Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 04:35:00 AM
He climbed back down to get his other gear and suddenly wolves started howling on both sides of him at what he figured was 100 yards away. Scared him pretty bad, he quickly grabbed his pistol out of his pack and stashed the pack out of sight. Suddenly one of the wolves howled again, this time it only sounded 50 yards away, scared him badly, he couldn't climb the tree fast enough and had thoughts of a wolf grabbing him before he got out of reach.
These wolves stayed around the tree until after 9am, it was foggy and they stayed just barely out of sight in the fog, but he was surrounded for more than two hours by howling wolves that didn't want to leave. Later he finally got up the nerve to leave the tree and quickly went to his truck.
He wanted his story to be known but doesn't want his name involved because of all the death threats that were made to the McIrvins by the wolf lovers. This occurred in GMU 121 during late archery season southwest of Chewelah. If anyone in WDFW wants to talk to the guy he will talk on conditions of anonymity.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on December 28, 2013, 05:57:42 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 06:04:59 AM
Post by: mulehunter on December 28, 2013, 06:09:38 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 28, 2013, 06:14:57 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 28, 2013, 06:40:39 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 06:54:59 AM
Post by: rasbo on December 28, 2013, 07:19:43 AM
I wish he would go public with his story. People need to read this in the papers, if the papers will publish it.smart he didnt Im thinking,this public will crucify him..until the wolf is a problem for them that want all to believe its a cuddly tame, well behaved only eats wild game,stays in the boundries set out for it,and only kills humans and pets that are stupid and dont belong.its here to stay...
Post by: boneaddict on December 28, 2013, 07:32:39 AM
Essentially what you are saying Rasbo.
To most, a story like this can be far fetched, until you live it. I can understand his hesitance in regards to what people think about it or him, even on a site like this. I have had more wolf adventures than most, and I often hold back about sharing it on here, eventhough I have nothing to prove.
Post by: rasbo on December 28, 2013, 07:40:15 AM
Post by: MLBowhunting on December 28, 2013, 07:43:06 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on December 28, 2013, 08:40:53 AM
I fully understand how folks would want to just knock them down and walk away.
It almost feels like we are waiting for a few sacrificial "lambs". A few citizens mauled or killed. Even after this occurs I am not convinced this will have the impact on public opinion about wolves.
I will not be the victim. I don't climb trees well and it will be showtime with lots of lead flying.
Post by: huntnphool on December 28, 2013, 08:54:37 AM
To most, a story like this can be far fetched, until you live it.
And without bite marks, a pistol shot dead wolf or pics it's just that. No different than elk in the bed of a truck in the Colockum in January, a truck load of bucks coming out of Entiat the same time of year or a green truck releasing wolves in Selkirk. Without proof it's just another story that falls on deaf dept. ears.
Post by: huntnphool on December 28, 2013, 08:57:38 AM
I will not be the victim. it will be showtime with lots of lead flying.+1, without hesitation! :tup:
Post by: snowpack on December 28, 2013, 09:51:06 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 10:05:07 AM
By not doing anything aggressive back to the wolves (shooting/shooting at/hazing/etc) it just teaches the wolves that humans are prey and they will get bolder.
I fully agree with this, those wolves are learning that humans are afraid of them. :bash:
Typically the smallest humans, children, fall prey to predators before larger humans become prey.
The person who experienced this knows this too. However, he simply doesn't want his family subjected to the same abuse and threats that the McIrvin's endured.
Post by: TheHunt on December 28, 2013, 10:07:54 AM
BTW, I pack a weapon and I have two double stack clips as well.
Post by: haugenna on December 28, 2013, 10:09:34 AM
I remember a cute and cuddly black lab snarling teeth and raised hair who was friendly on a coyote adventure. That thing almost ate lead and a tripod. When it comes to wolves, I don't think I am going to see if the charge is a mock charge or not.I will not be the victim. it will be showtime with lots of lead flying.+1, without hesitation! :tup:
Post by: snowpack on December 28, 2013, 10:34:22 AM
Wolves have done this kind of stuff before. I've read plenty of accounts of people that had to escape up a tree.
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 10:36:49 AM
Post by: huntnphool on December 28, 2013, 10:39:27 AM
So why not deal with it how he knows he should and then not post it on the internet, who would know to threaten him then?By not doing anything aggressive back to the wolves (shooting/shooting at/hazing/etc) it just teaches the wolves that humans are prey and they will get bolder.The person who experienced this knows this too. However, he simply doesn't want his family subjected to the same abuse and threats that the McIrvin's endured.
I believe that's what the third "S" implies. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 10:58:51 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 28, 2013, 11:27:29 AM
This could be a good topic to just set and watch.
Post by: WSU on December 28, 2013, 12:31:01 PM
Post by: Dan-o on December 28, 2013, 12:38:02 PM
I admit I'd be pretty dang freaked out if I was surrounded by a pack in fog and had my pistol....... Can't imagine that same scenario w/o even a pistol.
I have a friend who bow hunts Idaho for elk and he swears he was surrounded/followed back to camp by wolves. He had no pistol and got no shot, but it scared the crap out of him. He'll pack pistol for now on.
Seems it's a matter of time before someone's luck runs out.
Post by: kentrek on December 28, 2013, 12:40:16 PM
During my 3 weeks in idaho this year I heard a handfull of stories about wolves stalking hunters...for up to a couple hours at a time always staying just out of sight in the brush..they all seem to be pretty similar in style..it almost seems like the wolves are "playing" with humans ?? Kinda like how yotes will play games with deer just waiting for one to mess up... :dunno:
I wish more stories would go published just so "wolf lovers" could get a glimpse of the nature of these creatures
Post by: buckhorn2 on December 28, 2013, 12:41:17 PM
Post by: Vulcan on December 28, 2013, 01:07:03 PM
Post by: snowpack on December 28, 2013, 01:15:45 PM
Post by: buckfvr on December 28, 2013, 02:02:45 PM
Post by: kentrek on December 28, 2013, 02:58:45 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 28, 2013, 03:08:29 PM
Post by: buckfvr on December 28, 2013, 03:35:56 PM
I would think anybody who spends time in the woods would like to be on top of this..hunter,non hunter or indifferent
I would like to think that would be the case, however they show no signs of it anywhere in their agenda. :twocents:
On another note, we covered 20 miles of old skid roads in 101 yesterday and although we saw tons of tracks.......none belonged to a wolf.
Post by: 6x6in6 on December 28, 2013, 03:44:03 PM
Not so sure I would have maintained the self control this hunter did.
Post by: turkeyfeather on December 28, 2013, 06:12:17 PM
Post by: TeacherMan on December 28, 2013, 06:32:52 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 06:38:57 PM
Post by: TeacherMan on December 28, 2013, 07:03:09 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 28, 2013, 09:16:56 PM
I have known the individual his entire life, every word I am sure is genuine. He said he would talk to anyone in WDFW provided they leave off his name. Others who live or recreate in 121 know these wolves are there too, nothing new, they are just getting bolder. :twocents:
50 yards away isn't even half a turd in your pants if they charged in on you, they'd cover that ground fast.
I'd be up a tree too!
Post by: buckfvr on December 28, 2013, 09:51:59 PM
Arm yourself like your life hangs in the balance when ever afield where there is or has been wolves. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on December 28, 2013, 10:00:14 PM
For anyone to think there would have to be bite marks to prove self defense (you don't have to PROVE your innocence) is akin to saying I have to be sporting stab wounds before I shoot a guy in downtown Yakima at midnight that tried to mug me.
Be smart about it, and be prepared. I've spent many nights in grizzly bear country with no adverse effects. However, I am prepared each and every time I go.
I don't blame this guy for wanting to be anonyomous.
Post by: KFhunter on December 28, 2013, 10:03:34 PM
The least of my concerns will be how it appears in anyone elses eyes............If and when one of us is faced with this scenario, of the moment rational decissions may look irrational in hind sight.
Arm yourself like your life hangs in the balance when ever afield where there is or has been wolves. :twocents:
or cat
or bear
or tweekers
A Mt Lion and some pot farmers taught me this lesson not wolves, but a wolf would be plenty capable of teaching this lesson too.
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on December 28, 2013, 10:03:44 PM
I'm curious Dale, what does the Colville nation have to say about wolves on the fringes or within the res?
-Steve
Post by: TeacherMan on December 28, 2013, 10:12:41 PM
Post by: jackelope on December 28, 2013, 10:26:29 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 28, 2013, 10:34:32 PM
Did he ever see them?
Not according to the 1st post
Quote
These wolves stayed around the tree until after 9am, it was foggy and they stayed just barely out of sight in the fog
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 11:40:11 PM
Did he ever see them?
Not according to the 1st postQuoteThese wolves stayed around the tree until after 9am, it was foggy and they stayed just barely out of sight in the fog
Never could see them, they stayed just beyond vision, but howled off and on for 2 hours. He's not the first to be stalked by wolves here in the NE. A girl (lady) I went to school with was stalked a year ago up near Deep Lake as she walked the highway. She saw that wolf more than once. A friend happened along in a pickup and stopped to visit, she thought the wolf had left. After the pickup left she saw the wolf again and that really spooked her, she knew it was following her. She will not walk without a gun now. She told me the story first hand, so it's not just a rumor. I'm pretty sure this was brought up at the wolf meeting in Colville, but WDFW doesn't care.
Remember this post: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,123888.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,123888.0.html)
It was two or three years ago that the German shepherds were attacked a few miles from my place, the owner fired shots to scare the wolves away, Steve Pozzanghera called and said it was a pack of coyotes, but he wasn't even there! WDFW does not care what happens to people they only want to protect the precious wolves. I believe the only reason there was a reaction to the McIrvins losing all the cattle was because they got the media involved so WDFW was forced to respond. WDFW still didn't really believe there were so many wolves. Remember the look on the trappers face on TV when the wolves all started howling around him! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Imagine if it was dark, you were all alone, and suddenly the wolves moved from 100 yards to only 50 yards in seconds!
Watch the reaction at 2:50 http://www.king5.com/video?id=168222836&sec=623292&ref=articlevidmod (http://www.king5.com/video?id=168222836&sec=623292&ref=articlevidmod)
Post by: stevemiller on December 28, 2013, 11:46:54 PM
How many people carry concealed in case they have to shoot a human? This is no different.Very well put. :yeah:
For anyone to think there would have to be bite marks to prove self defense (you don't have to PROVE your innocence) is akin to saying I have to be sporting stab wounds before I shoot a guy in downtown Yakima at midnight that tried to mug me.
Be smart about it, and be prepared. I've spent many nights in grizzly bear country with no adverse effects. However, I am prepared each and every time I go.
I don't blame this guy for wanting to be anonyomous.
Post by: bearpaw on December 29, 2013, 12:42:53 AM
How long before the huckleberry moose herd will be in decline?
Post by: turkeyfeather on December 29, 2013, 08:48:32 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 29, 2013, 09:06:24 AM
Post by: Westside88 on December 29, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
How many people carry concealed in case they have to shoot a human? This is no different.Very well put. :yeah:
For anyone to think there would have to be bite marks to prove self defense (you don't have to PROVE your innocence) is akin to saying I have to be sporting stab wounds before I shoot a guy in downtown Yakima at midnight that tried to mug me.
Be smart about it, and be prepared. I've spent many nights in grizzly bear country with no adverse effects. However, I am prepared each and every time I go.
I don't blame this guy for wanting to be anonyomous.
:yeah: always make sure to have enough gun for the job of defending yourself regardless of the threat.
Post by: skidynastar33 on December 29, 2013, 11:42:49 AM
Post by: buckfvr on December 29, 2013, 12:05:48 PM
How long till the 4 pt. rule is reversed in that gmu due to the loss of game? It's really a shame cause Huckleberry is one of my favorite places to hunt.
Why would they reverse a rule that would mean increased harvest ?????
Post by: turkeyfeather on December 29, 2013, 12:14:20 PM
As the deer population in one of the more popular gmu's in the state starts to plummet due to wolves, opportunities to tag a 4 pt. or better will likely diminsh greatly. This could have a large financial impact on WDFW most important thing they want to protect. "the almighty dollar".How long till the 4 pt. rule is reversed in that gmu due to the loss of game? It's really a shame cause Huckleberry is one of my favorite places to hunt.
Why would they reverse a rule that would mean increased harvest ?????
Post by: villageidiot on December 29, 2013, 12:23:05 PM
Post by: buckfvr on December 29, 2013, 12:36:16 PM
As the deer population in one of the more popular gmu's in the state starts to plummet due to wolves, opportunities to tag a 4 pt. or better will likely diminsh greatly. This could have a large financial impact on WDFW most important thing they want to protect. "the almighty dollar".How long till the 4 pt. rule is reversed in that gmu due to the loss of game? It's really a shame cause Huckleberry is one of my favorite places to hunt.
Why would they reverse a rule that would mean increased harvest ?????
I was at the meeting where they said if the harvest declines 3 years in a row, they will launch a study to determine the cause, whether it be wolves or whatever. To address the decline initially, they would cut back hunting.......this is the second year ( so we are told here ), that the harvest has increased.
121 so far, has not been impacted much at all if at all in the northern reaches of the unit, Im in the middle and spend a GREAT deal of time in these woods and have yet to get one on camera or even see/hear one. We'll see.
Oh ya.........4pts happen at 18months of age, not all but some.........it wont happen over night.
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 29, 2013, 06:45:36 PM
A wolf killed bull moose found today by shed hunter in same general area, GMU 121. :bash:
How long before the huckleberry moose herd will be in decline?
Isn't Moose the Primary food source for them? From what I have read it is and don't the wolves follow the moose.
Post by: haus on December 29, 2013, 07:33:47 PM
Isn't Moose the Primary food source for them? From what I have read it is and don't the wolves follow the moose.Theoretically yes, if these wolves origins are linked to the Yellowstone transplants from northern Canada. Realistically, they'll adapt their habits to whatever is readily available in their territory, Yellowstone transplants or not.
Post by: hirshey on January 01, 2014, 12:07:11 PM
:dunno:
Very similar to the argument I received when I got back out... I most likely "overreacted" or "misinterpreted" their intentions... until the bowhunter in Idaho's story went viral about shooting one with her pistol at 10 feet.
Too many people want to treat them like pets rather than manage them like wild, apex predators.
Post by: WaSouthpaw on January 03, 2014, 11:49:04 AM
Publically stating you're going to be packing heat and will mow 'em down if confronted can be argued as showing pre-meditation in court.
I am not a LEO, a GW, or an Atty, just an average Joe who has never been arrested and intend to keep it that way.
Just my :twocents:, Don
Post by: buckfvr on January 03, 2014, 12:04:49 PM
We shouldnt have to accomodate ill tempered critters.........if they confront you rather than run from you, the confrontation should be the green light in the name of public safety.
Think about the next person or kid................
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2014, 01:14:46 PM
gotta train them :chuckle:
Post by: ICEMAN on January 04, 2014, 09:10:20 AM
Biggest problem I have with letting any ill tempered animal walk is, so you may successfully avoid a serious confrontation because you face it down knowing you are armed and probably weapon drawn, but what about the next hiker, mushroom picker, or shed hunter, even berry picker who isnt armed ??????????
We shouldnt have to accomodate ill tempered critters.........if they confront you rather than run from you, the confrontation should be the green light in the name of public safety.
Think about the next person or kid................
Totally agree.
Post by: bearpaw on January 04, 2014, 09:14:32 AM
Biggest problem I have with letting any ill tempered animal walk is, so you may successfully avoid a serious confrontation because you face it down knowing you are armed and probably weapon drawn, but what about the next hiker, mushroom picker, or shed hunter, even berry picker who isnt armed ??????????
We shouldnt have to accomodate ill tempered critters.........if they confront you rather than run from you, the confrontation should be the green light in the name of public safety.
Think about the next person or kid................
Totally agree.
:yeah: x3
Post by: Stalker on January 04, 2014, 11:44:36 AM
Biggest problem I have with letting any ill tempered animal walk is, so you may successfully avoid a serious confrontation because you face it down knowing you are armed and probably weapon drawn, but what about the next hiker, mushroom picker, or shed hunter, even berry picker who isnt armed ??????????
We shouldn't have to accommodate ill tempered critters.........if they confront you rather than run from you, the confrontation should be the green light in the name of public safety.
Think about the next person or kid................
Your post is spot on and the basic line that hunters throughout the west have been saying for years "these animals need to be managed and taught a respectful fear of humans". But that message is continually twisted by the pro groups to mean that hunters want wolves eradicated to protect our hunting opportunities. I believe that even if a child or adult is killed by these animals it will have very little play in the media or matter how these animals are protected. It took over 5 years for the story of the biologist kid that was killed by wolves in Canada to get any public attention and even then it was short lived and the experts continued their standard line that there was not enough evidence to support the "wolf kill" theory. The only way to prove it is a wolf kill to them would be to have pictures of wolves with body parts hanging out of their mouths, and even then I believe the pro groups would claim they were photo shopped or some other BS... :twocents: :bash:
Post by: wolfbait on January 04, 2014, 06:34:06 PM
The death of Candice Berner sent shock waves through Alaska and down into the Lower 48. People were stunned, appalled to think that wild wolves would aggressively attack and kill a small and innocent woman who was out for a run in a remote section of the Alaska Peninsula. And still, animal lovers and wolf defenders blamed the young school teacher for her ignorance, claiming, as perverted as it may sound, that she asked to be attacked. They found every excuse they could to defend the animals and demonize the woman, even claiming her death was the result of something else and that wolves were just scavenging – doing what wolves do.
Needless to say, reports were numerous and emotions high as you can read about here, here, here, here,here, here, here, and here. The emotions behind this story ran so high that these articles listed prompted nearly 900 comments from readers.
Today, according to the News Tribune out of Alaska, DNA sampling and results of an investigation have shown beyond any doubt that aggressive behavior by wolves, perhaps as many as 9, attributed to the attack that killed Candice Berner.
Biologists ruled out reasons for the attack other than aggression. Investigators found no evidence that the wolves had acted defensively or that Berner was carrying food. They found no kill site that wolves may have been defending, no indication that the wolves had become habituated to people and no evidence of rabies.
“This appears to have been an aggressive, predatory attack that was relatively short in duration,” the report concluded.
My heart still breaks when I think about what Candice Berner’s family and friends have been through in all this. To live with the knowledge that wild animals attacked and killed a woman, a daughter, a teacher and a friend.
It’s important to note that while testing confirms that wolves’ DNA was found on Berner and that some of those wolves were subsequently killed after the mauling death, the investigation by law officials appears to point very clearly that the only thing that Candice Berner was guilty of was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Charges against Berner at the time of the slaughter by defenders of wolves was that she was probably carrying food and that she couldn’t hear wolves because she had earplugs in to listen to music, or that she just shouldn’t have been outside jogging. The investigation concludes that none of these things were a factor. As a matter of fact, indications suggested that Berner, while running the road, may have spotted a wolf or wolves in front of her. The report claims she stop suddenly and began running the other way near where the attack occurred. This may or may not have contributed to the attack but all other evidence in the investigation shows the only reason the wolves attacked and killed Candice Berner was pure aggression. What brought on that aggression we can only speculate. Wolves are by nature an aggressive animal. Again, wolf advocates will refute that claim but officials ruled out all the “normal” things wolves become aggressive over.
As is told by Dr. Valerius Geist, there are circumstances that alter a wolf’s behavior. It is important that we all learn about what those circumstances are so that we can recognize them. We can all be a bit safer if we do.
Probably for the Berner family, they would now like to put this all to rest. Unfortunately, this debate will rage on as do many discussions that involves wolves. The minds of humans are a puzzling thing and puzzling it is why the life of an animal is placed higher than that of a human being by some.
Rest in peace Candice Berner.
*Update #1* December 7, 2011, 1:45 p.m.
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/12/07/dna-and-investigation-confirm-candice-bernier-killed-by-wolves/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/12/07/dna-and-investigation-confirm-candice-bernier-killed-by-wolves/)
Post by: stevemiller on January 04, 2014, 07:13:59 PM
I agree with you on all you said here except that the media will have very little play in the matter in the masses,I believe if it were to happen to one of the wa. elite it will go all the way.Biggest problem I have with letting any ill tempered animal walk is, so you may successfully avoid a serious confrontation because you face it down knowing you are armed and probably weapon drawn, but what about the next hiker, mushroom picker, or shed hunter, even berry picker who isnt armed ??????????
We shouldn't have to accommodate ill tempered critters.........if they confront you rather than run from you, the confrontation should be the green light in the name of public safety.
Think about the next person or kid................
Your post is spot on and the basic line that hunters throughout the west have been saying for years "these animals need to be managed and taught a respectful fear of humans". But that message is continually twisted by the pro groups to mean that hunters want wolves eradicated to protect our hunting opportunities. I believe that even if a child or adult is killed by these animals it will have very little play in the media or matter how these animals are protected. It took over 5 years for the story of the biologist kid that was killed by wolves in Canada to get any public attention and even then it was short lived and the experts continued their standard line that there was not enough evidence to support the "wolf kill" theory. The only way to prove it is a wolf kill to them would be to have pictures of wolves with body parts hanging out of their mouths, and even then I believe the pro groups would claim they were photo shopped or some other BS... :twocents: :bash:
Post by: WaSouthpaw on January 05, 2014, 10:50:57 AM
An interesting read. They do say pack a gun.
Don
Post by: xXLojackXx on January 05, 2014, 11:31:05 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 05, 2014, 11:51:48 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 05, 2014, 04:15:56 PM
This really is the most pathetic thread I've seen here. Good grief, some of you must be afraid of your own shadows.
maybe for wolf lovers :rolleyes:
The reality is that wolves pose a significant risk to humans, pets, and livestock. This is happening more often as wolves inhabit more human populated areas. I know three people in WA who have been stalked by wolves within the last 1 1/2 years.
Here's another wolf attack in British Columbia that occured in Oct 2013 that mainstream media has conveniently ignored:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Forest+worker+encounters+aggressive+wolf+pack+near+Merritt/9093625/story.html (http://www.vancouversun.com/Forest+worker+encounters+aggressive+wolf+pack+near+Merritt/9093625/story.html)
Forest worker encounters aggressive wolf pack near Merritt
Quote
The bulletin states a woman working for a forest management firm was approached by at least five aggressive wolves while she was working near Merritt two weeks ago.
The warning said the wolves came within three metres of her, and as she reached for a can of bear spray, one of her two dogs tried to take on the pack.
Tanya Lawes, of Lawes Forest Management said their employee managed to make it back to her truck uninjured and called for help. However, the dog that tried to protect her against the wolves was severely wounded.
"Once (she) got to the truck and got the other dog in there, she called to heel her (other) dog and it came, but it was pretty injured and once she got to Merritt, they had to put it down," said Lawes.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 06, 2014, 07:45:37 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 06, 2014, 09:12:17 AM
Wolves are capable of killing people. No doubt about it. My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun. However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. :twocents:
:rolleyes:
The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2014, 09:22:34 AM
Wolves are capable of killing people. No doubt about it. My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun. However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. :twocents:
The odds of a wolf attack on a human climbs just a little bit each time a wolf/s encounters a hunter such as yourself.
In each case of previous wolf attacks on humans the wolves were habituated to people, we must not let this happen.
We need to be shooting them on sight with extreme hostility.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 06, 2014, 10:38:17 AM
The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.
Yea...I don't equate wolves to psychopathic people who murder humans for pleasure. :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2014, 10:58:46 AM
The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.
Yea...I don't equate wolves to psychopathic people who murder humans for pleasure. :tup:
http://www.ktvb.com/news/Wolves-kill-176-sheep-near-Victor-greatest-loss-recorded-in-Idaho-220371911.html (http://www.ktvb.com/news/Wolves-kill-176-sheep-near-Victor-greatest-loss-recorded-in-Idaho-220371911.html)
Out of those 176 sheep one was partially consumed.
They could have snagged one sheep and been done with it, like a Cougar would do - but no they had to push them to pile into a giant mound.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 06, 2014, 11:10:43 AM
The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.
Yea...I don't equate wolves to psychopathic people who murder humans for pleasure. :tup:
Ever wonder why we went to such great lengths to completely eliminate the wolf from North America, long after we'd taken steps to protect and revive the populations of other predators like bears and cougars? It's because unlike the others, they do enjoy killing for fun - like a psychopath, and because of their size and they way they coordinate their attacks, they're extra dangerous. They don't belong here with us. They belong, if anywhere, in the far reaches, far away from civilized populations. The people who are pushing for their comeback everywhere are extremists posing as naturalists. They want animals first at any price. It's wrong to do this.
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 06, 2014, 11:35:21 AM
Wolves are capable of killing people. No doubt about it. My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun. However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. :twocents:What a load of el torro caca! :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2014, 06:54:05 PM
Wolves are capable of killing people. No doubt about it. My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun. However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. :twocents:What a load of el torro caca! :bash:
Well he's got a point statistically speaking, he's much more likely to fall from his tree stand or get lost and die in the elements. There's millions of ways to die while hunting and wolves are very far down that list. I think it's incredibly selfish to not carry a handgun though.
I think it is unconscionable to have a wolf encounter end with a favorable outcome to the wolves.
If someone is camping and the wolf is allowed to rummage through a cooler, then next time it might be biting some passed out teen's head.
If a wolf is prey testing and you fail to educate the wolf/s terminally, then next time it might be a school teacher unable to defend herself as she's jogging down a road.
It is our duty to educate wolves since we are the ones out in the woods and armed, we must not let wolves loose fear or humans or worse associate us with food or prey.
I'm against shooting wolves 1000 yards away without a valid tag in your pocket, just as I'm against shooting a wolf that turns inside out trying to flee if you "bumped noses" on a trail somewhere unless you have a tag in your pocket.
But to let an aggressive wolf run you up a tree/truck/camper or take your dog is unconscionable. We need to all be packing a handgun in wolf country and we need to be terminating any wolf that fails to flee immediately once your presence is known to them. To do otherwise is self centered, selfish and creating a worse problem for someone else down the road.
I understand in this thread the person did not see the wolves but I'm talking general terms.
Post by: furiouzgeorge on January 06, 2014, 07:08:56 PM
Wolves are capable of killing people. No doubt about it. My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun. However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. :twocents:What a load of el torro caca! :bash:
Well he's got a point statistically speaking, he's much more likely to fall from his tree stand or get lost and die in the elements. There's millions of ways to die while hunting and wolves are very far down that list. I think it's incredibly selfish to not carry a handgun though.
I think it is unconscionable to have a wolf encounter end with a favorable outcome to the wolves.
If someone is camping and the wolf is allowed to rummage through a cooler, then next time it might be biting some passed out teen's head.
If a wolf is prey testing and you fail to educate the wolf/s terminally, then next time it might be a school teacher unable to defend herself as she's jogging down a road.
It is our duty to educate wolves since we are the ones out in the woods and armed, we must not let wolves loose fear or humans or worse associate us with food or prey.
I'm against shooting wolves 1000 yards away without a valid tag in your pocket, just as I'm against shooting a wolf that turns inside out trying to flee if you "bumped noses" on a trail somewhere unless you have a tag in your pocket.
But to let an aggressive wolf run you up a tree/truck/camper or take your dog is unconscionable. We need to all be packing a handgun in wolf country and we need to be terminating any wolf that fails to flee immediately once your presence is known to them. To do otherwise is self centered, selfish and creating a worse problem for someone else down the road.
I understand in this thread the person did not see the wolves but I'm talking general terms.
:yeah: Thanks for putting it better than I could! :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2014, 07:21:44 PM
To allow a wolf to "get away with it" by either not being armed or climbing a tree to safety as they howl 50 feet away is bad for people on both sides of the fence. As more and more stories of wolf conflict with humans surfaces the less tolerance people will have for them, naturally.
So while I'm all for less tolerance for wolves :chuckle: I also don't think it's right that some innocent could get hurt next.
This really is the most pathetic thread I've seen here. Good grief, some of you must be afraid of your own shadows.
Wolves are capable of killing people. No doubt about it. My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun. However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. :twocents:
The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.
Yea...I don't equate wolves to psychopathic people who murder humans for pleasure. :tup:
Post by: JLS on January 06, 2014, 10:21:10 PM
Ever wonder why we went to such great lengths to completely eliminate the wolf from North America, long after we'd taken steps to protect and revive the populations of other predators like bears and cougars?
You might want to check your historical facts here, because I don't think they align with what you're trying to sell.
Cougars were still being killed for bounties up until the 1960's, when they began receiving game animal status. Grizzly bears were not even listed as threatened until 1975, and dwindled greatly from the early 1900's until then. Wolves had pretty much been eradicated from the Rocky Mountain states by the middle 1900s. The last documented wolf kill in Yellowstone was 1927.
I don't think there was any preferential treatment for any predatory animal up until the the 60's. Bounties were the norm in many states until then, when federal and/or state protection started being instituted.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2014, 10:48:02 PM
:rolleyes:
The green river serial killer was a rarity, but it was still necessary to take him off the streets.
Eye rolls indeed.
That's about what I'd expect on this thread. Except you're comparing apples to horse apples. By your logic, because of the green River Killer and other serial killers, we need to kill off and "control" all human beings.
No, the right way is to take out the ones causing trouble and keep the rest trimmed to a reasonable sustaining population.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2014, 10:56:09 PM
Post by: huntnnw on January 06, 2014, 10:56:43 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2014, 10:57:49 PM
Quote
No, the right way is to take out the ones causing trouble and keep the rest trimmed to a reasonable sustaining population.
I won't speak for Bearpaw, but I do believe that's his desire as well. You and I may argue somewhat on what "reasonable" means though :chuckle:
I guess my work here is done :tup:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2014, 11:01:22 PM
I think it is unconscionable to have a wolf encounter end with a favorable outcome to the wolves.
But to let an aggressive wolf run you up a tree/truck/camper or take your dog is unconscionable. We need to all be packing a handgun in wolf country and we need to be terminating any wolf that fails to flee immediately once your presence is known to them. To do otherwise is self centered, selfish and creating a worse problem for someone else down the road.
I understand in this thread the person did not see the wolves but I'm talking general terms.
The person this thread is about wasn't chased up a tree by the wolves, but by his own fear. He had a pistol too.
And how was the outcome favorable to the wolves? As far as I can see it was a neutral outcome. For all we know, these wolves may not have even known this guy was shivering in a tree.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2014, 11:44:05 PM
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous (http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous)
Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.
You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 07:43:59 AM
Well said. :tup:Wolves are capable of killing people. No doubt about it. My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun. However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. :twocents:What a load of el torro caca! :bash:
Well he's got a point statistically speaking, he's much more likely to fall from his tree stand or get lost and die in the elements. There's millions of ways to die while hunting and wolves are very far down that list. I think it's incredibly selfish to not carry a handgun though.
I think it is unconscionable to have a wolf encounter end with a favorable outcome to the wolves.
If someone is camping and the wolf is allowed to rummage through a cooler, then next time it might be biting some passed out teen's head.
If a wolf is prey testing and you fail to educate the wolf/s terminally, then next time it might be a school teacher unable to defend herself as she's jogging down a road.
It is our duty to educate wolves since we are the ones out in the woods and armed, we must not let wolves loose fear or humans or worse associate us with food or prey.
I'm against shooting wolves 1000 yards away without a valid tag in your pocket, just as I'm against shooting a wolf that turns inside out trying to flee if you "bumped noses" on a trail somewhere unless you have a tag in your pocket.
But to let an aggressive wolf run you up a tree/truck/camper or take your dog is unconscionable. We need to all be packing a handgun in wolf country and we need to be terminating any wolf that fails to flee immediately once your presence is known to them. To do otherwise is self centered, selfish and creating a worse problem for someone else down the road.
I understand in this thread the person did not see the wolves but I'm talking general terms.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2014, 07:46:35 AM
Ever wonder why we went to such great lengths to completely eliminate the wolf from North America, long after we'd taken steps to protect and revive the populations of other predators like bears and cougars?
You might want to check your historical facts here, because I don't think they align with what you're trying to sell.
Cougars were still being killed for bounties up until the 1960's, when they began receiving game animal status. Grizzly bears were not even listed as threatened until 1975, and dwindled greatly from the early 1900's until then. Wolves had pretty much been eradicated from the Rocky Mountain states by the middle 1900s. The last documented wolf kill in Yellowstone was 1927.
I don't think there was any preferential treatment for any predatory animal up until the the 60's. Bounties were the norm in many states until then, when federal and/or state protection started being instituted.
But the efforts to eradicate the wolf were far more intense than any other predator and were supported by the government.
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 07:49:56 AM
You're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack. Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous (http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous)
Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.
You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 09:52:42 AM
I will be happy to take your bet. So, in 10 or 15 years I say deer/auto collisions will kill more people than wolf attacks on humans. How muchYou're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack. Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous (http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous)
Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.
You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.
Post by: wolfbait on January 07, 2014, 10:02:35 AM
You're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack. Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous (http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous)
Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.
You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.
Do to very few wolves up until the wolf introduction the lower 48 had no problem with wolves. First wolf pack in 70 years says WDFW and OR, now after 17-18 years of a protected predator that has no enemies except man, we have wolves that are habitual to man and rural communities. WDFW stress wild wolves, we don't have wild wolves we have wolves raising their pups in the valleys where people live.
Comparing the dangers of wolves to deer is what the pro-wolf crowd does in order to down play the danger of wolves, the argument might work for some but not for the majority of people with half a brain. How many people are worried about a herd of deer killing and eating them, how many times have deer ate the person they killed? (run Fred it's a herd of deer, last year they killed and ate my wife) News Flash: DNA test show nine does killed hiker and then ate him. :rolleyes: Very poor argument, like the argument that other predators, weather and disease kill more livestock than wolves, but we aren't counting the whole USA, we are counting single states where wolves exist, add the percentage to every state in union and wolves would defiantly be the leading cause of livestock deaths. Big difference.
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 10:11:02 AM
Way to dodge the fact you got called out on spewing ridiculous numbers. Then again I guess you figured there was no point in debating you were wrong.I will be happy to take your bet. So, in 10 or 15 years I say deer/auto collisions will kill more people than wolf attacks on humans. How muchYou're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack. Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous (http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous)
Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.
You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.will you give meare we betting? :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on January 07, 2014, 10:22:29 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
I'm not dodging anything. You are very misinformed if you think wolves will result in more deaths to humans than deer/auto collisions.Way to dodge the fact you got called out on spewing ridiculous numbers. Then again I guess you figured there was no point in debating you were wrong.I will be happy to take your bet. So, in 10 or 15 years I say deer/auto collisions will kill more people than wolf attacks on humans. How muchYou're way more likely to die by hitting a deer in your car on the way to or from hunting than to ever be killed in a wolf attack. Deer kill about 130 people per year. Deer also spread the dreaded Lyme disease. They infect 13,000 people per year! They also do about $1.2 billion dollars per year in crop damage!Your stats for this may have been true in the past but your forgetting one major problem that scewes those stats. Until recently there wasn't much of if any wolf population. So of course your more likely to be killed by a deer. Everything was more dangerous than a wolf attack. Cause there were no wolves. I was more likely to die on the crapper than by a wolf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are comparing stats to something that hasn't existed for over 50 years. Wait another 10-15 years and I will bet money those are no longer true.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous (http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous)
Sounds to me like you guy are trying to kill off the wrong mammal. It's time to seriously reduce deer numbers! We don't want to wipe them out, just maybe get them down to a manageable 100 or so animals in this state.
You see what it sounds like when you use scare tactics to exploit people's fears? It makes you sound like a whacko.will you give meare we betting? :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 10:31:14 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 10:45:45 AM
Besides, we all know in 10-15 years there won't be any deer left to kill and eat people :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 10:49:40 AM
Why are you all arguing about deer vs wolves? It's obfuscation from the topic at hand. Don't let the pro-wolfers turn the thread like that, it's what they do.That's why I feel confident. :chuckle:
Besides, we all know in 10-15 years there won't be any deer left to kill and eat people :chuckle:
Post by: snowpack on January 07, 2014, 10:53:50 AM
I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.Couple factors at play the wolf population will increase and likely the deer population decline. So I'd think your assumptions will be valid. If someone is in a car accident with a deer that is being chased by wolves, I would consider that to be a wolf related injury/accident.
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 11:03:43 AM
Why are you all arguing about deer vs wolves? It's obfuscation from the topic at hand. Don't let the pro-wolfers turn the thread like that, it's what they do.That's why I feel confident. :chuckle:
Besides, we all know in 10-15 years there won't be any deer left to kill and eat people :chuckle:
You should have stipulated that all data must be current and specific to the region, no wagering on old data or using data from states like Florida :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 11:13:20 AM
And that is is exactly one scenario I envision being a very real possibility. My whole point is that Sitka/ Idahohnter are comparing scewed numbers to numbers that don't even exist yet. Therefore nullifying his entire argument.I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.Couple factors at play the wolf population will increase and likely the deer population decline. So I'd think your assumptions will be valid. If someone is in a car accident with a deer that is being chased by wolves, I would consider that to be a wolf related injury/accident.
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 11:16:24 AM
Why are you all arguing about deer vs wolves? It's obfuscation from the topic at hand. Don't let the pro-wolfers turn the thread like that, it's what they do.That's why I feel confident. :chuckle:
Besides, we all know in 10-15 years there won't be any deer left to kill and eat people :chuckle:
You should have stipulated that all data must be current and specific to the region, no wagering on old data or using data from states like Florida :chuckle:
That's why I said states that have actual confirmed wolves.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 07, 2014, 12:11:12 PM
I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.They better get started. Wolves have been around for quite a few years now and no one has been injured....
I think you are going to lose money on that bet Turkeyfeather
This thread started with a guy that was "treed" (i think he may have overreacted) by wolves...how did it devolve into an argument over deer/car collisions?
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 12:16:01 PM
People have been injured WAcoyotehunter. People have been hurt emotionally, monetarily and in few cases even physically.
The tired old mantra that wolves won't attack people is proven false, it's a very thin security blanket when a person is surrounded and pressured by wolves.
Some momma walking her dogs had better pray those wolves off in the distance had some education from someone like me; if they've had previous contact with someone like idahunter or sitka_blacktail then that momma is screwed, and so are her dogs.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 07, 2014, 12:16:19 PM
And that is is exactly one scenario I envision being a very real possibility. My whole point is that Sitka/ Idahohnter are comparing scewed numbers to numbers that don't even exist yet. Therefore nullifying his entire argument.I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.Couple factors at play the wolf population will increase and likely the deer population decline. So I'd think your assumptions will be valid. If someone is in a car accident with a deer that is being chased by wolves, I would consider that to be a wolf related injury/accident.
I wasn't using any skewed numbers. I just showed that the same stupid argument some of you use against wolves would be just as stupid if used against deer. And the fact that you think the argument is stupid when used against deer, just shows how blind you are when you use it against wolves.
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 12:19:52 PM
Evolution takes time my friend. It doesn't happen in 5-10 years. It takes much longer than that. And this thread as all threads are like the history of earth. They evolve, one topic starts to lose steam and becomes extinct or evolves to be able to continue.I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.They better get started. Wolves have been around for quite a few years now and no one has been injured....
I think you are going to lose money on that bet Turkeyfeather
This thread started with a guy that was "treed" (i think he may have overreacted) by wolves...how did it devolve into an argument over deer/car collisions?
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 07, 2014, 12:22:46 PM
What??? Talk about talking in circles. I now have a headache trying to figure out what you just said.And that is is exactly one scenario I envision being a very real possibility. My whole point is that Sitka/ Idahohnter are comparing scewed numbers to numbers that don't even exist yet. Therefore nullifying his entire argument.I would say that within 10-15 years (that if left to the current course of management ) injuries resulting from encounters with wolves will be higher than those encounters with deer. And stats are only valid in states that wolves live. Not a general broad stat to include everywhere.Couple factors at play the wolf population will increase and likely the deer population decline. So I'd think your assumptions will be valid. If someone is in a car accident with a deer that is being chased by wolves, I would consider that to be a wolf related injury/accident.
I wasn't using any skewed numbers. I just showed that the same stupid argument some of you use against wolves would be just as stupid if used against deer. And the fact that you think the argument is stupid when used against deer, just shows how blind you are when you use it against wolves.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 01:25:14 PM
:bash:Yea, WAcoyotehunter, what he's saying is they can't really find anybody with bite marks but that doesn't mean there isn't emotional damage. ROFL! :chuckle: :chuckle: And I thought these guys were tough on the big bad wolf...turns out they have just been emotionally hurt. :chuckle: We don't need a wolf management plan...we need a wolf therapist so these guys can call a 1-800 number and get the emotional support they need.
People have been injured WAcoyotehunter. People have been hurt emotionally...
Some momma walking her dogs had better pray those wolves off in the distance had some education from someone like me; if they've had previous contact with someone like idahunter or sitka_blacktail then that momma is screwed, and so are her dogs.You are so clueless about me that you should not make such asanine assumptions. But please, by all means, elaborate on what you specifically have done to "educate" wolves that has made "momma" safer that I have not done.
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 01:45:38 PM
:bash:Yea, WAcoyotehunter, what he's saying is they can't really find anybody with bite marks but that doesn't mean there isn't emotional damage. ROFL! :chuckle: :chuckle: And I thought these guys were tough on the big bad wolf...turns out they have just been emotionally hurt. :chuckle: We don't need a wolf management plan...we need a wolf therapist so these guys can call a 1-800 number and get the emotional support they need.
People have been injured WAcoyotehunter. People have been hurt emotionally...Some momma walking her dogs had better pray those wolves off in the distance had some education from someone like me; if they've had previous contact with someone like idahunter or sitka_blacktail then that momma is screwed, and so are her dogs.You are so clueless about me that you should not make such asanine assumptions. But please, by all means, elaborate on what you specifically have done to "educate" wolves that has made "momma" safer that I have not done.
If you don't see any emotional trauma in this video then you're just a dolt
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=825_1198391329&comments=1 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=825_1198391329&comments=1)
You've already stated by you're own admission you do not pack a handgun while archery hunting, you'll scurry up a tree and crap your britches. I haven't had a close encounter, but if/when I do I will defend myself. To do otherwise is unconscionable.
Wolves are capable of killing people. No doubt about it. My encounters with wolves at close range (under 100 yards) while bowhunting, had me wishing I was carrying a handgun. However, if I were going to put together a list of things were likely to cause injury/death to me as an outdoorsman, I don't think wolves (whether in Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Montana etc.) would make the top 50...or maybe even the top 100. :twocents:
You're out in prime wolf country, odds are great you'll have another encounter and if you are ill equipped to deal with it then you are not only putting the problem in someone else's lap you are helping embolden the wolves. They'll push tighter and harder with each encounter until it leads to someone else getting hurt.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 07, 2014, 01:51:25 PM
Post by: Mike450r on January 07, 2014, 01:56:40 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
These wolves ran him up the tree, just because they didn't bite his behind while jumping up the tree doesn't mean they weren't hostile.
Those wolves could have covered 50 yards in the blink of an eye, to not be prepared or extract yourself to a safe location is foolhardy.
Post by: gaddy on January 07, 2014, 02:38:14 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 07, 2014, 02:51:23 PM
I have to go back to the title and say I agree with others, the guy did not get chased up the tree. He didn't even see them. Too close for comfort maybe, but then again overreaction could also be in play. It is a misleading thread title, more like "bowhunter climbs tree and stays there until the wolves he heard were gone". Not saying he did wrong and not saying I wouldn't consider doing the same, just more to do with the title of the thread being in conflict with what happened.:yeah:
Post by: jackelope on January 07, 2014, 03:02:35 PM
I have to go back to the title and say I agree with others, the guy did not get chased up the tree. He didn't even see them. Too close for comfort maybe, but then again overreaction could also be in play. It is a misleading thread title, more like "bowhunter climbs tree and stays there until the wolves he heard were gone". Not saying he did wrong and not saying I wouldn't consider doing the same, just more to do with the title of the thread being in conflict with what happened.:yeah:
Sort of why I asked on page 1 or so if the guy ever even saw the wolves. That and in response to another poster mentioning something about shooting the wolves. I don't recall the exact post.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 03:07:28 PM
There was no threat, thus no need to defend myself. Just seeing the wolves had me a little paranoid for the walk out at night (both times this happened was during archery elk season). It was in 2003 and 2005, and wolves were still federally protected in Idaho. I never made any suggestion that I would not defend myself...even with my bow at least one wolf is going to take a broadhead to the face. However, both times, as soon as the wolf saw me it turned and ran. Unlike you, I do not support poaching. Period. If I had a handgun with me at the time of those encounters it would have done no good as the wolves were gone in the blink of an eye...I would have felt a little safer in my walk out though...I was guilty of feeling irrational fear. To suggest you could have done something to "educate" them is absurd and demonstrates your extraordinary ignorance on the topic. One thing is clear, you sure speak a lot about wolves and how people should react to them for a guy that has 0 experience. That is a common theme with most of the wolf whackos I know.
You've already stated by you're own admission you do not pack a handgun while archery hunting, you'll scurry up a tree and crap your britches. I haven't had a close encounter, but if/when I do I will defend myself. To do otherwise is unconscionable.
Post by: AspenBud on January 07, 2014, 03:45:26 PM
Bear Climbs Tree Next To A Hunter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7borw_SMPQc#)
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 04:23:43 PM
There was no threat, thus no need to defend myself. Just seeing the wolves had me a little paranoid for the walk out at night (both times this happened was during archery elk season). It was in 2003 and 2005, and wolves were still federally protected in Idaho. I never made any suggestion that I would not defend myself...even with my bow at least one wolf is going to take a broadhead to the face. However, both times, as soon as the wolf saw me it turned and ran. Unlike you, I do not support poaching. Period. If I had a handgun with me at the time of those encounters it would have done no good as the wolves were gone in the blink of an eye...I would have felt a little safer in my walk out though...I was guilty of feeling irrational fear. To suggest you could have done something to "educate" them is absurd and demonstrates your extraordinary ignorance on the topic. One thing is clear, you sure speak a lot about wolves and how people should react to them for a guy that has 0 experience. That is a common theme with most of the wolf whackos I know.
You've already stated by you're own admission you do not pack a handgun while archery hunting, you'll scurry up a tree and crap your britches. I haven't had a close encounter, but if/when I do I will defend myself. To do otherwise is unconscionable.
I've stated many times I do not support poaching, several times in this very thread. Defending yourself is very different than poaching.
Your "broadhead to the face" line is laughable, what you've told me is you have no means of scaring off a wolf let alone defending yourself. Do you think if you let fly one arrow the rest of the wolves are going to run off? Do you really expect to stone a wolf with a single arrow? A wolf that never stands still? And you dare call ME ignorant? Ask the hunter from Clayton WA how well that worked out when he arrowed a wolf.
You remind me of Timothy Treadwell.
One incidence of seeing some wolves chasing the same Elk you happened to be chasing does not an expert make.
Where do you infer that I am a poacher? Was it this:
Quote
I'm against shooting wolves 1000 yards away without a valid tag in your pocket, just as I'm against shooting a wolf that turns inside out trying to flee if you "bumped noses" on a trail somewhere unless you have a tag in your pocket.
I wrote that a page or two back, I'm sure you've seen it but you're doing so poorly in this debate you resort to slander and baseless accusations.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 04:26:35 PM
Then, tell me how a "momma" is safer after these wolves encountered you instead of me. Or, after hearing the facts of my wolf encounters will you recant your dumb statement about how a wolf encounter with me is bad for "momma"
Some momma walking her dogs had better pray those wolves off in the distance had some education from someone like me; if they've had previous contact with someone like idahunter or sitka_blacktail then that momma is screwed, and so are her dogs.
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 04:41:05 PM
What would you have done differently than me, assuming you had a handgun?
Then, tell me how a "momma" is safer after these wolves encountered you instead of me. Or, after hearing the facts of my wolf encounters will you recant your dumb statement about how a wolf encounter with me is bad for "momma"
Some momma walking her dogs had better pray those wolves off in the distance had some education from someone like me; if they've had previous contact with someone like idahunter or sitka_blacktail then that momma is screwed, and so are her dogs.
I wouldn't have done anything differently, except maybe try to take some pictures. It's your next encounter I worry about, you clearly cannot defend yourself.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 05:05:27 PM
You worry about you and I'll worry about me. :tup:
I wouldn't have done anything differently, except maybe try to take some pictures. It's your next encounter I worry about, you clearly cannot defend yourself.
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 05:13:26 PM
You worry about you and I'll worry about me. :tup:
I wouldn't have done anything differently, except maybe try to take some pictures. It's your next encounter I worry about, you clearly cannot defend yourself.
I'm not worried about you; I'm worried that people like you will have encounters with wolves - people with very little means of self defense or no means at all - and that will teach wolves not to fear humans in a cumulative manner - and that could get a momma walking her dog into big trouble as in the video link I posted previously.
Post by: wolfbait on January 07, 2014, 05:46:44 PM
You worry about you and I'll worry about me. :tup:
I wouldn't have done anything differently, except maybe try to take some pictures. It's your next encounter I worry about, you clearly cannot defend yourself.
I'm not worried about you; I'm worried that people like you will have encounters with wolves - people with very little means of self defense or no means at all - and that will teach wolves not to fear humans in a cumulative manner - and that could get a momma walking her dog into big trouble as in the video link I posted previously.
The pro-wolf pack move in to slaughter common sense: This is quite the thread, I wonder how many people would enjoy having wolves follow them or make false charges? How many people people would run up a tree from, say a pack of wild dogs? I would, and then I would kill everyone of them that I could. I would alert everyone and encourage them to kill on sight. But with wolves many have their hands tied do to the ESA and frauds such as the USFWS and WDFW.
What you are hearing from KFHunter and a few others is common sense, until you actually live around WDFW's wolves for a while, you should talk to those who have. For those of you who are pushing for the wolves I hope you get to experience your dreams.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 05:47:24 PM
You just admitted you wouldn't have done anything differently in my wolf encounters. You also said very specifically that you worry about my next encounter. You did not say a wolf encountering someone "like me".You worry about you and I'll worry about me. :tup:
I wouldn't have done anything differently, except maybe try to take some pictures. It's your next encounter I worry about, you clearly cannot defend yourself.
I'm not worried about you; I'm worried that people like you will have encounters with wolves - people with very little means of self defense or no means at all - and that will teach wolves not to fear humans in a cumulative manner - and that could get a momma walking her dog into big trouble as in the video link I posted previously.
And again, you are making absurd assumptions pretending to have any clue about how capable I may be in defending myself. So I will once again remind you to worry about yourself. :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 05:50:14 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 07, 2014, 06:02:40 PM
I'm not worried about you; I'm worried that people like you will have encounters with wolves - people with very little means of self defense or no means at all - and that will teach wolves not to fear humans in a cumulative manner - and that could get a momma walking her dog into big trouble as in the video link I posted previously.
I guess then by your logic, that momma out walking her dog needs to be reprimanded too for not packing heat and for bringing a wolf attractor with her on her walk. She needs to be teaching those wolves a lesson darn it!
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 06:06:02 PM
regarding "momma", I think it more likely people will stop enjoying the outdoors as freely as they do now. In wolf areas it's already putting a damper on the joy of being outside with their dogs as it's surely in the back of everyone's mind.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 06:19:14 PM
The only thing I know about you is that you'll "shoot a wolf in the face with an arrow", and that is enough.:chuckle: Yes, If all I have is a bow and a wolf threatens me I'm sending an arrow down range. Is this not what you have been advocating all along???
And if you doubt an archery hunters ability to defend himself if a predator attacks...check out the story below. This was an old friend of mine. Shot a cougar in the face with a bow at very close range as it was charging him...crazy story!
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Stalked!+Maybe+cats+really+do+have+nine+lives.-a0148318594 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Stalked!+Maybe+cats+really+do+have+nine+lives.-a0148318594)
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 06:39:45 PM
The only thing I know about you is that you'll "shoot a wolf in the face with an arrow", and that is enough.:chuckle: Yes, If all I have is a bow and a wolf threatens me I'm sending an arrow down range. Is this not what you have been advocating all along???
And if you doubt an archery hunters ability to defend himself if a predator attacks...check out the story below. This was an old friend of mine. Shot a cougar in the face with a bow at very close range as it was charging him...crazy story!
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Stalked!+Maybe+cats+really+do+have+nine+lives.-a0148318594 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Stalked!+Maybe+cats+really+do+have+nine+lives.-a0148318594)
No - it is not what I've been advocating. I'm archery too, I fully understand the capabilities of modern archery. Our bows are designed to be stealthy, quiet and accurate. Zipping an arrow through a wolf is not going educate the pack, you may kill the one (if you're lucky) but the others won't even know what has happened.
On the other hand if you've got a Glock 20 and start banging off rounds into the threatening wolf/s all the others will get the hint and learn humans are not to be messed with. You obviously know nothing of the Clayton bow hunters' story do you? IN short he killed a wolf with an arrow, the rest maintained a very threatening posture. The man has brass balls obviously, but he illustrated very well how serious the situation was.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2012/sep/14/idaho-bow-hunter-kills-stalking-wolf/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2012/sep/14/idaho-bow-hunter-kills-stalking-wolf/)
edit: they cut the good part of the story off :bash:
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 08, 2014, 09:09:40 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 09:34:36 AM
I'm not worried about you; I'm worried that people like you will have encounters with wolves - people with very little means of self defense or no means at all - and that will teach wolves not to fear humans in a cumulative manner - and that could get a momma walking her dog into big trouble as in the video link I posted previously.
I guess then by your logic, that momma out walking her dog needs to be reprimanded too for not packing heat and for bringing a wolf attractor with her on her walk. She needs to be teaching those wolves a lesson darn it!
Anyone out walking anywhere "not packing heat" should be reprimanded, but especially in wolf country - be that Idaho, WA, or Chicago. Yes, you are correct. Wolves need to be taught to fear man. In WA so far, that's not the case and we're seeing the repercussions from that.
Post by: AspenBud on January 08, 2014, 09:44:29 AM
Tough guy talk aside, there's not much of a story here.
Post by: Northway on January 08, 2014, 09:49:38 AM
The argument about whether to carry one for predators to me is a moot point because of the aforementioned opinion. Growing up spending time in the woods on the west slopes of the Cascades, I had a couple of bizarre encounters that convinced me you just never know what type of strange situation you are going to happen upon.
Post by: buckfvr on January 08, 2014, 09:51:30 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 08, 2014, 10:04:46 AM
Nothing said here means a lick of spit..............in the end, every individual will do what hes going to do when and if faced with it, some will talk about it others wont. Act any way you want on here, it dont mean spit. None of it.I'm pretty damn sure I know what I would do.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 08, 2014, 06:53:41 PM
I'm not worried about you; I'm worried that people like you will have encounters with wolves - people with very little means of self defense or no means at all - and that will teach wolves not to fear humans in a cumulative manner - and that could get a momma walking her dog into big trouble as in the video link I posted previously.
I guess then by your logic, that momma out walking her dog needs to be reprimanded too for not packing heat and for bringing a wolf attractor with her on her walk. She needs to be teaching those wolves a lesson darn it!
Anyone out walking anywhere "not packing heat" should be reprimanded, but especially in wolf country - be that Idaho, WA, or Chicago. Yes, you are correct. Wolves need to be taught to fear man. In WA so far, that's not the case and we're seeing the repercussions from that.
Bears have been hunted to high heaven forever, and are still more likely to kill you by 1000% than a wolf. When they make up their mind, I don't think fear of a gun is going to stop them. In my day, I've had close (when I say close, I mean 50 yards or less) encounters with bears, both black and brown, and both armed and unarmed (yes I sometimes go unarmed in bear country the same as in wolf country). Having or not having a gun never affected the outcome one bit. Usually once a bear is aware of you, if they have a choice they will try to go the opposite direction but they also try to "save face" so will usually take their time about it. It can be nerve wracking for sure, whether armed or unarmed. The most scared I ever was I happened to be armed as I was deer hunting. Part of the reason was that it happened so fast, and when I first saw the bear it was running right at me at about 25 yards. But it stopped on a small knoll about 20 yards from me and my buddy who was behind me and was sniffing the air while turning his head in all directions. I had my gun on the bear when he stopped and I hollered to my friend, "There's a bear". The bear then looked down and saw us and turned and ran. We gave him time, then quickly got high on the mt. and out of the alder jungle we had been in so we could see better. In hind sight, I don't think the bear was charging us, but trying to locate us because he had either smelled us or heard us. As soon as he knew where we were, he got out of there. Another incident happened when a young lady and I went for a hike unarmed near a remote village on Kodiak. We were on a gravel road that went a couple miles to the town reservoir. About halfway to the reservoir, I heard brush pop just in front of us and told her, "I think there is a bear coming". So we backed up together against a bluff and waited and sure enough, out popped a bear about 50 yards from us on the road. It was obvious right away he knew we were there, but he acted like he hadn't noticed us. He'd look off to one side, then snap his head around and stare right at us. Then he casually flopped onto his back and started rolling in the grass at the side of the road. Then just as quickly, he'd snap back onto his feet and stare at us. At one point, he was even licking his privates. Finally, he decided he was going to walk down the road past us. We continued to face him in an aggressive stance and at about 25 yards, his nerve broke and he walked down into the brush and circled around us and came back up to the road about 50 yards past us and continued down the road towards the village. We figured we might as well continue our hike so we went on to the lake and then walked back to the village, never seeing that bear or any other bear the rest of our trip. You might think that was more scary than the first bear when I had a rifle, but from his body language, I didn't sense any ill will from him, plus in that particular village, there is a salmon stream that bears come to feed in right in town and the bears and humans there co-exist with each other without incident that I have heard of, so I figured this bear probably wasn't looking for trouble. Plus that first bear was running at me. And you can't appreciate how fast a big brownie can move until you see it.
These are just a couple examples of close encounters I've had.
My point? When we feel pressured or trapped, it's easy to misjudge the motives of animal we know can do us serious harm. But every close encounter is not necessarily and animal trying to test us to see if we are gonna become dinner. Sometimes the animal is just curious, and other times they were just as unlucky as we were to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And other times something else like the smell of blood brought them in. I know I was probably lucky a time or two. I've had friends who felt they had to shoot bears to save their own skin and I won't question their judgment. I also know people who killed bears that had no clue people were in the area, just because they were bears, not because they were threatened. I do question that. But I can tell you 100%, I've never heard of any of my friends in Alaska having to kill a wolf they felt threatened by.
As for packing heat any time you were out? If I was going to pack, it would be for the human vermin I might encounter not for any animal.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2014, 05:38:17 AM
It's a fact that the wolves in WA have no or very little fear of man. They haven't been hunted. They've seen man, smelled him and heard him, and there's been no negative stimuli. As you said, bears have been hunted all along - I'm not sure about "high heaven", but whatever. And, just because you've never been attacked doesn't mean that it's not going to happen to someone else. The odds of someone being attacked by wolves may be small, but they exist and as we get more of them and still don't hunt them, those odds will increase. These are not bears. They're not cougars. And, they're not the wolves that were here before. This are big, hungry, coordinated hunters of opportunity. They will kill people if they get the right opportunity. It's a not a matter of "if", but of "when".
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 06:05:45 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2014, 06:18:17 AM
Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?
Really Jackelope? We're comparing the reactions of a prey species to those of an apex predator? Surely you're joking. Wolves use cognition - they're able to think, coordinate, consciously use long and short term memory. Deer rely almost completely on instinct.
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 10, 2014, 06:24:20 AM
Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?Absolutely!
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 06:41:32 AM
Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?
Really Jackelope? We're comparing the reactions of a prey species to those of an apex predator? Surely you're joking. Wolves use cognition - they're able to think, coordinate, consciously use long and short term memory. Deer rely almost completely on instinct.
Yes really.
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 06:42:44 AM
Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?Absolutely!
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted, they just run up and roll over looking for a belly rub?
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 10, 2014, 06:48:09 AM
Is there such an area?Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?Absolutely!
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted.
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 07:37:31 AM
Is there such an area?Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?Absolutely!
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted.
Sure there is. Especially "No Hunting" areas.
Deer are still terrified of people in no hunting areas.
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 07:44:46 AM
It's a fact that the wolves in WA have no or very little fear of man. They haven't been hunted. They've seen man, smelled him and heard him, and there's been no negative stimuli.
I don't think the lack of hunting or other negative stimuli are the reasons that wolves are not afraid of people. I also think that only a small portion of the wolves in this state have been close enough, or have had enough interaction at all with man, to build a fear.
I don't think the hunter in this original story got "chased up a tree" either. I think he got scared because wolves were obviously in the area, and decided to climb a tree. Call it what you want, but I wouldn't personally call it getting chased up a tree.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2014, 07:52:57 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 08:10:39 AM
OK, we disagree on this. I believe they have little fear of man because thus far, man hasn't been a threat. Whether or not the guy in the story is telling the truth, I have no basis whatsoever to make a judgment on that.
Agreed. My only judgement that I made was based on the story as it was written on here.
:dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on January 10, 2014, 08:15:03 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 10, 2014, 08:19:50 AM
People were in and hunting in those areas long before they were desidnated as "no hunting". Comeone Jackelope, you can't possibly believe that an animal would be afraid of something for no reason. That's just plain illogical.Is there such an area?Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?Absolutely!
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted.
Sure there is. Especially "No Hunting" areas.
Deer are still terrified of people in no hunting areas.
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 08:39:57 AM
People were in and hunting in those areas long before they were desidnated as "no hunting". Comeone Jackelope, you can't possibly believe that an animal would be afraid of something for no reason. That's just plain illogical.Is there such an area?Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?Absolutely!
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted.
Sure there is. Especially "No Hunting" areas.
Deer are still terrified of people in no hunting areas.
So fear is genetic?
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2014, 08:45:51 AM
make sure I'm following this thread correctly
Post by: sebek556 on January 10, 2014, 08:50:38 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 10, 2014, 08:51:24 AM
Nope it's life skills passed on from adults. But I'll bite. Why then is your explanation as to why deer are afraid of people?People were in and hunting in those areas long before they were desidnated as "no hunting". Comeone Jackelope, you can't possibly believe that an animal would be afraid of something for no reason. That's just plain illogical.Is there such an area?Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?Absolutely!
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted.
Sure there is. Especially "No Hunting" areas.
Deer are still terrified of people in no hunting areas.
So fear is genetic?
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2014, 08:54:59 AM
It's why bears tend to bite our heads instead of in the middle of our backs like they would prey.
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
Animals look at humans as predators, our forward eyes is what does it for the most part. It's well documented.
It's why bears tend to bite our heads instead of in the middle of our backs like they would prey.
I'm with you. My comments had nothing to do with why deer are afraid of people really. I was just questioning Pianoman's comments regarding his basis for fear of humans, or lack thereof I guess, being related to them being hunted and other negative interaction with humans.
Actually fear is a genetic and learned response. This has been proven many times. But fear between a apex predator and prey is not comparing apples to apples. Take fight or flight syndrome. Prey know they have little chance to fight, so flight is their natural response to anything that startles them. Where predators know that they do stand a chance to fight and make their decision based on past knowledge. In wa wolves they have no past knowledge of man being a threat, therefore are more likely to choose fight if they feel corned. Few snarls and snaps, we back away and have now changed our status with them from predator to possible prey.OK...well that makes sense. I'll go with that, but I think it happens over a long period of time, no??
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 10, 2014, 09:01:39 AM
The problem with your comment here is that you can never prove that deer wouldn't be afraid.
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted, they just run up and roll over looking for a belly rub?
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2014, 09:06:24 AM
The problem with your comment here is that you can never prove that deer wouldn't be afraid.
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted, they just run up and roll over looking for a belly rub?
You're right. I've never had a deer come up looking for an actual belly rub.
But it could happen I suppose.
:dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 10, 2014, 09:20:26 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 10, 2014, 09:34:29 AM
My point was that you could never prove what deer that hadn't had any interaction will do. Cause in order to find out you would have to interact with them. Also there is very little land in this country that hasn't been touched by man over the centuries. How many threads or comments have their been just on this site that someone is complaining that they crawled into a deep dark hole in the middle of BFE and found trash.The problem with your comment here is that you can never prove that deer wouldn't be afraid.
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted, they just run up and roll over looking for a belly rub?
You're right. I've never had a deer come up looking for an actual belly rub.
But it could happen I suppose.
:dunno:
Post by: Northway on January 10, 2014, 09:37:29 AM
Here's my one and only point in this page of the debate from me. I'm not intending to start a pissing match or an argument...butIt's a fact that the wolves in WA have no or very little fear of man. They haven't been hunted. They've seen man, smelled him and heard him, and there's been no negative stimuli.
I don't think the lack of hunting or other negative stimuli are the reasons that wolves are not afraid of people. I also think that only a small portion of the wolves in this state have been close enough, or have had enough interaction at all with man, to build a fear.
I don't think the hunter in this original story got "chased up a tree" either. I think he got scared because wolves were obviously in the area, and decided to climb a tree. Call it what you want, but I wouldn't personally call it getting chased up a tree.
I think a point that may or may not be relevant to this story is that there are hunters in Washington who have not traditionally hunted in wolf territory, unless they travel to the NRM, or maybe Canada. Maybe over time you'd see a straggler here and there, but not the more frequent encounters with full packs of wolves.
It doesn't seem far-fetched that there is the potential to overreact during your first real encounter. It's one of many things an LEO will have to consider when handling cases where a wolf gets shot during an encounter while they are listed.
I know that when I was out in brown bear country for the first few times, a possible encounter with one was first and foremost on my mind even though there were still all the other usual suspects running around out there. There was definitely an elevated risk that I could have overreacted had I run into one given the opportunity.
Post by: snowpack on January 10, 2014, 09:46:54 AM
Do you think deer hunting is what made deer afraid of people?For sure. In areas with little to no human hunting pressure they have little fear. They walk around in daylight and often within a few yards of people. Many aren't tame, unless a human works to train them. Bears are similar. The areas open to bear hunting, they will run off and hide from your sound or scent. Go to a national park with bears and they waddle right past you at about 10 yards. They'll keep an eye on you but it teaches the cubs that humans are okay.
Post by: AspenBud on January 10, 2014, 10:01:01 AM
The areas open to bear hunting, they will run off and hide from your sound or scent.
That's a nice fairy tale.
http://www.wqow.com/story/23834852/2013/10/30/hunter-attacked-by-bear-in-barron-county (http://www.wqow.com/story/23834852/2013/10/30/hunter-attacked-by-bear-in-barron-county)
Hunting bear with hounds in Wisconsin is still quite legal.
Predators are predators, if they see an opportunity or feel the need, they will still attack.
Post by: snowpack on January 10, 2014, 10:09:01 AM
Post by: AspenBud on January 10, 2014, 10:22:46 AM
Why don't you go spend some time in heavily pressured areas with a season vs those without a season (both having large populations of animals).
I have and there is a difference. I can't hunt a day here without seeing bear scat and/or tracks. I could hunt in the Midwest and go without seeing any of either. But encounters still occurred.
My point however is you're always at risk, even in areas where predators are hunted.
Post by: AspenBud on January 10, 2014, 10:25:40 AM
My point was that you could never prove what deer that hadn't had any interaction will do. Cause in order to find out you would have to interact with them. Also there is very little land in this country that hasn't been touched by man over the centuries. How many threads or comments have their been just on this site that someone is complaining that they crawled into a deep dark hole in the middle of BFE and found trash.The problem with your comment here is that you can never prove that deer wouldn't be afraid.
So in areas where deer have never seen people or been hunted, they just run up and roll over looking for a belly rub?
You're right. I've never had a deer come up looking for an actual belly rub.
But it could happen I suppose.
:dunno:
This is a bit of a departure, but most Midwestern ruffed grouse hunters laugh when they see how trusting and downright dumb ruffed grouse are in places with less hunting pressure.
Post by: wolfbait on January 11, 2014, 07:40:18 AM
http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html (http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 11, 2014, 11:24:33 AM
Post by: wolfbait on January 11, 2014, 12:42:23 PM
I don't know about elk wolfbait, but as for deer, they started showing up in town here when the city started enforcing leash laws. When I was a kid, dogs ran free and you rarely saw a deer in town. Now, you rarely see a dog running loose and deer are everywhere. And so are cougars. They are here because of the deer. We've seen a lone cougar three times withing two blocks of my house including in my front yard and in the driveway next to my house. And the last couple months there have been two cougars reportedly seen in the area three blocks from my house. Not to mention the bears being seen in town. Are you trying to tell me the cougars and bears are in town too because they have been chased here by wolves?
Sounds to me like you have a predator problem, predators will follow their prey. When cougars/bears were hunted with hounds those problems were few, now it is and every winter problem, and sometimes a summer problem. Controlling predators instead of protecting them would lessen the pressure on the game herds, and they wouldn't have to hang out in town and around peoples homes for protection.
Biologists etc. like to stress that more habitat would solve the problem of game herds in town and residential areas, but the truth is there is not enough predator control. In actuality there is getting to be fewer and fewer elk, deer, moose etc. because of uncontrolled predators, and like where you live deer feel safer around people then out in the brush with cougars, bears, and wolves.
With less predator control, the end results will be more predator/human conflict, which is where we are today.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2014, 10:26:56 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on January 12, 2014, 04:50:43 PM
Way to much logic in this. Sitka's not gonna understand.I don't know about elk wolfbait, but as for deer, they started showing up in town here when the city started enforcing leash laws. When I was a kid, dogs ran free and you rarely saw a deer in town. Now, you rarely see a dog running loose and deer are everywhere. And so are cougars. They are here because of the deer. We've seen a lone cougar three times withing two blocks of my house including in my front yard and in the driveway next to my house. And the last couple months there have been two cougars reportedly seen in the area three blocks from my house. Not to mention the bears being seen in town. Are you trying to tell me the cougars and bears are in town too because they have been chased here by wolves?
Sounds to me like you have a predator problem, predators will follow their prey. When cougars/bears were hunted with hounds those problems were few, now it is and every winter problem, and sometimes a summer problem. Controlling predators instead of protecting them would lessen the pressure on the game herds, and they wouldn't have to hang out in town and around peoples homes for protection.
Biologists etc. like to stress that more habitat would solve the problem of game herds in town and residential areas, but the truth is there is not enough predator control. In actuality there is getting to be fewer and fewer elk, deer, moose etc. because of uncontrolled predators, and like where you live deer feel safer around people then out in the brush with cougars, bears, and wolves.
With less predator control, the end results will be more predator/human conflict, which is where we are today.
Post by: buckfvr on January 12, 2014, 05:00:48 PM
Post by: AspenBud on January 13, 2014, 07:27:39 AM
I don't know about elk wolfbait, but as for deer, they started showing up in town here when the city started enforcing leash laws. When I was a kid, dogs ran free and you rarely saw a deer in town. Now, you rarely see a dog running loose and deer are everywhere. And so are cougars. They are here because of the deer. We've seen a lone cougar three times withing two blocks of my house including in my front yard and in the driveway next to my house. And the last couple months there have been two cougars reportedly seen in the area three blocks from my house. Not to mention the bears being seen in town. Are you trying to tell me the cougars and bears are in town too because they have been chased here by wolves?
Sounds to me like you have a predator problem, predators will follow their prey. When cougars/bears were hunted with hounds those problems were few, now it is and every winter problem, and sometimes a summer problem. Controlling predators instead of protecting them would lessen the pressure on the game herds, and they wouldn't have to hang out in town and around peoples homes for protection.
Biologists etc. like to stress that more habitat would solve the problem of game herds in town and residential areas, but the truth is there is not enough predator control. In actuality there is getting to be fewer and fewer elk, deer, moose etc. because of uncontrolled predators, and like where you live deer feel safer around people then out in the brush with cougars, bears, and wolves.
With less predator control, the end results will be more predator/human conflict, which is where we are today.
Actually the justification for killing 6000 wolves in Alberta is an increase in deer numbers which are the result of good habitat created as a byproduct of the energy boom up there. More deer means more wolves which is bad news for caribou. You can not discount it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 07:39:22 AM
"Alberta’s tar sand pits create deer, wolves and decimate mountain caribou
by RALPH MAUGHAN on APRIL 12, 2012 · 6 COMMENTS · in ENERGY, OIL AND GAS, POLITICS, THREATS, WOLVES
Oh, the many effects of extracting the world’s dirtiest oil!
Despite the huge PR offensive by big oil, Alberta, and Canada’s right wing government, it is hard to overwhelm the public into thinking digging big holes to get out the bitumen is a great idea. Scientists, bloggers, conservation groups, and even segments of the Democratic Party keep pointing out how it hurts.
An example this morning of a common blog attack is Cry Wolf: An Unethical Oil Story. DeSmogBlog. Carol Linnitt.
The facts are basically these. Note that this does not follow the exact same logic as “Cry Wolf” above. Alberta has already killed 500 wolves using poison bait and the entire array of methods that conservationist hate. This includes strychnine which kills all the scavengers too. The planned wolf cull is to kill 6000 wolves over the next 5 years. Why? All the industrial activity in the northern forest creates deer habitat. A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them. Mountain caribou are also edible, but usually not bothered much by wolves due to their rarity. However, the larger wolf population means more caribou get eaten as what we might call “by-catch,” to use a fishing example. Mountain caribou can’t stand this pressure even though the absolute number of caribou killed is small. So the big wolf killing program is the government-dirty oil complex’s effort to save the caribou."
"A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them." Not the other way around.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/ (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/)
Post by: JLS on January 13, 2014, 07:47:53 AM
According to this article Aspenbud, you're off. The increase in deer population is due to habitat changes created by the oil boom. The caribou are being killed off by the wolves.
"Alberta’s tar sand pits create deer, wolves and decimate mountain caribou
by RALPH MAUGHAN on APRIL 12, 2012 · 6 COMMENTS · in ENERGY, OIL AND GAS, POLITICS, THREATS, WOLVES
Oh, the many effects of extracting the world’s dirtiest oil!
Despite the huge PR offensive by big oil, Alberta, and Canada’s right wing government, it is hard to overwhelm the public into thinking digging big holes to get out the bitumen is a great idea. Scientists, bloggers, conservation groups, and even segments of the Democratic Party keep pointing out how it hurts.
An example this morning of a common blog attack is Cry Wolf: An Unethical Oil Story. DeSmogBlog. Carol Linnitt.
The facts are basically these. Note that this does not follow the exact same logic as “Cry Wolf” above. Alberta has already killed 500 wolves using poison bait and the entire array of methods that conservationist hate. This includes strychnine which kills all the scavengers too. The planned wolf cull is to kill 6000 wolves over the next 5 years. Why? All the industrial activity in the northern forest creates deer habitat. A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them. Mountain caribou are also edible, but usually not bothered much by wolves due to their rarity. However, the larger wolf population means more caribou get eaten as what we might call “by-catch,” to use a fishing example. Mountain caribou can’t stand this pressure even though the absolute number of caribou killed is small. So the big wolf killing program is the government-dirty oil complex’s effort to save the caribou."
"A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them." Not the other way around.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/ (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/)
And then this article references changes to that dirty "H" word again.
http://www.albertacariboucommittee.ca/PDF/Changes-in-landscape.pdf (http://www.albertacariboucommittee.ca/PDF/Changes-in-landscape.pdf)
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 07:50:54 AM
Post by: JLS on January 13, 2014, 07:53:56 AM
Actually the justification for killing 6000 wolves in Alberta is an increase in deer numbers which are the result of good habitat created as a byproduct of the energy boom up there. More deer means more wolves which is bad news for caribou. You can not discount it.
Piano,
Who ever said more wolves = more deer?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 07:59:55 AM
Actually the justification for killing 6000 wolves in Alberta is an increase in deer numbers which are the result of good habitat created as a byproduct of the energy boom up there. More deer means more wolves which is bad news for caribou. You can not discount it.
Piano,
Who ever said more wolves = more deer?
I Misread Aspen's post. I thought he had written "more wolves=more deer". Sorry.
Post by: JLS on January 13, 2014, 08:02:40 AM
Actually the justification for killing 6000 wolves in Alberta is an increase in deer numbers which are the result of good habitat created as a byproduct of the energy boom up there. More deer means more wolves which is bad news for caribou. You can not discount it.
Piano,
Who ever said more wolves = more deer?
I Misread Aspen's post. I thought he had written "more wolves=more deer". Sorry.
I haven't read the entire article that I referenced, but it is interesting how the altered habitat heavily favored deer, which in turn flourished despite wolves being present.
Read it and draw your own conclusions.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 08:05:17 AM
Post by: AspenBud on January 13, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
It makes sense to me. They cleared a lot of land, which creates a lot of grasses. That's one thing I wish we had more of on the wetside. I think our deer populations would be more robust.
I remember when it wasn't that uncommon to see roadkill deer on the side of I-5. In the last year I saw one. It used to be that in a lot of spots you had to work your way through thick brush/understory when walking in the woods. These days all I see is tall trees with relatively clear forest floors and it is dark in there. In a lot of places the forest has become an eco desert in this state and that applies to about every national forest in Washington, even on private tree farms the landscape is different from what it used to be.
To say the habitat hasn't changed over the years or even that it's good is insanity. Restrictions on logging have done a lot of damage as has much of the development done on private lands. I have no idea what it's like in the Methow, but I grew up seeing deer in people's yards for 18 years on the west side and I still see them here on the west side more than 20 years beyond that. It's nothing new and it was occurring long before wolves and the hound hunting ban. Heck, they have a small group of elk that has been snacking around the country club in Longview for years.
I think deer and elk are opportunists. If their traditional habitat becomes trash they'll come looking for an easy meal and people's gardens and yards are full of it. Property owners often have land that is brushy, unused, and that has relatively few trees around which allows plenty of sun in. Deer love that stuff. They can hide in it, they can eat, and they thrive in it. They don't thrive on bare forest floors. If predators are following it makes sense, bad habitat means no food for them since the prey animals will seek out what they need so guess where they will go???
If Wolfbait wanted to say that wolves are exacerbating problems created as a result of poor deer/elk habitat I could buy into that. But to say that better and more habitat wouldn't change things is just downright wrong. The proof is right in front of you up in Alberta and it is the spectral opposite of what he is telling you. The deer have good habitat and their numbers have grown despite wolves.
Where many are right however, is that it can also be bad news for other species like the caribou up in Alberta. What benefits one species can be bad news for another if certain checks and balances aren't used.
Sorry, this is just one point in the argument that is so cockamamie I can't stand it. Poor and decreasing habitat is part of the problem. Very much so.
Post by: Northway on January 13, 2014, 09:52:31 AM
It makes sense to me. They cleared a lot of land, which creates a lot of grasses. That's one thing I wish we had more of on the wetside. I think our deer populations would be more robust.
I remember when it wasn't that uncommon to see roadkill deer on the side of I-5. In the last year I saw one. It used to be that in a lot of spots you had to work your way through thick brush/understory when walking in the woods. These days all I see is tall trees with relatively clear forest floors and it is dark in there. In a lot of places the forest has become an eco desert in this state and that applies to about every national forest in Washington, even on private tree farms the landscape is different from what it used to be.
To say the habitat hasn't changed over the years or even that it's good is insanity. Restrictions on logging have done a lot of damage as has much of the development done on private lands. I have no idea what it's like in the Methow, but I grew up seeing deer in people's yards for 18 years on the west side and I still see them here on the west side more than 20 years beyond that. It's nothing new and it was occurring long before wolves and the hound hunting ban. Heck, they have a small group of elk that has been snacking around the country club in Longview for years.
I think deer and elk are opportunists. If their traditional habitat becomes trash they'll come looking for an easy meal and people's gardens and yards are full of it. Property owners often have land that is brushy, unused, and that has relatively few trees around which allows plenty of sun in. Deer love that stuff. They can hide in it, they can eat, and they thrive in it. They don't thrive on bare forest floors. If predators are following it makes sense, bad habitat means no food for them since the prey animals will seek out what they need so guess where they will go???
If Wolfbait wanted to say that wolves are exacerbating problems created as a result of poor deer/elk habitat I could buy into that. But to say that better and more habitat wouldn't change things is just downright wrong. The proof is right in front of you up in Alberta and it is the spectral opposite of what he is telling you. The deer have good habitat and their numbers have grown despite wolves.
Where many are right however, is that it can also be bad news for other species like the caribou up in Alberta. What benefits one species can be bad news for another if certain checks and balances aren't used.
Sorry, this is just one point in the argument that is so cockamamie I can't stand it. Poor and decreasing habitat is part of the problem. Very much so.
Corporate interests that utilize undeveloped spaces try and foster that mentality that shifts all the blame for downward fluctuations in ungulates to predators, IMO. Why take any heat from adjacent residents if you don't have to? Create a narrative that takes credit for any increase in ungulate numbers, and then blame hippies and their pro-predator policies whenever things hit the fan. Caribou numbers going down? It's okay, we'll go whack some wolves and don't you dare ask any questions about any other factors causing declines.
I'm pro-wolf/pro predator management, but not when predators become the sole scapegoat for every problem. They are an additive pressure that need to be considered amongst other issues. I believe some people only voice their opinion when it comes to predator management because addressing other important factors bring them into conflict with their political beliefs.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 09:57:19 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 10:02:31 AM
It makes sense to me. They cleared a lot of land, which creates a lot of grasses. That's one thing I wish we had more of on the wetside. I think our deer populations would be more robust.
I remember when it wasn't that uncommon to see roadkill deer on the side of I-5. In the last year I saw one. It used to be that in a lot of spots you had to work your way through thick brush/understory when walking in the woods. These days all I see is tall trees with relatively clear forest floors and it is dark in there. In a lot of places the forest has become an eco desert in this state and that applies to about every national forest in Washington, even on private tree farms the landscape is different from what it used to be.
To say the habitat hasn't changed over the years or even that it's good is insanity. Restrictions on logging have done a lot of damage as has much of the development done on private lands. I have no idea what it's like in the Methow, but I grew up seeing deer in people's yards for 18 years on the west side and I still see them here on the west side more than 20 years beyond that. It's nothing new and it was occurring long before wolves and the hound hunting ban. Heck, they have a small group of elk that has been snacking around the country club in Longview for years.
I think deer and elk are opportunists. If their traditional habitat becomes trash they'll come looking for an easy meal and people's gardens and yards are full of it. Property owners often have land that is brushy, unused, and that has relatively few trees around which allows plenty of sun in. Deer love that stuff. They can hide in it, they can eat, and they thrive in it. They don't thrive on bare forest floors. If predators are following it makes sense, bad habitat means no food for them since the prey animals will seek out what they need so guess where they will go???
If Wolfbait wanted to say that wolves are exacerbating problems created as a result of poor deer/elk habitat I could buy into that. But to say that better and more habitat wouldn't change things is just downright wrong. The proof is right in front of you up in Alberta and it is the spectral opposite of what he is telling you. The deer have good habitat and their numbers have grown despite wolves.
Where many are right however, is that it can also be bad news for other species like the caribou up in Alberta. What benefits one species can be bad news for another if certain checks and balances aren't used.
Sorry, this is just one point in the argument that is so cockamamie I can't stand it. Poor and decreasing habitat is part of the problem. Very much so.
I think there's a perfect storm of problems here in WA, especially in the west but really, all over. The restrictions on logging the NFs was first, including a ban on logging spotted owl habitat. That reduced grasses and prime habitat. The next leg of the storm was the end to hounding and baiting, and we're seeing the large numbers of bears and cougars as a result. Cougars have reached carrying capacity in virtually every part of the state. Next, you have the wolves coming. When they fully hit the wetside, and they will, you won't see any deer. I suspect blacktails will be protected within the next 20 years.
Post by: JLS on January 13, 2014, 10:07:04 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 10:09:38 AM
Post by: Northway on January 13, 2014, 10:59:29 AM
I'd say if they have an extra 6,000 wolves to cull, they don't need a scapegoat. That's a lot of freakin wolves.
That is a lot of wolves. If a get a few minutes, I might try and figure out where they came up with the 6,000 number.
Post by: buckfvr on January 13, 2014, 11:02:50 AM
I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.
Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......
Post by: wolfbait on January 13, 2014, 11:12:38 AM
http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/01/human-pet-encounters-with-cougars-increase-each-winter/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/01/human-pet-encounters-with-cougars-increase-each-winter/)
Cougar sightings, encounters continue to add up in the valley
by ADMIN on Jan 9, 2014
http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/09/cougar-sightings-encounters-continue-to-add-up-in-the-valley/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/09/cougar-sightings-encounters-continue-to-add-up-in-the-valley/)
And now add uncontrolled wolves in on top of cougars, and ask yourself how long will it be before WA has lots of habitat with nothing on it?
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2014, 11:13:51 AM
I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.
Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......
Yeah, that plus very likely we won't have over the counter tags anymore.
Post by: AspenBud on January 13, 2014, 11:22:59 AM
I think they're in trouble here and when the wolves come, it's going to be worse.
Sooner or later people will have to face the choices they have made. If deer decline that badly it will mean either killing some wolves, improving/increasing habitat, or both.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 13, 2014, 11:33:22 AM
I think they're in trouble here and when the wolves come, it's going to be worse.
Sooner or later people will have to face the choices they have made. If deer decline that badly it will mean either killing some wolves, improving/increasing habitat, or both.
You forgot putting an end to hunting....
Post by: AspenBud on January 13, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
I think they're in trouble here and when the wolves come, it's going to be worse.
Sooner or later people will have to face the choices they have made. If deer decline that badly it will mean either killing some wolves, improving/increasing habitat, or both.
You forgot putting an end to hunting....
Not for small game or predators.
But without deer and other ungulates wolves starve, become much more dangerous as a result of hunger, and die. Letting wolves kill every ungulate in sight is a zero sum gain for hunters and greenies alike. Letting habitat disappear or degrade to the extent that it causes ungulate declines is also a zero sum gain for both groups.
At some point everyone will have to break bread together and ungulates are at the center of their mutual desires. You can't have wolves without game and you can't have big game hunting without game. Given the relatively small number of hunters in this state, any significant decline in ungulates means something is horribly out of whack in the ecosystem.
I just see a multifaceted problem where guys like Wolfbait see one. He'll say it's just the wolf where I'll point out that wolf reintro started happening right around the time logging restrictions and the spotted owl started rearing their head and the negative impacts of those restrictions is starting to show itself. The older the forests get the worse it will get.
Post by: JLS on January 13, 2014, 11:59:27 AM
I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.
Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......
That would be a very legitimate concern.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 12:01:51 PM
I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.
Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......
That would be a very legitimate concern.
When I say protected, what I meant was that hunting would be severely limited from what it is now. Maybe protected isn't the correct term.
Post by: stryker on January 13, 2014, 12:34:36 PM
If you don't want to pack when in the bush, your call. May not be smart, but its your call. Wolves are not the only critter out there that will cause you harm. Even if its no death, an injury can still ruin the next few months of your life. Just because the OP's friend went up a tree, means nothing.
I don't care what the threat is, its gonna get shot if it approaches me and all its little buddies will get the same treatment. Call it educating the pack or eliminating the threat.
Its just easier to carry a couple pounds or protections than to wonder around thinking your some kind of Paul Bunyan bad ass. Just sayin... :chuckle:
There is an obvious WANT to increase the wolf numbers by some officials, and they are getting their way. Nothing short of more negative human interactions will they even think of changing their minds. Im on the West Side, and spend a lot of time in the Snoqualmie area 10-20 miles out of town. I don't go out unarmed as a general rule, now with the Teanaway pack growing, maybe the West Side wolf lovers will get a clue.
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2014, 02:50:27 PM
I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.
Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......
That would be a very legitimate concern.
When I say protected, what I meant was that hunting would be severely limited from what it is now. Maybe protected isn't the correct term.
Not until I get over there and hunt one, I've never hunted BT deer. Not sure I've even seen one I do avoid that side of the state :chuckle:
Oh and turkey slam.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2014, 04:32:09 PM
If Wolfbait wanted to say that wolves are exacerbating problems created as a result of poor deer/elk habitat I could buy into that. But to say that better and more habitat wouldn't change things is just downright wrong.:yeah: Couldn't Agree more. The lolo zone in Idaho is a perfect example. My family has been hunting there (until recently and with the exception of a few years in the early 1940's) since the early 1920's. There have been boom and bust periods in that zone before. The current situation is one of relatively poor habitat combined with substantial predators that are indeed exacerbating the problem.
Poor and decreasing habitat is part of the problem. Very much so.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 04:34:57 PM
Post by: buckfvr on January 13, 2014, 04:40:45 PM
Agreed, and until there are substantial changes to habitat, introducing additional predators is stupid.
Stupid is as stupid does...........its nothing new with these folks.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 13, 2014, 05:24:37 PM
According to this article Aspenbud, you're off. The increase in deer population is due to habitat changes created by the oil boom. The caribou are being killed off by the wolves.
An example this morning of a common blog attack is Cry Wolf: An Unethical Oil Story. DeSmogBlog. Carol Linnitt.
The facts are basically these. Note that this does not follow the exact same logic as “Cry Wolf” above. Alberta has already killed 500 wolves using poison bait and the entire array of methods that conservationist hate. This includes strychnine which kills all the scavengers too. The planned wolf cull is to kill 6000 wolves over the next 5 years. Why? All the industrial activity in the northern forest creates deer habitat. A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them. Mountain caribou are also edible, but usually not bothered much by wolves due to their rarity. However, the larger wolf population means more caribou get eaten as what we might call “by-catch,” to use a fishing example. Mountain caribou can’t stand this pressure even though the absolute number of caribou killed is small. So the big wolf killing program is the government-dirty oil complex’s effort to save the caribou."
"A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them." Not the other way around.
Your article is from someone hoping to shift the blame from industry to wolves as far as the woodland caribou go. Here's a paper on the real causes of decline. Most of it relates to human activity and development, predators are a side factor.
http://www.borealcanada.ca/pr/documents/IBCCcariboubackgrounder.pdf (http://www.borealcanada.ca/pr/documents/IBCCcariboubackgrounder.pdf)
Here are some relevant quotes.
"The expansion of cities and industrial development slowly extinguished southern populations to the point where today they have been wiped out of about 50% of their historical range, now almost exclusively occupying the northern, intact portions of the boreal forest. Their inability to coexist with extensive disturbances and need for older forests indicate that only by protecting remaining large, intact portions of their habitat will we be successful at reversing this troubling decline."
"Woodland caribou require large expanses of intact and undisturbed habitat."
"during the vulnerable calving period, females distribute themselves widely across the boreal landscape so that on average there is a one female per sixteen square kilometres."
"Predators such as wolves, bears, and hunters are often blamed for the woodland caribou’s decline, but predation is only a proximate cause. The ultimate causes of woodland caribou decline virtually all stem from the ramifications of industrial
natural resource development activities."
"Habitat loss from logging and other industrial activities poses by far the largest threat."
"Viable herds almost exclusively reside in regions with little to no disturbances, whereas extirpated or declining populations
are associated with high levels of human impact."
"While regulating hunting levels and predator control may be needed for some of the most threatened herds, it cannot overshadow the fact that habitat conservation and minimizing disturbances remain the only viable long-term measures for preserving woodland caribou."
So basically, those who want to tear up the habitat for resource extraction are the cause of the decline, but they are shifting the blame to predators so they don't take the heat. Killing off predators is not going to bring woodland caribou back. That's just to take your eyes of the real problem. Woodland caribou require lots of 50 year old and older forest to have a chance.
The real sad part is, it's not just animals that are suffering because of the tar sands extraction, the area is causing the local humans to become ill too. That area is a hotbed for cancer and the local natives or first nations are getting involved with lawsuits and protests.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 14, 2014, 07:32:55 AM
I tend to agree with that. Now that the population is so low, EVERY impact is a serious one. But caribou declined a hell of a long time before wolf recovery.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2014, 08:04:54 AM
Post by: wolfbait on January 14, 2014, 10:09:05 AM
Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.
Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html (http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html)
Post by: JLS on January 14, 2014, 10:37:40 AM
you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.
Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.
Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html (http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html)
So were the elk and bison I saw in YNP last winter really just a figment of my imagination?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2014, 10:56:08 AM
No, they were real. You were able to see them because your tinfoil hat was not obstructing your view. :chuckle:you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.
Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.
Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html (http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html)
So were the elk and bison I saw in YNP last winter really just a figment of my imagination?
Post by: dis_pat_ on January 14, 2014, 03:21:52 PM
Yeah, sometimes I dislike being in the position I am in. Due to my job, I cannot quite say what I feel on this issue. At times I feel throttled or choked and cannot speak my mind.
I fully understand how folks would want to just knock them down and walk away.
It almost feels like we are waiting for a few sacrificial "lambs". A few citizens mauled or killed. Even after this occurs I am not convinced this will have the impact on public opinion about wolves.
I will not be the victim. I don't climb trees well and it will be showtime with lots of lead flying.
This is the USA. We are supposed to have freedom of speech no matter what our jobs, unless the topic is proprietary employer information.
We've lost our freedom to speak already, due to fears of political correctness.
Post by: wolfbait on January 14, 2014, 04:27:09 PM
No, they were real. You were able to see them because your tinfoil hat was not obstructing your view. :chuckle:you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.
Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.
Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html (http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html)
So were the elk and bison I saw in YNP last winter really just a figment of my imagination?
Before the wolf introduction 19000 elk ranged in the Yellowstone now there are less than 4000. My guess is neither one of you are interested in the truth, you just want to push the more habitat BS.
18 years of proof on the ground in three states, and many lies told by the USFWS, state game agencies, and David Mech have been exposed, and yet state game biologists are still trying to push the same lies. I guess if the lies are told enough times they will even believe it themselves…..
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 04:44:32 PM
you can have the best habitat in the world. And the prey animals won’t use it because they’re afraid of getting killed or having their young killed. So this is a hot, emerging topic and these indirect effects of this are greater in some cases than the direct mortality effects. No one talks about this much either.
Importance of habitat: Habitat is irrelevant. Everything biologists have told you about habitat being the overriding consideration is totally and absolutely wrong. Remember those two examples I showed earlier — Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park. And they’re national parks. The habitat’s still there. Nobody’s driven any oil wells or gas wells there. No one’s ripped them up for tar sands or done anything else like that but, you know, the elk are no longer there because of predation.
Read more @ http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html (http://prfamerica.org/speeches/16th/WolfRecovery.html)
So were the elk and bison I saw in YNP last winter really just a figment of my imagination?
The Bison and Elk behave a lot like range cattle, something I know a little about. They stay down where it's safe.
Wish I had you in the cab of my truck this fall I could have shown you some serious over grazing by cattle down low and near people and activity.
As we head higher up you'll see the grasses go from nubs to 6 foot + high right in the ditches. It was fascinating to see the "no go" areas as cattle and wolf create their boundaries. The area wasn't to permitted capacity either.
I talked with the range riders who would push the cattle back up higher only to have the wolves push them back down in a day or two. It was a daily chore to get the cattle on feed, otherwise they'll hug the trucks, over graze a small area, then bust off range and head home.
Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves, the park service will haze the wolves to keep them out of people areas creating safe zones where people view wildlife. You didn't say if you hiked way back, but I think a guy will only get a very small picture of the park from the blacktop and tourist areas.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2014, 06:24:29 PM
Clearly wolves have had an impact on the number of elk in yellowstone since their re-introduction. But it is disingenuous to suggest that habitat does not play a large role in the abundance of a species. Climate, winter severity, harvest outside the park, forage availability, disease, etc. all can have profound effects and many of these factors are difficult to observe like a pack of wolves chewing on an elk carcass. Please explain why elk counts went from around 20,000 down to around 5000 in the 1945-1965 period in YNP? Wolves? No. There were no wolves in the park. Huh...if the wolves weren't there to kill them all it seems impossible that an elk herd could decline. Especially since we know habitat is irrelevant as you stated. :bash:
Before the wolf introduction 19000 elk ranged in the Yellowstone now there are less than 4000. My guess is neither one of you are interested in the truth, you just want to push the more habitat BS.
18 years of proof on the ground in three states, and many lies told by the USFWS, state game agencies, and David Mech have been exposed, and yet state game biologists are still trying to push the same lies. I guess if the lies are told enough times they will even believe it themselves…..Yea, 18 years and state agencies in MT, ID, WY have wolf management plans, wolf hunting seasons, and good elk hunting in most areas of each of those states. If all these people are lying, and you wolf whackos have the science all figured out, then when will wolves reduce elk numbers such that we will no longer be able to hunt them? No bs here, give me a date when I will no longer be able to buy an OTC elk tag in Idaho because the wolves have decimated elk numbers? And then when we get to that year and we are still hunting elk (because they have a sustaining population) and wolves (because they have a sustaining population), lets agree all the wolf nutjobs (both the wolf whackos and the enviro greenies) have to stfu. :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 06:50:37 PM
Quote
Since the returnand counting......
of wolves to Idaho
15 years ago, Idaho’s
overall elk population
has dropped by 20
percent from 125,000
to about 100,000.
Quote
An ongoing study in 11 elk management zones shows that
predators today are the primary cause of death among female
elk in five zones
Quote
Elk survival
depends primarily on
four factors: habitat
conditions, weather,
predation and hunter
harvest.
guess which one is most easily controlled?
Post by: wolfbait on January 14, 2014, 07:11:36 PM
Clearly wolves have had an impact on the number of elk in yellowstone since their re-introduction. But it is disingenuous to suggest that habitat does not play a large role in the abundance of a species. Climate, winter severity, harvest outside the park, forage availability, disease, etc. all can have profound effects and many of these factors are difficult to observe like a pack of wolves chewing on an elk carcass. Please explain why elk counts went from around 20,000 down to around 5000 in the 1945-1965 period in YNP? Wolves? No. There were no wolves in the park. Huh...if the wolves weren't there to kill them all it seems impossible that an elk herd could decline. Especially since we know habitat is irrelevant as you stated. :bash:
Before the wolf introduction 19000 elk ranged in the Yellowstone now there are less than 4000. My guess is neither one of you are interested in the truth, you just want to push the more habitat BS.18 years of proof on the ground in three states, and many lies told by the USFWS, state game agencies, and David Mech have been exposed, and yet state game biologists are still trying to push the same lies. I guess if the lies are told enough times they will even believe it themselves…..Yea, 18 years and state agencies in MT, ID, WY have wolf management plans, wolf hunting seasons, and good elk hunting in most areas of each of those states. If all these people are lying, and you wolf whackos have the science all figured out, then when will wolves reduce elk numbers such that we will no longer be able to hunt them? No bs here, give me a date when I will no longer be able to buy an OTC elk tag in Idaho because the wolves have decimated elk numbers? And then when we get to that year and we are still hunting elk (because they have a sustaining population) and wolves (because they have a sustaining population), lets agree all the wolf nutjobs (both the wolf whackos and the enviro greenies) have to stfu. :bash:
First off how could there be 20000 elk in 1945 if the USFWS's wolves were killing the hell out of them? And if there was a bad winter in 1945 the USFWS's wolves would have wiped them out. You want to know when we will no longer be able to hunt elk because of wolves? Well have you noticed that in both WA and OR the wolves show up first in ranching country, I guess your answer would be when the USFWS figures it's time to end elk hunting, and starts planting wolves in the rest of the elk herds.
Or are you going to fence off the "habitat" no wolves allowed?
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 07:54:21 PM
If a wolf free bad winter can knock out that many Elk, combine the two and see what happens.
Quote
Please explain why elk counts went from around 20,000 down to around 5000 in the 1945-1965 period in YNP? Wolves? No. There were no wolves in the park. Huh...if the wolves weren't there to kill them all it seems impossible that an elk herd could decline.
Actually I doubt that plays out again in YNP, humans will feed the Elk and haze the wolves off them in the feeding stations just outside of the park.
but it could very well play out on the vast majority of current Elk populations. We can't feed them all.
you'd have the perfect storm to seriously knock out the huntable Elk population - in mere months.
As it is I see most western states going to less OTC tags to focus more than ever on population objectives and special draws.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 09:02:04 PM
Thankfully our winters have been very mild with low snow levels. Now that wolves are fairly well dispersed I'd hate to see a deep snow winter all the way down to lower elevations.
If a wolf free bad winter can knock out that many Elk, combine the two and see what happens.QuotePlease explain why elk counts went from around 20,000 down to around 5000 in the 1945-1965 period in YNP? Wolves? No. There were no wolves in the park. Huh...if the wolves weren't there to kill them all it seems impossible that an elk herd could decline.
Actually I doubt that plays out again in YNP, humans will feed the Elk and haze the wolves off them in the feeding stations just outside of the park.
but it could very well play out on the vast majority of current Elk populations. We can't feed them all.
you'd have the perfect storm to seriously knock out the huntable Elk population - in mere months.
As it is I see most western states going to less OTC tags to focus more than ever on population objectives and special draws.
Alight here's some fun insight for you to think about why do we hunt to preserve wildlife in the absence of predators.well guess what there back for the first time in 50 years Elk are Nivea to wolves "due to only coyotes around for a long time" but as elk have gotten smarter and the wolves have reach a carrying capicty,the next decline is coming from Habitat Think when lewis and clark came threw how many elk where in lolo ? 0 thats right 0 what happened to allow elk to thrive there and YNP great fire of 1908 now all that vegetation is up high out of reach and that is causing a lower elk population as well wolves have rebounded almost perfectly
here's a graph to show you some numbers and you can see how yes your hunting opportunity well drop but the heard number well start to raise you well see more areas become spike only and not too many cow tags but it well help conservation efforts to rebuild elk herds.
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 09:07:22 PM
Not sure how you can make an argument about habitat when it's preserved, and what about the YNP fire of 1988?
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 09:24:07 PM
Your post flirts with coherent thought but never quite achieves it.Thank you ;) i'm working on my communication skills to other hunters since i'm going to be a advocate to everyone here in the near future. as for the fire of 88 no where near as massive as the one in the early 1900s
Not sure how you can make an argument about habitat when it's preserved, and what about the YNP fire of 1988?
There's a lot of data and information i was trying to keep it short and sweet if you want the full detail i could PM you them.
here's a rough idea of how its working out
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 09:43:48 PM
Now where is my box of crayons, I'd like to draw a picture too.
Post by: deaner on January 14, 2014, 09:56:46 PM
Post by: JLS on January 14, 2014, 09:59:41 PM
The Bison and Elk behave a lot like range cattle, something I know a little about. They stay down where it's safe.
Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves, the park service will haze the wolves to keep them out of people areas creating safe zones where people view wildlife. You didn't say if you hiked way back, but I think a guy will only get a very small picture of the park from the blacktop and tourist areas.
Well, we weren't on the blacktop. We had skiied several miles back into the original wolf central, the Lamar Valley.
I've been hearing this apocalyptic prediction now for almost 20 years. You guys can do all you want to try and dispell the importance of habitat. Knock yourselves out.
You can ridicule those of us who don't believe the doomsday predictions. The reality is I can cite you many instances where there are wolves and there are still deer and elk after many years.
I'm with Idaho. You guys keep rattling on about the doom and gloom and I'll keep hunting elk.
Post by: JLS on January 14, 2014, 10:01:15 PM
The Disney syndrome is strong in you; you'll make an excellent bio for the defenders of wildlife.
Now where is my box of crayons, I'd like to draw a picture too.
Say what you want, Yellowstone NP and the Yellowstone Valley from Gardiner to Emigrant were severely overgrazed when the elk herd was at 20k elk.
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 10:04:27 PM
I do know the immediate effect on range cattle. I follow Elk around in the winter months and see where the wolves are always just a step or two behind constantly bumping them over and over, never letting them feed or rest until one falls over giving the others a day or two respite.
I see how the Elk no longer stay on bait stations until opening archery season, they get bumped off if they stay too long.
They are moving constantly
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 10:08:20 PM
The Disney syndrome is strong in you; you'll make an excellent bio for the defenders of wildlife.
Now where is my box of crayons, I'd like to draw a picture too.
Say what you want, Yellowstone NP and the Yellowstone Valley from Gardiner to Emigrant were severely overgrazed when the elk herd was at 20k elk.
Of course, no hunting in the park. It makes since to put in wolves but unfortunately they don't stay there.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 10:08:52 PM
The Bison and Elk behave a lot like range cattle, something I know a little about. They stay down where it's safe.
Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves, the park service will haze the wolves to keep them out of people areas creating safe zones where people view wildlife. You didn't say if you hiked way back, but I think a guy will only get a very small picture of the park from the blacktop and tourist areas.
Well, we weren't on the blacktop. We had skiied several miles back into the original wolf central, the Lamar Valley.
I've been hearing this apocalyptic prediction now for almost 20 years. You guys can do all you want to try and dispell the importance of habitat. Knock yourselves out.
You can ridicule those of us who don't believe the doomsday predictions. The reality is I can cite you many instances where there are wolves and there are still deer and elk after many years.
I'm with Idaho. You guys keep rattling on about the doom and gloom and I'll keep hunting elk.
:yeah: Thank you
Post by: JLS on January 14, 2014, 10:12:43 PM
and I guess Bison are extinct :'(
They would be in the Montana Dept of Livestock had their way.
Post by: deaner on January 14, 2014, 10:13:21 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 10:15:16 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 10:16:33 PM
jon, future wildlife biologist? let me let you in on a secret most wildlife biologists know. its a herd not a heard.Spell check awesome invention for me "my spelling sucks" :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 10:24:03 PM
jon, future wildlife biologist? let me let you in on a secret most wildlife biologists know. its a herd not a heard.Spell check awesome invention for me "my spelling sucks" :chuckle:
Personally, I don't care how bad your spelling is as long as I can without too much effort understand the meaning. I'll be the last one to chide a person for spelling or grammatical errors.
If you can just put a little more effort into it though it would help. I won't spend a lot of time deciphering gibberish.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 10:43:46 PM
:) Thank you for your input. I'm still pretty green in trying to present to public and huntersjon, future wildlife biologist? let me let you in on a secret most wildlife biologists know. its a herd not a heard.Spell check awesome invention for me "my spelling sucks" :chuckle:
Personally, I don't care how bad your spelling is as long as I can without too much effort understand the meaning. I'll be the last one to chide a person for spelling or grammatical errors.
If you can just put a little more effort into it though it would help. I won't spend a lot of time deciphering gibberish.
Post by: JLS on January 14, 2014, 10:54:28 PM
I don't care about the grand YNP ecology experiment other than it's spilled out off the park and now we got to deal with it. If wolves stayed in the park and were managed to a reasonable number that'd be fantastic - but they aren't.
Believe it or not, I would be perfectly happy if the wolves had remained in YNP too. I used to have many of the same fears that you do now. If you had told me 18 years ago that I could hunt within miles of YNP and be into elk six days of a seven day hunt, I probably would have scoffed at you in the same way many of you do to me.
I don't hunt with Chicken Little :)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2014, 11:26:31 PM
:yeah:. My concern about how wolves would impact elk has changed substantially over the past 15 or so years. I was concerned some of the effects we were seeing in the Lolo zone and the behavioral changes (no/little bugling in the rut) I observed in other areas was going to be widespread and occur throughout all elk range in Idaho...I do not at all believe that is the case anymore. I have old friends that would be shocked if they saw some of my posts/opinions I have on wolf management. Shhhhh..... :chuckle:I don't care about the grand YNP ecology experiment other than it's spilled out off the park and now we got to deal with it. If wolves stayed in the park and were managed to a reasonable number that'd be fantastic - but they aren't.
Believe it or not, I would be perfectly happy if the wolves had remained in YNP too. I used to have many of the same fears that you do now. If you had told me 18 years ago that I could hunt within miles of YNP and be into elk six days of a seven day hunt, I probably would have scoffed at you in the same way many of you do to me.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2014, 11:43:28 PM
Your post flirts with coherent thought but never quite achieves it.:chuckle: Now that is just a good line to keep handy for internet forums everywhere!
Mr. Brown509...I first read your posts and thought...oh goodness...no chance this guy will ever make it as a biologist...but I am impressed with your ability to take advice in stride, admit weaknesses (like brushing up on your written communication), and desire to work towards a goal. Communicating effectively with sportsmen is perhaps one of the best skills any wildlife biologist could hope to ever have. Learning to develop a thick skin, making your point so that non-technical folks can understand it, and maintaining a positive attitude even when people tell you you're dumber than a steel post...well, those are traits that will serve you well. :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 11:43:36 PM
screw the small herds of elk
Hey, as long as you got some Elk to chase around in Idaho right :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 12:11:36 AM
The Bison and Elk behave a lot like range cattle, something I know a little about. They stay down where it's safe.
Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves, the park service will haze the wolves to keep them out of people areas creating safe zones where people view wildlife. You didn't say if you hiked way back, but I think a guy will only get a very small picture of the park from the blacktop and tourist areas.
Well, we weren't on the blacktop. We had skiied several miles back into the original wolf central, the Lamar Valley.
I've been hearing this apocalyptic prediction now for almost 20 years. You guys can do all you want to try and dispell the importance of habitat. Knock yourselves out.
You can ridicule those of us who don't believe the doomsday predictions. The reality is I can cite you many instances where there are wolves and there are still deer and elk after many years.
I'm with Idaho. You guys keep rattling on about the doom and gloom and I'll keep hunting elk.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
No matter what kind of untruthful rubbish you and Idahohuntr try to spew the facts show that the areas where wolves over populate the big game herds decline dramatically and hunting seasons are reduced sharply and in many cases eliminated to compensate for the dramatic big game population declines caused by wolves. Even F&G agencies admit the herds are down dramatically in these wolf infested areas.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 12:22:49 AM
According to this article Aspenbud, you're off. The increase in deer population is due to habitat changes created by the oil boom. The caribou are being killed off by the wolves.
An example this morning of a common blog attack is Cry Wolf: An Unethical Oil Story. DeSmogBlog. Carol Linnitt.
The facts are basically these. Note that this does not follow the exact same logic as “Cry Wolf” above. Alberta has already killed 500 wolves using poison bait and the entire array of methods that conservationist hate. This includes strychnine which kills all the scavengers too. The planned wolf cull is to kill 6000 wolves over the next 5 years. Why? All the industrial activity in the northern forest creates deer habitat. A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them. Mountain caribou are also edible, but usually not bothered much by wolves due to their rarity. However, the larger wolf population means more caribou get eaten as what we might call “by-catch,” to use a fishing example. Mountain caribou can’t stand this pressure even though the absolute number of caribou killed is small. So the big wolf killing program is the government-dirty oil complex’s effort to save the caribou."
"A big increase in deer, creates more wolves to eat them." Not the other way around.
Your article is from someone hoping to shift the blame from industry to wolves as far as the woodland caribou go. Here's a paper on the real causes of decline. Most of it relates to human activity and development, predators are a side factor.
http://www.borealcanada.ca/pr/documents/IBCCcariboubackgrounder.pdf (http://www.borealcanada.ca/pr/documents/IBCCcariboubackgrounder.pdf)
Here are some relevant quotes.
"The expansion of cities and industrial development slowly extinguished southern populations to the point where today they have been wiped out of about 50% of their historical range, now almost exclusively occupying the northern, intact portions of the boreal forest. Their inability to coexist with extensive disturbances and need for older forests indicate that only by protecting remaining large, intact portions of their habitat will we be successful at reversing this troubling decline."
"Woodland caribou require large expanses of intact and undisturbed habitat."
"during the vulnerable calving period, females distribute themselves widely across the boreal landscape so that on average there is a one female per sixteen square kilometres."
"Predators such as wolves, bears, and hunters are often blamed for the woodland caribou’s decline, but predation is only a proximate cause. The ultimate causes of woodland caribou decline virtually all stem from the ramifications of industrial
natural resource development activities."
"Habitat loss from logging and other industrial activities poses by far the largest threat."
"Viable herds almost exclusively reside in regions with little to no disturbances, whereas extirpated or declining populations
are associated with high levels of human impact."
"While regulating hunting levels and predator control may be needed for some of the most threatened herds, it cannot overshadow the fact that habitat conservation and minimizing disturbances remain the only viable long-term measures for preserving woodland caribou."
So basically, those who want to tear up the habitat for resource extraction are the cause of the decline, but they are shifting the blame to predators so they don't take the heat. Killing off predators is not going to bring woodland caribou back. That's just to take your eyes of the real problem. Woodland caribou require lots of 50 year old and older forest to have a chance.
The real sad part is, it's not just animals that are suffering because of the tar sands extraction, the area is causing the local humans to become ill too. That area is a hotbed for cancer and the local natives or first nations are getting involved with lawsuits and protests.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
First of all tar sands have nothing to do with wolves destroying elk herds. Completely different topics.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Sitka you are just a another wolf lover posing as a hunter and spewing propaganda to try and propagate your precious wolves. Elk herds were in good shape and in many cases at near record population levels in most areas where wolves have caused dramatic declines in big game populations. F&G Depts have had to make significant decreases in hunter opportunity to try and conserve the few remaining elk, moose, and deer.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 12:49:45 AM
screw the livestock owners
screw the small herds of elk
Hey, as long as you got some Elk to chase around in Idaho right :tup:
That's exactly the way the wolf lovers think, screw everyone else. The wolf lovers on this forum are no different, they will say anything to shift the blame of wolf impacts and distort the truth. Wolf groups fund their own biologists to help perpetuate their wolf propaganda and they have infiltrated F&G Depts and doing the same within F&G Depts. Unfortunately even some well-meaning hunters fall for the proganda and koolaid.
The fact is that many people in Idaho took wolf management into their own hands before there was ever any wolf season established. Otter was elected governor because he said he wanted the first wolf tag in Idaho. Then the governor of Idaho aided the people of Idaho in helping many of their big game herds by directing IDFG that they could not report wolf poachers to the feds. Wolves were shot on sight year around in many areas of Idaho and that slowed the growth of the wolf population in many areas. Anyone who doesn't believe what I say can go to any small town in Idaho and confirm the fact that locals readily say they have been killing wolves since before there were any wolf seasons in an effort to try and control them. Now with a wolf season and wolf trapping in place wolf populations are being somewhat controlled and this has really given some of the herds some relief from wolf predation. But wolf lovers will distort how wolf management has evolved and how it has really unfolded and they will try to say this is proof that wolves will not decimate herds. The real truth is that Idaho residents have been killing a lot of wolves for several years and this proves that wolves must be heavily managed (shot on sight year around) to help the big game herds. :twocents:
The wolf lovers will distort the truth and do anything to try and cover up the real life consequences of wolves. We've got a handful of these misled individuals on this forum who try to distort the facts and shift the blame to propogate wolves. Some of these individuals are probably not even hunters, they are likely wolf lovers posing as hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 12:59:20 AM
The Disney syndrome is strong in you; you'll make an excellent bio for the defenders of wildlife.
Now where is my box of crayons, I'd like to draw a picture too.
Say what you want, Yellowstone NP and the Yellowstone Valley from Gardiner to Emigrant were severely overgrazed when the elk herd was at 20k elk.
:chuckle: Since wolves have reduced the elk herd to 4,000 it certainly won't be over grazed.
The wolf lovers will never admit that elk numbers could be kept to any number by simply allowing more liberal hunting seasons and adjusting them as needed. If YNP only wanted 10,000 elk instead of 20,000 all they had to do was allow hunting. :twocents:
Instead they have caused the spread of Canadian wolves into human inhabited ecosystems where they cause all sorts of problems.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 01:48:54 AM
He found himself surrounded by howling wolves within 50 to 100 yards on both sides of him, given the wolf politics of Washington he did the smartest thing he could do, he climbed the tree as fast as he could for his own safety.
Wolves are a serious concern in NE Washington, I know several people who have had threatening encounters with wolves, this is an increasing problem that needs resolved. I don't appreciate the wolf lovers who try to derail this topic and shift the topic of discussion.
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2014, 04:41:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have recently read letters written by wolf supporters who were obviously reared watching animal cartoons and movies about animals that depict them as if they were human. These people have no clue as to the reality of how and what predators do. Most predators do not "kill" their prey before they rip their victims apart—elk, deer, dogs or people.
Yes, wolves have and do kill people. If you research wolves on your computer, as I have, you will discover these facts about people killed by wolves:
France 1580-1830: 3,069 people.
Russia between 1840-1861: 169 children and 9 adults.
Kirvo Oblast, Russia, 1944-1950: 22 children.
India 1876: 721 people
1878: 624 people
1910 and 1915: 115 children
1980 and 1986: 122 children killed and 100 injured
1993-1995: 60 children
March 27,1996 - July 1 1996: 21 children killed and 16 mauled
This total Is 4,925 people killed by wolves, mostly children! These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. This is just from three countries. In India so many children have been taken by wolves that they have a phenomenon called "child lifting." Other European and Asian countries have records of people killed by wolves also.
So, I ask, is the shooting or trapping of wolves worse than the mauling and eating of our children? How many children do you think we should sacrifice to your wolf god? I pray to my god that you realize that the lives of people should always be put first.
JOHN GAITHER
President
Idaho County Sportsmen Club
Grangevile
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375 (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375)
Post by: JLS on January 15, 2014, 07:32:05 AM
screw the livestock owners
screw the small herds of elk
Hey, as long as you got some Elk to chase around in Idaho right :tup:
That's exactly the way the wolf lovers think, screw everyone else. The wolf lovers on this forum are no different, they will say anything to shift the blame of wolf impacts and distort the truth. Wolf groups fund their own biologists to help perpetuate their wolf propaganda and they have infiltrated F&G Depts and doing the same within F&G Depts. Unfortunately even some well-meaning hunters fall for the proganda and koolaid.
The fact is that many people in Idaho took wolf management into their own hands before there was ever any wolf season established. Otter was elected governor because he said he wanted the first wolf tag in Idaho. Then the governor of Idaho aided the people of Idaho in helping many of their big game herds by directing IDFG that they could not report wolf poachers to the feds. Wolves were shot on sight year around in many areas of Idaho and that slowed the growth of the wolf population in many areas. Anyone who doesn't believe what I say can go to any small town in Idaho and confirm the fact that locals readily say they have been killing wolves since before there were any wolf seasons in an effort to try and control them. Now with a wolf season and wolf trapping in place wolf populations are being somewhat controlled and this has really given some of the herds some relief from wolf predation. But wolf lovers will distort how wolf management has evolved and how it has really unfolded and they will try to say this is proof that wolves will not decimate herds. The real truth is that Idaho residents have been killing a lot of wolves for several years and this proves that wolves must be heavily managed (shot on sight year around) to help the big game herds. :twocents:
The wolf lovers will distort the truth and do anything to try and cover up the real life consequences of wolves. We've got a handful of these misled individuals on this forum who try to distort the facts and shift the blame to propogate wolves. Some of these individuals are probably not even hunters, they are likely wolf lovers posing as hunters.
Talk about spewing rubbish......
Post by: AspenBud on January 15, 2014, 09:08:58 AM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
First of all tar sands have nothing to do with wolves destroying elk herds. Completely different topics.
I''ll take this to mean that you can not refute that tar sands development has led to an increase in quality deer habitat which has led to a boom in deer numbers despite wolves.
It may have nothing to do with elk, but Wolfbait sure likes to cry about declining deer numbers around where he lives. I'd say my point is very relevant.
Post by: AspenBud on January 15, 2014, 09:13:40 AM
Not sure how you can make an argument about habitat when it's preserved
I might be misunderstanding you here, but just because land is "preserved" does not mean the habitat on it will not degrade without some form of intervention. A lot of people on the eco-nut side would like to just leave habitat alone and not do anything to it, much as they espouse a hands off approach to wolves. That has real impacts on game numbers, often not for the best. To deny that as Wolfbait does is just wrong. Wolves and other carnivores certainly compound the issue however. Roosevellt elk have taken a hit in recent years in some areas and logging restrictions have been directly attributed to that, not wolves. If/when wolves make their way over the mountains the problem will become even more obvious. Not that Wolfbait and his Sierra Club friends want to admit that.
Post by: AspenBud on January 15, 2014, 09:25:36 AM
Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves,
Something tells me that's not why elk hang out around the country club in Longview, WA. Nor is it why people in Kentucky (where elk have no real predators, have a 92% calf survival rate and are about 15% bigger than their western counterparts) are starting to complain about elk invading their gardens and property.
Post by: Northway on January 15, 2014, 09:29:06 AM
This topic is about a bow hunter friend who was recently forced up a tree for his own protection.
He found himself surrounded by howling wolves within 50 to 100 yards on both sides of him, given the wolf politics of Washington he did the smartest thing he could do, he climbed the tree as fast as he could for his own safety.
Wolves are a serious concern in NE Washington, I know several people who have had threatening encounters with wolves, this is an increasing problem that needs resolved. I don't appreciate the wolf lovers who try to derail this topic and shift the topic of discussion.
What exactly are you trying to prove by highlighting this threatening encounter? Is there anyone on this forum, even the folks you label "wolf lovers" who say that wolves in certain circumstances aren't a threat to people just like any other apex predator?
Are you trying to highlight the need for greater freedoms for folks to kill wolves if they feel threatened, or are you trying to prove that somehow wolves are substantially more dangerous than other apex predators?
Post by: AspenBud on January 15, 2014, 09:37:00 AM
QuoteElk survival
depends primarily on
four factors: habitat
conditions, weather,
predation and hunter
harvest.
guess which one is most easily controlled?
Creating better habitat isn't terrifically hard and it can create jobs, it just takes time to grow. Finding and killing wolves is another story according to everyone here.
Post by: sebek556 on January 15, 2014, 09:57:28 AM
I would say yes, wolves are a more dangerous predator from my experience. I have hunted Alaska,wa,Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, Georgia. Homes to grizzlies, brown bears, polar bears, cougars, alligators and wolves. The only predator I have had stalk me was wolves. I have ran into other predators but none of the actively stalked me like the wolves did.This topic is about a bow hunter friend who was recently forced up a tree for his own protection.
He found himself surrounded by howling wolves within 50 to 100 yards on both sides of him, given the wolf politics of Washington he did the smartest thing he could do, he climbed the tree as fast as he could for his own safety.
Wolves are a serious concern in NE Washington, I know several people who have had threatening encounters with wolves, this is an increasing problem that needs resolved. I don't appreciate the wolf lovers who try to derail this topic and shift the topic of discussion.
What exactly are you trying to prove by highlighting this threatening encounter? Is there anyone on this forum, even the folks you label "wolf lovers" who say that wolves in certain circumstances aren't a threat to people just like any other apex predator?
Are you trying to highlight the need for greater freedoms for folks to kill wolves if they feel threatened, or are you trying to prove that somehow wolves are substantially more dangerous than other apex predators?
Post by: AspenBud on January 15, 2014, 10:14:55 AM
Wolves do kill people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have recently read letters written by wolf supporters who were obviously reared watching animal cartoons and movies about animals that depict them as if they were human. These people have no clue as to the reality of how and what predators do. Most predators do not "kill" their prey before they rip their victims apart—elk, deer, dogs or people.
Yes, wolves have and do kill people. If you research wolves on your computer, as I have, you will discover these facts about people killed by wolves:
France 1580-1830: 3,069 people.
Russia between 1840-1861: 169 children and 9 adults.
Kirvo Oblast, Russia, 1944-1950: 22 children.
India 1876: 721 people
1878: 624 people
1910 and 1915: 115 children
1980 and 1986: 122 children killed and 100 injured
1993-1995: 60 children
March 27,1996 - July 1 1996: 21 children killed and 16 mauled
This total Is 4,925 people killed by wolves, mostly children! These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. This is just from three countries. In India so many children have been taken by wolves that they have a phenomenon called "child lifting." Other European and Asian countries have records of people killed by wolves also.
So, I ask, is the shooting or trapping of wolves worse than the mauling and eating of our children? How many children do you think we should sacrifice to your wolf god? I pray to my god that you realize that the lives of people should always be put first.
JOHN GAITHER
President
Idaho County Sportsmen Club
Grangevile
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375 (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375)
If you have to use statistics from outside of North America to back up your case you are most likely going to lose.
Russia alone also has about 25,000-30,000 wolves and the species there is not the same as what we have here. Russia also has a significantly higher population density that say, Canada. But Canada has about twice that number in North American gray wolves and Canada has about half the land that Russia has. If you compare statistics, the number of attacks is vastly different between the two.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
Is there anyone on this forum, even the folks you label "wolf lovers" who say that wolves in certain circumstances aren't a threat to people just like any other apex predator?No.
And I figured out what bp means by "wolf lover": someone who uses data and logic and supports science based wildlife management and conservation so future generations can also enjoy the hunting heritage.
Its just such a foreign concept to folks that would prefer to manage wildlife like a herd of cattle and based entirely on emotions, fear, and severe paranoia of the government and their black helicopters. :bash:
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2014, 12:46:20 PM
Wolves do kill people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have recently read letters written by wolf supporters who were obviously reared watching animal cartoons and movies about animals that depict them as if they were human. These people have no clue as to the reality of how and what predators do. Most predators do not "kill" their prey before they rip their victims apart—elk, deer, dogs or people.
Yes, wolves have and do kill people. If you research wolves on your computer, as I have, you will discover these facts about people killed by wolves:
France 1580-1830: 3,069 people.
Russia between 1840-1861: 169 children and 9 adults.
Kirvo Oblast, Russia, 1944-1950: 22 children.
India 1876: 721 people
1878: 624 people
1910 and 1915: 115 children
1980 and 1986: 122 children killed and 100 injured
1993-1995: 60 children
March 27,1996 - July 1 1996: 21 children killed and 16 mauled
This total Is 4,925 people killed by wolves, mostly children! These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. This is just from three countries. In India so many children have been taken by wolves that they have a phenomenon called "child lifting." Other European and Asian countries have records of people killed by wolves also.
So, I ask, is the shooting or trapping of wolves worse than the mauling and eating of our children? How many children do you think we should sacrifice to your wolf god? I pray to my god that you realize that the lives of people should always be put first.
JOHN GAITHER
President
Idaho County Sportsmen Club
Grangevile
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375 (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375)
If you have to use statistics from outside of North America to back up your case you are most likely going to lose.
Russia alone also has about 25,000-30,000 wolves and the species there is not the same as what we have here. Russia also has a significantly higher population density that say, Canada. But Canada has about twice that number in North American gray wolves and Canada has about half the land that Russia has. If you compare statistics, the number of attacks is vastly different between the two.
The reason wolves killed so many people in these different countries is because the wolves were not hunted, these people had no guns to kill wolves with. Read the book, Wolves in Russia by Will Graves
Predators that are not hunted, become habitual to humans, in other wards they have no fear of humans. Ask MR Coyote.
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2014, 12:49:15 PM
Is there anyone on this forum, even the folks you label "wolf lovers" who say that wolves in certain circumstances aren't a threat to people just like any other apex predator?No.
And I figured out what bp means by "wolf lover": someone who uses data and logic and supports science based wildlife management and conservation so future generations can also enjoy the hunting heritage.
Its just such a foreign concept to folks that would prefer to manage wildlife like a herd of cattle and based entirely on emotions, fear, and severe paranoia of the government and their black helicopters. :bash:
Thanks KFHunter, I added one more.
Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.
You are a pro-wolf extremist if:
a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever
b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit
c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands
d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands
e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter
f) You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been
g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check
h) You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned
I) You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.
j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.
K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 15, 2014, 12:53:28 PM
I'm not sure that there are no wolf-loving hunters on this forum, but I would have to agree that t the very least, they're deluded.
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 01:03:10 PM
Post by: AspenBud on January 15, 2014, 01:33:09 PM
Wolves do kill people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have recently read letters written by wolf supporters who were obviously reared watching animal cartoons and movies about animals that depict them as if they were human. These people have no clue as to the reality of how and what predators do. Most predators do not "kill" their prey before they rip their victims apart—elk, deer, dogs or people.
Yes, wolves have and do kill people. If you research wolves on your computer, as I have, you will discover these facts about people killed by wolves:
France 1580-1830: 3,069 people.
Russia between 1840-1861: 169 children and 9 adults.
Kirvo Oblast, Russia, 1944-1950: 22 children.
India 1876: 721 people
1878: 624 people
1910 and 1915: 115 children
1980 and 1986: 122 children killed and 100 injured
1993-1995: 60 children
March 27,1996 - July 1 1996: 21 children killed and 16 mauled
This total Is 4,925 people killed by wolves, mostly children! These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. This is just from three countries. In India so many children have been taken by wolves that they have a phenomenon called "child lifting." Other European and Asian countries have records of people killed by wolves also.
So, I ask, is the shooting or trapping of wolves worse than the mauling and eating of our children? How many children do you think we should sacrifice to your wolf god? I pray to my god that you realize that the lives of people should always be put first.
JOHN GAITHER
President
Idaho County Sportsmen Club
Grangevile
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375 (http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005140375)
If you have to use statistics from outside of North America to back up your case you are most likely going to lose.
Russia alone also has about 25,000-30,000 wolves and the species there is not the same as what we have here. Russia also has a significantly higher population density that say, Canada. But Canada has about twice that number in North American gray wolves and Canada has about half the land that Russia has. If you compare statistics, the number of attacks is vastly different between the two.
The reason wolves killed so many people in these different countries is because the wolves were not hunted, these people had no guns to kill wolves with. Read the book, Wolves in Russia by Will Graves
Predators that are not hunted, become habitual to humans, in other wards they have no fear of humans. Ask MR Coyote.
Good thing we aren't those countries, have the right to bear arms, in many states have the right to shoot a wolf, and don't have the same sub species of wolf. Your comparison does not work. You have many other arguments to support your cause that are much more valid.
Post by: AspenBud on January 15, 2014, 01:41:29 PM
K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.
I don't think you need more (though who could argue with more public land to hunt on?) I think the habitat you have is not as great as you think it is and wolves have walked in and proved it. Like I said, you're playing into the hands of groups like the Sierra Club who think nature should be left undisturbed. They don't think habitat needs to be improved or created either, that nature will sort it out.
In some ways you, groups like the Sierra Club, and people dead set against predator management are doing a very good job of ensuring mutually assured destruction of what you're trying to save. Enjoy the outcome.
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2014, 03:31:48 PM
Just like cougars that are not hunted as they should be, wolves will be a major problem as their prey is depleted, especially with wolves that already have no fear of people.
My guess the first three or four people who get whacked won't matter to WDFW or the pro-wolfers unless it is one of their own. The small communities however will make war on the wolves, tell me do the wolves win? Or do the frauds at the USFWS and state game agencies win?
My guess, in the end the wolves will lose, where will the wolf lovers be then? Counting their money and looking for a new cash flow with a different critter.
Post by: JLS on January 15, 2014, 04:21:45 PM
[/color]
Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.
You are a pro-wolf extremist if:
a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever
Don't know, I hunt Montana. Some areas are better than ever, some the same, some worse.
b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit
I don't believe in a predator pit as perpetuated by Eastman's, but I believe in boom and bust cycles of prey and predators
c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands
I think it is entirely appropriate to graze cattle and/or sheep on public lands if done so in a responsible manner (i.e. rotational grazing)
d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands
I have no idea what you mean by non-recreation public lands, but I do think easements are entirely appropriate to gain access to public lands, when entered into willingly by the seller. I also believe that corner crossing should be legal.
e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter
I am a self admitted crappy bowhunter, and no I have seen no correlation or made no claim that wolves have made me better.
f) You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been
I think Yellowstone is much more in balance, but not completely.
g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check
I think hunting by itself in the right circumstance CAN do so, but is not always likely. Recreational trapping has shown itself to be at least equally effective as hunting and is a valuable tool for population management.
h) You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned
I never said it would get wolf hunting banned, but I did say that I think it reflects very poorly on hunters as a whole.
I) You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.
No false pretenses here, no avatar, and could care less what my "legitimacy" is. I guess if providing an alterrnative viewpoint from the popular mantra is derailing and obfuscating then I am guilty as charged. I didn't realize that individual opinions are not allowed if they deviate.
j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.
No, they also planted them in the Frank Church. You have claimed to have evidence of other releases for quite some time, but never provide it.
K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.
I think more habitat is never a bad thing, nor is improving existing habitat to alleviate the problems created by too many years of Smoky the Bear, noxious weeds, and loss of winter range. Specific instances of predation issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I believe that good habitat (and an abundance of it) is one of the biggest steps in mitigating the effects that wolves have on hunting opportunity.
There you go Wolfbait. There are my thoughts and opinions in bold letters so that you can do what you feel you need to do and attach labels to folks. If these make me a pro wolf extremist in your mind that's great. Half of them don't even have a darned thing to do with wolves in the first place.
You tend to selectively ignore many facts. Some of us extremists spoke out against the WDFW wolf plan. Some of us extremists spoke out when the delisting process in MT, ID, and WY was stalled.
Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves are a wild animal and as such can be dangerous. Yet because we don't jump on board with fear mongering, we are extremists.
Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves do affect population numbers in varying degrees. Some of us extremists had the same fears years ago, but have witnessed enough with our own eyes to change our minds. If that is kool-aid, so be it.
You wanted answers, you got them. Make whatever label or stereotype out of this that you need to do, it makes no difference to me.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 05:17:17 PM
:yeah:[/color]
Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.
You are a pro-wolf extremist if:
a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever
Don't know, I hunt Montana. Some areas are better than ever, some the same, some worse.
b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit
I don't believe in a predator pit as perpetuated by Eastman's, but I believe in boom and bust cycles of prey and predators
c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands
I think it is entirely appropriate to graze cattle and/or sheep on public lands if done so in a responsible manner (i.e. rotational grazing)
d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands
I have no idea what you mean by non-recreation public lands, but I do think easements are entirely appropriate to gain access to public lands, when entered into willingly by the seller. I also believe that corner crossing should be legal.
e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter
I am a self admitted crappy bowhunter, and no I have seen no correlation or made no claim that wolves have made me better.
f) You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been
I think Yellowstone is much more in balance, but not completely.
g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check
I think hunting by itself in the right circumstance CAN do so, but is not always likely. Recreational trapping has shown itself to be at least equally effective as hunting and is a valuable tool for population management.
h) You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned
I never said it would get wolf hunting banned, but I did say that I think it reflects very poorly on hunters as a whole.
I) You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.
No false pretenses here, no avatar, and could care less what my "legitimacy" is. I guess if providing an alterrnative viewpoint from the popular mantra is derailing and obfuscating then I am guilty as charged. I didn't realize that individual opinions are not allowed if they deviate.
j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.
No, they also planted them in the Frank Church. You have claimed to have evidence of other releases for quite some time, but never provide it.
K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.
I think more habitat is never a bad thing, nor is improving existing habitat to alleviate the problems created by too many years of Smoky the Bear, noxious weeds, and loss of winter range. Specific instances of predation issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I believe that good habitat (and an abundance of it) is one of the biggest steps in mitigating the effects that wolves have on hunting opportunity.
There you go Wolfbait. There are my thoughts and opinions in bold letters so that you can do what you feel you need to do and attach labels to folks. If these make me a pro wolf extremist in your mind that's great. Half of them don't even have a darned thing to do with wolves in the first place.
You tend to selectively ignore many facts. Some of us extremists spoke out against the WDFW wolf plan. Some of us extremists spoke out when the delisting process in MT, ID, and WY was stalled.
Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves are a wild animal and as such can be dangerous. Yet because we don't jump on board with fear mongering, we are extremists.
Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves do affect population numbers in varying degrees. Some of us extremists had the same fears years ago, but have witnessed enough with our own eyes to change our minds. If that is kool-aid, so be it.
You wanted answers, you got them. Make whatever label or stereotype out of this that you need to do, it makes no difference to me.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 05:30:10 PM
I also find some contention with aspens bud's assertion that the wolves we have now are a different sub-species than the wolves in Russia - therefore discrediting wolfbaits data. The wolves we have now are the most aggressive according to some date I've seen. I haven't time to dig it up, but it's my understanding that the sub-species debate was set aside when they brought the wrong ones to YNP in the first place.
Now they're just all "gray wolf" - and I don't buy that our wolves are somehow kinder and gentler towards humans.
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2014, 06:03:14 PM
[/color]
Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.
You are a pro-wolf extremist if:
a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever
Don't know, I hunt Montana. Some areas are better than ever, some the same, some worse.
b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit
I don't believe in a predator pit as perpetuated by Eastman's, but I believe in boom and bust cycles of prey and predators
c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands
I think it is entirely appropriate to graze cattle and/or sheep on public lands if done so in a responsible manner (i.e. rotational grazing)
d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands
I have no idea what you mean by non-recreation public lands, but I do think easements are entirely appropriate to gain access to public lands, when entered into willingly by the seller. I also believe that corner crossing should be legal.
e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter
I am a self admitted crappy bowhunter, and no I have seen no correlation or made no claim that wolves have made me better.
f) You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been
I think Yellowstone is much more in balance, but not completely.
g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check
I think hunting by itself in the right circumstance CAN do so, but is not always likely. Recreational trapping has shown itself to be at least equally effective as hunting and is a valuable tool for population management.
h) You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned
I never said it would get wolf hunting banned, but I did say that I think it reflects very poorly on hunters as a whole.
I) You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.
No false pretenses here, no avatar, and could care less what my "legitimacy" is. I guess if providing an alterrnative viewpoint from the popular mantra is derailing and obfuscating then I am guilty as charged. I didn't realize that individual opinions are not allowed if they deviate.
j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.
No, they also planted them in the Frank Church. You have claimed to have evidence of other releases for quite some time, but never provide it.
K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.
I think more habitat is never a bad thing, nor is improving existing habitat to alleviate the problems created by too many years of Smoky the Bear, noxious weeds, and loss of winter range. Specific instances of predation issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I believe that good habitat (and an abundance of it) is one of the biggest steps in mitigating the effects that wolves have on hunting opportunity.
There you go Wolfbait. There are my thoughts and opinions in bold letters so that you can do what you feel you need to do and attach labels to folks. If these make me a pro wolf extremist in your mind that's great. Half of them don't even have a darned thing to do with wolves in the first place.
You tend to selectively ignore many facts. Some of us extremists spoke out against the WDFW wolf plan. Some of us extremists spoke out when the delisting process in MT, ID, and WY was stalled.
Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves are a wild animal and as such can be dangerous. Yet because we don't jump on board with fear mongering, we are extremists.
Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves do affect population numbers in varying degrees. Some of us extremists had the same fears years ago, but have witnessed enough with our own eyes to change our minds. If that is kool-aid, so be it.
You wanted answers, you got them. Make whatever label or stereotype out of this that you need to do, it makes no difference to me.
Did I single you out JLS? I think it was your buddy Idahohunter that started tagging labels on people.
We can learn a lot from each other through discussions like these, but only if people are willing to share ideas, and share the history of the wolf introduction. We will go nowhere sticking to the same BS propaganda that the USFWS, defenders of wildlife and the brain-washed WDFW biologists spout.
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2014, 06:09:20 PM
I actually did provide evidence of USFWS planting wolves in southern and eastern states, I didn't find anything on planting wolves in WA and I don't think that happened but it's documented that wolves were planted in many different states.
I also find some contention with aspens bud's assertion that the wolves we have now are a different sub-species than the wolves in Russia - therefore discrediting wolfbaits data. The wolves we have now are the most aggressive according to some date I've seen. I haven't time to dig it up, but it's my understanding that the sub-species debate was set aside when they brought the wrong ones to YNP in the first place.
Now they're just all "gray wolf" - and I don't buy that our wolves are somehow kinder and gentler towards humans.
Actually there are a few cases of the USFWS and WDFW releasing wolves in WA, and like all crappy things that smell, at sometime in the future the truth is exposed.
If your like your insurance, you can keep it> Period
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 06:12:05 PM
I actually did provide evidence of USFWS planting wolves in southern and eastern states, I didn't find anything on planting wolves in WA and I don't think that happened but it's documented that wolves were planted in many different states.When you control the funding to the scientists being used to further your agenda, sounds about right. Wolf from NW Canada is the same as one 1500+ miles away in the US rockies. But a king salmon is a completely different species from another king salmon found in rivers 5 miles apart. :chuckle:
I also find some contention with aspens bud's assertion that the wolves we have now are a different sub-species than the wolves in Russia - therefore discrediting wolfbaits data. The wolves we have now are the most aggressive according to some date I've seen. I haven't time to dig it up, but it's my understanding that the sub-species debate was set aside when they brought the wrong ones to YNP in the first place.
Now they're just all "gray wolf" - and I don't buy that our wolves are somehow kinder and gentler towards humans.
Post by: JLS on January 15, 2014, 06:14:29 PM
Did I single you out JLS? I think it was your buddy Idahohunter that started tagging labels on people.
We can learn a lot from each other through discussions like these, but only if people are willing to share ideas, and share the history of the wolf introduction. We will go nowhere sticking to the same BS propaganda that the USFWS, defenders of wildlife and the brain-washed WDFW biologists spout.
I didn't say you did single me out, but since at least one of your questions was in direct reference to me then I would logically assume that you are including me in your zone of fire.
Now, I'll step aside so as not to derail and obfuscate the conversation :rolleyes:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 15, 2014, 08:35:18 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
First of all tar sands have nothing to do with wolves destroying elk herds. Completely different topics.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Sitka you are just a another wolf lover posing as a hunter and spewing propaganda to try and propagate your precious wolves. Elk herds were in good shape and in many cases at near record population levels in most areas where wolves have caused dramatic declines in big game populations. F&G Depts have had to make significant decreases in hunter opportunity to try and conserve the few remaining elk, moose, and deer.
Aww shucks Dale you found me out. I've never hunted a day in my life and never saw an animal outside of a zoo. I don't really have a clue what I'm talking about. Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy and smug now?
First of all, I didn't bring up the tar sands in this thread, Pianoman9701 did with this link.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/ (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/)
I was just pointing out to him that there are other opinions of the situation than those in the link he provided.
As for loving wolves, I can take them or leave them, they've never made a difference in my hunting in Alaska. Nature takes care of predators in the long run. They go up and down with the prey species, usually a couple years behind in the cycle of things. And they've certainly never threatened me or anyone I know out hunting. The only real threat from wolves is to livestock and pets. People should be able to defend their animals. People should be able to hunt and trap wolves. That isn't going to happen until a stable population has established itself unfortunately. All the demonization and fear of wolves isn't going to help that along and frankly it makes hunters look silly.
I realize as a "professional" guide, in some cases it can affect your bottom line, if you want animals to be in X spot when you have a client and they've been pushed out of the area due to a pack of wolves coming through. But when you are all doom and gloom about wolves wiping prey animals out but then I see you offering doe hunts with multiple tags per hunter, I have to laugh.
And when I hear stories of hunters climbing trees and trembling in fear of wolves I have to roll my eyes and wonder "where are the hunters of yesteryear?". Like Fred Bear stepping out from behind a rock to arrow the world record Brown Bear. Go to 6:05 to watch and see if Fred was quivering in his boots, and climbing trees, waiting for his shot. (His camera man was a different story. lol) Fred Bear Historical Hunting Footage.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBgydeR9I70#)
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:06:47 PM
Poison is outlawed everywhere.
What do you propose to do to keep wolf populations in check on private ground and public where grazing is permitted?
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:12:22 PM
All I hear is crickets....
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:17:30 PM
Oh they also said they'd limit hunting.
So what do you say to hunters that want to hunt in their home state after these small herds of Elk that don't bugle during the rut? A small herd of Elk could easily be wiped out beyond recovery by a pack of wolves if the winter is bad. So far they've all been mild but the first heavy snowfall winter we get will realize all the doom and gloom the "wackjob anti's" been spouting about.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2014, 09:21:11 PM
There you go ignoring facts that don't fit your talking points again wolfbait. Look at the quote in this post...it is you and KF coming up with a list of questions to TAG LABELS ON PEOPLE. You called me a lot of things before I came up with your wolf-wacko name...which isn't original by the way...I coined it from an IDFG commissioner who used to deal with clowns like you when he was fighting for a reasonable wolf management plan and had to listen to all the same bs you come up with...like wolf diseases, "non-native" wolves, government conspiracies, etc. Anyways, you can call me whatever the hell you want...it doesn't change the fact that you spew a lot of faulty misinformation.[/color]
Obviously we need to come up with some ways people can identify themselves as a pro-wolf extremist when otherwise they had no clue.
You are a pro-wolf extremist if:
a) You think Idaho's Elk hunting is better than ever
Don't know, I hunt Montana. Some areas are better than ever, some the same, some worse.
b) You think there is no such thing as a predator pit
I don't believe in a predator pit as perpetuated by Eastman's, but I believe in boom and bust cycles of prey and predators
c) You think cattle should not be grazed on your public lands
I think it is entirely appropriate to graze cattle and/or sheep on public lands if done so in a responsible manner (i.e. rotational grazing)
d) You think easements should be utilized to gain access to all non-recreation public lands
I have no idea what you mean by non-recreation public lands, but I do think easements are entirely appropriate to gain access to public lands, when entered into willingly by the seller. I also believe that corner crossing should be legal.
e) You think the introduction of the wolf will make you a better hunter
I am a self admitted crappy bowhunter, and no I have seen no correlation or made no claim that wolves have made me better.
f) You think Yellowstone is finally balanced, as it should have always been
I think Yellowstone is much more in balance, but not completely.
g) You think recreational hunting alone can work to keep wolf populations in check
I think hunting by itself in the right circumstance CAN do so, but is not always likely. Recreational trapping has shown itself to be at least equally effective as hunting and is a valuable tool for population management.
h) You think a wolf derby is a barbaric knuckle dragger slope head activity that will somehow get wolf hunting banned
I never said it would get wolf hunting banned, but I did say that I think it reflects very poorly on hunters as a whole.
I) You join HW under false pretenses, steal an avatar off the internet and post pictures of kills that aren't yours in an attempt to gain legitimacy so you can derail and obfuscate all the wolf threads.
No false pretenses here, no avatar, and could care less what my "legitimacy" is. I guess if providing an alterrnative viewpoint from the popular mantra is derailing and obfuscating then I am guilty as charged. I didn't realize that individual opinions are not allowed if they deviate.
j) You think Yellowstone is the only location USFWS planted wolves.
No, they also planted them in the Frank Church. You have claimed to have evidence of other releases for quite some time, but never provide it.
K You think more habitat will solve the predation problem.
I think more habitat is never a bad thing, nor is improving existing habitat to alleviate the problems created by too many years of Smoky the Bear, noxious weeds, and loss of winter range. Specific instances of predation issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I believe that good habitat (and an abundance of it) is one of the biggest steps in mitigating the effects that wolves have on hunting opportunity.
There you go Wolfbait. There are my thoughts and opinions in bold letters so that you can do what you feel you need to do and attach labels to folks. If these make me a pro wolf extremist in your mind that's great. Half of them don't even have a darned thing to do with wolves in the first place.
You tend to selectively ignore many facts. Some of us extremists spoke out against the WDFW wolf plan. Some of us extremists spoke out when the delisting process in MT, ID, and WY was stalled.
Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves are a wild animal and as such can be dangerous. Yet because we don't jump on board with fear mongering, we are extremists.
Some of us extremists have acknowledged that wolves do affect population numbers in varying degrees. Some of us extremists had the same fears years ago, but have witnessed enough with our own eyes to change our minds. If that is kool-aid, so be it.
You wanted answers, you got them. Make whatever label or stereotype out of this that you need to do, it makes no difference to me.
Did I single you out JLS? I think it was your buddy Idahohunter that started tagging labels on people.
We can learn a lot from each other through discussions like these, but only if people are willing to share ideas, and share the history of the wolf introduction. We will go nowhere sticking to the same BS propaganda that the USFWS, defenders of wildlife and the brain-washed WDFW biologists spout.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 09:28:18 PM
Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves,
Something tells me that's not why elk hang out around the country club in Longview, WA. Nor is it why people in Kentucky (where elk have no real predators, have a 92% calf survival rate and are about 15% bigger than their western counterparts) are starting to complain about elk invading their gardens and property.
Nice try to distort this situation in Kentucky to try and say wolves are needed. But that's more wolf lover rubbish. All that Kentucky has to do is liberalize hunting seasons to control elk populations. Wolves are not needed. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:29:30 PM
On the size difference they quoted something like 10-15% overall larger size than the historical native wolves, but didn't say the potential difference between alpha's of each subspecies.
Now USFWS is concerned these non-native wolves will get into the ones above Vancouver island and breed with them destroying their genetic pool.
Post by: deaner on January 15, 2014, 09:30:08 PM
WDFW already admits they got no clue how many Elk are in the NE corner of Washington, but if herd numbers decline they'll do a study to find out why.
Oh they also said they'd limit hunting.
So what do you say to hunters that want to hunt in their home state after these small herds of Elk that don't bugle during the rut? A small herd of Elk could easily be wiped out beyond recovery by a pack of wolves if the winter is bad. So far they've all been mild but the first heavy snowfall winter we get will realize all the doom and gloom the "wackjob anti's" been spouting about.
ive got a kind of a core area i spend most of my time in here in the huckleberry unit, and we have some elk around, but theyre very few in number. as it is they can barely keep up with the predation from cougars and bears. out of maybe a dozen or so cows ive had on my cams this year, and half a dozen or so ive watched with my own two eyes, looks like one calf made it this year. and looked like one yearling cow in the whole bunch, like one that made it last year. i know im not seeing all of them that are around, but the population here IS small and one calf surviving in a year out of 12-20 cows is not good. oh and did i say we dont have any wolf issues here in this area yet? that poor recruitment rate is just from the cats and bears we already have problems with. now if a wolf pack moves in, how do you think our small elk population is going to fare? this is NOT yellowstone. say what you will about the wolves taking down an oversized herd there, yellowstone being overgrazed and needing wolves, blah blah. but that is NOT the reality here. the reality here is this little elk population is already struggling and throwing a bunch of wolves into the mix will be end of them. its just a matter of time.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:47:11 PM
Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves,
Something tells me that's not why elk hang out around the country club in Longview, WA. Nor is it why people in Kentucky (where elk have no real predators, have a 92% calf survival rate and are about 15% bigger than their western counterparts) are starting to complain about elk invading their gardens and property.
Nice try to distort this situation in Kentucky to try and say wolves are needed. But that's more wolf lover rubbish. All that Kentucky has to do is liberalize hunting seasons to control elk populations. Wolves are not needed. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Where do I sign up to chase bison in YNP? I heard they had some over population issues.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 09:50:43 PM
screw the livestock owners
screw the small herds of elk
Hey, as long as you got some Elk to chase around in Idaho right :tup:
That's exactly the way the wolf lovers think, screw everyone else. The wolf lovers on this forum are no different, they will say anything to shift the blame of wolf impacts and distort the truth. Wolf groups fund their own biologists to help perpetuate their wolf propaganda and they have infiltrated F&G Depts and doing the same within F&G Depts. Unfortunately even some well-meaning hunters fall for the proganda and koolaid.
The fact is that many people in Idaho took wolf management into their own hands before there was ever any wolf season established. Otter was elected governor because he said he wanted the first wolf tag in Idaho. Then the governor of Idaho aided the people of Idaho in helping many of their big game herds by directing IDFG that they could not report wolf poachers to the feds. Wolves were shot on sight year around in many areas of Idaho and that slowed the growth of the wolf population in many areas. Anyone who doesn't believe what I say can go to any small town in Idaho and confirm the fact that locals readily say they have been killing wolves since before there were any wolf seasons in an effort to try and control them. Now with a wolf season and wolf trapping in place wolf populations are being somewhat controlled and this has really given some of the herds some relief from wolf predation. But wolf lovers will distort how wolf management has evolved and how it has really unfolded and they will try to say this is proof that wolves will not decimate herds. The real truth is that Idaho residents have been killing a lot of wolves for several years and this proves that wolves must be heavily managed (shot on sight year around) to help the big game herds. :twocents:
The wolf lovers will distort the truth and do anything to try and cover up the real life consequences of wolves. We've got a handful of these misled individuals on this forum who try to distort the facts and shift the blame to propogate wolves. Some of these individuals are probably not even hunters, they are likely wolf lovers posing as hunters.
Talk about spewing rubbish......
The facts speak for themselves, if the shoe fits wear it....
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:56:38 PM
hypocrisy at it's finest.
Post by: JLS on January 15, 2014, 10:01:08 PM
I find it ironic that JLS and IDhohntr are beneficiaries of illegal wolf killing in masse by Idaho residents, then come on here to taut how good Elk hunting is in Idaho and how the wolves aren't decimating the herds.
hypocrisy at it's finest.
Didn't I just tell you that I hunt in Montana? I don't derive any benefit from the alleged behavior Dale reports.
Selective memory at it's finest.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 10:03:51 PM
The boys in Montana would never SSS :rolleyes:
Post by: JLS on January 15, 2014, 10:06:03 PM
screw the livestock owners
screw the small herds of elk
Hey, as long as you got some Elk to chase around in Idaho right :tup:
That's exactly the way the wolf lovers think, screw everyone else. The wolf lovers on this forum are no different, they will say anything to shift the blame of wolf impacts and distort the truth. Wolf groups fund their own biologists to help perpetuate their wolf propaganda and they have infiltrated F&G Depts and doing the same within F&G Depts. Unfortunately even some well-meaning hunters fall for the proganda and koolaid.
The fact is that many people in Idaho took wolf management into their own hands before there was ever any wolf season established. Otter was elected governor because he said he wanted the first wolf tag in Idaho. Then the governor of Idaho aided the people of Idaho in helping many of their big game herds by directing IDFG that they could not report wolf poachers to the feds. Wolves were shot on sight year around in many areas of Idaho and that slowed the growth of the wolf population in many areas. Anyone who doesn't believe what I say can go to any small town in Idaho and confirm the fact that locals readily say they have been killing wolves since before there were any wolf seasons in an effort to try and control them. Now with a wolf season and wolf trapping in place wolf populations are being somewhat controlled and this has really given some of the herds some relief from wolf predation. But wolf lovers will distort how wolf management has evolved and how it has really unfolded and they will try to say this is proof that wolves will not decimate herds. The real truth is that Idaho residents have been killing a lot of wolves for several years and this proves that wolves must be heavily managed (shot on sight year around) to help the big game herds. :twocents:
The wolf lovers will distort the truth and do anything to try and cover up the real life consequences of wolves. We've got a handful of these misled individuals on this forum who try to distort the facts and shift the blame to propogate wolves. Some of these individuals are probably not even hunters, they are likely wolf lovers posing as hunters.
Talk about spewing rubbish......
The facts speak for themselves, if the shoe fits wear it....
Where have I EVER spoken for the need to propogate more wolves. I have reiterated my stance over and over, which does absolutely no good because you just repeat whatever fits your agenda.
When the facts are contrary to your thinking, then they are distorted and a cover up. When they support your thinking then everyone else is misled if they don't fully agree with them.
One can recognize the REAL WORLD impacts of wolves without buying into the paranoia that can be rampant at times. Everyone else is misled, except those that agree with Dale.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Post by: JLS on January 15, 2014, 10:07:42 PM
oh ya! I guess you did, my apologies JLS.
The boys in Montana would never SSS :rolleyes:
Maybe the do. I don't know anyone that has but I'm sure there are. Given the fact that hunters have only been killing about 150-200 wolves a year, I'm doubting that poachers are having all that significant of an impact on the wolves.
Your conspiracy theory may vary.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 10:16:30 PM
We know it happens though. I would speculate that unreported wolf kills far outnumber those reported. The people doing it would be the people that live and work there, not go for a few days for a hunt.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2014, 10:37:48 PM
I find it ironic that JLS and Idahohntr are beneficiaries of illegal wolf killing in masse by Idaho residents, then come on here to tell us all how good Elk hunting is in Idaho and how the wolves aren't decimating the herds.wolves are difficult to kill, that is why they have had to resort to aerial gunning and hired trappers in the hardest hit areas in north-central idaho. So contrary to the bs that bearpaw spews, poaching wolves prior to de-listing had minimal effect on the wolf population...particularly where wolves were having the greatest impact on elk...which is why wolf numbers grew exponentially until just a couple years ago. Yes, rural folks were killing wolves (the most common method involved sponges)...but I can also tell you that it had little or no impact on the population. 40,000 or so wolf hunters killed roughly 200 wolves last year in Idaho...a few vigilante folks in small towns did not result in many wolf kills.
hypocrisy at it's finest.
I find it hilarious that bearpaw thinks anyone but the town bar flies would give him so much as the time of day with respect to hunting/wolves etc...go into a rural Idaho town and tell the folks you are a non-resident washingtonian hunting guide... :chuckle: You might as well be the head of wolf recovery and reintroductions!
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 10:47:24 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 10:52:24 PM
that's a knee slapper
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 10:55:22 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
First of all tar sands have nothing to do with wolves destroying elk herds. Completely different topics.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Sitka you are just a another wolf lover posing as a hunter and spewing propaganda to try and propagate your precious wolves. Elk herds were in good shape and in many cases at near record population levels in most areas where wolves have caused dramatic declines in big game populations. F&G Depts have had to make significant decreases in hunter opportunity to try and conserve the few remaining elk, moose, and deer.
Aww shucks Dale you found me out. I've never hunted a day in my life and never saw an animal outside of a zoo. I don't really have a clue what I'm talking about. Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy and smug now?
First of all, I didn't bring up the tar sands in this thread, Pianoman9701 did with this link.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/ (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/04/12/albertas-tar-sand-pits-create-deer-wolves-and-decimate-mountain-caribou/)
I was just pointing out to him that there are other opinions of the situation than those in the link he provided.
As for loving wolves, I can take them or leave them, they've never made a difference in my hunting in Alaska. Nature takes care of predators in the long run. They go up and down with the prey species, usually a couple years behind in the cycle of things. And they've certainly never threatened me or anyone I know out hunting. The only real threat from wolves is to livestock and pets. People should be able to defend their animals. People should be able to hunt and trap wolves. That isn't going to happen until a stable population has established itself unfortunately. All the demonization and fear of wolves isn't going to help that along and frankly it makes hunters look silly.
I realize as a "professional" guide, in some cases it can affect your bottom line, if you want animals to be in X spot when you have a client and they've been pushed out of the area due to a pack of wolves coming through. But when you are all doom and gloom about wolves wiping prey animals out but then I see you offering doe hunts with multiple tags per hunter, I have to laugh.
And when I hear stories of hunters climbing trees and trembling in fear of wolves I have to roll my eyes and wonder "where are the hunters of yesteryear?". Like Fred Bear stepping out from behind a rock to arrow the world record Brown Bear. Go to 6:05 to watch and see if Fred was quivering in his boots, and climbing trees, waiting for his shot. (His camera man was a different story. lol) Fred Bear Historical Hunting Footage.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBgydeR9I70#)
Sitka,
I posted this topic to help shed some light on what is happening with wolves here in NE WA. I've been busy hunting and was unable to follow all the misleading wolf lovers rubbish that has been spewed in my topic to distract the discussion away from the problems we are facing in NE WA.
We need some sanity on the state level so that we can protect ourselves without risking financial ruin due to the insane management policies adopted by WDFW. Why must a citizen in NE WA weather the impacts of wolves while wolf lovers like yourself sit smugly in your home no where near the problem and force terror on the citizens of NE WA and other areas of the west with your quest to bring back wolves across the US to satisfy your own images of wolf grandeur. Then to claim that herds have not suffered extreme impacts due to wolves is ludicrous.
You have no clue what it's like to be surrounded by wolves that know no fear of man. If you ever even were in Alaska the wolves you have been around were hunted and had a fear of man so they do not make it a habit of surrounding humans. But individuals like yourself apparently don't care what happens to other people, the problem is in NE WA, it doesn't affect you or your family. The individual I speak about was simply smart enough to seek safety in the tree rather than risk being attacked and he also avoided his life being ruined by the courts and personal attacks by wolf lovers for protecting himself against wolves.
The McIrvins were terrorized by the wolf lovers with death threats after their cattle were terrorized and eaten by wolves. Where has the sanity gone in our society? I have watched these wolf lovers who like to pose like they are hunters and try to rationalize arguments for wolves, your comments reek of this same misled ideology, why would I ever believe that you are any type of hunter and not just another wolf lover posing as a hunter to further your ideological cause?
BTW, nice try on the sound byte about the multiple deer tag hunts I offer. :chuckle:
Again you are distorting facts. The hunts I offer with multiple tags were in eastern Montana in an area that had no wolf impacts plus there is cougar hunting with dogs which helps to keep cougar numbers under control. The deer thrive there and multiple tags are part of the very successful management of deer in that area. Once the wolves move in as they have in western Montana that additional opportunity for humans will disappear as it has in most parts of western Montana.
Are you opposed to humans being able to hunt more than one deer? Is there something wrong with that?
Nice try bud. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2014, 11:03:13 PM
And frankly, I thought wolves should have been hunted for years before they were finally de-listed in Idaho anyways...and I know this doesn't fit your little wolf-lover label...but as I mentioned earlier I used to have a much more similar view as many on here about wolves. I often joked with hunting buddies that they did not have to worry about poaching a wolf as long as they could get an Idaho jury...no way out of 12 jurors would you get 12 to say guilty...probably true in NE WA as well...except if they tried you in Seattle you would get the death penalty :yike:
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 11:07:35 PM
I find it ironic that JLS and Idahohntr are beneficiaries of illegal wolf killing in masse by Idaho residents, then come on here to tell us all how good Elk hunting is in Idaho and how the wolves aren't decimating the herds.wolves are difficult to kill, that is why they have had to resort to aerial gunning and hired trappers in the hardest hit areas in north-central idaho. So contrary to the bs that bearpaw spews, poaching wolves prior to de-listing had minimal effect on the wolf population...particularly where wolves were having the greatest impact on elk...which is why wolf numbers grew exponentially until just a couple years ago. Yes, rural folks were killing wolves (the most common method involved sponges)...but I can also tell you that it had little or no impact on the population. 40,000 or so wolf hunters killed roughly 200 wolves last year in Idaho...a few vigilante folks in small towns did not result in many wolf kills.
hypocrisy at it's finest.
I find it hilarious that bearpaw thinks anyone but the town bar flies would give him so much as the time of day with respect to hunting/wolves etc...go into a rural Idaho town and tell the folks you are a non-resident washingtonian hunting guide... :chuckle: You might as well be the head of wolf recovery and reintroductions!
Laugh all you want, but I guess it's a little different than you think. Maybe you aren't as smart as you think? You don't have to tell anyone who you are, just talk wolves and learn how the locals have taken care of the problem in many areas. :dunno:
FYI, I have tried to explain to the Commission and Dept how this whole wolf fiasco is not healthy for wildlife management attitudes, but it has fallen on deaf ears. So what ever happens with locals here in WA isn't because I didn't offer some rationalism.
Certain areas, currently the "Frank" do not have good access and are not close to human population so they need professional wolf hunters to relieve the wolf impacts. For the record I find it interesting that some of you guys claim wolves don't decimate herds yet you acknowledge the need for aerial gunning of wolves. :chuckle: :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 11:19:06 PM
oh ya! I guess you did, my apologies JLS.
The boys in Montana would never SSS :rolleyes:
Maybe the do. I don't know anyone that has but I'm sure there are. Given the fact that hunters have only been killing about 150-200 wolves a year, I'm doubting that poachers are having all that significant of an impact on the wolves.
Your conspiracy theory may vary.
How would you know how many wolves have been poached? :dunno:
I would comment that many of those "wolf poachers" are likely good citizens on most other counts. It was the continued court battles that prevented wolf management and their love for Idaho wildlife that caused them to become vigilantes.
I would suggest that the legal harvest is likely still not all inclusive of wolf harvest and yet Idaho still needs areal gunning to try and get wolf numbers under control.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2014, 11:28:29 PM
For the record I find it interesting that some of you guys claim wolves don't decimate herds yet you acknowledge the need for aerial gunning of wolves. :chuckle: :dunno:Yea, I find it interesting that you continue to distort intentionally or out of ignorance the opinions of people on this forum. I have not heard one person say wolf hunting is a bad thing. I agree there are specific areas where wolves need additional control actions. I do not subscribe to the mass hysteria that wolves will decimate all wildlife. Sorry, the world is not black and white where you can fit everybody into simple categories like "wolf lovers" or "wolf haters".
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 11:31:43 PM
oh ya! I guess you did, my apologies JLS.
The boys in Montana would never SSS :rolleyes:
Maybe the do. I don't know anyone that has but I'm sure there are. Given the fact that hunters have only been killing about 150-200 wolves a year, I'm doubting that poachers are having all that significant of an impact on the wolves.
Your conspiracy theory may vary.
How would you know how many wolves have been poached? :dunno:
I would comment that many of those "wolf poachers" are likely good citizens on most other counts. It was the continued court battles that prevented wolf management and their love for Idaho wildlife that caused them to become vigilantes.
I would suggest that the legal harvest is likely still not all inclusive of wolf harvest and yet Idaho still needs areal gunning to try and get wolf numbers under control.
Washington is screwed.
Liberal King CO. isn't going to tolerate helicopters gunning down wolves, we can't trap them or snare them, and hunting them in the brush is almost impossible on a scale that's needed to curb the population.
I still haven't seen any ideas for WA wolf management where conflict dictates wolves need to be removed, or where large ungulates have declined too far.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 11:48:43 PM
Wolves need to be managed and citizens need to be able to protect themselves and their property.
The hypocrisy is that if the "wolf lovers" would back off and allow reasonable wolf management, larger big game herds would support larger numbers of predators and hunters would not be so opposed to predators. The reality is that "anti-hunters" are using wolves to decimate herds so they can curtail hunting and ranching. It's truly unfortunate that some otherwise well-meaning hunters fall for the wolf propaganda "koolaid" and actually are helping the "wolf lovers" to accomplish their ultimate goals. The question is how many misled hunters and wildlife managers are big enough to admit they have been misled and that many big game herds, the ranching industry, and hunting have been seriously damaged by wolves? :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
oh ya! I guess you did, my apologies JLS.
The boys in Montana would never SSS :rolleyes:
Maybe the do. I don't know anyone that has but I'm sure there are. Given the fact that hunters have only been killing about 150-200 wolves a year, I'm doubting that poachers are having all that significant of an impact on the wolves.
Your conspiracy theory may vary.
How would you know how many wolves have been poached? :dunno:
I would comment that many of those "wolf poachers" are likely good citizens on most other counts. It was the continued court battles that prevented wolf management and their love for Idaho wildlife that caused them to become vigilantes.
I would suggest that the legal harvest is likely still not all inclusive of wolf harvest and yet Idaho still needs areal gunning to try and get wolf numbers under control.
Washington is screwed.
Liberal King CO. isn't going to tolerate helicopters gunning down wolves, we can't trap them or snare them, and hunting them in the brush is almost impossible on a scale that's needed to curb the population.
I still haven't seen any ideas for WA wolf management where conflict dictates wolves need to be removed, or where large ungulates have declined too far.
:yeah: There is something in the wolf plan about protecting herds, but WDFW stated at the Colville wolf meeting they would have to study the effects for years before taking any action, so they obviously plan to side step that requirement.
Post by: bearpaw on January 16, 2014, 12:04:00 AM
For the record I find it interesting that some of you guys claim wolves don't decimate herds yet you acknowledge the need for aerial gunning of wolves. :chuckle: :dunno:Yea, I find it interesting that you continue to distort intentionally or out of ignorance the opinions of people on this forum. I have not heard one person say wolf hunting is a bad thing. I agree there are specific areas where wolves need additional control actions. I do not subscribe to the mass hysteria that wolves will decimate all wildlife. Sorry, the world is not black and white where you can fit everybody into simple categories like "wolf lovers" or "wolf haters".
You seem to be one of the people who tries to sugar coat the impacts of wolves, it appears that you may have drank the wolf lover koolaid. Please tell me it aint so? :dunno:
Livestock losses plus the moose and elk herd numbers in the impacted areas of ID, MT, and WY are statistical fact, for anyone to claim that wolves do not impact herds is just ?????? That seems pretty black and white to me! :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on January 16, 2014, 07:37:09 AM
Much like Yellowstone, the Bison and Elk will literally hug people and activity to get away from the wolves,
Something tells me that's not why elk hang out around the country club in Longview, WA. Nor is it why people in Kentucky (where elk have no real predators, have a 92% calf survival rate and are about 15% bigger than their western counterparts) are starting to complain about elk invading their gardens and property.
Nice try to distort this situation in Kentucky to try and say wolves are needed. But that's more wolf lover rubbish. All that Kentucky has to do is liberalize hunting seasons to control elk populations. Wolves are not needed. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Actually I was making the point that elk have a tendency to wander into towns and yards even in the absence of predators. Some here want to make it sound like that only happens when wolves show up. Right...
There is no distortion. Elk there are wandering and people are starting to complain. The elk recovery out there is one of the most successful reintroductions ever.
Or perhaps you would like to argue that the behavior listed in this article was caused by wolves pushing them into towns?
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/04/24/1237904/kentuckys-elk-population-close.html (http://www.kentucky.com/2010/04/24/1237904/kentuckys-elk-population-close.html)
Post by: AspenBud on January 16, 2014, 08:58:21 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41522427/ns/us_news-environment/t/revived-then-reviled-elk-now-hunted-part-kentucky/#.UtgO3bR0mF8 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41522427/ns/us_news-environment/t/revived-then-reviled-elk-now-hunted-part-kentucky/#.UtgO3bR0mF8)
Post by: AspenBud on January 16, 2014, 10:16:56 AM
People think it's strange that elk and deer are hanging out where civilization is. I think it's strange they think that's strange. Seeing black tails in people's yards growing up was not uncommon at all and still isn't. If you go to the upper Midwest you'll find white tails all over the place either dead on the side of the road, in fields, or in city parks and people's yards. As for elk, as I said, Roosevelts hang out around the country club in Longview and the descendents of Rocky Mountain elk are becoming a pest in Kentucky.
It's not wolves that have caused the examples I listed above, it's a lack of a major apex predator AND they have good habitat both for winter cover and food.
If people are seeing ungulates in places they never used to it's either because they're numbers are growing or the habitat that they've traditionally been in over the last +/- 100 years is so poor that it provides next to no cover that helps them hide from predators like wolves. The fact that you never saw them in some of the places you do now probably speaks to just how poor the habitat is. If it was good, you should have been seeing them everywhere since the food supply and cover would have favored a higher survival rate and a corresponding spill over.
Habitat is not irrelevant.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 16, 2014, 11:45:15 AM
oh ya! I guess you did, my apologies JLS.
The boys in Montana would never SSS :rolleyes:
Maybe the do. I don't know anyone that has but I'm sure there are. Given the fact that hunters have only been killing about 150-200 wolves a year, I'm doubting that poachers are having all that significant of an impact on the wolves.
Your conspiracy theory may vary.
Friend of a friend.....Libby Mt....Oh yeah........ :mgun: in the yard :bfg: :bfg:
Post by: wolfbait on January 16, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html)
Post by: bearpaw on January 16, 2014, 04:46:45 PM
Kentucky elk that are thriving without wolves have nothing to do with wolf predation on elk and wolf interactions with humans in the northwest. :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on January 16, 2014, 04:48:12 PM
Quote
Æ 2012: Idaho Fish and Game sold 80,577 elk tags, and hunters killed 16,418 elk — a 20 percent success rate. In 1996, 100,527 hunters had a 25 percent success rate.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/01/14/2971988/wolf-killing-plan-complicates.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/01/14/2971988/wolf-killing-plan-complicates.html#storylink=cpy)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 16, 2014, 05:39:21 PM
"No single factor impacts wildlife, including elk, more than habitat."
This is in a document prepared by an agency that fully supports wolf hunting, wolf trapping, is taking a lot of heat right now for sending a trapper into the Frank Church to reduce wolf numbers etc. While IDFG recognizes and responds to specific predation issues in a way that I believe many on here find appropriate, they very correctly understand the overriding importance of habitat to elk populations. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 16, 2014, 05:57:45 PM
Wolves need to be managed and citizens need to be able to protect themselves and their property.
See Dale, something we agree on. Amazing! What we don't agree on and what you label me a wolf lover for is, I don't believe wolves are the end of hunting. Not even close.
I've never said don't trap them. I've never said don't hunt them. I've never said don't manage them. All I've ever said is don't think that they will be the end of hunting or that they will be the ultimate cause of a herd's demise. (That is crazy talk) And if that makes me a wolf lover, so be it.
I've also pointed out before that I've been through all this before with the Feds in my work as a commercial fisherman. I know how frustrating it can be to not be able to protect your property. As a salmon gillnetter in Alaska, we have to deal with the Marine Mammal Act which proclaims all marine mammals to be endangered no matter how bad the local population is. We've been banned from shooting seals and sea lions to protect our nets. The area I fish, the Copper River Delta, right now has more seals than what scientists ever believed the area could support. But they are still protected. If you saw the herds of sea lions, you'd be surprised that they are protected too. The situation with the Feds is so bad that if they survey the beaches and find dead sea mammals and can prove they were shot by fishermen, they can shut the whole fishery down. Now think of what this would mean in the case of wolves if they thought people weren't taking them serious and were illegally killing wolves and they decided to shut hunting down? And yet I see people talking about illegal killing of wolves all the time on hunting sites, this one included. do you know that according to the wolf recovery plan, it is actually illegal to encourage anyone to illegally kill a wolf? If I was a Fed and wanted to make a point or push my weight around, I'd start getting IP addresses and tracking people down and writing tickets. Luckily it hasn't come to that yet, but it could.
Frustration? I have thousands of dollars in damage to my nets every year from seals and sea lions. (and that doesn't include the value of the fish they take or ruin) We don't get reimbursed like farmers do. I eat that as a cost of doing business. I also have to put in the time to repair my net which, after a 24, or 48, or 60, or 72 hour fishing period, is the last thing i want to be doing. I have better things to do with my time, like sleeping for starters. But I don't get the choice. And I don't get the choice of protecting my property. But I'm not going to break the law. So I've learned to deal with it.
The Feds also tell us if seals and sea lions get too bad, we should move to avoid conflict. Guess what, moving isn't an option most of the time. The seals and sea lions are there because the salmon are there, same reason as we are. Moving means wasting fishing time traveling, higher fuel costs (we pay $5 a gallon and my boat burns 20 gallons per hour), and chances are you are moving to an area with no fish. Plus the weather and seas may make moving a moot point. So this is an impractical suggestion. But imagine being told you have to leave the area you're hunting in if wolves are spotted.
So yes I understand the frustration. But all that being said, in the last 5 years, I'm also catching more fish than I've caught in over 40 years of fishing. The spike in salmon predators (seals and sea lions) has also corresponded with a spike in the number of salmon, just like in most all predator/prey relationships. So I grit my teeth and deal with it.
At least with wolves, there will come a point when hunting is allowed and private property can be protected. Anyone spreading fear and loathing of wolves and encouraging illegal shooting or actually illegally killing wolves is just delaying that point in time. Your time would be better spent trying to push for the hound hunting ban to be rescinded. But to do that, hunters need to be respected and their voices need to be listened to. This wolf battle won't get us there, the way some or most are arguing it. Hunters as a group need to sound knowledgeable, reasonable, and responsible. If we can't, no one will listen to us.
Post by: wolfbait on January 16, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
I was reading the Revised draft IDFG Elk management plan put out December 2013 and this quote on page 29 caught my attention as it relates to some of the debate on this forum:
"No single factor impacts wildlife, including elk, more than habitat."
This is in a document prepared by an agency that fully supports wolf hunting, wolf trapping, is taking a lot of heat right now for sending a trapper into the Frank Church to reduce wolf numbers etc. While IDFG recognizes and responds to specific predation issues in a way that I believe many on here find appropriate, they very correctly understand the overriding importance of habitat to elk populations. :twocents:
10-Year Study of Wolf-Ungulate Interaction at Banff
Wolves destroyed 90% of the elk population.
Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
60% of the elk that were part-time residents stopped migrating to Banff after wolves arrived.
Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment.
Wolves decimated woodland caribou, driving numerous herds to extinction.
Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies.
Any attempt to manage ungulates anywhere near pre-wolf numbers is “a fantasy.”
Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.
To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to last until the ungulates recover and must reoccur if ungulates decline.
Sportsman wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are never effective. (emphasis added)
The Truth about What Lies Ahead for Hunters and
Other Natural Resource Users
By George Dovel
On March 22, 2010, former Canadian wolf researcher Mark Hebblewhite told about 160 Montana elk hunters the “shocking” results of his 10-year studies of the impact of wolves on wild ungulates in the Banff, Canada. ecosystem Thanks to Dr. Charles Kay, I had already read his 2007 report titled “Predator-Prey Management in the National Park Context: Lessons from a Transboundary Wolf, Elk, Moose and Caribou System” and recognized it as “Phase 4” (explained later).
Phase 1 – Downplaying the Number of Wolves and Phase 2 – Suing to Dramatically Increase Wolves
In his August 1993 Petersen’s Hunting article titled, “Wolves In The West – What the government does not want you to know about wolf recovery,” Dr. Kay explained what I call “Phase 1” in which the feds minimized the impact of 10 wolf packs in each of three recovery areas. FWS assured everyone that when at least 10 breeding pairs had been established for three years in each recovery area, wolves would be de-listed.
Dr, Kay also predicted what I call “Phase 2” – that wolf advocates would go to court and demand 1,500-2,000 wolves instead of the 300 that everyone had accepted. While that was being considered, FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs reportedly promised the three states that if they would agree to manage for 150 wolves – a 50% increase over the original FWS proposal – he would agree to ignore claims for more wolves and de-list them as soon as all three states had 10 breeding pairs for three years in a row.
Although he was several years late, Bangs kept his promise but the delisting was quickly overturned in court. An emerging problem was that some rural residents were noticing severe declines in elk and deer populations so in 2009 Big Game Manager Brad Compton told RMEF that, despite a problem in a couple of areas, elk had still increased by 5% in Idaho since RMEF was founded.
In the Same August 1993 Article Dr. Kay Also Forecast What I Call “Phase 3” – The Predator Pit
Compton’s rosy 2009 elk hunting forecast was shot full of holes by IDFG elk/wolf researcher Pete Zager’s announcement less than a month later that Idaho’s annual elk harvests had declined by 40% since the 1990s. While predator preservationists are trying to convince their judge of the need for up to 5,000 wolves, some of the wolves we already have are running out of prey and killing each other.
The 1980s study, “Wolves of Central Idaho” by Kaminski and Hansen, found enough elk to support 219 wolves. Units 10 and 12 could support 45 of the wolves in 1985 when the elk population there was 20,115, the harvest was 1,430 and the elk were increasing by 805 per year.
But four years later in 1989, the Lolo elk harvest had increased to 1,975 and Lolo Zone elk numbers had dropped 4,845 in just four years! With no more emphasis on bear removal and a 1995 elk harvest of 1,925, increasing the number of cow hunting permits in 1996 and 1997 left big gaps in what was previously a healthy herd.
By 2002 (2003 in Unit 10), despite increases in bear and cougar harvests which increased newborn calf and cow survival, the Lolo Zone elk population had declined to 4,691, the hunter harvest was only 184, and the Lolo Zone could not support any of the 45 wolves. This proved that reducing bear, cougar and human take did not stop expanding wolves from destroying a declining elk herd.
F&G Ignores Warnings from Experts
Also in 2002, the most experienced researcher of the impact of wolves on wild ungulates in North America, Tom Bergerud, told the Idaho Fish and Game Commission wolves would cause a major decline in Idaho elk herds. He described watching herd after herd of caribou become extinct across Canada and said wolves will concentrate on one prey species until it is depressed, then move on to another that is available.
Bergerud insisted that wolves must be reduced over a wide area and for a long period of time, but Panhandle biologist Jim Hayden suggested this and other similar advice “must be taken with a grain of salt.” He provided the Commission with a computer model he designed alleging that it would not be necessary to manage wolves if bear, lion and human take is regulated.
He did this despite the fact that his computer solution was already proven a 100% failure in the adjacent Clearwater Region in the Lolo Zone. It is that attitude, ignoring 40 years of painstaking wolf research by legitimate scientists in Canada and Alaska, which characterizes those who are destroying our wildlife and our way of life.
Unable to defend or even debate their so-called “restoration of native ecosystems,” they protect large carnivores in a network of man-made wilderness areas connected by a system of man-made predator corridors. And our Western Governors not only endorse but are facilitating the projects while no one (except a few top wildlife scientists in North America) is willing to discuss what happens once the carnivores decimate their prey.
If Major Elk Units No Longer Have Enough Elk and Deer to Feed 219 Wolves, How Can They feed >518?
The biologists, Commissioners, Governor and DAGs who agreed to manage for 518 or more wolves in Idaho ignored the research by Kaminski et al which found that, under ideal conditions existing in 1985, all of the elk units in the Central Idaho Ecosystem could only feed amaximum of 219 wolves without elk numbers declining. Managing for 100 wolves, or even for the 150 that was later agreed to, would have worked providing the number of elk in the high density elk units remained stable.
But if the number of wolves increased or the number of elk decreased, an immediate reduction in the number of wolves was necessary to prevent the elk population from declining from then on. Once the ratio of wolves to elk became too high, the elk were in a predator pit and their population would continue to decline.
Major Elk Declines in High Density Units Concealed
That is exactly what was happening in 2002, 2006 and in March 2008 when the Commission approved the absurd plan to manage for at least 518 wolves. But to hide this from the public and from several Commissioners who didn’t have a clue what was happening, IDFG claimed there was only a problem in a couple of the 29 elk zones.
It did not explain that the units in only a handful of high density elk zones provided most of Idaho’s elk – and the majority of Idaho’s elk harvest. For example just before wolves were introduced, units in the Lolo, Middle Fork, Salmon, Sawtooth and Selway Zones all had several times as many elk per square mile as the majority of other units and this is where most of the wolves settled initially and multiplied.
Possibly because of the thousands of elk in most of these units, biologists paid little attention to significant declines they measured every four or five years until the wolves found their abundant food supply becoming scarce. Once they began killing each other or moved to other units like 10A and 11A, the attempt to control them after the fact with a sport hunting season was a waste of time.
Time for Phase 4 – Admitting the Truth
Recent admissions by YNP wolf biologists that declining wolves in Yellowstone are diseased and killing each other competing for limited prey, and elimination by MTFWP of the Gardiner late elk hunt after 35 years, are cited as reasons for admitting the truth about wolves and hunting. Canadian researcher Mark Hebblewhite, who spent 10 years studying the relationship of wolves and their ungulate prey in the Banff ecosystem, is doing just that.
Dr. Kay originally picked important conclusions from the above referenced 18-page Hebblewhite report and they are listed here for your convenience. I urge you to read them very carefully because they will alter your future and the future of your children and their children unless you demand an end to the farce of ecosystem management!
10-Year Study of Wolf-Ungulate Interaction at Banff
Wolves destroyed 90% of the elk population.
Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
60% of the elk that were part-time residents stopped migrating to Banff after wolves arrived.
Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment.
Wolves decimated woodland caribou, driving numerous herds to extinction.
Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies.
Any attempt to manage ungulates anywhere near pre-wolf numbers is “a fantasy.”
Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.
To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to last until the ungulates recover and must reoccur if ungulates decline.
Sportsman wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are never effective. (emphasis added)
Hebblewhite, who is now an Assistant Professor at the University of Montana, explained that wolves had been exterminated from Southern Alberta in much the same fashion as they were from the lower 48 states. But they moved down from the North beginning in the 1980s – about 10-20 years ahead of wolves in the Northwest U.S.
He presented this material at the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in March 2007 as a preview of what U.S. wildlife managers can expect as introduced wolves continue to populate the lower 48. Idaho biologists accepted his views and hired him to analyze fawn survival in 2008.
Hebblewhite Suggests Letting Predators Drive Prey Populations into Predator Pit Outside of Parks
Hebblewhite suggests that our failure to maintain elk in a predator pit (“low-density equilibrium”) outside of National Parks creates problems with park managers because more game will eventually exist outside of the park than in it because of wolves. That is exactly what is finally happening in Yellowstone – and what exists in Denali, Wood Buffalo, Banff and Jasper since National and Provincial Parks embraced “Ecosystem Management” (protecting wolves and not interfering with nature).
There is little doubt that Hebblewhite’s analysis of what happens when we don’t control wolves outside of National Parks is accurate. But when he addressed the 160 Montana hunters on March 16, 2010, he went to great lengths to explain that it cost $2 million to kill 60-80% of wolves in a Yukon area for three years and told them wolf numbers had recovered two years after the control ended.
Unfortunately they weren’t told the rest of the story. What was the value of the caribou that were saved from extinction and of the other ungulates that had five years to rebuild their numbers to healthy levels that could sustain reasonable predation?
If IDFG figures provided to Sen. Gary Schroeder more than a year ago are correct, Idaho lost between $15 million and $24 million just from elk hunters who refused to hunt elk in 2008 because of wolf predation. If the massive losses to livestock owners caused by wolves and the eventual cost of diseases spread by wolves are added to the equation, spending a few million dollars in 2008 to control wolves would have paid generous dividends.
Hebblewhite uses the worn out argument of all predator advocates that predator control is not a long term solution. There is no long term solution.
Conditions change and management must keep up with the changing conditions. That’s why they call it wildlife “management.”
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Outdoorsman-38.html)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 16, 2014, 09:36:01 PM
QuoteÆ 2012: Idaho Fish and Game sold 80,577 elk tags, and hunters killed 16,418 elk — a 20 percent success rate. In 1996, 100,527 hunters had a 25 percent success rate.
It's easy to pick and choose random years to make a point Dale, but what really matters is long term trends. I could use 1981 when less than 10,000 elk were taken and say wow, 2012 was an awesome year with over 16,000 elk taken.
Then you have to look at other trends such as habitat creators such as logging, fire, and agriculture, and human growth and the urban sprawl that creates. Then there are weather patterns and of course predators. The problem is, you want to look at predators in a vacuum and point out a cause and effect when it is really a miniscule part of the whole equation.
Lets look at LONG term harvests for Idaho elk. We'll go back pre wolf and you'll see the same fluctuations and even worse than you see today, WITH wolves.
https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/WildlifeTechnicalReports/Game%20Harvest%20PR11.pdf
This report has harvest data from all Idaho big game from 1935 to 2010.
If you go down to page 11 of 17 you'll see the harvest data.
It wasn't until 1945 that over 5,000 elk were harvested in Idaho, and 26,000 deer were taken.
Elk and deer harvest generally grew until they both peaked in 1968 with 78,000 deer and 17,000 elk taken.
Then a decline started which bottomed out in 1976 with 25,000 deer and 4,000 elk taken.
There were no wolves to blame for that decline as they had been wiped out in 1939.
Then another growing trend started with both species.
Deer peaked in 1989 with 95,000 taken and elk peaked in 1994 with 28,000 taken
Then both started another downward trend, well before wolves had any impact on the herds.
Deer harvest fell to 37,000 in 1997. and 5 years after the all time high harvest in 1999 elk harvest fell to 17,500.
Deer harvest then climbed to the low 40 thousands to the 50 thousands mark and has stayed in that range.
Elk harvest rebounded to a harvest of 21,470 in 2005, but fell to less than 16,000 in 2009.
Yet despite being is a so called predator pit, elk harvest continues to be above the long term average for the state and in
2012 it was equal to any year up until 1988, before there were any predators. This despite the fact that a couple bad winters affected the herds just a few years back.
Do you know what was going on in the late 80's? Reagan had lifted the export ban on raw logs, Japan, China, and Korea bid up the prices of timber and a logging boom occurred which opened up elk habitat. Twenty five to thirty years later, all that forest has started to grow back up reducing habitat and all those reprod thickets are hard to hunt for the animals that are there.
Maybe hunters got a little spoiled during the peak between 1988 and 2007. a relative short time period in the grand scheme of things. But look at it this way, in only 8 years has the elk harvest in Idaho been over 20,000. I fail to see a harvest of 16,000 elk being a disaster. The difference between 16,000 elk taken and 20,000 is 4,000. If there are 100,000 people hunting, that equates to a 4% difference in success ratio. It's hardly a blip on the radar to the average hunter.
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2014, 09:40:03 PM
Post by: AspenBud on January 16, 2014, 09:51:48 PM
Aspenbud, you just can't seem to stay on topic can you? You have to spew rubbish to try and change the topic from talking about the real problems with wolves!
Kentucky elk that are thriving without wolves have nothing to do with wolf predation on elk and wolf interactions with humans in the northwest. :rolleyes:
The only rubbish here is when people try to say habitat is irrelevant or that elk and deer are coming to town only because of wolves. Hogwash.
Sorry my points undercut your narrative.
Post by: KFhunter on January 16, 2014, 10:19:16 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 16, 2014, 10:26:52 PM
Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?Why are the elk herds small now? Answer that and you might have more insight as to whether wolf and cougar management needs to change.
My experience in the Priest Lake area of N. Idaho...there were few elk to begin with. Poor elk habitat, very dense forests with lower quality forage?? Moose and deer were abundant though.
Post by: KFhunter on January 16, 2014, 10:40:39 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 16, 2014, 11:04:10 PM
I know why they are small, I asked you. (or aspenbud or JLS or greenhornI answered you in my post...for the same reason I have encountered very few elk in the very northern parts of idaho.
Post by: KFhunter on January 16, 2014, 11:34:12 PM
Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?Why are the elk herds small now? Answer that and you might have more insight as to whether wolf and cougar management needs to change.
My experience in the Priest Lake area of N. Idaho...there were few elk to begin with. Poor elk habitat, very dense forests with lower quality forage?? Moose and deer were abundant though.
this isn't an answer, all I see is ?? and ?
Habitat isn't the problem, there's so much unused feed out there we could have 4 times the Elk and not put a dent in the habitat. If anything it would improve.
You say there's always been few Elk in this region, since before wolves so why is that?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 16, 2014, 11:39:19 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 01:12:02 AM
Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier. A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.:rolleyes: ya
Then why is it you step behind any locked gate and immediately find old Elk droppings and waist high grasses of varying flavors going to waste, and more browse than you can shake a stick at.
I've suspected you were a complete farce a long time ago, now I'm convinced of it.
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.
I honestly don't know why you two are allowed to remain on this site :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 05:43:29 AM
Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?Why are the elk herds small now? Answer that and you might have more insight as to whether wolf and cougar management needs to change.
My experience in the Priest Lake area of N. Idaho...there were few elk to begin with. Poor elk habitat, very dense forests with lower quality forage?? Moose and deer were abundant though.
Even though the NF system has curtailed logging and that hurts elk habitat, logging is more prevalent in NE WA due to the many state lands and private lands, there is ample opportunity for elk herds to grow significantly. The elk herds are small because WDFW had an either sex elk season whereby any elk seen during archery, muzzleloader, or rifle season was being shot for many years. This was the most liberal elk seasons in the entire state and WDFW readily stated they did not want elk herds to grow. Only recently since wolves have arrived and hunters were demanding better elk management has WDFW gone to bull-only in rifle and muzzleloader season in many NE units.
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 06:08:22 AM
Aspenbud, you just can't seem to stay on topic can you? You have to spew rubbish to try and change the topic from talking about the real problems with wolves!
Kentucky elk that are thriving without wolves have nothing to do with wolf predation on elk and wolf interactions with humans in the northwest. :rolleyes:
The only rubbish here is when people try to say habitat is irrelevant or that elk and deer are coming to town only because of wolves. Hogwash.
Sorry my points undercut your narrative.
Sorry but you are 100% incorrect, I have never made those statements. Please post a link to any place where I have ever made those statements.
Post by: AspenBud on January 17, 2014, 06:49:25 AM
Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?
No, especially if the habitat provides little cover for them to hide in.
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 06:52:52 AM
Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?
No, especially if the habitat provides little cover for them to hide in.
:o There is tremendous habitat and cover in NE WA, your comment makes no sense at all? :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on January 17, 2014, 07:05:35 AM
Aspenbud, you just can't seem to stay on topic can you? You have to spew rubbish to try and change the topic from talking about the real problems with wolves!
Kentucky elk that are thriving without wolves have nothing to do with wolf predation on elk and wolf interactions with humans in the northwest. :rolleyes:
The only rubbish here is when people try to say habitat is irrelevant or that elk and deer are coming to town only because of wolves. Hogwash.
Sorry my points undercut your narrative.
Sorry but you are 100% incorrect, I have never made those statements. Please post a link to any place where I have ever made those statements.
I'm sorry, I mistook your defensiveness as agreeing with those who did.
Post by: AspenBud on January 17, 2014, 07:07:44 AM
Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?
No, especially if the habitat provides little cover for them to hide in.
:o There is tremendous habitat and cover in NE WA, your comment makes no sense at all? :dunno:
Yes, but is it quality? Just because it can hold elk in the absence of wolves does not mean it has sufficient escape cover.
Post by: AspenBud on January 17, 2014, 07:10:27 AM
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.
???
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 07:15:52 AM
Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?
No, especially if the habitat provides little cover for them to hide in.
:o There is tremendous habitat and cover in NE WA, your comment makes no sense at all? :dunno:
Yes, but is it quality? Just because it can hold elk in the absence of wolves does not mean it has sufficient escape cover.
It is obvious to me that you are merely using pro-wolf talking points, it's obvious you know nothing about NE WA. :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on January 17, 2014, 07:42:34 AM
Do you think the small herds of Elk in the 100 GMU's will be able to maintain their numbers, or grow under our current wolf and cougar plans?
No, especially if the habitat provides little cover for them to hide in.
:o There is tremendous habitat and cover in NE WA, your comment makes no sense at all? :dunno:
Yes, but is it quality? Just because it can hold elk in the absence of wolves does not mean it has sufficient escape cover.
It is obvious to me that you are merely using pro-wolf talking points, it's obvious you know nothing about NE WA. :chuckle:
Hm, well it's obvious to me that unless someone agrees 100% with all of your talking points on the subject you brand them a wolf lover. Okay.
Enjoy your party with the Sierra Club. They think the habitat out your way is great too. :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 07:52:14 AM
To help you understand my comments. The USFS pretty much eliminated logging and our National Forest land is an aging forest with little feed for ungulates. However, there is a ton of cover in that aging forest, so cover is the least of problems in NE WA. That is why I made the comment I did about your post, it was obvious you know little about the NE. However, there are large tracts of state land and private lands which are selectively logged every decade or so. These lands do provide excellent habitat for ungulates which in turn provides the best habitat for predators. Hope this helps you understand the situation a little better.
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 07:58:40 AM
I suppose if you talk like a wolf lover you are going to appear to be one. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 08:44:19 AM
It's typical wolf lover fashion to blame habitat for reductions in ungulate herds. Habitat certainly has an important effect on the herds, I completely agree with that, but the wolf groups always try to use habitat as the primary cause and they try to say that wolves have little or no effect on the herds and this is and has been proven wrong by biologists in wolf infested areas of Alaska, Canada, and now the Rocky Mountain states.
I suppose if you talk like a wolf lover you are going to appear to be one. :dunno:
I actually agree that lack of habitat has reduced our ungulates. All the more reason not to allow in an extra-large apex predator to further reduce their numbers.
Something I find funny in this and other threads is that pro-wolfers never say they're pro-wolfer. In fact, they usually deny it, all the while fighting tooth and nail to make sure we see the light and accept wolves for the loveable, cuddly, balance to nature that we ll really need to understand they are. The rest of us, on the other hand, have little trouble with the truth. We don't want wolves here, especially in areas of any population or agricultural development, which includes cattle ranching and grazing. We and wildlife were doing just fine and stayed balanced (except for diminishing ungulate habitat through logging restrictions) and would've continued to be so without a single wolf coming into WA. We're even willing to compromise on that, acknowledging that they would be OK (but not great) in remote wilderness areas. It's hard to debate someone who doesn't have enough conviction in their beliefs to come right out and admit their stance.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2014, 08:55:10 AM
Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier. A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.:rolleyes: ya
Then why is it you step behind any locked gate and immediately find old Elk droppings and waist high grasses of varying flavors going to waste, and more browse than you can shake a stick at.
So then tell me, why is it NE Wa has such small elk herds? I am less familiar with NE Wa and am using the NW corner of Idaho (Priest Lake area) as a surrogate. We can still hound hunt in Idaho...I killed my one and only lion just E of priest lake. Bears are abundant up there, but they are also hunted pretty hard.
There is more to habitat than waist high grasses. Long before wolves were ever present in Idaho there just were very few elk up in that corner of Idaho...nobody raved about the great elk hunting up in the NW corner of Idaho. There are elk there, and guys kill bulls up there to this day...but something is limiting them that did not limit the deer and moose...they give out more moose tags up in that corner of Idaho (even today) than they do for the entire state of Washington. Unit 1 is loaded with deer. That suggests some habitat requirement of elk is limiting.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2014, 09:00:59 AM
I've suspected you were a complete farce a long time ago, now I'm convinced of it.
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.
I honestly don't know why you two are allowed to remain on this site :dunno:
[/quote]
When you stick to debating the facts, I think you sometimes present points worth considering in things like what may affect elk abundance...even if I ultimately disagree with you based on my experience and observations.
However, when you dive off into absurd accusations like what I quote you above, you really lose credibility IMO. What have I said, what picture have I posted that you believe is a "farce"?
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 09:04:20 AM
Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier. A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.:rolleyes: ya
Then why is it you step behind any locked gate and immediately find old Elk droppings and waist high grasses of varying flavors going to waste, and more browse than you can shake a stick at.
So then tell me, why is it NE Wa has such small elk herds? I am less familiar with NE Wa and am using the NW corner of Idaho (Priest Lake area) as a surrogate. We can still hound hunt in Idaho...I killed my one and only lion just E of priest lake. Bears are abundant up there, but they are also hunted pretty hard.
There is more to habitat than waist high grasses. Long before wolves were ever present in Idaho there just were very few elk up in that corner of Idaho...nobody raved about the great elk hunting up in the NW corner of Idaho. There are elk there, and guys kill bulls up there to this day...but something is limiting them that did not limit the deer and moose...they give out more moose tags up in that corner of Idaho (even today) than they do for the entire state of Washington. Unit 1 is loaded with deer. That suggests some habitat requirement of elk is limiting.
If you go to Priest Lake and then go to areas in NE WA you will see some differences. I think NE WA has more diversified habitat than the Priest Lake area, more winter range, more agriculture, more logging on state and private lands just to name a few of the differences. This adds up to better elk habitat than the Priest Lake area. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 09:26:09 AM
Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier. A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.
I've suspected you were a complete farce a long time ago, now I'm convinced of it.
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.
I honestly don't know why you two are allowed to remain on this site :dunno:
When you stick to debating the facts, I think you sometimes present points worth considering in things like what may affect elk abundance...even if I ultimately disagree with you based on my experience and observations.
However, when you dive off into absurd accusations like what I quote you above, you really lose credibility IMO. What have I said, what picture have I posted that you believe is a "farce"?
FYI - It's true that we've had wolf lovers posing on this forum as hunters and that stolen photos and lies about being hunters have been posted to portray themselves as a hunter who support wolves. We have weeded out a few of these types but have trouble identifying them from certain hunters who actually do support wolves to one extent or another. It's not the intention of H-W to ban anyone because they support wolves. But H-W will ban anyone who is only a pro-wolfer representing themselves as a hunter when in fact they are not and are truly only a liar trying to promote wolves.
Idahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.
Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 10:01:33 AM
If you look at the amount of land that has been bought up by WDFW alone it is astounding, then add in the USFWS, and environmental groups, which by the way, environmental groups who buy up land are just middleman for the feds, so that people don't connect as to how much land the feds are really scooping up, and all in the name of saving habitat.
Now we see this topic which was started on the dangers of wolves switched to more habitat by people who claim to have the best interests of the game herds in mind? But yet they don't want to discuss the impact of wolves?
I guess we should start focussing on the fraud behind the wolf introduction, instead of the impact wolves are having, after all the wolves actually have nothing to do with the real reason behind the wolf introduction, remember the spotted owl lie?
I guess what it all boils down to is more habitat, less access to public lands, more wilderness. No ranching, no hunting, and how many people want to camp in a predator infested environment.
The wolves are the perfect tool, in the end the USFWS etc. can then jump in and fix the problem by closing down public lands because of the impact create by humans, is this where the famous corridors come to light?
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 10:10:49 AM
Poor elk habitat, as I posted earlier. A lot of that area is very dense forest, nothing like other areas of Idaho where elk are far more plentiful.
I've suspected you were a complete farce a long time ago, now I'm convinced of it.
Just like Aspen Bud, and his picture he stole off the internet from some outfitters website and posted as his own trophy pic.
I honestly don't know why you two are allowed to remain on this site :dunno:
When you stick to debating the facts, I think you sometimes present points worth considering in things like what may affect elk abundance...even if I ultimately disagree with you based on my experience and observations.
However, when you dive off into absurd accusations like what I quote you above, you really lose credibility IMO. What have I said, what picture have I posted that you believe is a "farce"?
I just couldn't understand how you could say habitat was "the" factor in suppressing the Elk herds, when clearly the habitat is pretty good and getting better with more recent logging efforts and increased controlled burns. It appeared to me that you were dodging a trap by being dishonest about habitat.
Part of it is liberal tags as Dale pointed out, until about 3-4 years ago the Elk herds were maintaining or perhaps even growing by a very small amount in some areas. That's stopped and now they're going backwards. The biggest factor is calf recruitment. You can go out and look at a herd of Elk and not see a single calf with the cows, or if you do it's just a cow here and there with a calf at her side. The % of calves that make it to mature adult status is too low. The big cats really play hell on the calves and smaller Elk.
Where I'm going with this is if the Elk herds can barely hang on prior to the arrival of the wolf, what makes anyone think they'll continue to maintain current numbers? WDFW has changed tags to antlered only which I applaud, but it's too little too late in my opinion. The predators are still out there and thanks to a new cougar harvest plan I'm prohibited from filling my tag in an area where I'd like to see Elk numbers improve, an area with heavy wolf predation :bash: :bash:
(fixed the quotes)
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 10:16:23 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 17, 2014, 10:20:48 AM
Quote
Idahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.
Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.
It's kind of crazy to be doubting idahohuntr when he posts his notes from every GMAC meeting and he has also provided us with draw odds for deer, elk, and moose the last couple of years. Oh yeah I sure can see him being a wolf hugger/anti hunter in disguise. :rolleyes:
Yep. Let's ban a GMAC member (Game Management Advisory Council) so we can no longer get the inside info from their meetings.
And let's ban a guy who provides us with draw odds every year. He definitely sounds like he's not worth having around. :bash:
I can't believe this thread. It's like arguing with my wife. It just goes in circles and nothing is accomplished by it.
Nobody here is really that far apart on their beliefs and opinions regarding wolves. We are all hunters here and therefore, NOT enemies. I'd like to see people treated with a little more respect on here. Especially when they're long time, contributing members.
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2014, 10:27:05 AM
QuoteIdahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.
Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.
It's kind of crazy to be doubting idahohuntr when he posts his notes from every GMAC meeting and he has also provided us with draw odds for deer, elk, and moose the last couple of years. Oh yeah I sure can see him being a wolf hugger/anti hunter in disguise. :rolleyes:
Yep. Let's ban a GMAC member (Game Management Advisory Council) so we can no longer get the inside info from their meetings.
And let's ban a guy who provides us with draw odds every year. He definitely sounds like he's not worth having around. :bash:
I can't believe this thread. It's like arguing with my wife. It just goes in circles and nothing is accomplished by it.
Nobody here is really that far apart on their beliefs and opinions regarding wolves. We are all hunters here and therefore, NOT enemies. I'd like to see people treated with a little more respect on here. Especially when they're long time, contributing members.
Exactly what I was thinking as I was following along with this thread.
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 10:30:24 AM
QuoteIdahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.
Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.
It's kind of crazy to be doubting idahohuntr when he posts his notes from every GMAC meeting and he has also provided us with draw odds for deer, elk, and moose the last couple of years. Oh yeah I sure can see him being a wolf hugger/anti hunter in disguise. :rolleyes:
Yep. Let's ban a GMAC member (Game Management Advisory Council) so we can no longer get the inside info from their meetings.
And let's ban a guy who provides us with draw odds every year. He definitely sounds like he's not worth having around. :bash:
I can't believe this thread. It's like arguing with my wife. It just goes in circles and nothing is accomplished by it.
Nobody here is really that far apart on their beliefs and opinions regarding wolves. We are all hunters here and therefore, NOT enemies. I'd like to see people treated with a little more respect on here. Especially when they're long time, contributing members.
You're just ultra sensitive to this because you're accused all the time of being a WDFW shill.
(not by me)
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 10:37:30 AM
QuoteIdahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.
Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.
It's kind of crazy to be doubting idahohuntr when he posts his notes from every GMAC meeting and he has also provided us with draw odds for deer, elk, and moose the last couple of years. Oh yeah I sure can see him being a wolf hugger/anti hunter in disguise. :rolleyes:
Yep. Let's ban a GMAC member (Game Management Advisory Council) so we can no longer get the inside info from their meetings.
And let's ban a guy who provides us with draw odds every year. He definitely sounds like he's not worth having around. :bash:
I can't believe this thread. It's like arguing with my wife. It just goes in circles and nothing is accomplished by it.
Nobody here is really that far apart on their beliefs and opinions regarding wolves. We are all hunters here and therefore, NOT enemies. I'd like to see people treated with a little more respect on here. Especially when they're long time, contributing members.
I didn't look at Idahohntr's profile or check his past posts so I cannot comment on that.
I was pointing out to him why KFhunter likely made his comment. If Idahohntr is on the GMAC I hope he is a hunter and I hope that he gets a better understanding of these wolves, cougars, other predators, and their effects on our wildlife. I also hope he will understand how different NE WA is from Priest Lake area.
From what I see in his posts in this topic it almost appears that he is a member of a wolf group or works for the WDFW endangered species division. Some of his comments appear as practically a facsimile of their propaganda. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 11:02:53 AM
QuoteIdahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.
Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.
It's kind of crazy to be doubting idahohuntr when he posts his notes from every GMAC meeting and he has also provided us with draw odds for deer, elk, and moose the last couple of years. Oh yeah I sure can see him being a wolf hugger/anti hunter in disguise. :rolleyes:
Yep. Let's ban a GMAC member (Game Management Advisory Council) so we can no longer get the inside info from their meetings.
And let's ban a guy who provides us with draw odds every year. He definitely sounds like he's not worth having around. :bash:
I can't believe this thread. It's like arguing with my wife. It just goes in circles and nothing is accomplished by it.
Nobody here is really that far apart on their beliefs and opinions regarding wolves. We are all hunters here and therefore, NOT enemies. I'd like to see people treated with a little more respect on here. Especially when they're long time, contributing members.
I'm not sure Idahohntr is an anti-hunter, or a wolf lover, or whatever. But, just that he's on the GMAC doesn't mean he's pro-hunting or anything else. We know the Wildlife Commission has had radical environmentalists on it. We know that pro-wolfers have participated in DFW hunting surveys from the comments they've left. And, we have had several HuntWA members posing as hunters just to disrupt the forum for their environmental causes and reasons. Don't be so naive to think that just because someone on the internet tells you they're something that it means they really are that.
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 11:10:33 AM
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2014, 11:10:56 AM
I think it is a mistake to label sportsman like Idahohntr as a wolf lover. This is getting to be hunters against hunters and the anti hunters are going to love it. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on January 17, 2014, 11:11:24 AM
The guy has been on this forum for a long time. I'm pretty sure an anti hunter wouldn't go to the trouble of calculating draw odds for deer, elk, and moose in 2012 and 2013 and posting it for all of us to use.
Look at the top of the deer and elk sections. The threads are there, since I stickied them last year when he posted them.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 11:17:33 AM
Seriously? I'm naive? :rolleyes:
The guy has been on this forum for a long time. I'm pretty sure an anti hunter wouldn't go to the trouble of calculating draw odds for deer, elk, and moose in 2012 and 2013 and posting it for all of us to use.
Look at the top of the deer and elk sections. The threads are there, since I stickied them last year when he posted them.
I said I don't know whether he is or not. You have selective reading. I also didn't say you were naive. I said "don't be naive" enough to think everyone's who they say they are, not that you are.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2014, 11:18:05 AM
Well, I can tell from Idahohntr's posts that he is a sportsman. His view on wolves is not much different than that of JLS from what I can gather. And not much different than several other members on this site who are definitely hunters. They just have a slightly different take on the wolf issue............their position really isn't all that much different than the likes of BearPaw.I suspect there are quite a few members who have a less hostive view of wolves than some other members. However, the outright hatred and disparaging comments made towards them (like Idahohntr) would certainly give them cause to stay silent on the topic.
I think it is a mistake to label sportsman like Idahohntr as a wolf lover. This is getting to be hunters against hunters and the anti hunters are going to love it. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on January 17, 2014, 11:19:59 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 11:21:30 AM
Well, I can tell from Idahohntr's posts that he is a sportsman. His view on wolves is not much different than that of JLS from what I can gather. And not much different than several other members on this site who are definitely hunters. They just have a slightly different take on the wolf issue............their position really isn't all that much different than the likes of BearPaw.
I think it is a mistake to label sportsman like Idahohntr as a wolf lover. This is getting to be hunters against hunters and the anti hunters are going to love it. :twocents:
I'm not sure that he is a wolf lover, although his posts in this topic and some others seem to point in that direction. Go back and read them! :dunno:
It could be that he simply believes the propaganda used to perpetuate the current failure of a wolf plan that we have. The NE is being fed to the wolves!
The biggest red flag for me is when someone tries to say that wolves do not impact big game herds when exactly the opposite has been documented by state F&G agencies, and there are several comments by 3 or 4 members in this topic exactly like that. Anyone is entitled to their opinion but they should expect to be called to task when they try to spread complete fallacies.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 11:27:14 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 11:28:47 AM
God this IS just like arguing with my wife!
Maybe you need to figure out what the common denominator is. :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on January 17, 2014, 11:31:53 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 11:33:01 AM
Somehow it was high jacked by members "who appear to be wolf lovers" who are trying to spread their propaganda that wolves do not impact herds. These same "members" have implied my friend is a coward for climbing the tree in fear for his life. I tried to get this on track a ways back but they wouldn't let it get back on track, so here we are, they deserve every comment that's been made. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 11:35:19 AM
Common denominator? That would be issues that nobody is going to have their mind changed on. It is what it is. Stop with the labels and the name calling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, go with that.
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 11:39:51 AM
Being challenged is different then the act of prey testing, if the wolves remained silent yet continued to circle the tree then I'd crap my pants, because then it's real!
but that the wolves were howling while circling it tells me they were trying to drive your friend from the area, which can also be very dangerous to him.
I pack each and every time I enter the woods, and I can tell you that in foggy conditions or thick brush I would also climb a tree to access the situation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 11:42:47 AM
I started this topic about a friend who was nearly attacked by wolves!
Somehow it was high jacked by members "who appear to be wolf lovers" who are trying to spread their propaganda that wolves do not impact herds. These same "members" have implied my friend is a coward for climbing the tree in fear for his life. I tried to get this on track a ways back but they wouldn't let it get back on track, so here we are, they deserve every comment that's been made. :twocents:
I believe your friend's account. Whether or not your friend was actually being attacked is a moot point. The wolves in WA are bold and have been killing. I believe that it's a matter of time before they kill a person if we don't put some fear in them first.
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
It is my opinion that your friend was challenged by the wolves.He was packing, but he didn't want a confrontation that would get him in trouble with the law and it did scare the dickens out of him when he realized the wolves were howling all around him and advancing closer.
Being challenged is different then the act of prey testing, if the wolves remained silent yet continued to circle the tree then I'd crap my pants, because then it's real!
but that the wolves were howling while circling it tells me they were trying to drive your friend from the area, which can also be very dangerous to him.
I pack each and every time I enter the woods, and I can tell you that in foggy conditions or thick brush I would also climb a tree to access the situation.
I agree with your comments piano and that is the point I was trying to make from the beginning, that we need to realize these confrontations are happening and something needs done so that wolves fear man.I started this topic about a friend who was nearly attacked by wolves!
Somehow it was high jacked by members "who appear to be wolf lovers" who are trying to spread their propaganda that wolves do not impact herds. These same "members" have implied my friend is a coward for climbing the tree in fear for his life. I tried to get this on track a ways back but they wouldn't let it get back on track, so here we are, they deserve every comment that's been made. :twocents:
I believe your friend's account. Whether or not your friend was actually being attacked is a moot point. The wolves in WA are bold and have been killing. I believe that it's a matter of time before they kill a person if we don't put some fear in them first.
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2014, 11:49:20 AM
Wolves should not be protected in the NE corner. (Actually, I don't want them protected anywhere in WA). They should be treated like coyotes.
But I also like hearing other opinions from other sportsmen that may have a different view. And I don't think they should be labeled as wolf lovers for having a little different view.
Humanure was the definition of a wolf lover and he deserved any crap dished out toward him. I don't think the same is deserved toward some other members of this forum that have other views toward the wolf topic. :twocents:
Like Bob33 pointed out, other members may not give their :twocents: if they think they will be labeled as wolf lovers.
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 11:52:18 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 17, 2014, 11:53:41 AM
Congratulations! :tup:
Now carry on. :beatdeadhorse:
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2014, 11:56:23 AM
Curly you are probably right, but of course the reverse is true, just because I think wolves need managed better does not make me someone who wants them wiped off the face of the earth as some of these guys have insinuated. :dunno:
I've read a lot of posts, probably missed a lot too, but I don't get the impression from anyone that they think you want to wipe out the wolves. :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2014, 11:58:58 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 12:06:12 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 12:09:46 PM
This is getting to the point of absurdity that I wonder why I even respond. I hunt as much (if not more) than many on this site. I have hunted all my life. I am fortunate that I hunt multiple states every year...and I don't take it for granted. Yes, I serve on the GMAC (like many other folks on this site). I also volunteer significant time to RMEF (like others on this site who volunteer to many conservation organizations). I am a former recipient of a Wildlife Leadership Award from RMEF. I taught hunter and bowhunter ed in Idaho for 10+ years. I have posts with pictures of deer and elk I have killed for petes sake. So, while I agree just because somebody posts on the internet that they are this or that does not mean it is true...but for heavens sake...what more do you people need?? So, go ahead and ban me if you think im pulling off this elaborate scheme to portray myself as a hunter. I have my views of how wildlife should be managed for the publics benefit and I share those opinions and discuss them with other hunters. In the end though, these wildlife issues are not about me or any one person and it is a sad state of affairs that time is wasted on whether a particular person "hunts enough" or whatever to be allowed to share a view. Focus on the issues and forget about the individuals.
Well said Idahohntr :tup:
With that I'll apologize for calling you a farce. I also thank you for your effort and previous accomplishments.
Now, if you'll just listen... :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 12:19:23 PM
I agree with pianoman.
Wolves should not be protected in the NE corner. (Actually, I don't want them protected anywhere in WA). They should be treated like coyotes.
Even if wolves were treated like Coyotes and shot 24/7 365 the population of wolves would not be significantly reduced.
Remember when WDFW said they killed the wedge wolf pack?
I submitted proof just a few months later that that wasn't the case.
WDFW has since changed their wording for those who caught it. Now the official statement reads something like "WDFW has removed "some" of the wedge wolf pack."
It took WDFW a radio collar and helicopter to get the few wolves they did get, the hunters they hired were unsuccessful even with a radio collar tracker at their disposal.
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2014, 12:31:41 PM
I'm not sure the so called "wolf lovers" on this site disagree with delisting wolves and opening a hunting season on them in this state. :dunno:
Post by: buckfvr on January 17, 2014, 12:44:42 PM
Exactly. That's why treating them like coyotes is what should happen. It might help to make them more wary of humans, but it won't hurt their population.
I'm not sure the so called "wolf lovers" on this site disagree with delisting wolves and opening a hunting season on them in this state. :dunno:
If we treat them like coyotes, their population will explode !!!!!!! :yike:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 12:56:51 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2014, 01:01:12 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: Water under the bridge. And I apologize for any name calling I engaged in...I may not be completely innocent :dunno: :chuckle:This is getting to the point of absurdity that I wonder why I even respond. I hunt as much (if not more) than many on this site. I have hunted all my life. I am fortunate that I hunt multiple states every year...and I don't take it for granted. Yes, I serve on the GMAC (like many other folks on this site). I also volunteer significant time to RMEF (like others on this site who volunteer to many conservation organizations). I am a former recipient of a Wildlife Leadership Award from RMEF. I taught hunter and bowhunter ed in Idaho for 10+ years. I have posts with pictures of deer and elk I have killed for petes sake. So, while I agree just because somebody posts on the internet that they are this or that does not mean it is true...but for heavens sake...what more do you people need?? So, go ahead and ban me if you think im pulling off this elaborate scheme to portray myself as a hunter. I have my views of how wildlife should be managed for the publics benefit and I share those opinions and discuss them with other hunters. In the end though, these wildlife issues are not about me or any one person and it is a sad state of affairs that time is wasted on whether a particular person "hunts enough" or whatever to be allowed to share a view. Focus on the issues and forget about the individuals.
Well said Idahohntr :tup:
With that I'll apologize for calling you a farce. I also thank you for your effort and previous accomplishments.
Now, if you'll just listen... :chuckle:
I do understand some of the frustration expressed about wolves and their potential impacts. I did grow up in rural Idaho after all...in fact my dad would probably fall more in line with posts from KF and Bearpaw than mine! I am at least encouraged that we all care enough to speak up on these issues. And I also believe that even if we disagree on something like wolves...well, that doesn't mean we are sworn enemies. We can still find lots of common ground and swap hunting stories/pics etc. or find things we think WDFW should do better.
Alright...enough philosophy from me, whose ball is it...wolf wackos or wolf lovers? and what quarter are we in? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 01:20:40 PM
I don't think anyone was talking about banning you, IDhntr
I think my post a ways back was misunderstood, I was not specifying anyone, I was referring to people who are not hunters, who are imposters here for the sole purpose of furthering their wolf agenda, we all know we have had those types on this forum, anyone who is not an imposter and is a hunter is welcome as long as they follow the rules. :twocents:
Quote
FYI - It's true that we've had wolf lovers posing on this forum as hunters and that stolen photos and lies about being hunters have been posted to portray themselves as a hunter who support wolves. We have weeded out a few of these types but have trouble identifying them from certain hunters who actually do support wolves to one extent or another. It's not the intention of H-W to ban anyone because they support wolves. But H-W will ban anyone who is only a pro-wolfer representing themselves as a hunter when in fact they are not and are truly only a liar trying to promote wolves.
Idahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.
Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.
I do apologize to any hunters I have offended. :twocents:
Post by: Don Fischer on January 17, 2014, 02:45:25 PM
I think this wolf stuff started back in the 70's. I was in Montana then and a group from Idaho wanted Montana to re-introduce wolves. Montana declined and told them if they wanted wolves, re-introduce them in Idaho. As I understand it that is exactly where this problem came from, Idaho. Idiots went ahead and did it! I wonder how those same idiots would like to have some prehistoric meat eater's re-introduced? The best interest of wolves is served by not re-introducing them into civilized country.
Post by: jackelope on January 17, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Like Bob33 pointed out, other members may not give their :twocents: if they think they will be labeled as wolf lovers.
I mostly refuse to engage in any wolf threads any longer because of past interactions on here that went down like this thread has. It's unfortunate that some people can't have a little different viewpoint on this topic without getting bashed, being referred to as a "wolfer", a wolf lover or being labeled as having a pro-wolf agenda.
That's all I'm going to say. Been there, done that.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 03:01:32 PM
Post by: Northway on January 17, 2014, 03:17:38 PM
I agree with pianoman.
Wolves should not be protected in the NE corner. (Actually, I don't want them protected anywhere in WA). They should be treated like coyotes.
Even if wolves were treated like Coyotes and shot 24/7 365 the population of wolves would not be significantly reduced.
Remember when WDFW said they killed the wedge wolf pack?
I submitted proof just a few months later that that wasn't the case.
WDFW has since changed their wording for those who caught it. Now the official statement reads something like "WDFW has removed "some" of the wedge wolf pack."
It took WDFW a radio collar and helicopter to get the few wolves they did get, the hunters they hired were unsuccessful even with a radio collar tracker at their disposal.
While I don't agree that wolves should be managed the same way as coyotes, David Mech himself has stated that wolf populations can sustain liberal hunting/trapping seasons without risk of extermination. There are biologists who disagree with that assertion, but I haven't seen a lot of examples of where it doesn't hold true. Here's Mech's quote from another blog:
++Dave Mech says:
September 8, 2012 at 11:15 am
This replies to WM’s Sept. 7: 3:36 pm question about how my views about wolves might have changed since the quoted material from my 1970 book “The Wolf.” The short answer, which I stated in some article since then was that the wolf haters have long ago been outshouted and outvoted and that the wolf’s long-term need is for the preservation of as much wild land as possible.
Without the widespread poisoning that originally wiped out wolves, the species can survive any kind of management by the states including Idaho’s, once their population has reached several hundred.
I have always tried to be as objective as possible about wolves and wolf management and not let my personal views get in the way of my professional views. When I challenge writings by others it is not because I disagree with their slants on wolves, but rather it is to correct what I believe is their mistaken assumptions, analyses, conclusions, or facts.
However, there is not time for me to keep up on these blogs, so this will have to be my last post.++
Post by: AspenBud on January 17, 2014, 04:13:54 PM
When I would hear reports of wolves anywhere I would take my dogs out, I would avoid that place. I don't understand why people take that risk to their dogs. Down in Florida I understand hunter's duck dog's get taken by gators now and then. Why would someone put their dog in harms way, gator's or wolves, just to shoot a bird?
I asked that question to a friend of mine, a grouse trialer, in the Midwest. His answer? "Bird dogs die." Some guys have a stronger stomach for risk than others and some simply accept that bird dogs have a risky job at the best of times.
Take this link for example...
https://www.gundogcentral.com/view_article.php?articleID=187&title=Congrautlations (https://www.gundogcentral.com/view_article.php?articleID=187&title=Congrautlations)
As far as I know the dog mentioned there still runs in field trials where the bear attack happened and many other dogs still do. I would think twice after that, others would not.
I've seen others talk about their dogs getting chased back to the truck by wolves out there and find their dogs shaking under the truck or in their open dog box with wolf tracks all around the rig. They still go out and play the odds.
It's a different mindset, one I do not share.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 17, 2014, 04:14:21 PM
Even though the NF system has curtailed logging and that hurts elk habitat, logging is more prevalent in NE WA due to the many state lands and private lands, there is ample opportunity for elk herds to grow significantly. The elk herds are small because WDFW had an either sex elk season whereby any elk seen during archery, muzzleloader, or rifle season was being shot for many years. This was the most liberal elk seasons in the entire state and WDFW readily stated they did not want elk herds to grow. Only recently since wolves have arrived and hunters were demanding better elk management has WDFW gone to bull-only in rifle and muzzleloader season in many NE units.
You are quite possibly right about the liberal hunting seasons keeping the herd small in NE Washington. The Lincoln Unit #501 in Western WA also suffers from the same liberal elk seasons.
Post by: buckfvr on January 17, 2014, 04:22:05 PM
Even though the NF system has curtailed logging and that hurts elk habitat, logging is more prevalent in NE WA due to the many state lands and private lands, there is ample opportunity for elk herds to grow significantly. The elk herds are small because WDFW had an either sex elk season whereby any elk seen during archery, muzzleloader, or rifle season was being shot for many years. This was the most liberal elk seasons in the entire state and WDFW readily stated they did not want elk herds to grow. Only recently since wolves have arrived and hunters were demanding better elk management has WDFW gone to bull-only in rifle and muzzleloader season in many NE units.
You are quite possibly right about the liberal hunting seasons keeping the herd small in NE Washington. The Lincoln Unit #501 in Western WA also suffers from the same liberal elk seasons.
Even though wdfw said it was at the request of the hunters for better future n.e.wa. opportunity, is was clearly in the interest of feeding the wolves.........and remains that way. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 17, 2014, 04:23:52 PM
I actually agree that lack of habitat has reduced our ungulates. All the more reason not to allow in an extra-large apex predator to further reduce their numbers.
Something I find funny in this and other threads is that pro-wolfers never say they're pro-wolfer. In fact, they usually deny it, all the while fighting tooth and nail to make sure we see the light and accept wolves for the loveable, cuddly, balance to nature that we ll really need to understand they are. The rest of us, on the other hand, have little trouble with the truth. We don't want wolves here, especially in areas of any population or agricultural development, which includes cattle ranching and grazing. We and wildlife were doing just fine and stayed balanced (except for diminishing ungulate habitat through logging restrictions) and would've continued to be so without a single wolf coming into WA. We're even willing to compromise on that, acknowledging that they would be OK (but not great) in remote wilderness areas. It's hard to debate someone who doesn't have enough conviction in their beliefs to come right out and admit their stance.
You do realize that where there is agriculture, they don't want deer and elk as they destroy crops and in the case of elk, also knock down fences. You ought to see them trying to keep deer out of alfalfa fields. The farmers actually get paid for crop damages by the State, I believe. Agriculture is the reason for the liberal seasons on elk in 501 Lincoln and probably in NE Washington too. Some farmers actually hate elk as much as some of them hate wolves.
Post by: buckfvr on January 17, 2014, 04:28:19 PM
Post by: AspenBud on January 17, 2014, 04:31:36 PM
Add the timber companies to that........first thing up throught the snow in the spring ( in normal years ) is the tender tops of the reprod seedlings..........elk clobber the tops and kill the seedlings.
So do deer. I suspect the timber companies will stay quite silent on the issue.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 04:37:54 PM
I actually agree that lack of habitat has reduced our ungulates. All the more reason not to allow in an extra-large apex predator to further reduce their numbers.
Something I find funny in this and other threads is that pro-wolfers never say they're pro-wolfer. In fact, they usually deny it, all the while fighting tooth and nail to make sure we see the light and accept wolves for the loveable, cuddly, balance to nature that we ll really need to understand they are. The rest of us, on the other hand, have little trouble with the truth. We don't want wolves here, especially in areas of any population or agricultural development, which includes cattle ranching and grazing. We and wildlife were doing just fine and stayed balanced (except for diminishing ungulate habitat through logging restrictions) and would've continued to be so without a single wolf coming into WA. We're even willing to compromise on that, acknowledging that they would be OK (but not great) in remote wilderness areas. It's hard to debate someone who doesn't have enough conviction in their beliefs to come right out and admit their stance.
You do realize that where there is agriculture, they don't want deer and elk as they destroy crops and in the case of elk, also knock down fences. You ought to see them trying to keep deer out of alfalfa fields. The farmers actually get paid for crop damages by the State, I believe. Agriculture is the reason for the liberal seasons on elk in 501 Lincoln and probably in NE Washington too. Some farmers actually hate elk as much as some of them hate wolves.
And yet the agriculture is not a recent occurrence. It's been around this state for some time. It's certainly not a catalyst for recent changes in ungulate populations such as the stemming of logging operations, (and already in some areas), the effects of wolves.
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 04:50:27 PM
Like Bob33 pointed out, other members may not give their :twocents: if they think they will be labeled as wolf haters.
I mostly refuse to engage in any wolf threads any longer because of past interactions on here that went down like this thread has. It's unfortunate that some people can't have a little different viewpoint on this topic without getting bashed, being referred to as a "anti", a wolf hater or being labeled as having a anti-wolf agenda.
That's all I'm going to say. Been there, done that.
Hey, I fixed it for you
Post by: JLS on January 17, 2014, 05:06:20 PM
I am going to make one last post on this topic, and then I'm done. It amazes me to no end the need that people have to label and categorize people because they disagree with them. I'm not going to name any names or address any specific remarks. What amazes me even more is that so many assumptions are made about a person's beliefs as a whole, when in reality many folks have absolutely no clue whatsoever.
Just for fun, I'm going to state my stances on a multitude of items here. Not to change anyone's opinion of me, because frankly I don't care. I will stand 100% behind my beliefs, but also stand behind them with an open mind, which is how some of my beliefs have changed to where they are today.
Did I support the original wolf reintro in 1995: No
Would I support the wolf reintro if it were proposed today: No, unless a multitude of parameters were written into it that would have prevented a lot this fiasco along the way.
Did I think elk hunting in Montana was doomed: Yes
Did I think elk hunting in Idaho was doomed: Yes
Would I have been happy to see wolves stay in YNP: Yes
Do I have any emotional attachment to wolves: No
Do I love wolves: No
Did I write in objection to the stalling that occurred in the delisting process: Yes
Do I think that the rules were changed in mid stream in regards to the delisting process: Yes
Do I think Judge Malloy unfairly played biologist in his court rulings that halted the original wolf hunts: Yes
Did I write in objection when wolf hunts were cancelled because of court injunctions: Yes
Did I write in support of Simpson-Tester bill: Yes
Did I write in support of removing wolves from the ESA: Yes
Did I write in opposition to WDFWs wolf plan: Yes
Did I ever say wolves will NOT reduce ungulate numbers: No
Did I ever say wolves will make elk hunting better as a whole: No
Did I ever say wolves will make someone a better hunter: No
Did I say there was still good elk hunting in Montana, despite the presence of wolves: Yes
Do I hunt where there are wolves: Yes
Have my fears been largely unfounded: Yes
Do I think poor elk hunters use wolves as an excuse for their lack of success: Yes
Did I say that elk have not been pushed out of wilderness areas and near town because of the refuge from wolves: Yes
Did I say that the biological desert claims by Toby Bridges are false: Yes
Did I ever say Hydatid disease concerns for humans are greatly overblown: Yes
Did I say habitat issues are a greater concern than predation for elk numbers: Yes
Did I ever say wolves will not impact ungulate numbers in Washington: No
Did I say that wolves will not wipe out game numbers in Washington: Yes
Do I have friends whose livestock operations are impacted by wolves: Yes
Do I think wolves pose a danger to humans: Yes, they are a wild animal
Do I think the odds of being attacked by a wolf are low: Yes
Would I shoot a wolf in self defense or support someone else that did so: Yes, as I stated earlier in this thread
Do I support liberal hunting for wolves: Yes
Do I think wolf numbers can be impacted by hunting: Yes
Do I think YNP was overgrazed by elk: Yes
Do I think wolves were a necessity in YNP: No
Do I think hunting could have been used instead: Not likely given the yearly events at the Gardiner late elk hunt
Do I think YNP is more in balance now: Yes
Have hunters paid an unfair price in regards to the wolf reintro: Yes
Will hunters continue to pay an unfair price in regards to wolves: Yes, unless we can educate the public
Do I think it makes hunters look silly to equate wolves to serial killers and rapists: Yes
Do I think there were wolves illegally introduced in Washington: No, and if you have proof you should submit it so the persons responsible can be fired
Do I think we should be hunting wolves in Washington right now: Yes, as soon as they are cleared from the ESA list
Do I think the wolf plan calls for too many packs: Yes, because Washington's wolves don't have to act as a stand alone populations
Do I think it will change: No
Do I think I will still be hunting elk in 20 years: Yes
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 17, 2014, 05:07:20 PM
:yeah: We currently have a member on the WDFW Wildlife Commission who is a paid employee of Conservation Northwest an openly pro-wolf organization that is opposed to many types of hunting. :twocents:
You are obviously talking about Jay Kehne. Who is a hunter and member of the Mule Deer Foundation and the Rocky Mt Elk Foundations. And he works for a conservation organization? So what? Since when did being a hunter mean you were against conservation? Most of the old time conservation guys were hunters who wanted to preserve what they loved. The fact that this has been twisted into "If you're for conservation, you're against us hunters" shows just how far logic has been thrown out the door and emotional garbage has replaced it.
The problem on this board is, many of you can't comprehend how fellow hunters aren't swayed by your emotional arguments about conservation in general and wolves in particular. So you suspect every one of us who even remotely disagrees with you of being a spy for the other side. I tell you, the real anti's live in you guys' heads rent free.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 17, 2014, 05:27:40 PM
I don't think anyone was talking about banning you, IDhntr
I think my post a ways back was misunderstood, I was not specifying anyone, I was referring to people who are not hunters, who are imposters here for the sole purpose of furthering their wolf agenda, we all know we have had those types on this forum, anyone who is not an imposter and is a hunter is welcome as long as they follow the rules. :twocents:QuoteFYI - It's true that we've had wolf lovers posing on this forum as hunters and that stolen photos and lies about being hunters have been posted to portray themselves as a hunter who support wolves. We have weeded out a few of these types but have trouble identifying them from certain hunters who actually do support wolves to one extent or another.
It's not the intention of H-W to ban anyone because they support wolves. But H-W will ban anyone who is only a pro-wolfer representing themselves as a hunter when in fact they are not and are truly only a liar trying to promote wolves.
Idahohntr, I don't know who you are or if you are capable of that, hopefully not, but KFhunter was not off-base with his comment.
Anyone falsely claiming themselves to be a hunter and/or using stolen photos and false stories to appear as a hunter is an issue that this forum probably should try to address at some point.
I do apologize to any hunters I have offended. :twocents:
Humanure, he had the right handle!
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 06:20:49 PM
Like Bob33 pointed out, other members may not give their :twocents: if they think they will be labeled as wolf lovers.
I mostly refuse to engage in any wolf threads any longer because of past interactions on here that went down like this thread has. It's unfortunate that some people can't have a little different viewpoint on this topic without getting bashed, being referred to as a "wolfer", a wolf lover or being labeled as having a pro-wolf agenda.
That's all I'm going to say. Been there, done that.
I think that is a probably good Idea for you Jack, your calm down and wait for delisting back in 09 hasn't worked to well----- ;)
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 06:35:12 PM
We know now that the USFWS introduced wolves without the proper paper work, they stole money to do this. And yet the the frauds at WDFW are copping the very same techniques AS the USFS and IDFG IN misrepresenting the facts and lying about the true number of wolves in the state of WA.
Habitat?
Post by: jackelope on January 17, 2014, 07:05:10 PM
Like Bob33 pointed out, other members may not give their :twocents: if they think they will be labeled as wolf lovers.
I mostly refuse to engage in any wolf threads any longer because of past interactions on here that went down like this thread has. It's unfortunate that some people can't have a little different viewpoint on this topic without getting bashed, being referred to as a "wolfer", a wolf lover or being labeled as having a pro-wolf agenda.
That's all I'm going to say. Been there, done that.
I think that is a probably good Idea for you Jack, your calm down and wait for delisting back in 09 hasn't worked to well----- ;)
Neither have your claims of proof of the mystery white van dropping off wolves in the methow. Still waiting on that. I know you've got it, just waiting for it. No...but seriously, I'm good. I know you're not going to produce. If you had that proof, it would've magically appeared by now. Back to not partaking in wolf threads now.
:tup:
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 07:10:18 PM
After a long drawn out thread much like this one, I now know to call any unofficially released wolf a "hybrid".
I'm a simple guy, I say if it looks like a wolf, has mostly all wolf DNA, and chases around eating things it's a wolf.
but for the purposes of clarification I'll refer to them as hybrids as they didn't have the protection of the magic USFWS wand.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 07:48:42 PM
I do know where wolves were released, but it wasn't WDFW. It was some hippy chick releasing "hybrids".
After a long drawn out thread much like this one, I now know to call any unofficially released wolf a "hybrid".
I'm a simple guy, I say if it looks like a wolf, has mostly all wolf DNA, and chases around eating things it's a wolf.
but for the purposes of clarification I'll refer to them as hybrids as they didn't have the protection of the magic USFWS wand.
:yeah:
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 08:00:54 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 08:14:49 PM
I just read a nice article in Predator Magazine about "Coydogs, real or myth".
Basically the article went on about how coydogs are created, how they're pretty rare but confirmed they do exist....
but what struck me as interesting was how fast the coydog DNA is lost to the general coyote population if they did breed. The study was not concerned in the least that the coydogs could taint the coyote DNA creating long lasting harm.
So with all these wolf hybrids, how fast will that 2% domestic dog DNA disappear once they breed with the approved DNA of a dispersing transplanted wolf?
According to this article pretty dang fast! especially when the coydog looses it's 50% domestic DNA as fast as the study in the article says.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2014, 08:16:13 PM
He didn't say "a conservation organization." He said "Conservation Northwest".:yeah: We currently have a member on the WDFW Wildlife Commission who is a paid employee of Conservation Northwest an openly pro-wolf organization that is opposed to many types of hunting. :twocents:
You are obviously talking about Jay Kehne. Who is a hunter and member of the Mule Deer Foundation and the Rocky Mt Elk Foundations. And he works for a conservation organization? So what? Since when did being a hunter mean you were against conservation? Most of the old time conservation guys were hunters who wanted to preserve what they loved. The fact that this has been twisted into "If you're for conservation, you're against us hunters" shows just how far logic has been thrown out the door and emotional garbage has replaced it.
The problem on this board is, many of you can't comprehend how fellow hunters aren't swayed by your emotional arguments about conservation in general and wolves in particular. So you suspect every one of us who even remotely disagrees with you of being a spy for the other side. I tell you, the real anti's live in you guys' heads rent free.
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 08:32:27 PM
Somehow I don't think so, I think he knows exactly what "conservation northwest" is.
Thanks for bringing that up Bob33, I caught it too but didn't post it.
Nice to have someone else calling them to task for a change.
(oh btw Bob33 you just got labeled a "wolf whacko", welcome to the club!)
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 08:36:56 PM
Speaking of hybrids....
I just read a nice article in Predator Magazine about "Coydogs, real or myth".
Basically the article went on about how coydogs are created, how they're pretty rare but confirmed they do exist....
but what struck me as interesting was how fast the coydog DNA is lost to the general coyote population if they did breed. The study was not concerned in the least that the coydogs could taint the coyote DNA creating long lasting harm.
So with all these wolf hybrids, how fast will that 2% domestic dog DNA disappear once they breed with the approved DNA of a dispersing transplanted wolf?
According to this article pretty dang fast! especially when the coydog looses it's 50% domestic DNA as fast as the study in the article says.
Wolves AKA dogs breed with any female that comes in, take the black wolves we are seeing, they are the result of Eskimos breeding domestic dogs with wolves. So where is the pure wolf?
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 09:53:49 PM
I got pictures of them chasing some Elk off the hillside, they're hitting that herd pretty hard.
bunch of the moose got wiped out as well
Post by: snowpack on January 17, 2014, 10:03:25 PM
Did Sitka really not know the difference :oSome conservation group. Bunch of eco-freakos. The main driving force behind the anti-hound/bait/trap initiatives.
Somehow I don't think so, I think he knows exactly what "conservation northwest" is.
Thanks for bringing that up Bob33, I caught it too but didn't post it.
Nice to have someone else calling them to task for a change.
(oh btw Bob33 you just got labeled a "wolf whacko", welcome to the club!)
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 10:16:26 PM
Did Sitka really not know the difference :oSome conservation group. Bunch of eco-freakos. The main driving force behind the anti-hound/bait/trap initiatives.
Somehow I don't think so, I think he knows exactly what "conservation northwest" is.
Thanks for bringing that up Bob33, I caught it too but didn't post it.
Nice to have someone else calling them to task for a change.
(oh btw Bob33 you just got labeled a "wolf whacko", welcome to the club!)
And just think WDFW work with them hand to mouth, along with Defenders of Wildlies.
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2014, 07:09:33 AM
:yeah: We currently have a member on the WDFW Wildlife Commission who is a paid employee of Conservation Northwest an openly pro-wolf organization that is opposed to many types of hunting. :twocents:
You are obviously talking about Jay Kehne. Who is a hunter and member of the Mule Deer Foundation and the Rocky Mt Elk Foundations. And he works for a conservation organization? So what? Since when did being a hunter mean you were against conservation? Most of the old time conservation guys were hunters who wanted to preserve what they loved. The fact that this has been twisted into "If you're for conservation, you're against us hunters" shows just how far logic has been thrown out the door and emotional garbage has replaced it.
The problem on this board is, many of you can't comprehend how fellow hunters aren't swayed by your emotional arguments about conservation in general and wolves in particular. So you suspect every one of us who even remotely disagrees with you of being a spy for the other side. I tell you, the real anti's live in you guys' heads rent free.
Jay seems like a nice guy I have spoken with him at length, however, he works for a preservationist environmental organization that openly works to halt many forms of hunting, ranching, and much human use of our wild lands. Jay's boss Mitch Friedman at Conservation Northwest was an active member of "Earth First" an extreme environmentalist group that was involved in numerous types of environmental terrorism. I don't know what types of acts Friedman was involved with but he openly admits to tree sitting and to being very active in Earth first. While Jay is employed and being given direction by a known environmentalist group like Conservation Northwest he should not be allowed to sit on the commission, it is a clear conflict of interest.
Links to support my statements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism)
Quote
Examples of tactics
There are a wide variety of tactics that have been used by eco-terrorists and groups associated with eco-terrorism. Examples include:
Tree spiking is a common tactic that was first used by members of EarthFirst! in 1984. Tree spiking involves hammering a small spike into the trunk of a tree that may be logged with the intention of damaging the chainsaw or mill blades and may seriously injure the logger. Only one case of serious injury has been widely reported.
Quote
In 2008 the Federal Bureau of Investigation said eco-terrorists represented "one of the most serious domestic terrorism threats in the U.S. today" citing the sheer volume of their crimes (over 2,000 since 1979); the huge economic impact (losses of more than $110 million since 1979); the wide range of victims (from international corporations to lumber companies to animal testing facilities to genetic research firms); and their increasingly violent rhetoric and tactics (one recent communiqué sent to a California product testing company said: "You might be able to protect your buildings, but can you protect the homes of every employee?").[37]
Quote
Spiking trees became a federal offense in the United States when it was added to the Drug Act in 1988.
http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/staff/mitch-friedman (http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/staff/mitch-friedman)
Quote
Mitch Friedman's biography
A life for the trees
Mitch Friedman is the executive director of Conservation Northwest (known first as Greater Ecosystem Alliance, then Northwest Ecosystem Alliance), which he founded in 1988 after being an activist leader in efforts to save ancient forests.
Quote
Among his best known stunts include:
-Organizing the first spotted owl protection protests
-Spending many hours in the canopy of ancient trees as one of the first tree-sitting protesters
-Conceiving and organizing the Ancient Forest Rescue Expedition, nationwide educational tours featuring a giant log towed by a semi-truck
-Executing the first non-logging high bid for a Forest Service timber sale (called Thunder Mountain)
-Spearheading the conservation acquisition of the Loomis State Forest wildlands, as well as the highly successful coalition effort, The Cascades -Conservation Partnership
http://seattletimes.com/html/pacificnw/2017630758_pacificpmitch11.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/pacificnw/2017630758_pacificpmitch11.html)
Quote
Originally published March 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM | Page modified March 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM
A once radical Mitch Friedman now collaborates for a wilder Northwest
The former radical environmentalist's recent run of wildlife-habitat successes were mostly created by some degree of quiet collaboration with traditional environmental foes such as federal land managers, ranchers, loggers and hound hunters.
By Ron Judd
A yellowed clip is testament to Friedman's older, loftier principles -- including multiple, headline-drawing "tree sits" to protest the logging of Northwest old-growth forests.
...
...
Old Earth First! tactics, such as this scaling of the U.S. Forest Service regional headquarters in Portland to erect a banner on the day of President Clinton's forest summit in 1995 (Friedman is on the left), "could have been less-alienating," Friedman admits. "Back then, I did the only thing I had the wherewithal to do."
...
...
As a former radical environmentalist, Friedman, at 48, admits to occasionally struggling with his own identity. Once a vagabond, he's now had the same job -- a paying one -- for two decades, and can't even remember details of the last time he got arrested: "It's been 23 years."
...
...
Oh: and a civil-disobedience record sufficient to gain instant jail-cred at any reunion of aging Earth First!ers.
That last fact has both everything and nothing to do with Friedman's recent run of wildlife-habitat successes, most created by some degree of quiet collaboration with traditional environmental foes such as federal land managers, ranchers, loggers and hound hunters.
He is probably violating numerous green-movement codes even broaching this subject, but Friedman at 48 has achieved what a twenty-something Friedman, the rabble-rousing Earth First! tree-sitter, could not have imagined: demonstrable success in the battle to save wild critters many Northwesterners hold dear.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7229 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7229)
Quote
EARTH FIRST! (EF)
Earth First! Journal
P.O. Box 964
Lake Worth, FL
33460
Email :webmaster@EarthFirst.org
URL :http://www.earthfirst.org/
•Radical environmentalist group with a long history of violence and sabotage
•Pioneered tactics like tree sitting and tree spiking to thwart logging and development
Over time, EF's tactics and objectives became heavily influenced by Dave Foreman's 1985 book Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching, which provided detailed instructions for such actions as downing power lines, disabling heavy machinery and equipment, destroying roads, making smoke bombs, and otherwise interfering with the work of land developers, ranchers, loggers, and farmers—particularly those who grew genetically modified crops. Other EF tactics included assault, arson, and “tree-spiking”—i.e., driving thick metal rods as deeply as possible into a tree intended for logging, in order to disable any saw that comes in contact with it.
In 1987, tree-spiking claimed its first known casualty: A California mill worker named George Anderson had his jaw shattered when a shard from a spiked tree, splintered by his band saw, ricocheted into his face. In response to the incident, Dave Foreman said: “It’s unfortunate this worker was injured and I wish him the best. But the real destruction and injury is being perpetrated by Louisiana-Pacific and the Forest Service in liquidating old-growth forests.” In 1988, EF member Mitch Friedman stated that “tree-spiking is not terrorism; it is a justifiably extreme and noble deed.” The real terrorism, Friedman said, was being committed by the logging industry. Reasoning from that premise, EF routinely advocated violence against members of the logging industry. As an article in the September 1989 edition of the Earth First! Journal stated: “The blood of timber executives is my natural drink, and the wail of dying forest supervisors is music to my ears.”
Another strategy that EF pioneered in order to impede logging was “tree-sitting,” whereby volunteers would camp out on the branches of trees slated for cutting—sometimes for several days—while fellow Earth Firsters on the ground brought supplies and carried away garbage. EF activist Julia "Butterfly" Hill holds the record for the longest tree-sit to date; between 1997 and 1999, she spent 738 days in the crown of a 180-foot-tall California Redwood in order to save it from the saws of the Pacific Lumber company.
EF justifies its illegal activities, particularly those that involve property destruction, by explaining that violence against inanimate objects (such as logging company equipment) is not nearly as egregious as violence against living beings. Says EF:
“Monkeywrenching is a step beyond civil disobedience. It is nonviolent, aimed only at inanimate objects, and at the pocketbooks of the industrial despoilers. It is the final step in the defense of the wild, the deliberate action taken by the Earth defender when all other measures have failed, the process whereby the wilderness defender becomes the wilderness acting in self-defense.”
Hundreds of Earth Firsters have been incarcerated for their crimes.
In a 1990 memorandum, Earth First activist Judi Bari, reacting to a spate of bad publicity which EF had garnered for its acts of sabotage, stated that “tree-spiking must be renounced … [because] the alienation [it causes], not to mention the danger, be it real or imagined, [is] harming our efforts to save this planet.” Soon thereafter, EF announced that it would thenceforth eschew potentially dangerous practices. Nonetheless, EF continued to sell Ecodefense and to embrace the militant anthem, “Spike a Tree for Jesus.”
The debate which Bari touched off within the radical environmental community prompted a fissure within EF—causing some members to break away and form an even more militant splinter group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The Earth First! Journal regularly publishes articles by ELF criminals, and shares an ideological kinship with the Animal Liberation Front as well.
In 1991 Dave Foreman pled guilty to conspiring to blow up electrical lines leading to an Arizona nuclear power plant. That same year, Foreman published his book Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, wherein he happily reported that "ecotage in the National Forests alone in the United States is costing industry and government $20-25 million annually."
Earth First: http://www.earthfirst.org/about.htm (http://www.earthfirst.org/about.htm)
Post by: boneaddict on January 19, 2014, 07:15:56 AM
Off topic sorry.
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2014, 07:24:21 AM
One of my favorite shirts I bought at Clarks in Colville, Earth first, we'll log the rest of the planets later, showed the space shuttle with a choker. :chuckle:
Off topic sorry.
:chuckle: This topic has been taken so many directions, I don't think it matters.
Post by: Bob33 on January 19, 2014, 08:02:00 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2014, 08:11:50 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 19, 2014, 10:36:16 AM
Jay seems like a nice guy I have spoken with him at length, however, he works for a preservationist environmental organization that openly works to halt many forms of hunting, ranching, and much human use of our wild lands. Jay's boss Mitch Friedman at Conservation Northwest was an active member of "Earth First" an extreme environmentalist group that was involved in numerous types of environmental terrorism. I don't know what types of acts Friedman was involved with but he openly admits to tree sitting and to being very active in Earth first. While Jay is employed and being given direction by a known environmentalist group like Conservation Northwest he should not be allowed to sit on the commission, it is a clear conflict of interest.
So I'm curious, would you have a philosophical problem with a hunting guide being on the commission? Or say a Weyerhauser employee? Or a land developer or maybe an employee in the resource development industries?
Personally, I'd like to see a good mix of points of view on such a board. Then you get input from many different angles, not just one narrow focus. One member having a conservationist point of view isn't a bad thing. Now if every member was a strict conservationist, I'd agree with you, but I have no problem with one member who may point out things other sides haven't considered. It still takes a majority to get things done.
Can you tell me anything Jay Kehne has done in his role as a commissioner since he was appointed that you take offense to?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 19, 2014, 10:46:36 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2014, 10:52:30 AM
What political based employer is going to hire someone that opposes everything they stand for?
Nope, he's lock step for conservation northwest and should never be allowed to sit at any table where government is involved.
The only thing conservation northwest does that I'm "for" is funding range riders either partially or fully I'm not sure their share. When I retire maybe I'll work for conservation northwest too, as a range rider. Wouldn't that be funny :chuckle:
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/gray-wolf (http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/gray-wolf)
Quote
What we are doing
Conservation Northwest is the premiere group working on recovery of Washington's wolves. We have:
Gained $1 million for wolf-livestock conflict prevention in Washington State
Sale of special license plates to fund conflict prevention and tools starts in October 2013
Current funding of three range riders in Washington, following the successful first range rider in 2012
In 2013, continue to serve on a working group advising WDFW on implementing the state’s wolf plan
Helped shape the 2011 wolf plan, serving on a governor-appointed Wolf Working Group and organizing citizens to speak up for science-based recovery
Defeated state legislation harmful to wolves
Together we can recover wolves in the Northwest, protect and connect habitat, and secure a future for this important wild predator. We are:
Actively monitoring wolf packs around the state
Hosting educational forums for ranchers and landowners, and presentations on learning to live with wolves
Helping stop poaching, by posting reward flyers and contributing to a reward fund to deter poachers
More on wolves
Canis lupus, the gray wolf, is the largest of the canines, 2 to 3 times the size of a coyote.
Wolves once lived around the state, including the Olympic Peninsula, where their loss has led to big changes in the courses of rivers, vegetation, and other wildlife.
Wolves have excellent hearing and a keen sense of smell. They hunt and socialize in family groups known as packs.
Washington has a known population of about 50-100 wolves, distributed now in 10 confirmed packs around the state.
Some of the wolves documented in the Cascades have had their DNA traced to wolves in coastal British Columbia. They have also been documented eating salmon!
Sprawl and development spells loss of habitat for wolves and their prey; but overall, the greatest threat to wolves is people's fear and misunderstanding about them.
More than 75% of Washington residents queried in a 2008 wildlife poll supported recovery of Washington's wolves
As a top carnivore, the gray wolves, along with other predators such as the bears and cougars, control prey populations so that a landscape may support a healthy ecosystem.
Wolves play a vital role in maintaining the health of big game by culling sick animals and promoting stable ungulate populations. Biologists tell us that herds of big game - from elk to deer - are healthier with wolves in the habitat than without.
Wolves, which returned on their own to Washington, are also coming back to Oregon and, so far, a single wolf to California.
Document Actions
Sorry, but I just can't see an employer like conservation northwest hiring and keeping a person in the pay rolls unless they are doing exactly what the employer requires
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 19, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Commission
Commission Members
Chair:
Miranda Wecker, Naselle
(Western Washington position, Pacific County)
Occupation: Director of the Marine Program, UW Olympic Natural Resources Center
Current Term: 07/08/2013 - 12/31/18
Vice Chair:
Bradley Smith, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Bellingham
(Western Washington position, Whatcom County)
Occupation: Dean Emeritus, Huxley College of the Environment, Western Washington University
Current Term: 06/18/2009 - 12/31/2014
Commission Members:
Larry Carpenter, Mount Vernon
(Western Washington position, Skagit County)
Occupation: Business owner, Master Marine Services, Inc.
Term: 01/01/2011 - 12/31/2016
Jay Holzmiller, Anatone
(Eastern Washington position, Asotin County)
Occupation: Public Works
Current Term: 06/10/2013 - 12/31/2018
Jay Kehne, Omak
(At-Large position, Okanogan County)
Occupation: Conservationist
Term: 04/16/2013 - 12/31/2018
Robert "Bob" Kehoe, Seattle
(At-Large position, King County)
Occupation: Executive Director, Purse Seine Vessel Owners' Assoc.
Term: 07/08/2013 - 12/31/2014
Conrad Mahnken, Ph.D., Bainbridge Island
(At-Large position, Kitsap County)
Occupation: Retired, fisheries biologist
Current Term: 01/01/2011 - 12/31/2016
Rolland Schmitten, Lake Wenatchee
(Eastern Washington position, Chelan County)
Occupation: Marine Resources Consultant
Current Term: 06/18/2009 - 12/31/2014
Vacant
(Eastern Washington position)
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2014, 11:09:59 AM
JEEEEEEESUS Guys... Looks like WE have the 2 Jays (like Kehne is one of us :chuckle:) and the rest are all wet! We Need that vacant position on OUR side! When did Gary D of KF retire?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Commission
Commission Members
Chair:
Miranda Wecker, Naselle
(Western Washington position, Pacific County)
Occupation: Director of the Marine Program, UW Olympic Natural Resources Center
Current Term: 07/08/2013 - 12/31/18
Vice Chair:
Bradley Smith, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Bellingham
(Western Washington position, Whatcom County)
Occupation: Dean Emeritus, Huxley College of the Environment, Western Washington University
Current Term: 06/18/2009 - 12/31/2014
Commission Members:
Larry Carpenter, Mount Vernon
(Western Washington position, Skagit County)
Occupation: Business owner, Master Marine Services, Inc.
Term: 01/01/2011 - 12/31/2016
Jay Holzmiller, Anatone
(Eastern Washington position, Asotin County)
Occupation: Public Works
Current Term: 06/10/2013 - 12/31/2018
Jay Kehne, Omak
(At-Large position, Okanogan County)
Occupation: Conservationist
Term: 04/16/2013 - 12/31/2018
Robert "Bob" Kehoe, Seattle
(At-Large position, King County)
Occupation: Executive Director, Purse Seine Vessel Owners' Assoc.
Term: 07/08/2013 - 12/31/2014
Conrad Mahnken, Ph.D., Bainbridge Island
(At-Large position, Kitsap County)
Occupation: Retired, fisheries biologist
Current Term: 01/01/2011 - 12/31/2016
Rolland Schmitten, Lake Wenatchee
(Eastern Washington position, Chelan County)
Occupation: Marine Resources Consultant
Current Term: 06/18/2009 - 12/31/2014
Vacant
(Eastern Washington position)
He didn't retire, the governor wouldn't reappoint him when his term expired.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 19, 2014, 11:17:04 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2014, 11:22:35 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2014, 01:24:25 PM
Douvia really worked hard to improve things for recreational fishers and hunters. :twocents:
Post by: notawolffan on January 19, 2014, 07:46:07 PM
I did report to the wildlife commission in October what happened to me. Here is the gist of what I said:
What should you do if you are out in the woods with your dog, and a wolf comes at you? And don't say it won't happen, because it would, and it does, and it did happen to me. I estimate that from the time I figured out what was coming at me till the time it would reach me, I had about 15 seconds. So what should you do in those 15 seconds when you have a wolf coming at you?
Well first you better get on the phone and call state Fish and Wildlife, because the protected status of the wolf changes depending on where you are. And while you have them on the phone, you better be prepared to corroborate what non-lethal methods to defend yourself you have used. And then you need to call the feds and do it all over again.
Remember, you've got about 15 seconds. And that's if you're lucky like me, and you happen to be facing the wolf when it attacks. Because these animals attack silently. There is no sound, there is no warning, and if I hadn't happened to be facing the wolf when it came at me, I might not be here talking to you today.
Well by the time you get done talking to the feds, I imagine the wolf will be upon you, and you better get out your camera so you can take pictures of the wolf as it attacks so you can prove that it intended bodily harm, or else you will be charged with harming an endangered species.
Nobody warned me that these animals were being encouraged to propagate and repopulate the area. And certainly nobody asked me if I wanted these animals in my backyard, threatening me, my children, my animals and my livelihood. I think the least the government could do is make it legal for me to defend myself from these predatory carnivores.
You don't know what you will do until you find yourself in the situation. I will not criticize anyone for whatever they do to defend themselves from this beast that is being forced upon us.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2014, 08:22:08 PM
here is the link to save you the typing
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,124678.msg1648645.html#msg1648645 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,124678.msg1648645.html#msg1648645)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 19, 2014, 09:34:34 PM
Well by the time you get done talking to the feds, I imagine the wolf will be upon you, and you better get out your camera so you can take pictures of the wolf as it attacks so you can prove that it intended bodily harm, or else you will be charged with harming an endangered species.If a pet dog, wolf, mountain lion, bear, etc. attacks you...you have every right to defend yourself. To suggest that you have to call WDFW, USFWS, or take pictures is absolutely absurd. ESA does not trump your right to protect yourself.
I think the least the government could do is make it legal for me to defend myself from these predatory carnivores.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 05:49:49 AM
Well by the time you get done talking to the feds, I imagine the wolf will be upon you, and you better get out your camera so you can take pictures of the wolf as it attacks so you can prove that it intended bodily harm, or else you will be charged with harming an endangered species.If a pet dog, wolf, mountain lion, bear, etc. attacks you...you have every right to defend yourself. To suggest that you have to call WDFW, USFWS, or take pictures is absolutely absurd. ESA does not trump your right to protect yourself.
I think the least the government could do is make it legal for me to defend myself from these predatory carnivores.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 07:00:49 AM
Well by the time you get done talking to the feds, I imagine the wolf will be upon you, and you better get out your camera so you can take pictures of the wolf as it attacks so you can prove that it intended bodily harm, or else you will be charged with harming an endangered species.If a pet dog, wolf, mountain lion, bear, etc. attacks you...you have every right to defend yourself. To suggest that you have to call WDFW, USFWS, or take pictures is absolutely absurd. ESA does not trump your right to protect yourself.
I think the least the government could do is make it legal for me to defend myself from these predatory carnivores.
This certainly has not been made clear to people when and where they can protect themselves and what about personal property like pets, livestock, etc? How many people know what they can do or not do? Most people are under the impression they have more rights when confronted by a rapist or burgler.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 07:50:49 AM
Well by the time you get done talking to the feds, I imagine the wolf will be upon you, and you better get out your camera so you can take pictures of the wolf as it attacks so you can prove that it intended bodily harm, or else you will be charged with harming an endangered species.If a pet dog, wolf, mountain lion, bear, etc. attacks you...you have every right to defend yourself. To suggest that you have to call WDFW, USFWS, or take pictures is absolutely absurd. ESA does not trump your right to protect yourself.
I think the least the government could do is make it legal for me to defend myself from these predatory carnivores.
This certainly has not been made clear to people when and where they can protect themselves and what about personal property like pets, livestock, etc? How many people know what they can do or not do? Most people are under the impression they have more rights when confronted by a rapist or burgler.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/)
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020590735_wolfbillxml.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020590735_wolfbillxml.html)
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/29/2013-outdoors-wolf-issues/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/29/2013-outdoors-wolf-issues/)
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/04/30/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-to-let-some-state-residents-kill-wolves-attacking-livestock-pets-etc/ (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/04/30/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-to-let-some-state-residents-kill-wolves-attacking-livestock-pets-etc/)
Several of many articles, I don't know how it could be more clear.
Folks have been shooting ESA listed grizzlies in self defense for many years.
Post by: KFhunter on January 20, 2014, 08:31:32 AM
In her story the wolf appeared to be after her dog, which is very likely since she was right in the middle of a denning site, but more than that wolves won't tolerate anything in a denning site.
Personally, I don't put much stock in the story even if I'd like it to be true, it's just an internet story at this time. (I'd like it to be true because that'd be a pack to verify and get closer to fully de-listing)
We have/had pro-wolf people posing as hunters why not anti-wolf people doing the same?
It's an incredible shame the pack wasn't reported and public action demanding to verify that pack :bash: :bash:
This is one area where I would ignore private property owners wishes and turn it into WDFW with GPS coords :twocents:
I'd take many pictures and do everything I could to force WDFW to verify that pack, since the gal heard pups. (if the story is true)
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2014, 09:06:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 12:50:59 PM
Well by the time you get done talking to the feds, I imagine the wolf will be upon you, and you better get out your camera so you can take pictures of the wolf as it attacks so you can prove that it intended bodily harm, or else you will be charged with harming an endangered species.If a pet dog, wolf, mountain lion, bear, etc. attacks you...you have every right to defend yourself. To suggest that you have to call WDFW, USFWS, or take pictures is absolutely absurd. ESA does not trump your right to protect yourself.
I think the least the government could do is make it legal for me to defend myself from these predatory carnivores.
This certainly has not been made clear to people when and where they can protect themselves and what about personal property like pets, livestock, etc? How many people know what they can do or not do? Most people are under the impression they have more rights when confronted by a rapist or burgler.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/)
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020590735_wolfbillxml.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020590735_wolfbillxml.html)
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/29/2013-outdoors-wolf-issues/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/29/2013-outdoors-wolf-issues/)
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/04/30/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-to-let-some-state-residents-kill-wolves-attacking-livestock-pets-etc/ (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/04/30/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-to-let-some-state-residents-kill-wolves-attacking-livestock-pets-etc/)
Several of many articles, I don't know how it could be more clear.
Folks have been shooting ESA listed grizzlies in self defense for many years.
Thanks for helping me make my point, I had completely forgotten about this new rule this last spring for the eastern 1/3 of WA. Many people still have no idea about this rule and exactly where it applies and where it doesn't! What about the rest of the state? :dunno:
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2014, 01:22:57 PM
Quote
“We are assuming it was a lone female on a road trip,” Christensen said. “We have dispersing females just like we’ve had dispersing males. There were no signs of other members” of a pack, he said.
It will be up to federal investigators to determine if criminal charges related to killing an endangered species are warranted, said Christensen
Sorry if it is a thread jack. But I think this thread is kind of all over the place anyway. This relates to the thread in my mind anyway. :P
Were charges filed? Any follow-up articles on the incident? :dunno:
Post by: Axle on January 22, 2014, 08:42:26 PM
The unlawfully-introduced Canadian is larger and with that size, they are less fearful. So how do they learn to fear humans?.........
Wolf packs must learn to fear man
3/16/06
Let’s get one thing clear. Wolves and man don’t mix. Nor do wolves mix with other types of wildlife.
Wherever they roam, wolves are at the top of the food chain. When they encounter elk, they see a buffet. When they see a herd of cattle, they see a smorgasbord and when they see a flock of sheep, they see dessert.
Much is said about managing habitat for the benefit of the wolves, but that’s beside the point, which is the need to manage wolves so they stay away from people and livestock.
A recent Idaho Fish and Game Commission proposal to kill up to 43 of the 58 wolves that have been dining on elk in the Lolo Pass region of eastern Idaho has been criticized by environmentalists, who say habitat is the issue, not the wolves’ eating habits.
“The scientific community at large is very critical of the state’s proposal because it is clearly the loss of habitat, not predators, that is responsible for the decline in the elk population in the Lolo area,” Suzanne Stone of the Defenders of Wildlife told the Associated Press.
Yes, habitat is an issue in that area, where the forest is rebounding from wildfire, but the trees aren’t responsible for 32 percent of the dead elk that have been found there since 2002. Wolves are.
Managing wolves needs to be the top priority of game managers in any state where they appear. Whether it’s Idaho, where wolves were reintroduced in 1995 and whose wolf population has burgeoned since, or Montana, which is adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, managing wolves so they don’t decimate livestock — and other wildlife — is a critical factor.
Take Alaska, for example. At 570,374 square miles, the 49th state is nearly four times larger than Montana and almost seven times larger than Idaho. Yet Alaska game managers struggle to keep the wolves from wiping out the moose and caribou in the state’s interior.
This winter, state managers hope to kill 400 wolves in an effort to preserve other wildlife, according to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner newspaper. To do that, they use aerial wolf hunts.
If the killer instinct of wolves is an issue in Alaska with its wide-open spaces, it certainly will always be an issue in Idaho and Montana, which have wolves, and other states like Oregon and Washington, where they will soon take hold.
Here’s another factor to consider about managing wolves. Many are not afraid of people. Hunters in the Madison Valley of Montana near Yellowstone, where wolves were reintroduced a decade ago, reported a wolf stalking them.
“It was approaching us with the wind right in its face — we were standing around the (pack) animals, but he was focused on us,” Jack Atcheson Jr., a hunting guide, told the Associated Press.
Wolves killed rancher Barb Durham’s herding dog two year ago and she blames the lack of proper federal management for the way the predators have moved in.
“They have no fear and that’s been our contention all along,” she said. “We don’t hate wolves; we just want them to be a natural, wild predator and to be afraid of humans.”
In Alaska, managers hunt, trap and harass wolves not to be inhumane but to teach them to stay away from humans and livestock.
That wasn’t done under federal wolf management in Montana and ranchers there are paying for it.
“If you look at where wolves are setting up, it’s not in the backcountry. It’s in the valley bottoms and foothills where people live and raise livestock and where ungulates spend the winter,” said Carolyn Sime, wolf coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Since Montana has taken over wolf management from the federal government, people are now allowed to fire a rifle shot over a wolf’s head if the animal is approaching. The idea is to scare the animal so when it sees a human it heads back to the wilderness. If a wolf is attacking livestock, ranchers can shoot them without a special permit.
“If wolves have uncomfortable experiences that would be a good thing,” Sime said. “By harassing them now we may prevent problems later.”
That’s a voice of experience wildlife managers in Idaho and elsewhere would be wise to heed.
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolve (http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolve) … 031606.htm
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2014, 09:26:26 AM
Quote
Since Montana has taken over wolf management from the federal government, people are now allowed to fire a rifle shot over a wolf’s head if the animal is approaching. The idea is to scare the animal so when it sees a human it heads back to the wilderness. If a wolf is attacking livestock, ranchers can shoot them without a special permit.
“If wolves have uncomfortable experiences that would be a good thing,” Sime said. “By harassing them now we may prevent problems later.”
That’s a voice of experience wildlife managers in Idaho and elsewhere would be wise to heed.
WDFW, WA legislators, and wildlife commissioners need to read this! :twocents:
Post by: buckfvr on January 23, 2014, 09:42:45 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2014, 09:43:21 AM
And understand it and acknowledge it...........theres the hard part. :twocents:
:yeah: x2