ranches/undeveloped property from willing sellers to set it aside as crucial winter range for the state’s most important mule deer herd. They’ve done a fantastic job ensuring that the migratory and local animals have a place to live in a beautiful valley that’s highly attractive to getaway home buyers. Below the national forest there are now 31,000 acres along the sides of the valley from Mazama to Carlton set aside and which primarily benefit the deer I hunt every fall.
Besides the suspicious name, Wolfbait’s actions are counterproductive. And they have the potential to be economically harmful to a region that depends, partially, on hunter revenue in fall. We’ve seen in the Northern Rockies what the mere whiff of the word “decimate” applied way too broadly and eagerly to game herds by those with agendas has done to nonresident hunter numbers, though to be fair increased license prices and the recession are also to blame.
You can be rightfully angry at fish and game departments for any number of good reasons, but being angry and making up stories about nefarious activities that are completely implausible is not helpful.
Defending those who lie is not helpful either.
AW
NWS
IF the WDFW or USFS were so trustworthy, surely they wouldn't mind sharing some basic information... for example.. How many wolves have been collared? What is the general geograpic region in which they have been collared. What are some of the Basic travel patterns of wolves here in WA. What insight do we now have from collaring wolves?
I realize that they may not want to give specifics so that people who dislike wolves can't go shoot them. Iw would be great tho to find out why we are seeing collard wolves in places that they say have NO WOLVES!
Trust is EARNED! The WDFW and USFS have done Very little to earn any trust on this issue. I understand that few of us hunters are excited about our new predator. The departments cramming it down our throats doesn't help hunters OR the department... I don't think they have nearly as many hunters working for them as they should. EVEN if they took the same course that they have now, thier excecution could have been much better... I'm ASSuming that thier efforts ar genuine...
Since they are acting like they have something to hide, and cram everything down our throat.... Lack of trust shouldn't really be that surprising. :twocents:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 07, 2013, 01:39:02 PM
Just a hunch.........
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2013, 03:16:39 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 07, 2013, 03:25:44 PM
Post by: JLS on October 07, 2013, 03:29:38 PM
IF the WDFW or USFS were so trustworthy, surely they wouldn't mind sharing some basic information... for example.. How many wolves have been collared? What is the general geograpic region in which they have been collared. What are some of the Basic travel patterns of wolves here in WA. What insight do we now have from collaring wolves?
Have you asked?
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2013, 03:40:49 PM
JLS you can ask and get their canned answers with nothing to back them up. So you can take them at thier word....
Post by: JLS on October 07, 2013, 05:37:00 PM
JLS you can ask and get their canned answers with nothing to back them up. So you can take them at thier word....
If you are going to insinuate that the information was being withheld, I would at least expect that the specific questions have been asked.
Post by: JLS on October 07, 2013, 06:15:45 PM
I think you would be surprised at how candid folks can be when you call them up and ask them your questions. Whether or not you want to believe the answer is entirely up to you. Given the info that it seems you are wanting and the answers you don't seem to want to accept, maybe you should submit a FOIA to Wolfbait.
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2013, 11:14:07 PM
I am skeptical of the WDFW for these reasons
1 i know for a fact that they are afraid of organizations like DoW because of the cost of lawsuits.
2 WDFW has less hunters working for the department every year, and many die hard hunters that loved some kind of hunting are retiring.
3 ESA funds seem to rule. Duck hunting seems to revolve around "salmon restoration". Federal funds seem to be a necessity.
4 we have rules proposed by people that have ZERO knowledge of hunting. Do you remember the proposed restrictions on coyote hunting? 22 cal and #8 bird shot? I do... Safety is a 22-250 or bird shot....
I could go on...
If you have some insight as to the WHO i should contact, OR the specific verbiage i should use feel free to PM me. I have no doubt that FIO that you have dealt with are :bash:. The problem is ANYTHING is writing has legal recourse and verbal info is worth nothing.
As to wolf bait... he has provided more 3rd party info on wolves than anyone else i can think of on hunt wa. you may thin him a :tinfoil: but he has provided more info than any other source. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on October 08, 2013, 03:11:08 PM
JLS you can ask and get their canned answers with nothing to back them up. So you can take them at thier word....
If you are going to insinuate that the information was being withheld, I would at least expect that the specific questions have been asked.
There are people inside WDFW who will answer truthfully, but they don't want their names mentioned. WDFW like the USFWS are basically run by environmentalists now, with a few on the fringe who are old school and disagree with the direction WDFW are moving.
Biologists etc. who work for WDFW and do not agree with the departments wolf policies are either replaced or not included in livestock killed investigations etc where wolves are involved.
I kind of think you already know what the wolves have done and what WA will end up looking like in a few years. At this stage of the game most of the info has been covered on W-H and other sites.
Comparing me with Toby Bridges was actually a compliment, as he has been fighting this far longer then I have. People like Robert Fanning, Toby Bridges, Todd Fross, Scott Rockholm and a few others at one time tried to tell the people of W-H how the USFWS released wolves in their states. One thing that has always stuck in my mind is: Wolves eat their way to where they are going, they don't pull up and move through miles of game fill country and start eating their way back home.
By the time WDFW finish confirming their last wolf pack, WA will be stuffed with wolves.
Post by: wolfbait on October 08, 2013, 05:10:26 PM
If I/you had known this long ago, I'm sure we would not have wasted our time trying to convince some people.
Your turn JLS
Post by: JLS on October 08, 2013, 05:26:39 PM
I found this out some time ago from a source inside WDFW. People on hunting sites are being paid to down play the impact that wolves will have on hunting, and to direct the topic off of wolves.
If I/you had known this long ago, I'm sure we would not have wasted our time trying to convince some people.
Your turn JLS
Maybe I should ask for my money then :rolleyes:
You continue to make assertions with no proof or evidence whatsoever. Just because you repeat something often enough does not mean that it's true.
Post by: wolfbait on October 08, 2013, 08:08:01 PM
"You continue to make assertions with no proof or evidence whatsoever. Just because you repeat something often enough does not mean that it's true."I found this out some time ago from a source inside WDFW. People on hunting sites are being paid to down play the impact that wolves will have on hunting, and to direct the topic off of wolves.
If I/you had known this long ago, I'm sure we would not have wasted our time trying to convince some people.
Your turn JLS
Maybe I should ask for my money then :rolleyes:
You continue to make assertions with no proof or evidence whatsoever. Just because you repeat something often enough does not mean that it's true.
Actually I have posted Story after story of people dealing with wolves, going back 16+ years. These are real people dealing with wolves that the USFWS, illegally introduced with the help of Defenders of Wildlife.
I don't think you know what a hunter really is: A hunter is someone who cares about what he is hunting, he /she cares about the health of the herd? There are some hunters who just like the hunt. And the hunt with a camera, the hunt to just spend time in the woods. Not every hunter is after winter meat.
The USFWS and WDFW's wolves will take all pleasures away from outdoor people in one way or another.
To you it might be easy money, and maybe you need money. But you are loosing Your Soul, you might be a hunter now, but what you are doing is Wrong, and it will follow you forever. I wish I could feel sorry for you, but I can't.
Don't feel too bad though, because there are several in front of you who sold out their friends without them even knowing it.
Post by: Special T on October 08, 2013, 08:43:47 PM
Perhaps i reside in the "real world" where i have to prove my worth to my customers and rarely have to play politics. IMO the ONLY state that has proved its worth on this issue is WY. and that is because they stood their ground with the feds while others capitulated and tired to appease them. I know of no other state that has butted heads with the feds and then have had the feds agree with the state... Even states that i USED to hold in high regard. ID & MT buckled to the pressure. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on October 08, 2013, 08:53:27 PM
"You continue to make assertions with no proof or evidence whatsoever. Just because you repeat something often enough does not mean that it's true."I found this out some time ago from a source inside WDFW. People on hunting sites are being paid to down play the impact that wolves will have on hunting, and to direct the topic off of wolves.
If I/you had known this long ago, I'm sure we would not have wasted our time trying to convince some people.
Your turn JLS
Maybe I should ask for my money then :rolleyes:
You continue to make assertions with no proof or evidence whatsoever. Just because you repeat something often enough does not mean that it's true.
Actually I have posted Story after story of people dealing with wolves, going back 16+ years. These are real people dealing with wolves that the USFWS, illegally introduced with the help of Defenders of Wildlife.
I don't think you know what a hunter really is: A hunter is someone who cares about what he is hunting, he /she cares about the health of the herd? There are some hunters who just like the hunt. And the hunt with a camera, the hunt to just spend time in the woods. Not every hunter is after winter meat.
The USFWS and WDFW's wolves will take all pleasures away from outdoor people in one way or another.
To you it might be easy money, and maybe you need money. But you are loosing Your Soul, you might be a hunter now, but what you are doing is Wrong, and it will follow you forever. I wish I could feel sorry for you, but I can't.
Don't feel too bad though, because there are several in front of you who sold out their friends without them even knowing it.
I could care less if you feel sorry for me, I don't need you to. I know perfectly what a hunter is, thank you. I won't go into all that I have done with my time and money to help wildlife, because to you it doesn't matter. It's all about wolves. And, honestly I don't need to champion it for the whole world to see. I and others have named off a multitude of things that are of greater threat to our wildlife populations than wolves. I choose to focus on those instead of banging the conspiracy theory drum.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 08, 2013, 08:59:19 PM
Post by: JLS on October 08, 2013, 08:59:44 PM
JLS what i ask everyone who seems to think I am some kind of :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: is this... WHAT has the WDFW done to gain the trust of sportsmen on this issue? Please help the WDFW make the case why we should put out faith in them.... All that i have ever heard is platitudes and promises, neither of which have been fulfilled or verified.
Perhaps i reside in the "real world" where i have to prove my worth to my customers and rarely have to play politics. IMO the ONLY state that has proved its worth on this issue is WY. and that is because they stood their ground with the feds while others capitulated and tired to appease them. I know of no other state that has butted heads with the feds and then have had the feds agree with the state... Even states that i USED to hold in high regard. ID & MT buckled to the pressure. :twocents:
I have stated before that I disagree strongly with WDFWs wolf plan. However, because I disagree the plan does not make everyone associated with it a liar.
I don't see where MT and ID buckled to the pressure, they were shooting wolves long before WY was. I guess if that's a moral victory, so be it. I don't see where they would have any significant difference in the number of wolves had they taken Wyoming's stance.
Post by: wolfbait on October 08, 2013, 09:09:45 PM
Wolves are a huge threat next to the environmentalist, commie greenies. You never see greenies getting collared and relocated. :bash:
"You never see greenies getting collared and relocated"
We do have some collared right here on W-H but no one want's them, all other hunting sites are shipping them off in sealed containers back to WDFW :tup:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 08, 2013, 09:12:18 PM
Post by: wolfbait on October 08, 2013, 09:38:49 PM
It's H-W little mister. Sheela says hi !! :chuckle:
She is a pretty little truck :chuckle:
Post by: mholzngel on October 09, 2013, 12:06:14 AM
Post by: Special T on October 09, 2013, 07:36:25 AM
JLS what i ask everyone who seems to think I am some kind of :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: is this... WHAT has the WDFW done to gain the trust of sportsmen on this issue? Please help the WDFW make the case why we should put out faith in them.... All that i have ever heard is platitudes and promises, neither of which have been fulfilled or verified.
Perhaps i reside in the "real world" where i have to prove my worth to my customers and rarely have to play politics. IMO the ONLY state that has proved its worth on this issue is WY. and that is because they stood their ground with the feds while others capitulated and tired to appease them. I know of no other state that has butted heads with the feds and then have had the feds agree with the state... Even states that i USED to hold in high regard. ID & MT buckled to the pressure. :twocents:
I have stated before that I disagree strongly with WDFWs wolf plan. However, because I disagree the plan does not make everyone associated with it a liar.
I don't see where MT and ID buckled to the pressure, they were shooting wolves long before WY was. I guess if that's a moral victory, so be it. I don't see where they would have any significant difference in the number of wolves had they taken Wyoming's stance.
I didn't call you a lier. MT And ID Did capitualte. they made a wolf a big game animal. WY did not except in the most NE corner of the state. That was after shooting them like coyotes for several years with the blessing of the state.
Post by: JLS on October 09, 2013, 07:49:22 AM
I didn't call you a lier.
Didn't mean to imply that you did. I'm certainly not associated with the wolf plan.
Post by: AspenBud on October 09, 2013, 02:37:51 PM
Also, as someone that's had to deal with FOIAs before, I can tell you they are a royal pain. I don't know how many times I've sat by the photocopier, wondering to myself why the person couldn't just call on the phone and ask what they wanted to know.
I think you would be surprised at how candid folks can be when you call them up and ask them your questions. Whether or not you want to believe the answer is entirely up to you. Given the info that it seems you are wanting and the answers you don't seem to want to accept, maybe you should submit a FOIA to Wolfbait.
FOIA's are problematic in my experience. In this day and age you have to hope the data is getting collected and stored by IT, which means you have to hope they were told to do so and had the support to make it happen because older records are a VERY labor intensive thing to add. If it's something from the distant past they often literally have to start hauling out old equipment or start flipping through paper files.
If it's decades of computer based records and a system upgrade is performed a lot of data may not come along for the ride with the new system, people retire and knowledge of how to access that data is lost, etc etc etc.
Point being, it's a cluster f$%#, and it doesn't matter which agency in which state you are dealing with, and will probably only get worse with time. Some FOIA's are cake to comply with, some are a nightmare or outright impossible...and as has been stated by others here, you better have a very specific request if not for any other reason than to help focus the search.
Post by: AspenBud on October 09, 2013, 02:42:00 PM
I found this out some time ago from a source inside WDFW. People on hunting sites are being paid to down play the impact that wolves will have on hunting, and to direct the topic off of wolves.
I found out something else a long time ago. A lot of people come to various forums for affirmation of their beliefs, not truth.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 09, 2013, 02:57:24 PM
Post by: Cougartail on October 15, 2013, 07:23:14 PM
The estimates for wolves in Washington is 51 to 102. According to many on here thier impact is greater than 2000 cougars, 25,000 black bears, and tens of thousands of coyotes and bobcats on game in the state judging by thier emotional fueled hate.
Sounds rational to me... :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on October 15, 2013, 07:36:24 PM
Post by: buckfvr on October 15, 2013, 07:45:27 PM
Post by: Cougartail on October 15, 2013, 07:58:52 PM
you're numbers are so far off :bash:
Because they don't reflect YOUR agenda.. :bash: :IBCOOL:
Post by: Cougartail on October 15, 2013, 08:11:39 PM
Compounding the predator problem with wolves is the issue..............and for no apparent scientific reason. Purely special interest groups.
Funny, In Yellowstone Park the riparian habitat is making a comeback due to the fact the elk can't overbrowse and destroy that critical habitat as they are chased of by wolves. That leads to a much stronger food chain and much more diverse prey base which in the end results in a larger carrying capacity for all animals.
But why would anyone care if they are just trying to get thier elk. lol
Post by: Humptulips on October 15, 2013, 08:27:02 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 15, 2013, 08:46:26 PM
Post by: mountainman on October 15, 2013, 08:51:39 PM
I smell a rat...........:yeah:
Post by: KFhunter on October 15, 2013, 08:52:16 PM
I smell a rat...........
ayup
People like that aren't worth the 2 seconds of typing it takes to call them the proper expletive.
Post by: Cougartail on October 15, 2013, 09:34:03 PM
Those oldtimers who have trapped for years in Alaska shake thier heads at the "wolf haters". If you ask anyone of them in the know they will tell you bears are as hard on ungulate populations as wolves.
Hey what do they know? They couldn't hold a light to the experts on this site...geez!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 15, 2013, 09:55:39 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 15, 2013, 10:07:21 PM
Rat...lol The BIG difference between me and most on this site is I've lived, hunted, and trapped in Alaska. I also have hunted and trapped in Washington for 20+ years.
Those oldtimers who have trapped for years in Alaska shake thier heads at the "wolf haters". If you ask anyone of them in the know they will tell you bears are as hard on ungulate populations as wolves.
Hey what do they know? They couldn't hold a light to the experts on this site...geez!
This isn't AK, Washington pales in comparison with suitable wolf habitat vs Alaska. Your "Wolves in Alaska" really has no place in the debate about wolves in the lower 48 states.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 15, 2013, 10:29:31 PM
This isn't AK, Washington pales in comparison with suitable wolf habitat vs Alaska. Your "Wolves in Alaska" really has no place in the debate about wolves in the lower 48 states.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Wolves or any other predator will have negligible effects on over all cervid numbers if good habitat and weather conditions exist.
There are three main causes of game die offs and wolves aren't one of them.
1 Severe winters or other weather related events such as drouth.
2 Loss of habitat, such as from forests getting too old, roads and new subdivisions, ever expanding cities, even farming although farming can also help some species. But in some areas hunting is managed to keep animal populations artificially low to prevent crop damage.
3 Disease, which can run rampant when too any animals are crowded into too small of an area.
In years past, you could have added human hunting and poaching, but with modern game management, that isn't as much of an issue as it once was.
Post by: AspenBud on October 15, 2013, 11:07:03 PM
2 Loss of habitat, such as from forests getting too old, roads and new subdivisions, ever expanding cities, even farming although farming can also help some species. But in some areas hunting is managed to keep animal populations artificially low to prevent crop damage..
I work with a guy whose Dad owns a farm out in Pennsylvania. His thought on white tails? They are rodents that you can't exterminate fast enough. The only reason his folks don't pay to have them hunted is because people will pay to do so.
Post by: AspenBud on October 15, 2013, 11:15:20 PM
Compounding the predator problem with wolves is the issue..............and for no apparent scientific reason. Purely special interest groups.
Funny, In Yellowstone Park the riparian habitat is making a comeback due to the fact the elk can't overbrowse and destroy that critical habitat as they are chased of by wolves. That leads to a much stronger food chain and much more diverse prey base which in the end results in a larger carrying capacity for all animals.
But why would anyone care if they are just trying to get thier elk. lol
The thing I never see talked about is what is the optimal number of elk, moose, deer etc in areas that they are being impacted by wolves? A hunter will always want more, but what is optimal both for hunters and predators? Even without wolves that's a reasonable question to ask.
Post by: KFhunter on October 15, 2013, 11:25:28 PM
This isn't AK, Washington pales in comparison with suitable wolf habitat vs Alaska. Your "Wolves in Alaska" really has no place in the debate about wolves in the lower 48 states.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Wolves or any other predator will have negligible effects on over all cervid numbers if good habitat and weather conditions exist.
There are three main causes of game die offs and wolves aren't one of them.
1 Severe winters or other weather related events such as drouth.
2 Loss of habitat, such as from forests getting too old, roads and new subdivisions, ever expanding cities, even farming although farming can also help some species. But in some areas hunting is managed to keep animal populations artificially low to prevent crop damage.
3 Disease, which can run rampant when too any animals are crowded into too small of an area.
In years past, you could have added human hunting and poaching, but with modern game management, that isn't as much of an issue as it once was.
I see!
Let me stoop down to knee high level to talk to you then if I must.
Quote
1 Severe winters or other weather related events such as drouth.
Elk/Deer can survive tough winter conditions if left to weather out the storm unmolested, but if you have a pack of wolves pushing them they die off due to "weather related" events. Wolves don't even have to sink a tooth in an Elk to kill it. I've followed them myself, or rather followed the wolves following the Elk. The poor Elk don't even get a chance to lay down and the wolves got them up on their feet running again. They burn calories and slow down the wolves get easy pickings. A severe storm rolls through and the already stressed animals die off due to "winter kill". The wolves don't even have to sink a single tooth in an Elk to kill it.
Quote
2 Loss of habitat, such as from forests getting too old, roads and new subdivisions, ever expanding cities, even farming although farming can also help some species. But in some areas hunting is managed to keep animal populations artificially low to prevent crop damage.what's your point? Just rambling on about the current state of affairs - too many people :chuckle:
Quote
3 Disease, which can run rampant when too any animals are crowded into too small of an area.
Wolves only pick off the sick or diseased - the weak :chuckle: :rolleyes:
Post by: AspenBud on October 15, 2013, 11:32:55 PM
Quote1 Severe winters or other weather related events such as drouth.
Elk/Deer can survive tough winter conditions if left to weather out the storm unmolested, but if you have a pack of wolves pushing them they die off due to "weather related" events. Wolves don't even have to sink a tooth in an Elk to kill it. I've followed them myself, or rather followed the wolves following the Elk. The poor Elk don't even get a chance to lay down and the wolves got them up on their feet running again. They burn calories and slow down the wolves get easy pickings. A severe storm rolls through and the already stressed animals die off due to "winter kill". The wolves don't even have to sink a single tooth in an Elk to kill it.Quote3 Disease, which can run rampant when too any animals are crowded into too small of an area.
Wolves only pick off the sick or diseased - the weak :chuckle: :rolleyes:
You just contradicted yourself.
Post by: KFhunter on October 15, 2013, 11:35:35 PM
....and for the record -again- I am not anti-wolf. I am pro-wolf management.
Post by: AspenBud on October 15, 2013, 11:44:13 PM
....and for the record -again- I am not anti-wolf. I am pro-wolf management.
We're on the same page there.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 15, 2013, 11:59:40 PM
I see!
Let me stoop down to knee high level to talk to you then if I must.Quote1 Severe winters or other weather related events such as drouth.
Elk/Deer can survive tough winter conditions if left to weather out the storm unmolested, but if you have a pack of wolves pushing them they die off due to "weather related" events. Wolves don't even have to sink a tooth in an Elk to kill it. I've followed them myself, or rather followed the wolves following the Elk. The poor Elk don't even get a chance to lay down and the wolves got them up on their feet running again. They burn calories and slow down the wolves get easy pickings. A severe storm rolls through and the already stressed animals die off due to "winter kill". The wolves don't even have to sink a single tooth in an Elk to kill it.Quote2 Loss of habitat, such as from forests getting too old, roads and new subdivisions, ever expanding cities, even farming although farming can also help some species. But in some areas hunting is managed to keep animal populations artificially low to prevent crop damage.what's your point? Just rambling on about the current state of affairs - too many people :chuckle:Quote3 Disease, which can run rampant when too any animals are crowded into too small of an area.
Wolves only pick off the sick or diseased - the weak :chuckle: :rolleyes:
First, stand up and talk like a man.
1 So you're trying to tell me, that in the pre wolf re-introduction days that there was no such thing as winter kill because elk/deer are such super animals they can survive with no food to eat? That only since the re-entry of wolves into the scene have deer and elk died from bad winters? I can show you example after example where you are wrong.
2 Habitat, what's my point? Too many people? Well, that's part of it. There's even a thread on this site about too many people out hunting and another about how rude and thoughtless many of them are. But that wasn't my point. My point was, if you take away habitat, for whatever reason, however many animals once lived there will not be there any more. Go hunt deer in downtown Seattle. They used to live there. Tell me loss of habitat didn't affect that deer population. Human activity also affects migration routes. Too, you may not have noticed I mentioned old forests. That has nothing to do with too many people unless you want to talk about fire suppression to protect homes, or greenies fighting to stop logging.
3. No predators don't just pick off the diseased animals or the weak. They still have to eat when there are no sick animals around. But given a choice, they tend to go for the most vulnerable animals available which is the sick or weak or old or young. This insures they use up less of their energy reserves and also helps protect them from injury. It's not easy bringing down big animals, even with a pack. Wolves make a lot of false charges testing out potential prey. If an animal shows the ability to protect it's self, they'll move on for a different victim. Now when things get tough, they'll take greater risks as they can't live forever waiting for weakened prey. No, the only predator that pretty much always goes after the biggest, healthiest breeding stock purposely is man.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 16, 2013, 12:11:32 AM
Ya'll make me feel like I'm arguing with a toddler that just watched a Disney show about talking wolves.
....and for the record -again- I am not anti-wolf. I am pro-wolf management.
I might argue all your wolf experience is from watching werewolf movies. But that would be pretty childish and it doesn't get us anywhere.
Your condescension of people with wolf experience because those wolves weren't "Washington wolves" is also rather childish.
But I'm sure you have your good points. And if you're being honest about wanting wolf management, that's probably one of them. But you have to accept that your idea of management might not be the same as the guys doing the work. You're not the only guy they have to please.
Post by: Special T on October 16, 2013, 06:29:11 AM
....and for the record -again- I am not anti-wolf. I am pro-wolf management.
We're on the same page there.
So that means you think we should have year round open season, trapping, Arial gunning right? That is how the Canadians manage them, and how the Alaskans did before Arial gunning was taken away by referendum.
Post by: Cougartail on October 16, 2013, 07:14:08 AM
[/quote]
So that means you think we should year round open season, trapping, Arial gunning right? That is how the Canadians manage them, and how the Alaskans did before Arial gunning was taken away by referendum.
[/quote]
Might want to check the regulations before you make ridiculous statements like that. They not only have seasons in Canada but bag limits in many areas. In Alaska they still have active control areas and seasons.
Wolf haters seem to know little about wolves and wolf management but spout a lot of misinformation.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 16, 2013, 08:45:53 AM
....and for the record -again- I am not anti-wolf. I am pro-wolf management.
We're on the same page there.
So that means you think we should year round open season, trapping, Arial gunning right? That is how the Canadians manage them, and how the Alaskans did before Arial gunning was taken away by referendum.
I detected a little sarcasm there Cougtail.......
Post by: mountainman on October 16, 2013, 09:20:18 AM
:yeah:Rat...lol The BIG difference between me and most on this site is I've lived, hunted, and trapped in Alaska. I also have hunted and trapped in Washington for 20+ years.
Those oldtimers who have trapped for years in Alaska shake thier heads at the "wolf haters". If you ask anyone of them in the know they will tell you bears are as hard on ungulate populations as wolves.
Hey what do they know? They couldn't hold a light to the experts on this site...geez!
This isn't AK, Washington pales in comparison with suitable wolf habitat vs Alaska. Your "Wolves in Alaska" really has no place in the debate about wolves in the lower 48 states.
Totally different habitat...deer numbers (and domestic losses) speak for themselves..
Post by: wolfbait on October 16, 2013, 09:55:58 AM
Where did wolf lovers come from? Wolf lovers are people who have never had to see or deal with the destruction caused by wolves, they haven't witnessed the lies of the USFWS and state game agencies. In the 1950's the USFWS started the pro-wolf propaganda, comparing wolves to the human family, they have fed lies to the public for a generation and are still doing it today with the help of state game agencies and mainstream media.
There hasn't been any wolf management/control in the lower 48 since the beginning of the introduction, in order to control wolves 50% needs to be killed each year just to keep the population even, 70% to decrease wolves. In Alaska/Canada where wolves are both hunted and trapped, aerial hunts are still used to control wolves where they are decimating game herds.
The Wolves introduce into the lower 48 evolved chasing larger game in a vast wilderness, therefor they are larger wolves then we had before the introduction.
Ed Bangs said he wanted a wolf that could really kill the hell out of elk, and he found just what he was looking for up in Alberta.
Post by: Special T on October 16, 2013, 11:47:03 AM
Bears are Hard on unglulates. Since hound hunting was taken away from us as a tool, and even the pursuit season in the NE what has the state done about bear harvest? They COULD increase spring bear permits a bunch.
I may have to join several others in skagit valley and just buy my bear tag and hunt predator only, "just to do my part".
I think its sad that the WDFW fails to realize that MOST people are only willing to shell out $$$ to hunt deer and elk. Since they fail to manage predators, or at least make it easy for hunters to, the department is making decisions that are foceing themselves into a slow death as an agency. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on October 16, 2013, 12:19:35 PM
Bears are Hard on unglulates. Since hound hunting was taken away from us as a tool, and even the pursuit season in the NE what has the state done about bear harvest? They COULD increase spring bear permits a bunch.
I may have to join several others in skagit valley and just buy my bear tag and hunt predator only, "just to do my part".
When hunting up in the Toutle unit a couple of weeks ago I saw A LOT of bear poo. In fact I don't think there has been a place that I've hunted where I haven't seen any sign of bear. They are not in short supply and judging from the size of some of their blowouts I'm seeing on the path they aren't small either.
Coming across a good amount of cougar scat and prints as well as coyotes.
I've seen deer on every outing and have come across elk tracks, but signs of predators are far and away more common. That's no joke.
I think its sad that the WDFW fails to realize that MOST people are only willing to shell out $$$ to hunt deer and elk. Since they fail to manage predators, or at least make it easy for hunters to, the department is making decisions that are foceing themselves into a slow death as an agency. :twocents:
At least in the case of hound hunting, I don't think you can really blame the WDFW. The voters are at fault for that one.
Post by: Cougartail on October 16, 2013, 04:24:59 PM
:yeah:Rat...lol The BIG difference between me and most on this site is I've lived, hunted, and trapped in Alaska. I also have hunted and trapped in Washington for 20+ years.
Those oldtimers who have trapped for years in Alaska shake thier heads at the "wolf haters". If you ask anyone of them in the know they will tell you bears are as hard on ungulate populations as wolves.
Hey what do they know? They couldn't hold a light to the experts on this site...geez!
This isn't AK, Washington pales in comparison with suitable wolf habitat vs Alaska. Your "Wolves in Alaska" really has no place in the debate about wolves in the lower 48 states.
Totally different habitat...deer numbers (and domestic losses) speak for themselves..
Yep, real big difference between Washington and lower BC. They have many more wolves and many more deer, elk, sheep, etc. When I cross into Canada it's like stepping into a new universe..eye roll...lol
Since we don't have the "habitat" for wolves you have nothing to worry about as the wolf will die out on it's own. lol
Do any of you actually think before you post?
The wolf's threat to deer & elk population is small compared to urban sprawl (for elk), over grazing by sheep & cattle, harsh winters, and the liberals who took away trapping and dogs.
I am also amazed how many hunters are whiney little children who when pressed admit doing nothing to help the animals they hunt. Instead of wimpering about the wolf get out there and kill some bears, cougars and most importantly coyotes. Survival rates would increase amongst the deer, elk and small game unlike sitting on the computer whining about the big bad wolf.
In the early 70s Montana had less than 40,000 elk and you didn't here a peep from hunters. Now they have over 125,000 elk and everyone is whining. Nice to have a scapegoat to blame for your failures I guess..lol
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2013, 04:52:28 PM
If we're serious about herd building we need to look at ways to get hunters to go after predators, I've posted a thread about this very thing here:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134715.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134715.0.html)
It was crude and not well thought out, I was just looking to get a discussion going and you can see the attention it got - almost none.
I was hoping people would freak out at the thought of having to take a predator in order to hunt a deer :chuckle:
We all know wolves aren't the only predator out there, but they have the spotlight right now. So we'll talk about them, since this is the wolf section of HW afterall eh? Human populations and forest management is a wholly different debate and quite frankly out of our hands. We can however keep applying pressure to de-list wolves and hold WDFW accountable for their unrealistic wolf plan. 15 breeding pair is unrealistic for Washington when other western states has more viable habitat and bigger herd counts but require less breeding pairs of wolves. We need to cast out those who would support a cause like wolf reintroduction for personal reasons and ignore science. Political science isn't sound management.
Wolves are unique in that no other predator has such an impact on livestock, sure a bear and cat might take an animal here and there but nothing like wolves on a blood frenzy. Livestock owners can also defend against cats and bears. I applaud recent changes that allow this side of the state to have some limited ability to do the same with a marauding wolf albeit in a much more limited way. We're getting there, the wolves will do more to get themselves de-listed than we can do now anyways.
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2013, 05:02:18 PM
Quote1 So you're trying to tell me, that in the pre wolf re-introduction days that there was no such thing as winter kill because elk/deer are such super animals they can survive with no food to eat? That only since the re-entry of wolves into the scene have deer and elk died from bad winters? I can show you example after example where you are wrong.
Don't put words in my mouth, I'm saying wolves harass the animals all winter long thus making them more prone to winter kill.
Quote
3. No predators don't just pick off the diseased animals or the weak. They still have to eat when there are no sick animals around. But given a choice, they tend to go for the most vulnerable animals available which is the sick or weak or old or young. This insures they use up less of their energy reserves and also helps protect them from injury. It's not easy bringing down big animals, even with a pack. Wolves make a lot of false charges testing out potential prey. If an animal shows the ability to protect it's self, they'll move on for a different victim. Now when things get tough, they'll take greater risks as they can't live forever waiting for weakened prey. No, the only predator that pretty much always goes after the biggest, healthiest breeding stock purposely is man.
All those false charges you speak of serve to weaken the animals, it causes them to burn their reserves and thus weakens the whole herd. The big animals die just the same as the little ones it has nothing to do with genetics or otherwise - just a simple mistep over a frozen tree root leads to a sprain and even a superior stud of a bull with desirable traits will go down. One animal could dart right, while the herd darted left, and get itself singled out, there is no way a person can make since of it, it's purely random as the hunt plays out.
This garbage you're spewing about wolves picking off the weaker animals is nothing more than your Disney training at work.
Post by: Cougartail on October 16, 2013, 05:57:32 PM
I was hoping people would freak out at the thought of having to take a predator in order to hunt a deer :chuckle:
Sounds good to me!
Wolves are unique in that no other predator has such an impact on livestock,
Free roaming farm dogs kill far more livestock than wolves in this state. (along with deer and elk!) They pack up like wolves and have every bit as much blood thirst. I've heard the "It must have been wolves." more than once at kill sites do to the large paw prints left. Nobody wants to believe "Fido" was capable of the carnage.
As to wolves killing the sick, weak, diseased or young. It is true that they will chase and hunt anything they come accross but most times the above mentioned end up on the ground. Most people forget that the predators also suffer and starve to death in bad years which are normally good years for deer and elk.. Having skinned my fair share, I can tell you some years there is very little fat on them.
Anytime an animal is pressured it does risk it's survival but the wolves impact due to numbers is relatively small. I have countless times watched family groups of coyotes run elk, deer and Big Horned Sheep. In deep snow they are also very successful in taking them down in Washington due to snow conditions. (They stay on top of the crusty snow, deer and elk punch through.) The state game fences really help the coyote kill deer also...lol
Singling out the wolf and exaggerating it's impact only gives the "Wolf Lovers" more resolve/ammunition to fight the hunting of it someday. Every liberal in Seattle will be reading this anti wolf garbage, get fired up, vote and use their pocket book to stop any hunting and trapping of it.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 16, 2013, 06:21:42 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2013, 07:00:10 PM
Let's see the stats from the WDFW about ," free roaming farm dogs killing far more livestock than wolves in this state ". I don't believe that at all.
I smell a rat :chuckle:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 16, 2013, 07:01:30 PM
Let's see the stats from the WDFW about ," free roaming farm dogs killing far more livestock than wolves in this state ". I don't believe that at all.
I smell a rat :chuckle:
ayup...........
Post by: Cougartail on October 16, 2013, 07:39:42 PM
Less than 100 wolves in the state and thousands of dogs roaming free in packs, figure it out.
Hope you guys all live in brick houses..because the big bad wolf is going to huff and puff...
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2013, 07:47:19 PM
Let's see a show of hands of those who have had a NWCO licence and dealt with wildlife problems daily? lol I never filled out a report when "fido" was caught killing the chickens not a coyote. Why did the State give orders to kill any free roaming dogs on WDFW lands back in the 90s in Eastern Washington?
Less than 100 wolves in the state and thousands of dogs roaming free in packs, figure it out.
Hope you guys all live in brick houses..because the big bad wolf is going to huff and puff...
This is the literary equivalent of pulling out your wiener to see if mine is as long as yours.
No one is keeping hunters from shooting a domestic dogs caught running deer or ranchers if they're spooking cattle, are you proposing a ban on pets now too?
If I want to shoot the neighbors dog for getting on my property and chasing deer I can do that. WTheck is your point? People are people and they're going to be irresponsible with pets. You ain't gonna change that no matter how much hope you vote for.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 16, 2013, 08:00:51 PM
Post by: deaner on October 16, 2013, 08:11:34 PM
Let's see a show of hands of those who have had a NWCO licence and dealt with wildlife problems daily? lol I never filled out a report when "fido" was caught killing the chickens not a coyote. Why did the State give orders to kill any free roaming dogs on WDFW lands back in the 90s in Eastern Washington?
Less than 100 wolves in the state and thousands of dogs roaming free in packs, figure it out.
Hope you guys all live in brick houses..because the big bad wolf is going to huff and puff...
this guy thinks hes smart talking about his "licence" but he cant even spell it correctly.
and "thousands of dogs roaming free in packs" lets see. supposedly at least 20x the population of pack running feral dogs than wolves in the state according to this chucklehead. then how is it we have so many wolf sightings and wolves on camera, but i never see people posting up feral dog packs? only a hundred wolves and thousands (meaning minimum of 2000) of feral dogs running in packs... youd think we would see a bit more of these feral dog packs that are wiping out our deer and elk? must be as elusive as bigfoot
Post by: wolfbait on October 16, 2013, 08:22:04 PM
Let's see a show of hands of those who have had a NWCO licence and dealt with wildlife problems daily? lol I never filled out a report when "fido" was caught killing the chickens not a coyote. Why did the State give orders to kill any free roaming dogs on WDFW lands back in the 90s in Eastern Washington?
Less than 100 wolves in the state and thousands of dogs roaming free in packs, figure it out.
Hope you guys all live in brick houses..because the big bad wolf is going to huff and puff...
I guess we learn something new every day, it's the 1000's of wild dogs killing off the deer and elk. :yike: I wonder if we should break the news to ID, MT, and Wyoming? It's wasn't wolves you fools it was them dang packed up wild dogs! :chuckle:
Are you the new WDFW wolf counter, Cougartail? Could you give us a hint on the exact number of wolves there are in WA?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 16, 2013, 08:40:32 PM
While not quiet correct because they don't have an open season like coyotes the do allow LOTS of tags. BC did some arial gunning to ATTEMPT to help the woodland caribou in thier SE corner.
Bears are Hard on unglulates. Since hound hunting was taken away from us as a tool, and even the pursuit season in the NE what has the state done about bear harvest? They COULD increase spring bear permits a bunch.
The BC Woodland Caribou were never in trouble because of wolves. Wolves were used as the scapegoat for the damage done to the Caribou's HABITAT by the development of the Tar Sands Oil Project. Killing wolves won't bring them back. It just takes people's minds off the fact that oil companies are responsible for the decline of the woodland caribou.
Hound hunting should never have been taken away. Just another reason to avoid ballot box biology. The average person doesn't have the knowledge to make a decision on managing game populations. That goes for the average hunter too.
Post by: villageidiot on October 16, 2013, 08:48:01 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2013, 09:15:19 PM
I don't believe I've seen any tar sands oil development anywhere near Metaline Falls lately. We have had a woodland caribou herd there for years. I understand that population is about disappeared lately. Must be them dirty oil companies hiding their tar sand oil wells. :chuckle:
I heard one of the WDFW bio's got too close while doing a helicopter survey and ran those caribou off a cliff :chuckle:
I didn't make that up, I really did hear that :yike:
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2013, 09:20:06 PM
Let's see a show of hands of those who have had a NWCO licence and dealt with wildlife problems daily? lol I never filled out a report when "fido" was caught killing the chickens not a coyote. Why did the State give orders to kill any free roaming dogs on WDFW lands back in the 90s in Eastern Washington?
Less than 100 wolves in the state and thousands of dogs roaming free in packs, figure it out.
Hope you guys all live in brick houses..because the big bad wolf is going to huff and puff...
I guess we learn something new every day, it's the 1000's of wild dogs killing off the deer and elk. :yike: I wonder if we should break the news to ID, MT, and Wyoming? It's wasn't wolves you fools it was them dang packed up wild dogs! :chuckle:
Are you the new WDFW wolf counter, Cougartail? Could you give us a hint on the exact number of wolves there are in WA?
All them evil corgi's are killing our elk!
Post by: idahohuntr on October 16, 2013, 09:23:40 PM
Let's see a show of hands of those who have had a NWCO licence and dealt with wildlife problems daily? lol I never filled out a report when "fido" was caught killing the chickens not a coyote. Why did the State give orders to kill any free roaming dogs on WDFW lands back in the 90s in Eastern Washington?
Less than 100 wolves in the state and thousands of dogs roaming free in packs, figure it out.
Hope you guys all live in brick houses..because the big bad wolf is going to huff and puff...
I guess we learn something new every day, it's the 1000's of wild dogs killing off the deer and elk. :yike: I wonder if we should break the news to ID, MT, and Wyoming? It's wasn't wolves you fools it was them dang packed up wild dogs! :chuckle:
Are you the new WDFW wolf counter, Cougartail? Could you give us a hint on the exact number of wolves there are in WA?
So wolfbait, just about everytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of being a wdfw/fws employee/insider...do you think wdfw is out to get you? and that they have several staff reading and responding to your posts? I hate to break it to you, but you are not that important.
Also, do you hunt elk in Idaho or Montana or Wyoming or Washington? You post a lot on wolves but do you actually even hunt? I am starting to wonder if you are actually a greenie writing up a bunch of crap that will get the wolf-lovers spun up so you can raise money for your environmentalist groups to make sure wolves stay protected from hunting in Washington state.
Please direct me to your posts or create new ones showing some of the elk you have killed so that I at least know you are a hunter and not some whacko environmentalist creating propaganda for greenie fundraising groups.
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2013, 10:23:57 PM
I think you found his true agenda idahohuntr; fund raising for the wolf huggers, man why didn't I see that :DOH:
Post by: Cougartail on October 17, 2013, 12:40:06 AM
That is one pack of 5 mutts. In Tonasket, dogs killed 9 domestic sheep this year in one incident. That is more than wolves so far this year. I personally have seen 20 plus sheep mauled by roaming packs of dogs.
Before blowing a bunch of hot air and calling people "rats" maybe you "wolf haters" should actually read the wolf incident reports and try and educate yourself.
Post by: mountainman on October 17, 2013, 03:01:42 AM
Post by: Cougartail on October 17, 2013, 06:59:14 AM
Does that report list the domestic livestock killed by wolves and the ones the department DENIES were killed by wolves? Wait, you would probably believe that report also?
They list all events in which wolves were suspected/accused of killing, harassing or harming livestock. Even if you count all deaths as wolf kills you don't come close to the Deer Park killings.
Included are all calls responded to by WDFW as incident reports...just like when police respond to service/complaint calls a log is made. (Raw data.)
Do I trust them? Yes. I have dealt with the enforcement guys at WDFW and they unlike SOME biologists are not left leaning.
After listening to some on here I believe there are few that spend much time in the field and just parrot what each other say with little actual experience. A lot like big city liberals who parrot the "Disney line".
I'll be looking for a site with outdoorsmen as they seem to be lacking here.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 17, 2013, 07:16:59 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on October 17, 2013, 07:23:49 AM
Don't let the door hit you in the a55..............:yeah:
Post by: Cougartail on October 17, 2013, 07:31:59 AM
Don't let the door hit you in the a55..............
Is your house made of straw, sticks or brick? You have a nice day... :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 07:38:43 AM
Lets see..In 2011 a pack of 5 wild dogs killed almost 100 animals, mostly livestock up around Deer Park, near Spokane. If you check the incident reports on wolves in Washington from 2005 to present you won't even come close to that number of wolf kills on domestics. (livestock, dogs, cats etc.)
That is one pack of 5 mutts. In Tonasket, dogs killed 9 domestic sheep this year in one incident. That is more than wolves so far this year. I personally have seen 20 plus sheep mauled by roaming packs of dogs.
.
Truth. I can rattle off a few incidents of dogs killing livestock myself. It does not take much research to see that old fido causes far far more damage overall on livestock of varying sorts in this state. The cases just aren't as sensational and typically the loss is cumulative, lots of smaller losses piled on each other. It's a lot like noticing bears, coyotes, and cougars attack far more people every single year.
But that's not popular so...
Post by: deaner on October 17, 2013, 07:53:47 AM
Lets see..In 2011 a pack of 5 wild dogs killed almost 100 animals, mostly livestock up around Deer Park, near Spokane. If you check the incident reports on wolves in Washington from 2005 to present you won't even come close to that number of wolf kills on domestics. (livestock, dogs, cats etc.)
That is one pack of 5 mutts. In Tonasket, dogs killed 9 domestic sheep this year in one incident. That is more than wolves so far this year. I personally have seen 20 plus sheep mauled by roaming packs of dogs.
Before blowing a bunch of hot air and calling people "rats" maybe you "wolf haters" should actually read the wolf incident reports and try and educate yourself.
you said "thousands" of feral dogs roaming in packs. that doesnt sound like thousands
Post by: mountainman on October 17, 2013, 08:25:33 AM
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 08:33:22 AM
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1866&context=icwdm_usdanwrc&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dnumber%2Bof%2Bferal%2Bdogs%2Bin%2Bwashington%2Bstate%26oq%3Dnumber%2Bof%2Bferal%2Bdogs%2Bin%2Bwashington%2Bstate%26gs_l%3Dmobile-heirloom-serp.3...0.0.1.71.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..24.mobile-heirloom-serp..9.46.8354.CXjXiYxULIY (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1866&context=icwdm_usdanwrc&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dnumber%2Bof%2Bferal%2Bdogs%2Bin%2Bwashington%2Bstate%26oq%3Dnumber%2Bof%2Bferal%2Bdogs%2Bin%2Bwashington%2Bstate%26gs_l%3Dmobile-heirloom-serp.3...0.0.1.71.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..24.mobile-heirloom-serp..9.46.8354.CXjXiYxULIY)
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 09:05:37 AM
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/tuesday/1354062-8/coyotes-are-the-prime-predator (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/tuesday/1354062-8/coyotes-are-the-prime-predator)
The short version...
"As killers of livestock go, though, the wolf is comparatively inefficient or, at least, unprolific. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, of 220 predator-caused livestock mortalities in 2011, just 4 percent were attributed to wolves. Big cats — mountain lions, bobcats and lynx — accounted for another 9 percent, slightly less than dogs (10 percent).
Far and away No. 1 on the list, with 53 percent? The most problematic predator in the United States, not because of an edge in ferocity or size, but because they’re everywhere.
Coyotes."
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 09:19:52 AM
It'll get much worse in Washington, this is only the beginning.
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2013, 09:33:31 AM
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2013, 09:37:26 AM
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 10:03:09 AM
I know of several ranchers who have never had any trouble with coyotes killing their calves until the wolves showed up. Anything but the wolves kill calves.
However true that may or may not be, it is a fact that feral dogs have killed more livestock in this state than wolves in recent years. I believe it was even a hunter in/from Stevens county that killed the dogs that were mentioned earlier.
But what they killed wasn't cattle so I guess that makes all the difference.
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 17, 2013, 10:23:27 AM
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2013, 10:33:01 AM
I know of several ranchers who have never had any trouble with coyotes killing their calves until the wolves showed up. Anything but the wolves kill calves.
However true that may or may not be, it is a fact that feral dogs have killed more livestock in this state than wolves in recent years. I believe it was even a hunter in/from Stevens county that killed the dogs that were mentioned earlier.
But what they killed wasn't cattle so I guess that makes all the difference.
The difference in wolves and dogs is the death rate, we can shoot dogs and the problem goes away, an uncontrolled wolf population is a totally different story. Where I come from problem dogs aren't a problem for too long, whether they are after livestock or deer etc.. We have different rules in the country. ;)
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 10:34:08 AM
I know of several ranchers who have never had any trouble with coyotes killing their calves until the wolves showed up. Anything but the wolves kill calves.
However true that may or may not be, it is a fact that feral dogs have killed more livestock in this state than wolves in recent years. I believe it was even a hunter in/from Stevens county that killed the dogs that were mentioned earlier.
But what they killed wasn't cattle so I guess that makes all the difference.
What is your solution to feral dogs?
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 11:16:09 AM
I know of several ranchers who have never had any trouble with coyotes killing their calves until the wolves showed up. Anything but the wolves kill calves.
However true that may or may not be, it is a fact that feral dogs have killed more livestock in this state than wolves in recent years. I believe it was even a hunter in/from Stevens county that killed the dogs that were mentioned earlier.
But what they killed wasn't cattle so I guess that makes all the difference.
What is your solution to feral dogs?
Shoot them.
My point is I think it's reasonable to argue that an estimated coyote population of 50,000 in this state is far more destructive to wildlife and livestock as are feral dogs. The numbers arguably show that at the moment. Fawns die just as easily to coyotes and dogs and apparently llamas, goats, sheep, dogs, cats, etc do to. Attacks on people? Coyotes are at least equal if not ahead of wolves in that regard, that includes killing a couple kids, and with dogs, feral or otherwise, it's not even a contest.
Check this out...
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/news/livestock/coyotes-lead-the-pack-for-predator-related-livestock-losses/article_a9f8bf5a-6da9-571d-abf7-8576be1fc69b.html (http://www.farmandranchguide.com/news/livestock/coyotes-lead-the-pack-for-predator-related-livestock-losses/article_a9f8bf5a-6da9-571d-abf7-8576be1fc69b.html)
More highlights...
"Coyotes may only weigh 35 to 50 pounds but their jaws can exert more than 300 pounds of bite pressure. In 2009, coyotes used those jaws to kill 2,500 sheep in the state of Montana and 12,100 lambs. Last year's total coyote-related kills cost Montana sheep ranchers over $1 million dollars in lost animals alone."
and...
"Coyotes have also killed full-sized cattle, calves and other domestic animals.
The most recent record for predator-related cattle losses came in 2005. In that year, nationwide statistics showed coyotes responsible for 51.1 percent of all cattle losses due to predators, excluding Alaska. In Montana, alone, coyotes killed 1,300 calves in 2005."
Does the wolf need to be an animal that livestock owners, pet owners, or people who feel threatened can shoot? Yes. Should there be a hunting season right now? Beats me, but I'm not convinced they're as or anymore destructive in this state than the aforementioned at the moment, and no, I'm not saying that won't change. When a hunting season is declared I will support it.
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 11:25:27 AM
We have different rules in the country. ;)
I doubt they're any different than when my Dad's friend rolled a dog owner's dogs off the bed of his pickup, dead, after he caught them attacking his horses or when a mob ran down the road I grew up on and attacked three boxer's that attacked and killed a goat. The sheriff had fun with that last one.
Nice try.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 01:03:15 PM
Coyotes don't just take down small animals either. I watched a coyote kill a two year old deer on the lake of my Alaska home town one spring.
A good friend took a great series of pictures of a coyote killing a Dall sheep yearling one spring in the Kluane Wildlife refuge in the Yukon. It was right at the visitor center there. What was weird was, the lamb just stood there and didn't try to escape as the coyote grabbed it by the throat. And there were numerous adult sheep standing around watching the whole thing and they didn't get excited in the least. When it was over, He got out of his car to take some closeups of the coyote feeding, and the coyote actually charged him and chased him back inside his car. Very aggressive actions for a coyote. I wish he'd have posted his pics on National Geographic or something similar because they were definitely worthy, albeit graphic pictures.
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 17, 2013, 01:43:04 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 17, 2013, 01:59:51 PM
Lets see..In 2011 a pack of 5 wild dogs killed almost 100 animals, mostly livestock up around Deer Park, near Spokane. If you check the incident reports on wolves in Washington from 2005 to present you won't even come close to that number of wolf kills on domestics. (livestock, dogs, cats etc.)
That is one pack of 5 mutts. In Tonasket, dogs killed 9 domestic sheep this year in one incident. That is more than wolves so far this year. I personally have seen 20 plus sheep mauled by roaming packs of dogs.
Before blowing a bunch of hot air and calling people "rats" maybe you "wolf haters" should actually read the wolf incident reports and try and educate yourself.
He's accused me of the same thing. Don't take it too personally....
No one every brings up the idea that habitat loss might be hurting the elk/deer populations too. Roads, weeds, loss of logging and fire, and higher populations of other predators (bears, coyotes and lions) all have an effect. The wolf haters on here fail to see those as being SERIOUS contributing factors and are singulalarly (and simply) focused on wolves.
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 02:25:35 PM
I have been following this thread for a couple days now. You have your head in the sand if you can't see the link between a declining ungulate population and at the same time a rise in wolf activity and sightings. I'm sorry but only a moron can't connect those dots. Just my :twocents:
I like connecting dots, not just one dot.
You have degrading habitat as the Sierra Club et al has successfully stopped clear cutting which is leading to old growth. I don't know about you, but I avoid that stuff when I hunt since it's an eco desert. This has occurred since Clinton came out to give the spotted owl a hand in the 1990's.
You have a trapping and hound hunting ban, the affects of which are now really starting to show themselves in the form of more predation by mountain lions, bear, bobcat, and so on. That ban was passed in the 1990's.
You have wolves that started popping up back in the 1990's. Wolfbait has even posted an article demonstrating that.
And you have an ever growing coyote population that requires a 365/24/7 season.
If you think the problem will be solved by adding wolves to the list of hunted animals you're wrong. Not that they shouldn't be on that list, but if ungulate numbers are down it's because of several problems, not one. Multiple dots.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 03:09:23 PM
I have been following this thread for a couple days now. You have your head in the sand if you can't see the link between a declining ungulate population and at the same time a rise in wolf activity and sightings. I'm sorry but only a moron can't connect those dots. Just my :twocents:
Only a moron takes two separate happenings and relates them as cause and effect, without taking a close look at all other causes and their effects. When you make a judgement without having all the relevant information you can make horrible mistakes. Say a bank was robbed and you were in the area so were questioned and the cops decided to arrest you because you had a wallet full of 100 dollar bills. While this might make you suspect, it doesn't make you guilty without other collaborating evidence.
Post by: mountainman on October 17, 2013, 03:12:32 PM
Half dozen wolves, 1 moose calf...mid-morning nibble. Multiply this by 1/2 dz. calfs/day...in a good calfing area...30 days long..180 calfs +/-...couple that with say, the Colockum elk herd, already depleted and declining..add indians claiming the big bulls when they can. herd will be gone before you know it. great habitat up there. wolves hunt in groups, not like a single bear. Bears are also omnivirous. Add the adult elk killed throughout the year. mess in the making!!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 03:20:27 PM
But for your information, ADF&G has done studies and found that bears take out way more newborn animals than wolves do. If wolves were as bad as you guys like to say, this continent would have been barren of game when Europeans arrived from all the wolves. Instead, it was teaming with wildlife of all kinds.
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 03:31:31 PM
Moose Puts up Fierce Fight to Protect Her Baby from Wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T6GfdgJuTM#ws)
Half dozen wolves, 1 moose calf...mid-morning nibble. Multiply this by 1/2 dz. calfs/day...in a good calfing area...30 days long..180 calfs +/-...couple that with say, the Colockum elk herd, already depleted and declining..add indians claiming the big bulls when they can. herd will be gone before you know it. great habitat up there. wolves hunt in groups, not like a single bear. Bears are also omnivirous. Add the adult elk killed throughout the year. mess in the making!!
Momma moose with her calf getting taken by 1 black bear. Guess who isn't seeing as much hunting with hounds these days? And we have what? 25,000-30,000 black bear in this state? And who knows how many mountain lion?
Bear Kills Moose (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JVkaMqD5mI#)
Post by: buckfvr on October 17, 2013, 03:33:01 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 17, 2013, 03:36:11 PM
Half dozen wolves, 1 moose calf...mid-morning nibble. Multiply this by 1/2 dz. calfs/day...in a good calfing area...30 days long..180 calfs +/-...couple that with say, the Colockum elk herd, already depleted and declining..add indians claiming the big bulls when they can. herd will be gone before you know it. great habitat up there. wolves hunt in groups, not like a single bear. Bears are also omnivirous. Add the adult elk killed throughout the year. mess in the making!!
I'm not so sure about your math. Where did the 6 calves per day number come from? And keep in mind, calves are only tiny and really vunerable for a short time....
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 03:37:08 PM
I just think that along with all the other problems, the wolf is going to be the straw that broke the camels back.............not singularly, but cumulatively. It is a problem that can not be explained away..........
They're certainly a contributing factor. No doubt about that. But how much relative to the rest?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 03:43:08 PM
I just think that along with all the other problems, the wolf is going to be the straw that broke the camels back.............not singularly, but cumulatively. It is a problem that can not be explained away..........
A worst wolves will be a push, as they will displace other predators. At best, they may take other predators down a notch and actually improve hunting of some species such as game birds.
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 03:47:52 PM
At best, they may take other predators down a notch and actually improve hunting of some species such as game birds.
In that event....
:whoo:
Though guys with dogs will have more to worry about.
Post by: Northway on October 17, 2013, 04:10:38 PM
I just think that along with all the other problems, the wolf is going to be the straw that broke the camels back.............not singularly, but cumulatively. It is a problem that can not be explained away..........
A worst wolves will be a push, as they will displace other predators. At best, they may take other predators down a notch and actually improve hunting of some species such as game birds.
I believe there may have been a study done on additive vs. compensatory wolf predation, but I can't remember where I saw it. I would imagine though, that the relationship is variable due to the fact that some terrain favors wolves more than others.
It is a difficult thing to quantify.........
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 04:21:17 PM
They lost my trust when they failed to verify packs, then pissed me off when they do everything they can to hide wolf predation on livestock.
WDFW has done more damage to the wolfs image in WA than the wolves themselves. .
Post by: buckfvr on October 17, 2013, 04:32:58 PM
People of Washington, the "wolf haters" might not have been so hateful if WDFW would have implemented a reasonable wolf plan and been more proactive in removing problem animals.
They lost my trust when they failed to verify packs, then pissed me off when they do everything they can to hide wolf predation on livestock.
WDFW has done more damage to the wolfs image in WA than the wolves themselves. .
:yeah: :yeah: Cant argue that............and lets not forget the last wolf meeting.........good grief, what a bunch dead beat liars.
Post by: snowpack on October 17, 2013, 04:35:44 PM
People of Washington, the "wolf haters" might not have been so hateful if WDFW would have implemented a reasonable wolf plan and been more proactive in removing problem animals.No kidding. Add in that the commission is being overtaken by wolf advocacy groups linked to radicals like earth first and were instrumental in the hound/baiting/trapping bans; and that they don't like to hold wolf related meetings in the areas getting the most wolves or outside of working hours.
They lost my trust when they failed to verify packs, then pissed me off when they do everything they can to hide wolf predation on livestock.
WDFW has done more damage to the wolfs image in WA than the wolves themselves. .
Post by: Cougartail on October 17, 2013, 05:06:18 PM
then pissed me off when they do everything they can to hide wolf predation on livestock.
Didn't you mean they stopped people from freeloading by claiming every predation was by a wolf so they could get a check?
You and your buddies own livestock?
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 05:35:28 PM
Post by: buckfvr on October 17, 2013, 05:47:49 PM
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you leave none humanure.
Is that who that is ???????????
Post by: Cougartail on October 17, 2013, 05:56:11 PM
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you leave none humanure.
Stop running your mouth and answer the question. Do you have livestock?
Everybody knows they get paid if it's a wolf and take it in the shorts if it's not.
Post by: Cougartail on October 17, 2013, 06:03:48 PM
Lets see..In 2011 a pack of 5 wild dogs killed almost 100 animals, mostly livestock up around Deer Park, near Spokane. If you check the incident reports on wolves in Washington from 2005 to present you won't even come close to that number of wolf kills on domestics. (livestock, dogs, cats etc.)
That is one pack of 5 mutts. In Tonasket, dogs killed 9 domestic sheep this year in one incident. That is more than wolves so far this year. I personally have seen 20 plus sheep mauled by roaming packs of dogs.
Before blowing a bunch of hot air and calling people "rats" maybe you "wolf haters" should actually read the wolf incident reports and try and educate yourself.
you said "thousands" of feral dogs roaming in packs. that doesnt sound like thousands
Read my post carefully before posting. I never said feral dogs. I said dogs. I also stand by the thousands. A pack being 3 or more dogs running together. Just go to any reservation or hispanic towns and you will see many families own a "pack" and let them roam free.
Post by: wolfbait on October 17, 2013, 06:09:20 PM
The article below was written by a good friend of mine. Whether we are talking about the USFWS, IDFG or WDFW it really doesn't matter as they are all the same. These agencies have an agenda that doesn't include hunting, their wolves and their actions prove this.
Idaho_Roper • 5 days ago−
A very good description of all the ignored impacts the pimps like Carter willfully leave out. Those ignored impacts are the tipping point of the declines in our wildlife populations that have created this steady downward trending that game departments attempt to over up in an attempt to sell something they no longer have.
Wolves are the second most destructive animal on an ecosystem outside of man. But at least man can be controlled and utilize reason, science and law to turn behaviors into positives, hence, our wildlife model that perpetuated game populations. Wolves possess no such ability. As 17 years has now proven, wolves create a steady negative growth trend for all prey species. Record low population now inhabit most ranges the wolves have been allowed to destroy.
Banff, Yellowstone, the Lolo of Idaho and the list goes on and on and on. The evidence is undeniable to all but the most closed minded. And even though every year wolf pimps like Doug Smith claim elk populations will stabilize and turn around, they, in fact, continue to fall. Their narcissistic belligerence in the denial of these facts pretty much eliminates any claims of them being an expert in anything but propaganda.
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 17, 2013, 06:13:27 PM
Sure sounds like it.I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you leave none humanure.
Is that who that is ???????????
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 17, 2013, 06:29:02 PM
Post by: Special T on October 17, 2013, 06:47:21 PM
Lets see..In 2011 a pack of 5 wild dogs killed almost 100 animals, mostly livestock up around Deer Park, near Spokane. If you check the incident reports on wolves in Washington from 2005 to present you won't even come close to that number of wolf kills on domestics. (livestock, dogs, cats etc.)
That is one pack of 5 mutts. In Tonasket, dogs killed 9 domestic sheep this year in one incident. That is more than wolves so far this year. I personally have seen 20 plus sheep mauled by roaming packs of dogs.
Before blowing a bunch of hot air and calling people "rats" maybe you "wolf haters" should actually read the wolf incident reports and try and educate yourself.
He's accused me of the same thing. Don't take it too personally....
No one every brings up the idea that habitat loss might be hurting the elk/deer populations too. Roads, weeds, loss of logging and fire, and higher populations of other predators (bears, coyotes and lions) all have an effect. The wolf haters on here fail to see those as being SERIOUS contributing factors and are singulalarly (and simply) focused on wolves.
This state is in love with all kinds of Predators Bart, you of all people feel the affects of the WDFW bending to the will of bunny huggers, not being able to run your dogs on bear and cougar in this state. Hound hunting WAS a great tool because it provided the association that dogs/humans were bad and to be avoided. That association is now gone. Wolves are just an extension of that love fest for predators. Were bears and cougars ever in danger of becoming extinct in WA? HeLL no! IMO if they opened up wolf hunting to big game status now, we couldn't even make a dent. :twocents:
Post by: mountainman on October 17, 2013, 06:47:38 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 17, 2013, 06:49:40 PM
Some one here are laughable. Only here to spread de-information. Believe what "reports" they read, accuse others as not knowledgable on the issue. "Do you own livestock"? "Do you spend time hunting"? Would love to spend the time disproving them on both counts, but they have made a argumental "joke" out of this thread, and don't deserve any comeback. People, take them for what they are worth...rats!:yeah:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 07:51:05 PM
I'll send some wish you were here pix.
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 07:56:17 PM
How much is the total cap for statewide compensation?
You don't discuss that, you don't find in on the WDFW site living with wolves FAQ either.
ranchers aren't compensated for aborted calves, low herd weights and loss of prime graze either, too hard to quantify.
are you a vegan humanure? You claim to have bird dogs so it's doubtful.
You enjoy beef? I do, so I support ranchers and if they need to run my future steak on leased graze I'm good with that.
Who wants a feedlot cow anyways pumped full of antibotics so they don't get infection dragging their bellies through a feces slurry.
No everyone wants "grass fed" beef but don't want to pay $8/lb for grass fed 90/10 hamburger do they.
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 08:03:51 PM
I'm so worried about how bad wolves are in Idaho, I bought tags to hunt elk and deer there this year. Gonna help wolves finish off the herds there.
I'll send some wish you were here pix.
Idaho has a far better wolf plan than WA does, less breeding pairs requirements and better management of their Elk herds. Of course ID is going to have better hunting, I'm heading there myself next year and will most likely forgo all hunting in Washington.
Not to mention ID has butch Otter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-wolves-idaho-idUSTRE73J0I120110420 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-wolves-idaho-idUSTRE73J0I120110420)
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 17, 2013, 08:06:58 PM
Not to mention Idaho had a much, much bigger ungulate population to start with.I'm so worried about how bad wolves are in Idaho, I bought tags to hunt elk and deer there this year. Gonna help wolves finish off the herds there.
I'll send some wish you were here pix.
Idaho has a far better wolf plan than WA does, less breeding pairs requirements and better management of their Elk herds. Of course ID is going to have better hunting, I'm heading there myself next year and will most likely forgo all hunting in Washington.
Not to mention ID has butch Otter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-wolves-idaho-idUSTRE73J0I120110420 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-wolves-idaho-idUSTRE73J0I120110420)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 08:47:59 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 17, 2013, 08:51:32 PM
Wait a minute! You guys aren't following the party line of "the wolf destruction in ID, MT and Wyoming" (quote from Wolfbait). You're going to get kickded out of the club for making Wolfbait look bad.Have no idea what your talking about. :dunno:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 09:25:23 PM
The real reason it isn't so bad by the way is that wolves aren't that bad in the long run.They are not the cause of herd declines or gains. They are an indicator. They go up and down with prey populations. And there is usually a little lag time involved. They are just like prey animals in that they need food to survive. If they really wiped out prey populations, they'd be doing themselves in. Nature has checks and balances that prevent that. Only one species has a tendency to get around nature's checks and balances. And that is man.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 17, 2013, 09:29:27 PM
What I'm talking about is you're hedging on how much damage wolves have really done in Idaho. According to Wolfbait, it's almost total annihilation. Now you guys are trying to tell me why it really isn't so bad in Idaho.
The real reason it isn't so bad by the way is that wolves aren't that bad in the long run.They are not the cause of herd declines or gains. They are an indicator. They go up and down with prey populations. And there is usually a little lag time involved. They are just like prey animals in that they need food to survive. If they really wiped out prey populations, they'd be doing themselves in. Nature has checks and balances that prevent that. Only one species has a tendency to get around nature's checks and balances. And that is man.
Call the Idaho Fish and Game and see what the say. I've talked to them and they blame the wolves 100%.
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 09:38:29 PM
What I'm talking about is you're hedging on how much damage wolves have really done in Idaho. According to Wolfbait, it's almost total annihilation. Now you guys are trying to tell me why it really isn't so bad in Idaho.
The real reason it isn't so bad by the way is that wolves aren't that bad in the long run.They are not the cause of herd declines or gains. They are an indicator. They go up and down with prey populations. And there is usually a little lag time involved. They are just like prey animals in that they need food to survive. If they really wiped out prey populations, they'd be doing themselves in. Nature has checks and balances that prevent that. Only one species has a tendency to get around nature's checks and balances. And that is man.
the wolves move to domestics, next thing you know your kids are waiting for the bus in cages.
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/266402nm12-02-07.htm (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/266402nm12-02-07.htm)
LAS CRUCES— Catron County parents say they're just concerned about the safety of their children.
Animal activists say it's an overreaction.
Reserve Independent Schools is building wolf-proof shelters for school bus stops in southwest New Mexico, where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reintroduced the Mexican gray wolf.
http://americansforprosperity.org/california/legislativealerts/outrageous-kid-cages-at-school-bus-stops/ (http://americansforprosperity.org/california/legislativealerts/outrageous-kid-cages-at-school-bus-stops/)
California – Americans for Prosperity calls for reform of the Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act has been transformed from a balanced conservation policy to an instrument used to pursue radical environmental agendas. Abuses of the Act have led to thousands of job losses, hundreds of terminated projects, and countless invasions of private property rights. State’s rights should not be infringed upon through the ESA’s broad applications of the Commerce Clause. In addition, plants and animals, not in danger of extinction, shouldn’t be granted rights that impede business, industry, and American prosperity.
Read more: http://americansforprosperity.org/california/legislativealerts/outrageous-kid-cages-at-school-bus-stops/#ixzz2i2rEyvLt (http://americansforprosperity.org/california/legislativealerts/outrageous-kid-cages-at-school-bus-stops/#ixzz2i2rEyvLt)
http://www.gilbertwatch.com/gilbertwatch/index.cfm/blog/wolves-devastate-arizonas-animals-and-economy-and-force-children-into-cages/ (http://www.gilbertwatch.com/gilbertwatch/index.cfm/blog/wolves-devastate-arizonas-animals-and-economy-and-force-children-into-cages/)
Wolves Devastate Arizona's Animals and Economy, and Force Children into Cages
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 09:40:55 PM
Call the Idaho Fish and Game and see what the say. I've talked to them and they blame the wolves 100%.
I'll give you a report with pictures, I start hunting Nov 21. The guy I'm going with has been guiding his wife to get her bull right now and he's seeing lots of elk in unit 14. He's hunting unit 16 next week, but last year in 16 he told me he hasn't seen that many elk in a long time.
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 09:42:39 PM
If you don't think this is our future you got your head in the sand.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 09:47:34 PM
the wolves move to domestics, next thing you know your kids are waiting for the bus in cages.
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/266402nm12-02-07.htm (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/266402nm12-02-07.htm)
LAS CRUCES— Catron County parents say they're just concerned about the safety of their children.
Animal activists say it's an overreaction.
Reserve Independent Schools is building wolf-proof shelters for school bus stops in southwest New Mexico, where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reintroduced the Mexican gray wolf.
http://americansforprosperity.org/california/legislativealerts/outrageous-kid-cages-at-school-bus-stops/ (http://americansforprosperity.org/california/legislativealerts/outrageous-kid-cages-at-school-bus-stops/)
California – Americans for Prosperity calls for reform of the Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act has been transformed from a balanced conservation policy to an instrument used to pursue radical environmental agendas. Abuses of the Act have led to thousands of job losses, hundreds of terminated projects, and countless invasions of private property rights. State’s rights should not be infringed upon through the ESA’s broad applications of the Commerce Clause. In addition, plants and animals, not in danger of extinction, shouldn’t be granted rights that impede business, industry, and American prosperity.
Read more: http://americansforprosperity.org/california/legislativealerts/outrageous-kid-cages-at-school-bus-stops/#ixzz2i2rEyvLt (http://americansforprosperity.org/california/legislativealerts/outrageous-kid-cages-at-school-bus-stops/#ixzz2i2rEyvLt)
http://www.gilbertwatch.com/gilbertwatch/index.cfm/blog/wolves-devastate-arizonas-animals-and-economy-and-force-children-into-cages/ (http://www.gilbertwatch.com/gilbertwatch/index.cfm/blog/wolves-devastate-arizonas-animals-and-economy-and-force-children-into-cages/)
Wolves Devastate Arizona's Animals and Economy, and Force Children into Cages
What a bunch of emotional hogwash! Wolf proof school bus cages? Evidently they weren't worried about cougars or bears, huh? Those animals actually kill children as do dogs quite regularly. Never heard of a wolf proof school bus stop in Alaska or Canada. Those New Mexican kids must be more tasty to wolves.
Post by: mountainman on October 17, 2013, 09:59:59 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 10:02:17 PM
Wife heard wolves out the bedroom window, she doesn't care if the odds are 1 in 1 billion...if there is ANY chance our kids could be hurt she's going to have her shelter :chuckle:
reminds me, I'm suppost to park the old truck at the end of the driveway until I can get a shelter up :yike:
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 10:06:30 PM
Post by: Humptulips on October 17, 2013, 10:29:37 PM
then pissed me off when they do everything they can to hide wolf predation on livestock.
Didn't you mean they stopped people from freeloading by claiming every predation was by a wolf so they could get a check?
You and your buddies own livestock?
If you knew anything about the compensation program you would know livestock doesn't have to be killed by wolves to be compensated. Cougar kills your beef you can still put in a claim. Compensation for wolf damage has a different funding source but you can still put in a claim for non-wolf related wildlife damage to livestock or crops.
Post by: KFhunter on October 17, 2013, 10:46:28 PM
Wildlife Damage Compensation.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is directed to, subject to funding limits, monetarily compensate the owners of commercial crops damaged by deer or elk and the owners of commercial livestock that are killed or significantly injured by bears, cougars, or wolves. Each individual claim by a crop or livestock owner is eligible to be paid the value of the lost crop less any payments received by a nonprofit organization up to a maximum of $10,000. For livestock, the compensation is $200 for each lost sheep and $1,500 for each lost head of cattle or horse.
The bigger part of the loss isn't direct kills on livestock, but harassment of the animals. The whole herd comes in with low weight. Many of the lost cattle are never found, how do you document a wolf kill if you can't find the carcass?
Post by: Humptulips on October 17, 2013, 10:49:43 PM
It's cougar here and WDFW knows it. Privately they admit it.
In 4 days of hard deer hunting I saw exactly one deer and most of the hunters have gave up too, some have moved on. Kind of like certain people that head for ID.
The predator situation is surely cumulative. We had coyotes and the deer and elk managed. Add in more bear and cougar when they made them game animals and they started a slow decline. Speeded up that decline in 96 when they took away hounds. Still a few elk around and some deer but I imagine we will go over the cliff when wolves get here.
And yes I imagine the cougar numbers will drop along with coyotes. They'll surely decline if there is nothing left for them to eat.
Don't even talk to me about habitat as that is pure hogwash. FS sucks for habitat anymore but there are plenty of areas with great habitat and no game. Never have I seen an overbrowsed area in this neck of the woods.
Post by: Humptulips on October 17, 2013, 10:51:24 PM
I was talking about the caps on compensation per ranch per year.
KF,
My comment was pointed more at Cougartails post.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2013, 11:03:40 PM
Post by: AspenBud on October 17, 2013, 11:28:57 PM
Humptulips, you gotta admit a lot of it here on the Peninsula is habitat. In the 70's I used to hunt the East Hump and it was a great area before it got turned into an overgrown Douglas fir plantation. Fir plantations are fine if there are lots of clearcuts so there's some food for the herds, but you get into 15 yer old reprod, and it's a dead zone. Not much on the ground except a few mushrooms. In the 70s the East hump had a good mix of evergreens and hardwoods, so even though it was older 2nd growth, it still supported a lot of animals. Until they start logging it again, there won't be much there.
Ain't that the truth.
If sunlight isn't getting through the trees it becomes a desert on the forest floor and that's what current logging practices in this state have created. Deserts. Only the greenest greenie Sierra Club member tries to argue with that.
Post by: Humptulips on October 17, 2013, 11:35:24 PM
Humptulips, you gotta admit a lot of it here on the Peninsula is habitat. In the 70's I used to hunt the East Hump and it was a great area before it got turned into an overgrown Douglas fir plantation. Fir plantations are fine if there are lots of clearcuts so there's some food for the herds, but you get into 15 yer old reprod, and it's a dead zone. Not much on the ground except a few mushrooms. In the 70s the East hump had a good mix of evergreens and hardwoods, so even though it was older 2nd growth, it still supported a lot of animals. Until they start logging it again, there won't be much there.
No, I don't have to admit it because like I said hogwash. Back when I started hunting in the late 60s the Promise Land was what you would call the worst habitat much like the E Fork is now, actually worse because there are still a few newer clearcuts on the E.Fork. Guess what, there were deer on the Promise Land.
Those few clearcuts on the E.Fork, if the deer were starving they would cluster in around them but no, the feed goes uneaten.
Used to be able to walk a road in that bad habitat and see it browsed the full length. Now the salmon berries never get pruned for the most part.
The Promise Land now is loaded with newer clearcuts but the deer few and far between. If it was just habitat it should be loaded.
If you're raising beef you have to have grass for them to eat but you can't kill more then are born every year and expect your herd to flourish.
I don't understand why it is so hard to accept that predators can for want of a better term overbrowse their food supply.
Post by: mountainman on October 18, 2013, 01:45:48 AM
:yeah:well saidHumptulips, you gotta admit a lot of it here on the Peninsula is habitat. In the 70's I used to hunt the East Hump and it was a great area before it got turned into an overgrown Douglas fir plantation. Fir plantations are fine if there are lots of clearcuts so there's some food for the herds, but you get into 15 yer old reprod, and it's a dead zone. Not much on the ground except a few mushrooms. In the 70s the East hump had a good mix of evergreens and hardwoods, so even though it was older 2nd growth, it still supported a lot of animals. Until they start logging it again, there won't be much there.
No, I don't have to admit it because like I said hogwash. Back when I started hunting in the late 60s the Promise Land was what you would call the worst habitat much like the E Fork is now, actually worse because there are still a few newer clearcuts on the E.Fork. Guess what, there were deer on the Promise Land.
Those few clearcuts on the E.Fork, if the deer were starving they would cluster in around them but no, the feed goes uneaten.
Used to be able to walk a road in that bad habitat and see it browsed the full length. Now the salmon berries never get pruned for the most part.
The Promise Land now is loaded with newer clearcuts but the deer few and far between. If it was just habitat it should be loaded.
If you're raising beef you have to have grass for them to eat but you can't kill more then are born every year and expect your herd to flourish.
I don't understand why it is so hard to accept that predators can for want of a better term overbrowse their food supply.
Post by: Cougartail on October 18, 2013, 04:56:46 AM
I was talking about the caps on compensation per ranch per year.
KF,
My comment was pointed more at Cougartails post.
There are no caps on compensation per year. Per claim, yes.
I was referring to the topic of dog depredation.. being blamed as wolves..
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 18, 2013, 06:05:28 AM
What I'm talking about is you're hedging on how much damage wolves have really done in Idaho. According to Wolfbait, it's almost total annihilation. Now you guys are trying to tell me why it really isn't so bad in Idaho.I never said that. Your assuming. Don't put words in my mouth. But now that you mentioned it. Yes I do think wolves have put a signifigant dent in the population in Idaho.
The real reason it isn't so bad by the way is that wolves aren't that bad in the long run.They are not the cause of herd declines or gains. They are an indicator. They go up and down with prey populations. And there is usually a little lag time involved. They are just like prey animals in that they need food to survive. If they really wiped out prey populations, they'd be doing themselves in. Nature has checks and balances that prevent that. Only one species has a tendency to get around nature's checks and balances. And that is man.
Post by: Cougartail on October 18, 2013, 07:27:49 AM
I don't know if you're married or have kids sitka-blacktail, but you'd have to pretty solid in your beliefs to send your kids out to the bus in the dark after hearing wolves out side.In the past 100 years maybe 5 people have been killed in North America by wolves. In the past 10 years more than 250 people have been killed by domestic dogs in America. There has been over 40 million dog bites and over 450,000 requiring emergency room care also in the last 10 years in America.
...and your worried about wolves hurting your kids because you hear one howl.
Makes perfect sense to me... :bash:
It's amazing any children are left in Alaskan villages with such a threat looming!
Post by: sirmissalot on October 18, 2013, 07:38:22 AM
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on October 18, 2013, 07:55:00 AM
This thread is pretty comical really.
:yeah:
I've read most of this thread and I'm just trying to get one thing straight. So on one side guys are saying there and too many wolves depleting our wildlife and we need to wipe them out and on the other side guys are saying theres not as many wolves as people are lead on to believe and they dont have that much of an affect on deer, elk, etc and that wild packs of dogs are more to blame? Am I right? Wrong? And for the record to me it seems like theres been some extremist remarks from both sides.
My :twocents: predators ie. cougars, bears, coyotes etc. have always had an affect on deer and elk and so on. But make no mistake about it, wolves are having a devastating affect on wildlife period! No matter their numbers or where they're at!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 18, 2013, 08:02:27 AM
But make no mistake about it, wolves are having a devastating affect on wildlife period! No matter their numbers or where they're at!
How does that work?
Post by: mountainman on October 18, 2013, 08:03:52 AM
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on October 18, 2013, 08:07:22 AM
But make no mistake about it, wolves are having a devastating affect on wildlife period! No matter their numbers or where they're at!
How does that work?
?????
Post by: AspenBud on October 18, 2013, 08:32:51 AM
Or wolves being blamed on dogs?
That's actually not what was said, but feel free to keep lying.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 18, 2013, 09:24:44 AM
Wolves have no effect on ungulate populations... :chuckle:
Who said that? I think everyone here agrees wolves can and do have impacts to ungulate populations. The separation comes as some claim total destruction, while other folks believe somehow elk and deer will persist despite wolves and that there are many other factors, in some cases far more important, that have caused declines in ungulate populations.
I just got back from a hunt in central Idaho, killed a bull opening morning, saw over 300 elk in 5 days hunting with my dad and not a hint of a wolf. Tell me again about the complete destruction in Idaho???? I saw more elk in this unit than I have in 20 years. I'm either the best darn hunter on this forum (many people can easily refute this :chuckle:) or there is a lot of exxageration going on in regards to wolf impacts on elk in Idaho. Some very specific areas have taken a toll, particularly where other habitat factors have come into play, but by and large Idaho is doing just fine with wolves. Frankly, the guys I know that complain the most about wolves...they never killed elk before wolf reintroductions and they don't now either...they just have another excuse. So if you are a poor hunter and want to cry wolf...go for it. Me, I will be out with my rifle and bow continuing to hunt AND KILL elk regularly.
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 18, 2013, 09:32:26 AM
One could say that the reason you saw so many elk was cause you didn't see any wolves.Wolves have no effect on ungulate populations... :chuckle:
Who said that? I think everyone here agrees wolves can and do have impacts to ungulate populations. The separation comes as some claim total destruction, while other folks believe somehow elk and deer will persist despite wolves and that there are many other factors, in some cases far more important, that have caused declines in ungulate populations.
I just got back from a hunt in central Idaho, killed a bull opening morning, saw over 300 elk in 5 days hunting with my dad and not a hint of a wolf. Tell me again about the complete destruction in Idaho???? I saw more elk in this unit than I have in 20 years. I'm either the best darn hunter on this forum (many people can easily refute this :chuckle:) or there is a lot of exxageration going on in regards to wolf impacts on elk in Idaho. Some very specific areas have taken a toll, particularly where other habitat factors have come into play, but by and large Idaho is doing just fine with wolves. Frankly, the guys I know that complain the most about wolves...they never killed elk before wolf reintroductions and they don't now either...they just have another excuse. So if you are a poor hunter and want to cry wolf...go for it. Me, I will be out with my rifle and bow continuing to hunt AND KILL elk regularly.
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2013, 10:14:14 AM
One could say that the reason you saw so many elk was cause you didn't see any wolves.Wolves have no effect on ungulate populations... :chuckle:
Who said that? I think everyone here agrees wolves can and do have impacts to ungulate populations. The separation comes as some claim total destruction, while other folks believe somehow elk and deer will persist despite wolves and that there are many other factors, in some cases far more important, that have caused declines in ungulate populations.
I just got back from a hunt in central Idaho, killed a bull opening morning, saw over 300 elk in 5 days hunting with my dad and not a hint of a wolf. Tell me again about the complete destruction in Idaho???? I saw more elk in this unit than I have in 20 years. I'm either the best darn hunter on this forum (many people can easily refute this :chuckle:) or there is a lot of exxageration going on in regards to wolf impacts on elk in Idaho. Some very specific areas have taken a toll, particularly where other habitat factors have come into play, but by and large Idaho is doing just fine with wolves. Frankly, the guys I know that complain the most about wolves...they never killed elk before wolf reintroductions and they don't now either...they just have another excuse. So if you are a poor hunter and want to cry wolf...go for it. Me, I will be out with my rifle and bow continuing to hunt AND KILL elk regularly.
That is exactly a point I've already brought up, and one of the reasons some hunters are seeing extraordinary numbers of Elk.
Wolves are like sheep herding dogs moving herds of Elk around like so many sheep, if your in the path hunting is wonderful!
No get far back where the wolves are working and you'll find empty drainages where all those Elk you've been seeing would normally be.
If you spread out all those Elk across Idaho back into their ranges where they would have been prior to the wolves you'd see sparse numbers and tough hunting.
So idahohuntr you can thank the wolves for bringing the Elk right to you ;)
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2013, 10:17:39 AM
they've effectively thumbed their noses at USFWS.
Post by: Northway on October 18, 2013, 10:24:26 AM
As someone who is more predator friendly than most people on this site, I believe that predator management is definitely not the only component, but an important component in maintaining hunter opportunity. There's just no way around it that I can see, at least in Washington State under the current circumstances.
Along with predator management however, there needs to be a strong focus on habitat improvement/preservation, identification & prosecution of poaching, and increased pressure on tribes to police their own members in problem areas.
The problem with supporting predator management is that some folks make predators the scapegoat for everything while ignoring the other important factors that also need to be considered.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2013, 10:39:05 AM
I think the argument about whether or not wolves, or other predators for that matter, reach an equilibrium with the ungulates in their surrounding area. I happen to believe that they do, but that's not the point. The important thing is that in a number of areas, a certain level of predation drives ungulate numbers lower to the point that hunter opportunity reaches a socially unacceptable level.
As someone who is more predator friendly than most people on this site, I believe that predator management is definitely not the only component, but an important component in maintaining hunter opportunity. There's just no way around it that I can see, at least in Washington State under the current circumstances.
Along with predator management however, there needs to be a strong focus on habitat improvement/preservation, identification & prosecution of poaching, and increased pressure on tribes to police their own members in problem areas.
The problem with supporting predator management is that some folks make predators the scapegoat for everything while ignoring the other important factors that also need to be considered.
Another problem is that some refuse to recognize man as one of the natural predators and hunting as a natural activity of that predator. Animal species and balances in nature change. Sometimes when there are two competing predators, the less effective of them is driven out or killed off. The wolf at one time roamed the entire country. Man showed up and they were killed off because of the competition for game and because of the danger they presented to man. They don't belong here anymore.
There are not many people in here, if any, who don't participate in conservation, which for the purposes of this discussion include habitat enhancement and improvement, and increased pressure on poaching and other illegal or detrimental activities which impact game. Some of us are more involved than others, but just by the very fact that someone buys their license and guns, they support conservation and habitat restoration.
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2013, 10:44:48 AM
humanure was banned because he constantly diverted the topic from wolf to other topics, continually derails the conversation.
Now he comes back under different user names but always uses the same tired trick.
Post by: snowpack on October 18, 2013, 10:49:37 AM
Most of that time frame there weren't wolves except in remote Canada and Alaska. Kind of hard for an animal that doesn't really exist in any numbers to be racking up a large body count. Dogs however number around 80 million, so a very small fraction of dogs can give you a large number of human casualties. When wolves reach the steady, targeted population objectives it will be interesting to revisit the how dangerous are wolves stats. Especially considering that 100 years if they encountered a person it was likely a trapper/hunter/rancher/indian warrior/etc and got shot; and now days it will likely be yuppy hikers/photographers/joggers/bicyclists and they might throw an I-pod or a latte at the wolf.I don't know if you're married or have kids sitka-blacktail, but you'd have to pretty solid in your beliefs to send your kids out to the bus in the dark after hearing wolves out side.In the past 100 years maybe 5 people have been killed in North America by wolves. In the past 10 years more than 250 people have been killed by domestic dogs in America. There has been over 40 million dog bites and over 450,000 requiring emergency room care also in the last 10 years in America.
...and your worried about wolves hurting your kids because you hear one howl.
Makes perfect sense to me... :bash:
It's amazing any children are left in Alaskan villages with such a threat looming!
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2013, 10:55:22 AM
Post by: mountainman on October 18, 2013, 10:57:35 AM
This is the wolf forum, it's not the feral dog section, the coyote section, the habitat section, rabid bunny section, bear section or conservation section - it's the wolf section.:bash:
humanure was banned because he constantly diverted the topic from wolf to other topics, continually derails the conversation.
Now he comes back under different user names but always uses the same tired trick.
Post by: Northway on October 18, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
I think the argument about whether or not wolves, or other predators for that matter, reach an equilibrium with the ungulates in their surrounding area. I happen to believe that they do, but that's not the point. The important thing is that in a number of areas, a certain level of predation drives ungulate numbers lower to the point that hunter opportunity reaches a socially unacceptable level.
As someone who is more predator friendly than most people on this site, I believe that predator management is definitely not the only component, but an important component in maintaining hunter opportunity. There's just no way around it that I can see, at least in Washington State under the current circumstances.
Along with predator management however, there needs to be a strong focus on habitat improvement/preservation, identification & prosecution of poaching, and increased pressure on tribes to police their own members in problem areas.
The problem with supporting predator management is that some folks make predators the scapegoat for everything while ignoring the other important factors that also need to be considered.
Another problem is that some refuse to recognize man as one of the natural predators and hunting as a natural activity of that predator. Animal species and balances in nature change. Sometimes when there are two competing predators, the less effective of them is driven out or killed off. The wolf at one time roamed the entire country. Man showed up and they were killed off because of the competition for game and because of the danger they presented to man. They don't belong here anymore.
There are not many people in here, if any, who don't participate in conservation, which for the purposes of this discussion include habitat enhancement and improvement, and increased pressure on poaching and other illegal or detrimental activities which impact game. Some of us are more involved than others, but just by the very fact that someone buys their license and guns, they support conservation and habitat restoration.
Where would we be at if every time that a person made the claim that an animal was some sort of problem, they could snap their finger and the species disappeared? I'm pretty sure that all those people had what was to them, a compelling set of reasons why the animal was a nuisance, economic hinderance, or danger to man and should be gone. All of them, at one time or another, probably felt as justified in their opinion towards whatever animal was bothering them as you do about wolves.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 18, 2013, 11:17:19 AM
So, now you are claiming that wolves have improved elk hunting????????? Also, I was several miles in backcountry (on mules) and I hunted multiple drainages several air miles apart...elk were in every one of them. So it was not that I just got the one lucky draw where all the elk were hiding from wolves.Wolves have no effect on ungulate populations... :chuckle:
So idahohuntr you can thank the wolves for bringing the Elk right to you ;)
I agree Idaho has a good plan...but it is no thanks to nutjobs claiming conspiracies like wolfbait...it is because of rationale sportsmen, congressman, and IDFG biologists seeking reasonable management and ignoring the greenies who don't want to harm a single wolf AND ignoring the cry babies claiming every elk must be killed or elk populations will be destroyed.
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2013, 11:20:20 AM
So, now you are claiming that wolves have improved elk hunting????????? Also, I was several miles in backcountry (on mules) and I hunted multiple drainages several air miles apart...elk were in every one of them. So it was not that I just got the one lucky draw where all the elk were hiding from wolves.Wolves have no effect on ungulate populations... :chuckle:
So idahohuntr you can thank the wolves for bringing the Elk right to you ;)
I agree Idaho has a good plan...but it is no thanks to nutjobs claiming conspiracies like wolfbait...it is because of rationale sportsmen, congressman, and IDFG biologists seeking reasonable management and ignoring the greenies who don't want to harm a single wolf AND ignoring the cry babies claiming every elk must be killed or elk populations will be destroyed.
Several miles is nothing :chuckle: That's effortless for wolf.QuoteI agree Idaho has a good plan...it is because of rationale sportsmen, congressman, and IDFG biologists seeking reasonable management and ignoring the greenies who don't want to harm a single wolf AND ignoring the cry babies claiming every elk must be killed or elk populations will be destroyed.
that's all I want for washington.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 18, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2013, 11:39:00 AM
then we agree :chuckle:
.....and it sounds like we'll both be hunting in Idaho next year too :chuckle:
Post by: magnanimous_j on October 18, 2013, 11:57:41 AM
Post by: seth30 on October 18, 2013, 11:59:15 AM
Who the hell is Humanure?Your lucky you didn't deal with him :twocents: He was a piece of work that was pro wolf anti hunting and really stirred the pot here before a permanent ban.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2013, 12:03:51 PM
I think the argument about whether or not wolves, or other predators for that matter, reach an equilibrium with the ungulates in their surrounding area. I happen to believe that they do, but that's not the point. The important thing is that in a number of areas, a certain level of predation drives ungulate numbers lower to the point that hunter opportunity reaches a socially unacceptable level.
As someone who is more predator friendly than most people on this site, I believe that predator management is definitely not the only component, but an important component in maintaining hunter opportunity. There's just no way around it that I can see, at least in Washington State under the current circumstances.
Along with predator management however, there needs to be a strong focus on habitat improvement/preservation, identification & prosecution of poaching, and increased pressure on tribes to police their own members in problem areas.
The problem with supporting predator management is that some folks make predators the scapegoat for everything while ignoring the other important factors that also need to be considered.
Another problem is that some refuse to recognize man as one of the natural predators and hunting as a natural activity of that predator. Animal species and balances in nature change. Sometimes when there are two competing predators, the less effective of them is driven out or killed off. The wolf at one time roamed the entire country. Man showed up and they were killed off because of the competition for game and because of the danger they presented to man. They don't belong here anymore.
There are not many people in here, if any, who don't participate in conservation, which for the purposes of this discussion include habitat enhancement and improvement, and increased pressure on poaching and other illegal or detrimental activities which impact game. Some of us are more involved than others, but just by the very fact that someone buys their license and guns, they support conservation and habitat restoration.
Where would we be at if every time that a person made the claim that an animal was some sort of problem, they could snap their finger and the species disappeared? I'm pretty sure that all those people had what was to them, a compelling set of reasons why the animal was a nuisance, economic hinderance, or danger to man and should be gone. All of them, at one time or another, probably felt as justified in their opinion towards whatever animal was bothering them as you do about wolves.
It's not a claim. It's a fact. We got rid of them because they were in direct conflict with us. Wolves are different from every other top predator other then man in NA. Bears and cougars self-regulate their populations, as do coyotes. They don't populate more than a given number of animals per sq mile. Not so with wolves. Another differentiation is that wolves hunt in organized packs with strategy. Other predators don't do that, other than man. They are different from other predators and they are in more conflict than man than other predators. You don't have to look if you don't want to, but the science is there.
Post by: buckfvr on October 18, 2013, 12:07:47 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 18, 2013, 12:16:39 PM
One could say that the reason you saw so many elk was cause you didn't see any wolves.
That is exactly a point I've already brought up, and one of the reasons some hunters are seeing extraordinary numbers of Elk.
Wolves are like sheep herding dogs moving herds of Elk around like so many sheep, if your in the path hunting is wonderful!
No get far back where the wolves are working and you'll find empty drainages where all those Elk you've been seeing would normally be.
If you spread out all those Elk across Idaho back into their ranges where they would have been prior to the wolves you'd see sparse numbers and tough hunting.
So idahohuntr you can thank the wolves for bringing the Elk right to you ;)
At least you're admitting the elk are still there. You just have to actually "hunt" for them. Some people just want to conveniently kill animals where they want to kill them and not where they may actually be. That's not a realistic approach to hunting, and if that's what you want, go to a game ranch. There's nothing wrong with having to search out your prey. In fact it can be the most satisfying part of the hunt. It can also make you a better hunter.
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2013, 12:17:57 PM
another talking point of the wolf huggers
Post by: AspenBud on October 18, 2013, 12:19:36 PM
Bears and cougars self-regulate their populations, as do coyotes. They don't populate more than a given number of animals per sq mile.
???? That's why we have a year round coyote season? Because they self regulate their population? Where'd you get that from?
I guess 25,000-30,000 black bear and at least 2500 cougar didn't get the memo either now that hound hunting is gone.
Another differentiation is that wolves hunt in organized packs with strategy. Other predators don't do that, other than man.
African lions anyone? African wild dogs? Hyena's?
Doubtless you meant to say "no other predator in North America does that."
Post by: KFhunter on October 18, 2013, 12:20:59 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 18, 2013, 12:23:38 PM
It's not a claim. It's a fact. We got rid of them because they were in direct conflict with us. Wolves are different from every other top predator other then man in NA. Bears and cougars self-regulate their populations, as do coyotes. They don't populate more than a given number of animals per sq mile. Not so with wolves. Another differentiation is that wolves hunt in organized packs with strategy. Other predators don't do that, other than man. They are different from other predators and they are in more conflict than man than other predators. You don't have to look if you don't want to, but the science is there.
Pianoman, while I don't always agree with you, I always thought you tried to get your facts straight, but in this case you're far off the mark. Wolves do self regulate and often have territorial battles that end with one side being exterminated. Also, just like ungulates self regulate by the number of young born based on the condition of their habitat, the same happens to wolves. If times are tough, fewer young are born and fewer young survive.
Coyotes are about the least self regulating wild predator there is.
Post by: AspenBud on October 18, 2013, 12:24:53 PM
actually he did, NA = North America in P-mans post
Doh! You got me.
I think that's a sign that I've had enough. No minds are going be changed on either side anyhow.
Good luck guys.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 18, 2013, 12:27:34 PM
"wolves will make better hunters"
another talking point of the wolf huggers
Now, now, KF. I said having to actually search out animals that aren't where you want them to be can make you a better hunter. Who's putting words in someone else's mouth now?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2013, 01:21:41 PM
It's not a claim. It's a fact. We got rid of them because they were in direct conflict with us. Wolves are different from every other top predator other then man in NA. Bears and cougars self-regulate their populations, as do coyotes. They don't populate more than a given number of animals per sq mile. Not so with wolves. Another differentiation is that wolves hunt in organized packs with strategy. Other predators don't do that, other than man. They are different from other predators and they are in more conflict than man than other predators. You don't have to look if you don't want to, but the science is there.
Pianoman, while I don't always agree with you, I always thought you tried to get your facts straight, but in this case you're far off the mark. Wolves do self regulate and often have territorial battles that end with one side being exterminated. Also, just like ungulates self regulate by the number of young born based on the condition of their habitat, the same happens to wolves. If times are tough, fewer young are born and fewer young survive.
Coyotes are about the least self regulating wild predator there is.
So why is it the Province of Alberta has got a goal of 6,000 wolves to kill? They're having problems up there they're not having with any other predator.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 18, 2013, 01:23:47 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 18, 2013, 01:36:38 PM
:chuckle: I'm sorry that is one of the more laughable, ridiculous arguments you've made yet.One could say that the reason you saw so many elk was cause you didn't see any wolves.
That is exactly a point I've already brought up, and one of the reasons some hunters are seeing extraordinary numbers of Elk.
Wolves are like sheep herding dogs moving herds of Elk around like so many sheep, if your in the path hunting is wonderful!
No get far back where the wolves are working and you'll find empty drainages where all those Elk you've been seeing would normally be.
If you spread out all those Elk across Idaho back into their ranges where they would have been prior to the wolves you'd see sparse numbers and tough hunting.
So idahohuntr you can thank the wolves for bringing the Elk right to you ;)
At least you're admitting the elk are still there. You just have to actually "hunt" for them. Some people just want to conveniently kill animals where they want to kill them and not where they may actually be. That's not a realistic approach to hunting, and if that's what you want, go to a game ranch. There's nothing wrong with having to search out your prey. In fact it can be the most satisfying part of the hunt. It can also make you a better hunter.
Post by: Northway on October 18, 2013, 01:57:51 PM
I think the argument about whether or not wolves, or other predators for that matter, reach an equilibrium with the ungulates in their surrounding area. I happen to believe that they do, but that's not the point. The important thing is that in a number of areas, a certain level of predation drives ungulate numbers lower to the point that hunter opportunity reaches a socially unacceptable level.
As someone who is more predator friendly than most people on this site, I believe that predator management is definitely not the only component, but an important component in maintaining hunter opportunity. There's just no way around it that I can see, at least in Washington State under the current circumstances.
Along with predator management however, there needs to be a strong focus on habitat improvement/preservation, identification & prosecution of poaching, and increased pressure on tribes to police their own members in problem areas.
The problem with supporting predator management is that some folks make predators the scapegoat for everything while ignoring the other important factors that also need to be considered.
Another problem is that some refuse to recognize man as one of the natural predators and hunting as a natural activity of that predator. Animal species and balances in nature change. Sometimes when there are two competing predators, the less effective of them is driven out or killed off. The wolf at one time roamed the entire country. Man showed up and they were killed off because of the competition for game and because of the danger they presented to man. They don't belong here anymore.
There are not many people in here, if any, who don't participate in conservation, which for the purposes of this discussion include habitat enhancement and improvement, and increased pressure on poaching and other illegal or detrimental activities which impact game. Some of us are more involved than others, but just by the very fact that someone buys their license and guns, they support conservation and habitat restoration.
Where would we be at if every time that a person made the claim that an animal was some sort of problem, they could snap their finger and the species disappeared? I'm pretty sure that all those people had what was to them, a compelling set of reasons why the animal was a nuisance, economic hinderance, or danger to man and should be gone. All of them, at one time or another, probably felt as justified in their opinion towards whatever animal was bothering them as you do about wolves.
It's not a claim. It's a fact. We got rid of them because they were in direct conflict with us. Wolves are different from every other top predator other then man in NA. Bears and cougars self-regulate their populations, as do coyotes. They don't populate more than a given number of animals per sq mile. Not so with wolves. Another differentiation is that wolves hunt in organized packs with strategy. Other predators don't do that, other than man. They are different from other predators and they are in more conflict than man than other predators. You don't have to look if you don't want to, but the science is there.
But bears and cougars don't self-regulate to the extent that there aren't plenty of hunters in this state who feel that both of those species should be more heavily managed. Wildlife Services alone kills about 75,000 coyotes per year, nationally. We're helping out plenty with coyote "self-regulation". There are strong arguments for even more intensive management of coyotes in any number of areas, I'm sure.
It's all ultimately a question of management, even with wolves.
Let's be honest about the use of the words "fact" and "science". Both of those words have been *censored*ized to the point that they aren't even useful terms in general discussion. Every side of the argument claims dominion over facts & science. And that's not isolated to the wolf debate.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2013, 02:05:17 PM
Post by: Northway on October 18, 2013, 02:31:12 PM
I agree. I think all of the predators need to be managed aggressively. Full carrying capacity state-wide of cougars and bears, mixed with the reintroduction of wolves into the equation spells disaster for the human predation outlook. I'm not willing to wait until the absence of ungulates pushes the self regulation of wolves before I think it's time to manage them. Man is part of the equation and part of nature. If we want to continue hunting ungulates, we need to manage the predators. I'm not sure that you care, but i certainly want to continue to have ungulates to hunt.
For what it's worth, I favor a more conservative management approach with wolves that repopulate parts of this state until we have a better understanding of the impact that they have on ungulate populations here, specifically. This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming; there are some different variables in play and the landscape will support fewer wolves than in the NRM. We should aggressively manage wolves for a slow & staggered increase in population, over a period of years up to a decade or two, to a point that can at least be somewhat agreed to by multiple parties as it becomes more clear how they are affecting herds. It would be a lot more expensive (get $$ from the general fund) and involve translocation, but I feel confident that it would be a better approach.
This would also have to involve more aggressive management of bear & cougar to compensate for the additive pressure on ungulates.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 18, 2013, 02:35:34 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2013, 02:36:03 PM
In lieu of exterminating them altogether, I would be far more inclined to your approach than the state's.I agree. I think all of the predators need to be managed aggressively. Full carrying capacity state-wide of cougars and bears, mixed with the reintroduction of wolves into the equation spells disaster for the human predation outlook. I'm not willing to wait until the absence of ungulates pushes the self regulation of wolves before I think it's time to manage them. Man is part of the equation and part of nature. If we want to continue hunting ungulates, we need to manage the predators. I'm not sure that you care, but i certainly want to continue to have ungulates to hunt.
For what it's worth, I favor a more conservative management approach with wolves that repopulate parts of this state until we have a better understanding of the impact that they have on ungulate populations here, specifically. This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming; there are some different variables in play and the landscape will support fewer wolves than in the NRM. We should aggressively manage wolves for a slow & staggered increase in population, over a period of years up to a decade or two, to a point that can at least be somewhat agreed to by multiple parties as it becomes more clear how they are affecting herds. It would be a lot more expensive (get $$ from the general fund) and involve translocation, but I feel confident that it would be a better approach.
This would also have to involve more aggressive management of bear & cougar to compensate for the additive pressure on ungulates.
Post by: Cougartail on October 18, 2013, 05:35:56 PM
Kind of hard for an animal that doesn't really exist in any numbers to be racking up a large body count.I don't know if you're married or have kids sitka-blacktail, but you'd have to pretty solid in your beliefs to send your kids out to the bus in the dark after hearing wolves out side.In the past 100 years maybe 5 people have been killed in North America by wolves. In the past 10 years more than 250 people have been killed by domestic dogs in America. There has been over 40 million dog bites and over 450,000 requiring emergency room care also in the last 10 years in America.
...and your worried about wolves hurting your kids because you hear one howl.
Makes perfect sense to me... :bash:
It's amazing any children are left in Alaskan villages with such a threat looming!
A very truthful statement and when applied to Washington State any rational person understands that less than 100 wolves do not have much of an impact or threat.
Because of shear numbers of dogs and the fact that a certain small percentage will bite/maul and kill you aren't being rational in worrying about an animal who runs at the sight of man most times and is still pretty rare here.
Post by: mountainman on October 18, 2013, 05:47:12 PM
Post by: Cougartail on October 18, 2013, 06:18:43 PM
Only problem is they dont always just ran away..Ask Jon Stevie in Carlton..Or ask Hirsey here on this sight. I can give you more contacts if you would like??
And I've been bitten 4 times by fido and have had dozens of encounters with aggressive dogs.
The only wolves I've seen are running away upon first glimpse of me. And the times I've tried to hunt/call them I can't even get one of these ruthless killers to come in for an offer of dinner? (Even though they were howling nearby!)
Yes, Unlike most on here I've personally have seen wolves and hunted them. (and lived to tell about it. lol)
Post by: wolfbait on October 18, 2013, 07:00:12 PM
Only problem is they dont always just ran away..Ask Jon Stevie in Carlton..Or ask Hirsey here on this sight. I can give you more contacts if you would like??
And I've been bitten 4 times by fido and have had dozens of encounters with aggressive dogs.
The only wolves I've seen are running away upon first glimpse of me. And the times I've tried to hunt/call them I can't even get one of these ruthless killers to come in for an offer of dinner? (Even though they were howling nearby!)
Yes, Unlike most on here I've personally have seen wolves and hunted them. (and lived to tell about it. lol)
You seem to do quite a bit of"lol'- and most of us do the same thing when we read your stories.
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 18, 2013, 07:01:51 PM
Maybe you smell bad, therfore the wolves assume you taste bad as well and want nothing to do with you. :chuckle:Only problem is they dont always just ran away..Ask Jon Stevie in Carlton..Or ask Hirsey here on this sight. I can give you more contacts if you would like??
And I've been bitten 4 times by fido and have had dozens of encounters with aggressive dogs.
The only wolves I've seen are running away upon first glimpse of me. And the times I've tried to hunt/call them I can't even get one of these ruthless killers to come in for an offer of dinner? (Even though they were howling nearby!)
Yes, Unlike most on here I've personally have seen wolves and hunted them. (and lived to tell about it. lol)
Post by: Cougartail on October 18, 2013, 07:18:31 PM
Well I share this stuff with guys I know from Alaska and they "howl" of laughter at you tenderfoots.Only problem is they dont always just ran away..Ask Jon Stevie in Carlton..Or ask Hirsey here on this sight. I can give you more contacts if you would like??
And I've been bitten 4 times by fido and have had dozens of encounters with aggressive dogs.
The only wolves I've seen are running away upon first glimpse of me. And the times I've tried to hunt/call them I can't even get one of these ruthless killers to come in for an offer of dinner? (Even though they were howling nearby!)
Yes, Unlike most on here I've personally have seen wolves and hunted them. (and lived to tell about it. lol)
You seem to do quite a bit of"lol'- and most of us do the same thing when we read your stories.
Post by: Cougartail on October 18, 2013, 07:23:39 PM
Maybe you smell bad, therfore the wolves assume you taste bad as well and want nothing to do with you. :chuckle:Only problem is they dont always just ran away..Ask Jon Stevie in Carlton..Or ask Hirsey here on this sight. I can give you more contacts if you would like??
And I've been bitten 4 times by fido and have had dozens of encounters with aggressive dogs.
The only wolves I've seen are running away upon first glimpse of me. And the times I've tried to hunt/call them I can't even get one of these ruthless killers to come in for an offer of dinner? (Even though they were howling nearby!)
Yes, Unlike most on here I've personally have seen wolves and hunted them. (and lived to tell about it. lol)
Wow, you got me with that one.. turkey...lol
Post by: wolfbait on October 18, 2013, 07:28:09 PM
Only problem is they dont always just ran away..Ask Jon Stevie in Carlton..Or ask Hirsey here on this sight. I can give you more contacts if you would like??
There have been several other encounters in the WA reported to WDFW, but as everyone can see WDFW does not relay the encounters to the public. The USFWS practiced the same BS with the original wolf introduction.
My advies to everyone: If you see a wolf acting aggressive at fifty yards, kill it. Why fifty yds you might ask? Well at fifty yards you have a chance at hitting at least one, its when the pack gets in close and tries to make you run is when it gets hard.
People who haven't been their will wonder what and when, and wish for a 12 gauge.
Anytime people put out the phrase "wolf hater" you are looking at someone who believes the lies of the USFWS and WDFW, and Defenders of Wildlife. They have no clue and they are not worth arguing with.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 18, 2013, 09:59:51 PM
My advies to everyone: If you see a wolf acting aggressive at fifty yards, kill it. Why fifty yds you might ask? Well at fifty yards you have a chance at hitting at least one, its when the pack gets in close and tries to make you run is when it gets hard.
Now how would you know that wolfbait? Have you had to stand off a pack of bloodthirsty wolves? I seriously doubt it, in which case you are just giving advice from your imagination.
As with Cougartail, any wolf I've ever seen that was aware of me was running the other way. The first wolf I saw was eating a road killed moose in a ditch. The second was hunting ground squirrels in an overgrown gravel pit. That one never saw me and it was fun to watch it stalk it's intended victims then charge them as they dashed into their hole in the ground. Over and over. Never did see it get one, but it sure was trying. A couple others were run into moose hunting and immediately left the area. Have never had any shadow me, but I know it happens. But my friends who have had it happen tell me it's more like they are curious, and not malicious. I would 100 times rather run into a pack of wolves unarmed than a brownie. I've had that happen a couple times and that is not a good feeling, especially at close range. Wolves? Meh.
Post by: mountainman on October 18, 2013, 10:34:08 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on October 18, 2013, 10:45:13 PM
Okay, here's a couple more..Pitcher canyon, wolves watching in the distance as cow death investigated.. Shots fired towards them to scare off...they actually came closer. Deer kill in yard south of Twisp. Wolf seen killing deer up number 1 canyon, Wenatchee. Watched LE officers at close distance, all in rural neighborhood....hmmm...want some more? :dunno:
No more! Time for some killing!!!!!!
Post by: JLS on October 18, 2013, 11:25:45 PM
Post by: mountainman on October 19, 2013, 12:03:47 AM
Post by: wolfbait on October 19, 2013, 01:03:32 AM
Okay, here's a couple more..Pitcher canyon, wolves watching in the distance as cow death investigated.. Shots fired towards them to scare off...they actually came closer. Deer kill in yard south of Twisp. Wolf seen killing deer up number 1 canyon, Wenatchee. Watched LE officers at close distance, all in rural neighborhood....hmmm...want some more? :dunno:
In 2009 a wolf and three pups followed a new mom as she pushed her baby down the county road in a stroller, first house she came to she entered. WDFW was contacted.
2010- A women and her dog was followed at close range by a black wolf for two miles till they hit the Goat Cr snow park and her car.
2012-a black wolf attack a dog in a residence front yard, a shotgun had to be fired to get the wolf off the dog-vet time.
There are more, and as prey becomes less there will be more problems, Wolves that are not hunted become habitual, we are there today. :bfg:
Post by: mountainman on October 19, 2013, 04:20:29 AM
:yeah:Okay, here's a couple more..Pitcher canyon, wolves watching in the distance as cow death investigated.. Shots fired towards them to scare off...they actually came closer. Deer kill in yard south of Twisp. Wolf seen killing deer up number 1 canyon, Wenatchee. Watched LE officers at close distance, all in rural neighborhood....hmmm...want some more? :dunno:
In 2009 a wolf and three pups followed a new mom as she pushed her baby down the county road in a stroller, first house she came to she entered. WDFW was contacted.
2010- A women and her dog was followed at close range by a black wolf for two miles till they hit the Goat Cr snow park and her car.
2012-a black wolf attack a dog in a residence front yard, a shotgun had to be fired to get the wolf off the dog-vet time.
There are more, and as prey becomes less there will be more problems, Wolves that are not hunted become habitual, we are there today. :bfg:
Post by: KFhunter on October 19, 2013, 09:34:30 AM
After reading all of this wisdom, I'm thinking I must be the luckiest man alive to have not been drug out of my tent and eaten over the years on trips to Montana and Idaho. I think the Forest Service should now post signs about the extreme danger we all face each time we leave our houses. :rolleyes:
You gotta get drunk and pass out at the foot of your tent :chuckle:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/16-year-old-survives-first-ever-documented-serious-wolf-attack-in-minnesota/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/16-year-old-survives-first-ever-documented-serious-wolf-attack-in-minnesota/)
Quote
Graham's girlfriend fled to her Jeep, while two other members of the camping party slept through all the screaming, kicking and fighting, he said.
Post by: JLS on October 19, 2013, 09:35:47 AM
After reading all of this wisdom, I'm thinking I must be the luckiest man alive to have not been drug out of my tent and eaten over the years on trips to Montana and Idaho. I think the Forest Service should now post signs about the extreme danger we all face each time we leave our houses. :rolleyes:
You gotta get drunk and pass out at the foot of your tent :chuckle:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/16-year-old-survives-first-ever-documented-serious-wolf-attack-in-minnesota/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/16-year-old-survives-first-ever-documented-serious-wolf-attack-in-minnesota/)
How do you know I wasn't? :dunno:
Post by: JLS on October 19, 2013, 09:36:44 AM
I say this not because I am/ anyone should be fearfull, just to re-affirm, we don't need them around this close. With the abundance of close, rural sightings this summer, and as others state the ones they see run at the distant sight of man, makes me concerned we must now have TWO completely different species of wolves invading our state! Time for the hotline to Olympia to figure our next move!!
Maybe they are the wolves from Forks? The Twilight kind?