Post by: huntrights on January 01, 2014, 11:59:31 PM
Yellowstone is Dead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxGJB5dJxI&feature=share&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdYxGJB5dJxI%26feature%3Dshare&app=desktop
Post by: mtnrain28 on January 02, 2014, 10:25:24 PM
Post by: kenzmad on January 02, 2014, 10:52:42 PM
Post by: bush_beater on January 02, 2014, 10:56:02 PM
Wake up washingtonians!
Post by: wolfbait on January 03, 2014, 11:43:50 AM
Yellowstone is Dead Theatrical Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnZvan_uT8#ws)
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 03, 2014, 12:09:05 PM
Post by: Eli346 on January 03, 2014, 12:34:22 PM
Post by: stevemiller on January 03, 2014, 12:54:51 PM
Post by: bowhunterforever on January 03, 2014, 03:14:06 PM
Thank you. It's only a matter of time!:yeah:
Post by: lewy on January 03, 2014, 03:23:57 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 03, 2014, 03:39:28 PM
Post by: bugs n bones on January 03, 2014, 03:53:46 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on January 03, 2014, 04:50:25 PM
Post by: WaSouthpaw on January 05, 2014, 11:18:14 AM
That needs to be on king 5 news
:yeah: but don't hold your breath!
Will it ever happen? If it does the crew who televised I would suffer the same fate as Jim Beers. They would be drummed out of their positions just as he was. It sucks to see right being called wrong before our eyes. Post modern utopia BS.
Don
Post by: buckfvr on January 05, 2014, 11:22:03 AM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 13, 2014, 04:53:26 PM
Post by: netcoyote on January 13, 2014, 06:46:27 PM
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/10/261120968/when-big-carnivores-go-down-even-vegetarians-take-the-hit?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook (http://www.npr.org/2014/01/10/261120968/when-big-carnivores-go-down-even-vegetarians-take-the-hit?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2014%2F01%2F09%2Fistock_000023901034large-1-aac58e8656e77c4ef9199eebdb2b262e72a956fa-s40-c85.jpg&hash=26625b1d3a9aabab3ea35599d847f079088163ff)
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 13, 2014, 08:08:49 PM
but the packs in YNP mainly the druid pack for example is the largest pack on the park but if they let that pack keep growing without any interference the pack well soon out grow its habitat and area as well as food source were not going on a genocide but the plan looking to lower the population down to help maintain a steady growing pace for the park maybe the plans have changed since this summer but as far as I know according to Doug smith
here is a old article which explains a lil of what we did
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/special-reports/article_c909dd82-3a20-11df-8998-001cc4c002e0.html (http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/special-reports/article_c909dd82-3a20-11df-8998-001cc4c002e0.html)
Post by: netcoyote on January 13, 2014, 08:22:55 PM
Quote
"...we only know about 3-4% of everything..."
I think you'd get agreement on this forum that that might be the right number for the WDFW.
Just sayin'
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 13, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
Post by: Axle on January 13, 2014, 09:04:19 PM
Quote
Alight as a very avid hunter and wildlife technician/ future wildlife biologist people what did you think was going to happen to the eco system when you introduce a apex predator back into the system?
Keep in mind - this predator was not native. The Canadian wolf is not native to the lower 48 (as wolf advocates would have you think). The wolf advocates are anti hunters at best. They are part of agenda 21 in full swing. If you don't know this, you need to do some reading and studying on this subject. Eradicating this food source (our ungulate herds) is only one piece of the vanishing pie. Most hunters are sitting in their chairs with pot bellies and beer in hand while watching brain-deadening television while this goes on right under their noses and their blind eyes.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 13, 2014, 09:46:03 PM
but for in Yellow stone i don't think they would have migrated that far down but Also remember Elk only had coyotes to worry about so when they saw wolves they didn't care
your seeing that result. your comment "All Wolf advocates are anti hunters" :chuckle: bugs me ,are you sure you should be breathing air lol jk ? There needs to be a conservation program in place All biologist are advocates so in your comment every one of us that are in wildlife biology to be advocates to the public , WDFW and forest service are anti hunter ? does that make any since? I agree most hunters are ignoring whats happening,I'm not a wolf lover but there presence is needed Doug smith a huge Advocate for wolves has killed more wolves than any man since wolfers,Along with Ed Bangs and Joe Fontain mthere needs to programs in place to keep the balance Or else the parvo sickness from upper Canada well start spreading as well.
Hate to say this but I've done a lot of reading and been to a lot of public meetings on wolves I've heard both sides argue and i know where they came from and how to handle them "I got to present to a group in the Spokane valley to help people understand whats happening"
as well as I'm part of project coming up in February that well involve a pack removal 8) and reduction of a area to help some of the smaller packs grow lol
Post by: Axle on January 14, 2014, 07:36:26 AM
Quote
you say wolves never migrated from Canada to upper Montana :bash: "to long a trip" lol in fact there were scat and tracks found from 1930 tell the 70's never a dog though until in 83 we found a pack up in GlacierI never said they didn't migrate. The 'native' wolf in our great Northwest states were the timer wolf which is a smaller wolf. I'm no wolf expert but the folks who are have told us that the few remaining timber wolves have been eradicated by the much larger Canadian Grey. :bash:
Quote
your comment "All Wolf advocates are anti hunters" :chuckle: bugs meWell, I didn't word it like that. Look at the groups pushing for the Canadian Gray wolf and then tell me what their agenda is.....
Once the ungulates are gone, they might say "what do you need your guns for? There isn't anything left to hunt?" :dunno:
Then again - I'm just thinking out loud. :hello:
Post by: Wacenturion on January 14, 2014, 09:03:34 PM
Just remember, hunting is a wildlife management tool to harvest the excess and ensure populations do not eat themselves out of house and home. When severe winters hit the losses are minimized because of this. Without an excess, there will be greatly limited or no hunting in areas severely impacted by wolves.
If I were an ardent anti hunter, I would embrace wolf introduction. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 09:11:57 PM
As I have said many times in the past, modern wildlife management is resonsible for numerous success stories, with many species nationwide. Wolf reintroduction is one we did not need....period.
Just remember, hunting is a wildlife management tool to harvest the excess and ensure populations do not eat themselves out of house and home. When severe winters hit the losses are minimized because of this. Without an excess, there will be greatly limited or no hunting in areas severely impacted by wolves.
If I were an ardent anti hunter, I would embrace wolf introduction. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
How was it not successful? Hunting is used in the absence of predator well guess what predators are back.More biologist have killed wolves than hunters and poachers combined !!! understand your hunting is a chance to go hunt enjoy it don't be greedy and why would you embrace wolf introduction if you were a anti hunter? A wolf has to hit carrying capacity and than must have a season to take it out and reduce there impacts you well never be out of hunting.if all of the elk in northeastern Oregon can start from 7 to where they are now 60 years from than i know you'll always have a chance to hunt :tup:
Post by: Wacenturion on January 14, 2014, 09:46:09 PM
As I have said many times in the past, modern wildlife management is resonsible for numerous success stories, with many species nationwide. Wolf reintroduction is one we did not need....period.
Just remember, hunting is a wildlife management tool to harvest the excess and ensure populations do not eat themselves out of house and home. When severe winters hit the losses are minimized because of this. Without an excess, there will be greatly limited or no hunting in areas severely impacted by wolves.
If I were an ardent anti hunter, I would embrace wolf introduction. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
How was it not successful? Hunting is used in the absence of predator well guess what predators are back.More biologist have killed wolves than hunters and poachers combined !!! understand your hunting is a chance to go hunt enjoy it don't be greedy and why would you embrace wolf introduction if you were a anti hunter? A wolf has to hit carrying capacity and than must have a season to take it out and reduce there impacts you well never be out of hunting.if all of the elk in northeastern Oregon can start from 7 to where they are now 60 years from than i know you'll always have a chance to hunt :tup:
I did not say it was not successful. Wolf introduction was successful, therein lies the problem. So in saying that biologists have killed more wolfs than hunters and poachers combined, obviously you're not taking into account any time period prior to the early to mid 1900's. I rather doubt there were a lot of biologists out there in the 1800's, let alone out there killing wolves. However there was an abundance of folks killing wolves and every other predator for that matter during the 19th century.
Why would I embrace wolf introduction if I were an anti hunter. Really...you don't see the connection. Try this...wolf introductions and pack growth and expansion severely reduce elk numbers, or for that matter, reduce any big game species, like has happened in Yellowstone. Eventually numbers do not justify hunting season length, number of permits, whatever. Now hunters are competing with not only tribal allocations, but those of the wolf and other predators. Bottom line...no excess....not justification for hunting seasons as we know them, now or in the recent past. A chance to hunt as you say...perhaps. Hunting opportunities that we enjoy today...not. If you can't beat the hunter in court, let the wolf be a part of your solution to meet an end result.
If you think that is not a real possibility 10-30 from now in areas of expanding wolf populations, then you need to rethink your methodology. Its already occuring.
Who's greedy?
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 09:58:36 PM
As I have said many times in the past, modern wildlife management is resonsible for numerous success stories, with many species nationwide. Wolf reintroduction is one we did not need....period.
Just remember, hunting is a wildlife management tool to harvest the excess and ensure populations do not eat themselves out of house and home. When severe winters hit the losses are minimized because of this. Without an excess, there will be greatly limited or no hunting in areas severely impacted by wolves.
If I were an ardent anti hunter, I would embrace wolf introduction. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
How was it not successful? Hunting is used in the absence of predator well guess what predators are back.More biologist have killed wolves than hunters and poachers combined !!! understand your hunting is a chance to go hunt enjoy it don't be greedy and why would you embrace wolf introduction if you were a anti hunter? A wolf has to hit carrying capacity and than must have a season to take it out and reduce there impacts you well never be out of hunting.if all of the elk in northeastern Oregon can start from 7 to where they are now 60 years from than i know you'll always have a chance to hunt :tup:
I did not say it was not successful. Wolf introduction was successful, therein lies the problem. So in saying that biologists have killed more wolfs than hunters and poachers combined, obviously you're not taking into account any time period prior to the early to mid 1900's. I rather doubt there were a lot of biologists out there in the 1800's, let alone out there killing wolves. However there was an abundance of folks killing wolves and every other predator for that matter during the 19th century.
Why would I embrace wolf introduction if I were an anti hunter. Really...you don't see the connection. Try this...wolf introductions and pack growth and expansion severely reduce elk numbers, or for that matter, reduce any big game species, like has happened in Yellowstone. Eventually numbers do not justify hunting season length, number of permits, whatever. Now hunters are competing with not only tribal allocations, but those of the wolf and other predators. Bottom line...no excess....not justification for hunting seasons as we know them, now or in the recent past. A chance to hunt as you say...perhaps. Hunting opportunities that we enjoy today...not. If you can't beat the hunter in court, let the wolf be a part of your solution to meet an end result.
If you think that is not a real possibility 10-30 from now in areas of expanding wolf populations, then you need to rethink your methodology. Its already occuring.
Who's greedy?
I'm not counting wolfers bud modern day hunters who are there to dent wolf populations and don't do dick in my opinion.I like your thought you bring up a good point here's a pic to explain whats happening with wolfs in the eco system
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 10:07:17 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 14, 2014, 10:26:36 PM
Here's an example of what the other side is hearing. Somebody is lying.
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/10/261120968/when-big-carnivores-go-down-even-vegetarians-take-the-hit?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook (http://www.npr.org/2014/01/10/261120968/when-big-carnivores-go-down-even-vegetarians-take-the-hit?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2014%2F01%2F09%2Fistock_000023901034large-1-aac58e8656e77c4ef9199eebdb2b262e72a956fa-s40-c85.jpg&hash=26625b1d3a9aabab3ea35599d847f079088163ff)
With New Zealand having no predators, it must be a barren wasteland with no vegetation, no birds, trampled muddy streams and armies of ungulates waiting to munch on the first dandelion that pops up in the spring!
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 10:30:20 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 14, 2014, 10:40:46 PM
Here's an example of what the other side is hearing. Somebody is lying.
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/10/261120968/when-big-carnivores-go-down-even-vegetarians-take-the-hit?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook (http://www.npr.org/2014/01/10/261120968/when-big-carnivores-go-down-even-vegetarians-take-the-hit?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2014%2F01%2F09%2Fistock_000023901034large-1-aac58e8656e77c4ef9199eebdb2b262e72a956fa-s40-c85.jpg&hash=26625b1d3a9aabab3ea35599d847f079088163ff)
With New Zealand having no predators, it must be a barren wasteland with no vegetation, no birds, trampled muddy streams and armies of ungulates waiting to munch on the first dandelion that pops up in the spring!
Crazy how different the Eco systems are for new zealand and NW America lol ignorance is bliss
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 10:57:27 PM
They're like 1st cousins. They are so closely related it was only 2004 before Elk went from Cervis elaphus to Cervis Canadensis.
Post by: JLS on January 14, 2014, 11:00:01 PM
Are Red deer so much different from Elk?
They're like 1st cousins. They are so closely related it was only 2004 before Elk went from Cervis elaphus to Cervis Canadensis.
They are bigger, faster, roam in much bigger herds, and are much more efficient grazers. The grass here wouldn't stand a chance :)
That wolf would make a gorgeous rug.
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 11:02:49 PM
Post by: JLS on January 14, 2014, 11:06:23 PM
Elk are bigger, are you being facetious?
Not me 8)
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 11:08:38 PM
I know you all think I'm a wolf wacko but I think I'm more realist. I worry about the N/E WA Elk herds and cattle grazing mostly.
We can't trap them in WA, and we can't hunt them as well as one could in the lower half of ID and MT/WY due to the thick brush here (not that they're doing so well in open country either).
I just don't know how we're going to control them. I'd like to see the Elk herds grow in NE/WA and I don't think the wolves are helping them.
For grazing, the cattle are coming off summer graze underweight and loosing calves. The range riders cost a lot of $ and additional movement of cattle costs a lot as well. It's not so simple as a wolf killing a cow here and there, there are multiple compounded effects.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2014, 12:01:34 AM
Even if I disagree with you (strongly sometimes :chuckle: ), I think your passion is in the right place...you care about hunting.
I know you all think I'm a wolf wacko but I think I'm more realist. I worry about the N/E WA Elk herds and cattle grazing mostly.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2014, 01:30:25 AM
As I have said many times in the past, modern wildlife management is resonsible for numerous success stories, with many species nationwide. Wolf reintroduction is one we did not need....period.
Just remember, hunting is a wildlife management tool to harvest the excess and ensure populations do not eat themselves out of house and home. When severe winters hit the losses are minimized because of this. Without an excess, there will be greatly limited or no hunting in areas severely impacted by wolves.
If I were an ardent anti hunter, I would embrace wolf introduction. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
How was it not successful? Hunting is used in the absence of predator well guess what predators are back.More biologist have killed wolves than hunters and poachers combined !!! understand your hunting is a chance to go hunt enjoy it don't be greedy and why would you embrace wolf introduction if you were a anti hunter? A wolf has to hit carrying capacity and than must have a season to take it out and reduce there impacts you well never be out of hunting.if all of the elk in northeastern Oregon can start from 7 to where they are now 60 years from than i know you'll always have a chance to hunt :tup:
Elk prospered in Oregon because predators were kept in check for many years, that holds true in most states regarding all our big game herds. Anti-hunters are embracing and promoting all these predators as they know if reduces hunting opportunity, it's not too hard to understand.
Are you are saying that as a biologist you will get to hunt a lot of predators and that all the ranching losses and reduction in hunting opportunities for hunters is just collateral damage? What's important is that you will get to hunt predators as a biologist?
Post by: LDennis24 on January 15, 2014, 02:53:03 AM
Post by: RadSav on January 15, 2014, 03:20:00 AM
I'm not counting wolfers bud modern day hunters who are there to dent wolf populations and don't do dick in my opinion.I like your thought you bring up a good point here's a pic to explain whats happening with wolfs in the eco system
Wholly cow! You must be a youngster. Must never have been to a Yellowstone without wolves. Even with an uncontrolled elk and buffalo population the eco system there was thriving. Most of us over the age of 15 have been there before the wolf introduction. It was one of the most beautiful places on earth. It supported a huge population of animals and could have easily supported more. That picture is priceless as a representation of an artists vision of what was and is without having to have actual proof based in reality. Picked from the reality of ones imagination.
In drought years the issue was not a lack of summer feed or eco system. It was the wintering range of the elk. Most of which falls outside the boarders of the park. There the wintering feed had to compete with an uncontrolled bison herd, domestic cattle range, the fragile elk and deer herds and human encroachment. The elk and deer had about as much impact on that eco system as humans have in global warming. It's a crock of crap those of us old enough to have seen it with our own eyes can attest. I hope you are not paying too much for that education your getting because it's looking like your being robbed of your parents savings.
Next time your school wants to have a guest speaker spew wolf based fact maybe you should request a counter point from actual elk and deer biologists. The US Geological Survey is loaded with good ones. I might suggest one that is familiar with Washington and Idaho's elk herds that is old enough to have been actively involved from pre-wolf introduction and post introduction. Someone like Glen Sargeant. Not only is he a great biologist with history in Washington state, but he actually knows how to write and speak in proper English too. Oh, and by the way...his father (also a biologist) is one of the leading authorities on predators of North America! You would probably know of him if you were getting a real open minded education.
But I am assuming your getting your facts from professors there in Pullman. The place where the WDFW gets their information on cougar behavior. You know, like killing cougars actually increases the cougar population so reducing cougar harvests is the in the best interest in controlling the population. :bash: If you are serious about this predator biologist thing you might want to look into transferring to Oregon State or the University of Wisconsin for a year or two. It would allow you a chance to see a view from more than one side of the fence.
I think you have the desire to learn the real facts. And I think you are headed to a field of study that should be rewarding and lead to a satisfying career. I wish the very best to you in reaching your goals and becoming a factor in the study and field. I'd hate to see such passion and dedication ruined by an education so limited in view and dictated by a handful of closed minded narcissists.
Sargeant Sr. no longer does speaking engagements. But, I know for fact that the USGS does send Sargeant Jr. to Washington regularly for educational purposes. Even if the university will not have him come speak I'm sure he would be more than happy to answer questions if you and other students would like to reach out. He has a strong connection with Washington having spent time with Battell in Hanford studies and the Yakima's with their elk studies. (BTW - neither of which would use a WSU biologist for the studies Sargeant ran) He is a unique opportunity as one of the few with his foundation in predation and his chosen field in elk studies. I think you would get a lot of useful information that could be life altering in your continued education. Good luck!
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 15, 2014, 07:44:42 AM
With New Zealand having no predators, it must be a barren wasteland with no vegetation, no birds, trampled muddy streams and armies of ungulates waiting to munch on the first dandelion that pops up in the spring!
[/quote]
Crazy how different the Eco systems are for new zealand and NW America lol ignorance is bliss
[/quote]
Just so we are on the same page, you are saying that either 1. New Zealand ungulate populations would be better off with predators or 2. There are Eco systems where predators (other than humans) are not needed and ungulats flourish. Or is my ignorance shining through again?
Post by: Wacenturion on January 15, 2014, 02:16:01 PM
What school are you attending? May I suggest you consider either changing professors or school. :twocents:
Of course with all the environmentalist types joining the ranks of biologists in state and federal agencies these days, you thought process may fit right in.
Don't mean to be negative, but you're looking through the wrong set of glasses.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 03:36:50 PM
Where did you come up with that tree hugging redention of compared ecosystems with and without wolves? You're telling me the photo on the left is realistic...no beaver, no fish, no bird life? So add wolves and magically we add beavers, fish and small birds. Wow, I'm glad we can all relax now. What a bunch of baloney. :bash:
What school are you attending? May I suggest you consider either changing professors or school. :twocents:
Of course with all the environmentalist types joining the ranks of biologists in state and federal agencies these days, you thought process may fit right in.
Don't mean to be negative, but you're looking through the wrong set of glasses.
It's not my view that's wrong.Wolves are a problem if there not managed correctly.I would rather have hunters educated and engaging in these jobs and decisions to beat these liberal SOB in Seattle that think they know whats best for us. I guess that poster that the Natural resources put out to explain why wolves are needed is literally how the landscape has changed.If you think there's no place for wolves than your part of the biggest problem hunters face.That shows you don't know how to balance human wants over Nature needs.Which one do you think is more important?
I'm going to the best wildlife program around University of Idaho 'sorry if I sounded like pullman didn't mean to come off that way"
My instructor was the Main Elk biologist for Idaho for 8 years bud.I'll trust his view's and knowledge over ignorance
And here's a graph of wildlife populations in YNP.
:twocents:How's that Baloney ? I am a hunter I Think theres nothing more awesome than a giant bull Elk my personal favorite .One of the reasons I went and helped restored winter grounds around YNP for elk .What the hell have you done to help with the problem? I may be real green but at least I'm trying to make a difference and solve the situation to help stabilize predators through out the north west.Figure its better me than some wolf loving tree licking dirt humping psycho from California
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 03:42:10 PM
With New Zealand having no predators, it must be a barren wasteland with no vegetation, no birds, trampled muddy streams and armies of ungulates waiting to munch on the first dandelion that pops up in the spring!
Crazy how different the Eco systems are for new zealand and NW America lol ignorance is bliss
[/quote]
It is in your case do some research into New Zealand and see what kind mess there in. There losing vegetation like crazy and have a major red deer over population problem 5 birds have been added to the ESA list from there do to habitat loss and the tar that's spreading from over crazing is insane.There's no bag limit on red deer btw ;)
It's shinny er than benders bright metal A$$ lol
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 15, 2014, 03:42:38 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 03:48:35 PM
After studying your graph, it looks like since 1995 we traded 15,000 elk for 40 wolves, 1200 bison and 10 beavers :dunno:Yep the YNP can only support about 8,000 max "Al nash one of the main YNP biologist for elk has said that 8,000 would be the max number it could so yes we traded elk to help stabilize the park not only for smaller gm but the atnelope have rebounded due to coyotes being killed by wolves
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 03:50:30 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 04:10:36 PM
Mr. Brown you cannot seriously think that biologist's have killed more wolves than hunter's ever have. Where are you going to school at? You say that hunting has replaced wolf predation over the year's and agree that reintroduction will put the herd population back in check so where will the excess ungulates be that hunter's will be able to pursue? How will this not hurt hunting opportunities in the future? Also I would love to see photo's of area's that have been decimated by over grazing from ungulates besides cattle. Working in a chemical and pesticide company I see firsthand what happen's when rangeland is left ungrazed and weeds aren't kept in check by grazing whether it be cattle or deer and elk. Who's going to pay for weed control if things grow as tall and pretty as your picture suggests they will? Someone should redraw that pic with alot of knapweed, thistle's, russian thistle, skeleton weed, koschia and pigweed and all the other weed's kept in check by ungulates that eat them. Chemical's are not the answer either. What is prederation? Or preadation for that matter? Ignorance is bliss! :dunno:I know biologist have they have been killing them since the 70's.Elk hunting well go down which it did "sucks too" but now the herds have stabilized around 4,000 to 5,000 in YNP for the last 4-5 years .Hunting well always be around just not the same hunts we were blessed with for a lil bit.Most of those weeds only live in disturbed sites not where native plants well grow.Range land is a pretty disturbed site where non native grasses are at now.
Post by: RadSav on January 15, 2014, 05:24:44 PM
I'm curious if there is a study comparing the expansion of beaver colonies in the park compared to those outside the wolf range. Last time I checked beaver populations during that time frame were on the increase all across America. Even in territories unpopulated by wolves. I'd like to see a picture shot with a little wider lens before I put too much credit in their validity.
We also have to take a look at the spike in elk numbers after the big fires in the park. That's a natural cyclical occurrence the eco nazis like to ignore.
And what about moose and blackbear numbers? I know that moose numbers are dropping all across their range and there are numerous studies trying to figure that out. Can they recover and deal with the increasing wolf numbers at the same time? Why are NE Washington and Idaho black bear numbers dropping at such a rapid rate? I know there are ongoing studies to figure that one out as well. One of the more popular theories (still a theory at this point) is that the wolves after diminishing the elk numbers are digging them out of their dens. It's fact that in NWT the big bears and wolves have virtually eliminated the black bear populations outside of the small rural areas by doing just that! Combined with a series of short and poor berry crops can the black bear populations recover and adapt in time with the rapidly increasing wolf numbers?
Seems there are still a lot of questions yet to be answered. And from our short history of post wolf introduction we know we can not trust the Wolf advocates to give us accurate and open minded answers.
Post by: RadSav on January 15, 2014, 05:26:55 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 15, 2014, 05:29:13 PM
Thankfully I was wrong about the school he is attending.
They must not teach spelling and grammar there
Post by: Gringo31 on January 15, 2014, 05:46:19 PM
I think the part that most folks miss is thas ISN'T OUR GOAL. We try to maximize the prey herds over the long run. WE want to keep the herd in check by our own harvest. The less predators, the more harvest for us. How is wildlife management possible if the answer is do nothing?
I suppose I don't have a problem if those in charge want wolves in Yellowstone. My problem is when their solution becomes my problem. By this I mean, keep them in Yellowstone.
Post by: RadSav on January 15, 2014, 05:56:01 PM
I think that we all agree if we did nothing, predators and prey would find a balance.
The problem is that the human predator does not populate at a rate consistent with the balance of food/wild game. And our game management models are designed for that human predatory model with a short season each year. You start throwing in an additional major predator whose hunting season is unrestricted and the balance can not take place unless you remove either the new predator or the old one, the human one.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 05:57:09 PM
The story isn't going to play out the same across all the states and YNP, a lot of the stuff we're learning from YNP isn't really relevant to other public and private lands.
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2014, 06:29:37 PM
:yeah:
The story isn't going to play out the same across all the states and YNP, a lot of the stuff we're learning from YNP isn't really relevant to other public and private lands.
Correct, as we have seen in both OR and WA wolves are showing up first in cattle ranching areas, Why is this happening? Are wolves more attracted to livestock then say elk, deer, or moose on their "migration" from Idaho?
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 06:41:38 PM
lol :rolleyes: This is curse I've had since I can remember.I'm taking extra English classes so that my grammar and spelling won't suck so bad.Understand this a post about YNP not individuals spelling and grammar lol.Thankfully I was wrong about the school he is attending.
They must not teach spelling and grammar there
I know you guys love my pictures but here's one where Ed Bangs was taking before and after pics of the land scrape around yellow stone.Also, one I wish we had was a chart for how fast the coyote population has crashed and in a result how fast the pronghorn are now growing .
Post by: JLS on January 15, 2014, 06:45:49 PM
The north entrance to YNP looked like the Gobi Desert in the late 90's.
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 06:46:36 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 06:49:36 PM
:yeah:
The story isn't going to play out the same across all the states and YNP, a lot of the stuff we're learning from YNP isn't really relevant to other public and private lands.
Correct, as we have seen in both OR and WA wolves are showing up first in cattle ranching areas, Why is this happening? Are wolves more attracted to livestock then say elk, deer, or moose on their "migration" from Idaho?
Because new packs are started by Alphas who haven't learned stay the hell away from livestock yet and end up getting members of the packs killed.Than the farmer gets compensated for his loss and hopefully gains trust in knowing that if there's a problem that it well be taken care of right away.I know this is happening right now with the Wedge pack up north in WA by Canada
Post by: RadSav on January 15, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
I'm not doubting this Bangs character. But pictures need a story. How long since the last freeze? Are pictures equal in years with rainfall totals and temperatures? Where were the bison roaming between these two years. Many other questions would need to be answered in an environment like YNP before one could put any weight between year to year photos. There are just too many variables to rely on photographic proof without a complete workup on content and environmental equivalency.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 07:00:09 PM
Did this Ed Bangs say anything about those first two pictures? Anything about the fact the first picture shows what looks to be ice and snow and the other does not? The difference in pictures between only a few weeks in the NE can show similar results.Gottcha :tup: I well try to put the history behind the photos This is in the Lamar Valley in northern Yellowstone.
I'm not doubting this Bangs character. But pictures need a story. How long since the last freeze? Are pictures equal in years with rainfall totals and temperatures? Where were the bison roaming between these two years. Many other questions would need to be answered in an environment like YNP before one could put any weight between year to year photos. There are just too many variables to rely on photographic proof without a complete workup on content and environmental equivalency.
I'll ask around about the bison makes me wander on somethings. :o
Post by: Bob33 on January 15, 2014, 07:05:15 PM
Can you name a single rancher in the Wedge pack region that has gained "trust in knowing if there's a problem that it will be taken care of right away."?
Because new packs are started by Alphas who haven't learned stay the hell away from livestock yet and end up getting members of the packs killed.Than the farmer gets compensated for his loss and hopefully gains trust in knowing that if there's a problem that it well be taken care of right away.I know this is happening right now with the Wedge pack up north in WA by Canada
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2014, 07:11:22 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on January 15, 2014, 07:25:54 PM
:twocents:How's that Baloney ? I am a hunter I Think theres nothing more awesome than a giant bull Elk my personal favorite .One of the reasons I went and helped restored winter grounds around YNP for elk . What the hell have you done to help with the problem? I may be real green but at least I'm trying to make a difference and solve the situation to help stabilize predators through out the north west.Figure its better me than some wolf loving tree licking dirt humping psycho from California"
On the wolf issue...nothing except expressing an opinion. One I might add I feel qualified to give. I too went the the University of Idaho, graduating in 1973 with a degree in Wildlife Management as well as a second one in Fish Management. I have never put this out there since joining this forum, but I then spent 30+ years working for WDFW as a field biologist as well as a Regional staff member finishing up an administrator for statewide programs in the Olympia headquarters office.
You have to realize one important thing, and I do not mean this to be degrading. College professors who spend their lives in academia and doing research on the side, certainly do not have the same perspective as a wildlife professional who works with the public actually managing the resource in the field. Studies come up with all kinds of recommendations, but seldom are they implemented. What's the point of a study that funded, but the implementation is not? The only thing it actually does is pad some reseach biologist's resume.
Another tidbit for you. Reseach is only as good as the researcher himself. To be credible, reseach has to be done in an unbiased way. Unfortunately that is pretty damn difficult to achieve. Everyone has their own views and they can easily bend the results. You like wolves, your reseach will, whether you want it to or not, error on the wolf's side. You don't like wolves you find ways to slant it the other way. Just human nature. Seen it happen many times. With that said, it's still worthless without implementation to address what the research was actually for.
Planning is another smoke and mirror game. Just go check different states and their 5 year plans and see just how much actually was accomplished. Very little. The reason being they are filled with a bunch of minutia and worthless unobtainable nonsense. But it sure looks professional. I have always called it "safe ground" at high tide. Never actually have to get you feet wet and implement anything. Just spend your career going to meetings with like minded people, planning and then tell the public there is no money to do anything. Cycle repeats and they start a new planning effort because now we are talking Ecosystem Management rather than an outdated terminology used for the previous five years. Nothing but new buzz words every few years to deflect why nothing gets done. I could go on forever, but I'm assuming you're getting my drift.
In closing my little rant, I can proudly say that I never forgot who I worked for. That was the public of Washington State, and more importantly the ones we refer to as hunters and fishermen. I owe each and every one of them my gratitude for a job I thoroughly enjoyed. It was a career that just went to fast. In the end I got fed up with the politics. Wildlife management had not only become disfunctional in my mind, but was abandoning the people that had actually funded it's existence for years and years. I fought battles all through my career with those who considered those folks..."Joe Sixpack". They found more ways to do nothing for wildlife than one can imagine, but they sure as hell had the planning process mastered.
As I said previously, the wolf success story was one we didn't need. How do you justify selling reintroduction of a native species with a larger nonnative Canadian wolf? That should have been a giant red flag to begin with. I wouldn't be to naive about what the real intent actually was.
Good luck in your career.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 07:27:01 PM
:yeah:
The story isn't going to play out the same across all the states and YNP, a lot of the stuff we're learning from YNP isn't really relevant to other public and private lands.
Correct, as we have seen in both OR and WA wolves are showing up first in cattle ranching areas, Why is this happening? Are wolves more attracted to livestock then say elk, deer, or moose on their "migration" from Idaho?
Because new packs are started by Alphas who haven't learned stay the hell away from livestock yet and end up getting members of the packs killed.Than the farmer gets compensated for his loss and hopefully gains trust in knowing that if there's a problem that it well be taken care of right away.I know this is happening right now with the Wedge pack up north in WA by Canada
You'd be very wrong.
Compensation is a misnomer as well and spouted by wolf huggers all over the place. "Why do the ranchers care, they're compensated for their losses" but this isn't true.
For one, in order to be compensated it must be confirmed as a wolf kill. I've been chasing around the wedge cattle for 30+ years and while a cow would die here and there occasionally the losses suffered just after the wolves arrival was something else. So far the averages are about 30 dead per 1 confirmed wolf kill. Basically the wolf had to be caught with hereford in its mouth to be a confirmed wolf kill. The bio's up there seemed VERY reluctant and had to actually get permission from Olympia to confirm a wolf kill.
Now a direct wolf kill is only a small part of the equation when you're talking losses to ranchers. The biggest loss is cattle being harassed to the point they won't gain weight while on range. They come off range not ready for market, but needing to be fattened up so you have a higher feedlot cost. None of this is currently attributed to wolves, but it's a byproduct of wolves on range.
Also another big cost incurred is range riders, every day these team of guys drive a truck to the woods with half a dozen horses and chase the cows back up on range where the grass is taller, otherwise the wolves push them right back down to the loading areas where people are and the cattle over graze there. Another large cost is lost calves and barren cows, stressed cows don't breed so well so the percentages of unbred cows have been much higher.
So saying ranchers are "compensated" infuriates me because it's simply not true.
Oh and BTW the McIrvins (largest cattle producer in NE/WA) refuse any "compensation", for the reasons I articulated above. They feel that if they take compensation it'll dampen their voice in the political arena. "you've been paid off, why do you care?"
I agree with them. If someone offered me a stipend for a loss I suffered I'd tell them to pound sand too.
Oh and another thing the total compensation per ranch/household is capped, and for the life of me I cannot remember the dollar amount but I think it's $10k or something like that. The Diamond M was well above that figure, had they taken any compensation that is.
Post by: RadSav on January 15, 2014, 07:53:24 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 08:11:03 PM
Perhaps this is what rubbed me so wrong about him and why I was hostile; I wrote him off as a college brat who knew more than everyone here because he was paying for his education not with experience, but with cash.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 15, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
The greenhorn has a lot to learn, and would be wise to not discredit other's experiences and opinions.Thank you a lot of mine is hard time in the field, I had to watch the blues go to *censored* growing up outside walla walla from piss poor management.One big reason i'm wanting change,along with my in laws own one of largest dairy farms in Montana and i spend alot of time up there in the mission valley dealing with grizzly and wolves,"lived there for almost 1.5 years"
Perhaps this is what rubbed me so wrong about him and why I was hostile; I wrote him off as a college brat who knew more than everyone here because he was paying for his education not with experience, but with cash.
And if that biologist up there where the wedge pack isn't doing there job than that biologist can go to hell in my book,One main goal for me is to never lose my integrity in the field "
Down in Montana the biologist there was awesome his techs would leave us cards and cell numbers all we had to do was send them a pick of a dead calf and they would saddle up and remove "wolf" or transplant the bear i assumed that was going on up there.Its sad to hear that it is not going on, in the end like Wacenturion said "I can proudly say that I never forgot who I worked for. That was the public of Washington State, and more importantly the ones we refer to as hunters and fishermen. I owe each and every one of them my gratitude for a job I thoroughly enjoyed"
i hope to engage and balance out hunters and predators as a end goal but until i get done we won't see that happen,Might see me go to Montana if seattle screws everything up too bad lol
Post by: RadSav on January 15, 2014, 08:59:16 PM
The greenhorn has a lot to learn, and would be wise to not discredit other's experiences and opinions.
Perhaps this is what rubbed me so wrong about him and why I was hostile; I wrote him off as a college brat who knew more than everyone here because he was paying for his education not with experience, but with cash.
I think he is paying for his education with GI bill if I got that right from our conversation.
Black and white is pretty common with college students. How many of them told us how wonderful Obama was before they fully understood what drives the economy and learned more than the garbage history of communism taught in high school history class. But, I like take it as a positive. We need more youth with passion and drive. Could be going to college with no idea what he wants to do in life, spending mom and dads money while he skips class, plays video games and drinks to levels of unconsciousness.
Hopefully with experience will come the ability to see ways to analyze without prejudice one way or the other. As Wacenturion eluded to that's a hard thing to do. Especially when surrounded by the sheep of society and the pressures of an employer. I got a good feeling from his PM to me. And I too will try and remain as open minded as possible while trying to see the facts rather than accept them as interpreted by one individual's view. I'm twice his age and I struggle with it still.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:01:58 PM
I talked with the WSU students almost daily while they were doing their study, I had open invites to chase the cats with dogs to radio collar them. It Was one guy (I won't name names) and two females, the girls were a bit ditzy the but dude was squared away in my opinion.
Anyways we had a lot of discussions about the cats in the wedge.
Now we have our current cougar plan and I feel like I was stabbed in the back.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:22:14 PM
The greenhorn has a lot to learn, and would be wise to not discredit other's experiences and opinions.
Perhaps this is what rubbed me so wrong about him and why I was hostile; I wrote him off as a college brat who knew more than everyone here because he was paying for his education not with experience, but with cash.
I think he is paying for his education with GI bill if I got that right from our conversation.
Black and white is pretty common with college students. How many of them told us how wonderful Obama was before they fully understood what drives the economy and learned more than the garbage history of communism taught in high school history class. But, I like take it as a positive. We need more youth with passion and drive. Could be going to college with no idea what he wants to do in life, spending mom and dads money while he skips class, plays video games and drinks to levels of unconsciousness.
Hopefully with experience will come the ability to see ways to analyze without prejudice one way or the other. As Wacenturion eluded to that's a hard thing to do. Especially when surrounded by the sheep of society and the pressures of an employer. I got a good feeling from his PM to me. And I too will try and remain as open minded as possible while trying to see the facts rather than accept them as interpreted by one individual's view. I'm twice his age and I struggle with it still.
I think he's getting an education now :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on January 15, 2014, 09:41:07 PM
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/12084.htm (http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/12084.htm)
The number of recreational visitors entering Yellowstone for the first nine months of the calendar year is up compared to 2011. The park recorded 3,238,128 recreational visitors from January through September 2012, a 1.5 percent year-to-year increase.
Post by: Axle on January 15, 2014, 09:42:07 PM
Quote
The greenhorn has a lot to learn, and would be wise to not discredit other's experiences and opinions.
Perhaps this is what rubbed me so wrong about him and why I was hostile; I wrote him off as a college brat who knew more than everyone here because he was paying for his education not with experience, but with cash.
Yup!
And he doesn't know a damned thing about the wet side or the destruction from wolves in the western states (whether now or in the past).
To say the west side needs wolves (or needs to catch up) is to be young and stupid on the truth. Cougars have decimated the ungulates here in the past 30 years. The disastrous effects can only be seen by those who have lived through this. Others will simply believe the lies told by the WDFW and the liberal media. The employees of the WDFW and government employees in Olympia will do anything to protect their paychecks and retirement plans even if it involves going along with the corruption we are now experiencing. The destruction from cougars started long before the ravenous and disease-carrying, non-native wolf. The wolf has a long way to go in destroying the ungulates to the same degree as the big cats (though in some areas it has been severe and hard-hitting by wolves). The wolf is just the icing on the cake for anti hunters and gun grabbers. Not only have the big cats killed them off by the hundreds of thousands, but the elk have since taken refuge in towns and range land where they have been exposed to hoof-rot diseases (wet side) which further decimates the herds. They come down out of the mountains to seek refuge from predators and feel somewhat safe in towns and farmlands only to be introduced to diseases carried by farm animals which have been passed around and spreading diseases. Sounds like double jeopardy. Also sounds like poor management of our 'wild' ungulates.
And the ridiculous pictures and drawing don't prove a thing. An artist can make a case by painting anything he/she wants. The drawing proves nothing except for what the hunter-hunters want; which is, no hunting at all. The drawing proves nothing at all. I know the anti-hunters say there is more grass and there is more food for beavers but they have absolutely no proof. They say the food for beavers is improving and the beavers have 'become more numerous' but that isn't true. Elk don't eat the same food that beavers eat. By killing off the elk, it has not brought beaver numbers up (but this is what they want you to believe). Elk don't eat trees, beavers don't ear grass, and beaver numbers have been increasing since long before elk numbers plummeted. Beavers also don't create a viable hunting mecca nor do they bring in the revenue that elk hunting once did for communities in western states. Think about it.....hunters don't go out of their way, spend thousand of dollars, then travel thousand of miles to hunt and eat beaver. I have a strong feeling I could be chastised for saying this :chuckle:
The pictures don't prove a thing either. You can take a picture of a grassy area at different times of the year and get different results. Those pictures are a joke! They don't prove a thing except that there are those who will believe a lie. Besides - if you get rid of the ungulates to the point where you have heavenly-envisioned grass and shrubs (a mental utopia for the brainless) then you will have grass and forest fires like you've never seen which will cause destruction - the likes all of us have yet to see.
And have you seen all the grass and shrubs and trees inhabiting the wet side? - I think not! Otherwise your comments would be different.
Then again - history has shown that some generations need to experience devastation so their offspring will suffer near-extinction to the point where the next generation will become wise again. It seems to go in cycles.
I remember the older generation when I spent a few years in Oklahoma. They hated the wolves and shot them at any opportunity. During those days, there were no whitetails to be seen. It wasn't until years later when the deer could return. I spent 3 years in Oklahoma. I heard the wolves howl at night. During that time, there wasn't a deer to be seen. Once the wolves were mostly killed off, the deer were able to repopulate. Experience is a valuable lesson. Some of my best experiences were in learning truth through trapping. The younger generation has a tough lesson ahead. I suspect I will be here to witness it.
Post by: bearpaw on January 16, 2014, 12:20:39 AM
"And here's a graph of wildlife populations in YNP.
:twocents:How's that Baloney ? I am a hunter I Think theres nothing more awesome than a giant bull Elk my personal favorite .One of the reasons I went and helped restored winter grounds around YNP for elk . What the hell have you done to help with the problem? I may be real green but at least I'm trying to make a difference and solve the situation to help stabilize predators through out the north west.Figure its better me than some wolf loving tree licking dirt humping psycho from California"
On the wolf issue...nothing except expressing an opinion. One I might add I feel qualified to give. I too went the the University of Idaho, graduating in 1973 with a degree in Wildlife Management as well as a second one in Fish Management. I have never put this out there since joining this forum, but I then spent 30+ years working for WDFW as a field biologist as well as a Regional staff member finishing up an administrator for statewide programs in the Olympia headquarters office.
You have to realize one important thing, and I do not mean this to be degrading. College professors who spend their lives in academia and doing research on the side, certainly do not have the same perspective as a wildlife professional who works with the public actually managing the resource in the field. Studies come up with all kinds of recommendations, but seldom are they implemented. What's the point of a study that funded, but the implementation is not? The only thing it actually does is pad some reseach biologist's resume.
Another tidbit for you. Reseach is only as good as the researcher himself. To be credible, reseach has to be done in an unbiased way. Unfortunately that is pretty damn difficult to achieve. Everyone has their own views and they can easily bend the results. You like wolves, your reseach will, whether you want it to or not, error on the wolf's side. You don't like wolves you find ways to slant it the other way. Just human nature. Seen it happen many times. With that said, it's still worthless without implementation to address what the research was actually for.
Planning is another smoke and mirror game. Just go check different states and their 5 year plans and see just how much actually was accomplished. Very little. The reason being they are filled with a bunch of minutia and worthless unobtainable nonsense. But it sure looks professional. I have always called it "safe ground" at high tide. Never actually have to get you feet wet and implement anything. Just spend your career going to meetings with like minded people, planning and then tell the public there is no money to do anything. Cycle repeats and they start a new planning effort because now we are talking Ecosystem Management rather than an outdated terminology used for the previous five years. Nothing but new buzz words every few years to deflect why nothing gets done. I could go on forever, but I'm assuming you're getting my drift.
In closing my little rant, I can proudly say that I never forgot who I worked for. That was the public of Washington State, and more importantly the ones we refer to as hunters and fishermen. I owe each and every one of them my gratitude for a job I thoroughly enjoyed. It was a career that just went to fast. In the end I got fed up with the politics. Wildlife management had not only become disfunctional in my mind, but was abandoning the people that had actually funded it's existence for years and years. I fought battles all through my career with those who considered those folks..."Joe Sixpack". They found more ways to do nothing for wildlife than one can imagine, but they sure as hell had the planning process mastered.
As I said previously, the wolf success story was one we didn't need. How do you justify selling reintroduction of a native species with a larger nonnative Canadian wolf? That should have been a giant red flag to begin with. I wouldn't be to naive about what the real intent actually was.
Good luck in your career.
One of the best posts I've ever read on this forum. Thanks for your incredible service to this state, wished you were still working for us. :tup:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 16, 2014, 10:17:27 AM
Post by: Hornseeker on January 16, 2014, 10:40:48 AM
If you stay active in the field and have an open mind... maybe in about 20 years you will have a slight understanding of the complexity of this issue.
Thanks for the Great post Centurion.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 16, 2014, 11:37:05 AM
:yeah: :yeah: We need more wildlife officers like You (WaCenturion) and UC Warden!"And here's a graph of wildlife populations in YNP.
:twocents:How's that Baloney ? I am a hunter I Think theres nothing more awesome than a giant bull Elk my personal favorite .One of the reasons I went and helped restored winter grounds around YNP for elk . What the hell have you done to help with the problem? I may be real green but at least I'm trying to make a difference and solve the situation to help stabilize predators through out the north west.Figure its better me than some wolf loving tree licking dirt humping psycho from California"
On the wolf issue...nothing except expressing an opinion. One I might add I feel qualified to give. I too went the the University of Idaho, graduating in 1973 with a degree in Wildlife Management as well as a second one in Fish Management. I have never put this out there since joining this forum, but I then spent 30+ years working for WDFW as a field biologist as well as a Regional staff member finishing up an administrator for statewide programs in the Olympia headquarters office.
You have to realize one important thing, and I do not mean this to be degrading. College professors who spend their lives in academia and doing research on the side, certainly do not have the same perspective as a wildlife professional who works with the public actually managing the resource in the field. Studies come up with all kinds of recommendations, but seldom are they implemented. What's the point of a study that funded, but the implementation is not? The only thing it actually does is pad some reseach biologist's resume.
Another tidbit for you. Reseach is only as good as the researcher himself. To be credible, reseach has to be done in an unbiased way. Unfortunately that is pretty damn difficult to achieve. Everyone has their own views and they can easily bend the results. You like wolves, your reseach will, whether you want it to or not, error on the wolf's side. You don't like wolves you find ways to slant it the other way. Just human nature. Seen it happen many times. With that said, it's still worthless without implementation to address what the research was actually for.
Planning is another smoke and mirror game. Just go check different states and their 5 year plans and see just how much actually was accomplished. Very little. The reason being they are filled with a bunch of minutia and worthless unobtainable nonsense. But it sure looks professional. I have always called it "safe ground" at high tide. Never actually have to get you feet wet and implement anything. Just spend your career going to meetings with like minded people, planning and then tell the public there is no money to do anything. Cycle repeats and they start a new planning effort because now we are talking Ecosystem Management rather than an outdated terminology used for the previous five years. Nothing but new buzz words every few years to deflect why nothing gets done. I could go on forever, but I'm assuming you're getting my drift.
In closing my little rant, I can proudly say that I never forgot who I worked for. That was the public of Washington State, and more importantly the ones we refer to as hunters and fishermen. I owe each and every one of them my gratitude for a job I thoroughly enjoyed. It was a career that just went to fast. In the end I got fed up with the politics. Wildlife management had not only become disfunctional in my mind, but was abandoning the people that had actually funded it's existence for years and years. I fought battles all through my career with those who considered those folks..."Joe Sixpack". They found more ways to do nothing for wildlife than one can imagine, but they sure as hell had the planning process mastered.
As I said previously, the wolf success story was one we didn't need. How do you justify selling reintroduction of a native species with a larger nonnative Canadian wolf? That should have been a giant red flag to begin with. I wouldn't be to naive about what the real intent actually was.
Good luck in your career.
One of the best posts I've ever read on this forum. Thanks for your incredible service to this state, wished you were still working for us. :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on January 16, 2014, 01:15:41 PM
I am a outfitter in Salmon for over 30 years and have seen the change! In 1996 our Unit 28 opening week saw 10 hunters harvest 9 bull elk. 1-7×7, 6-6×6’s and 2- 5×5’s. All Mature bulls,all happy hunters! 11 years later after the wolves have been here, this season (2007) we harvested only 1 spike bull and 4 deer out of 20 total hunters. On my first 3 hunts ,I went 15 days horseback guiding and never saw an elk!! Almost all of the hunters never wanted to see idaho again, yes very upset! I wander what this is doing to the economy of our small towns in Idaho, I here this from my friends,locals and pretty much everyone I talk to. I have yet to run into anyone on the trails,dirt roads,paved roads or on Main street that came to our county to see a wolf ! I guess most of them are in New York City watching them on TV as I have yet to meet one here, much less spend a dollar in our communities! I know as a fact there are hundreds or maybe thousands of elk hunters that will not return! Wow, wolves really do impact the economy of small idaho towns! I have talked and pleaded with our Fish & Game Dept in Salmon, Region 7 to no avail. They say basically nothing can be done? A few wolves have been taken out by the Feds only because of Beef kills. Not one wolf that I know of has been taken out because of Elk kills. About 5 - 8 years ago while lion hunting in my area in winter on snowmobile,I found 9 dead elk (8 cow elk & 1-6×6 bull) on Silver Creek road (a 14 mile stretch) all killed within a week in my opinion. All where killed by a pack of about 8 wolves in my opinion, by the tracks around the kills,the way the elk were killed, and the fact I lived with the pack in the area constantly. Wolf tracks everywhere,some of the elk eaten, some not, most had intestines pulled out some didn’t. All typical wolf kills I was used to seeing. Not one was covered by snow or brush as lions do. Almost all, had their nose’s pulled off, as usual for a wolf kill as I was used to seeing. A lion had never pulled a nose off an elk that I had ever found. Lions had never killed over 2 to 3 deer ( hardly ever an elk ) on the 14 mile stretch of Silver Creek road ever in a course of a winter the 20 + years I had been there! Also no lion tracks were found by me and my lion hunters over a 2 week period in the area when the elk were found. Obviously a case of binge killing by the wolf pack that was in there. I would swear to this on a stack of Bibles ” then and today”, they were killed by the pack in the area! On my way out on snowmachines with my hunter that day I ran into Jason Husselman (now Idaho Fish & Game Wolf biologist in the Salmon office) ” then a guy doing a wolf study” under Gary Power (now Idaho Fish & Game commissioner, Salmon area). I told Jason about the 9 dead elk on Silver Creek road and that in my opinion, they were all killed by the pack of 8 wolves in the area. He said he would check the kills, as he was doing the study on the impact of wolves on big game in the area. On return a few days later, I ran into him on snowmachines again a few days later. I asked him if he saw the elk kills on Silver creek? He said that he did. I asked him what did he write down in his study reports? He said that he determined that all 9 elk were killed by lion! And that he wrote it down as such in his reports on the wolf study he was doing under Gary Power. I was floored, to say the least and asked him if he was for the wolves or against them. He told me he was for the introduction of wolves and wanted them in idaho. The important thing to remember here is ; If the 9 wolf kills on Silver creek road that week were reported as lion kills, what about the rest of the study in the whole Salmon area that winter? Now both these guys are pulling good wages and have been for years working for the Idaho Fish & Game Dept. I hope that they are proud of their study. I just wanted them to know I didn’t forget about that special moment. Believe me I never will. Steve, Thanks for the opportunity to tell you my story. Feel free to send it to anyone you please.
Sincerely, Shane McAfee
Post by: wolfbait on January 16, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
jon... just read and re-read and then do it a few more time... WACenturions post... okay...
If you stay active in the field and have an open mind... maybe in about 20 years you will have a slight understanding of the complexity of this issue.
Thanks for the Great post Centurion.
x2 :tup:
Post by: jackelope on January 16, 2014, 01:59:54 PM
jon... just read and re-read and then do it a few more time... WACenturions post... okay...
If you stay active in the field and have an open mind... maybe in about 20 years you will have a slight understanding of the complexity of this issue.
Thanks for the Great post Centurion.
x2 :tup:
x3 :tup:
Post by: boneaddict on January 16, 2014, 02:31:22 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 16, 2014, 05:19:40 PM
Idaho Outfitter
I am a outfitter in Salmon for over 30 years and have seen the change! In 1996 our Unit 28 opening week saw 10 hunters harvest 9 bull elk. 1-7×7, 6-6×6’s and 2- 5×5’s. All Mature bulls,all happy hunters! 11 years later after the wolves have been here, this season (2007) we harvested only 1 spike bull and 4 deer out of 20 total hunters. On my first 3 hunts ,I went 15 days horseback guiding and never saw an elk!! Almost all of the hunters never wanted to see idaho again, yes very upset! I wander what this is doing to the economy of our small towns in Idaho, I here this from my friends,locals and pretty much everyone I talk to. I have yet to run into anyone on the trails,dirt roads,paved roads or on Main street that came to our county to see a wolf ! I guess most of them are in New York City watching them on TV as I have yet to meet one here, much less spend a dollar in our communities! I know as a fact there are hundreds or maybe thousands of elk hunters that will not return! Wow, wolves really do impact the economy of small idaho towns! I have talked and pleaded with our Fish & Game Dept in Salmon, Region 7 to no avail. They say basically nothing can be done? A few wolves have been taken out by the Feds only because of Beef kills. Not one wolf that I know of has been taken out because of Elk kills. About 5 - 8 years ago while lion hunting in my area in winter on snowmobile,I found 9 dead elk (8 cow elk & 1-6×6 bull) on Silver Creek road (a 14 mile stretch) all killed within a week in my opinion. All where killed by a pack of about 8 wolves in my opinion, by the tracks around the kills,the way the elk were killed, and the fact I lived with the pack in the area constantly. Wolf tracks everywhere,some of the elk eaten, some not, most had intestines pulled out some didn’t. All typical wolf kills I was used to seeing. Not one was covered by snow or brush as lions do. Almost all, had their nose’s pulled off, as usual for a wolf kill as I was used to seeing. A lion had never pulled a nose off an elk that I had ever found. Lions had never killed over 2 to 3 deer ( hardly ever an elk ) on the 14 mile stretch of Silver Creek road ever in a course of a winter the 20 + years I had been there! Also no lion tracks were found by me and my lion hunters over a 2 week period in the area when the elk were found. Obviously a case of binge killing by the wolf pack that was in there. I would swear to this on a stack of Bibles ” then and today”, they were killed by the pack in the area! On my way out on snowmachines with my hunter that day I ran into Jason Husselman (now Idaho Fish & Game Wolf biologist in the Salmon office) ” then a guy doing a wolf study” under Gary Power (now Idaho Fish & Game commissioner, Salmon area). I told Jason about the 9 dead elk on Silver Creek road and that in my opinion, they were all killed by the pack of 8 wolves in the area. He said he would check the kills, as he was doing the study on the impact of wolves on big game in the area. On return a few days later, I ran into him on snowmachines again a few days later. I asked him if he saw the elk kills on Silver creek? He said that he did. I asked him what did he write down in his study reports? He said that he determined that all 9 elk were killed by lion! And that he wrote it down as such in his reports on the wolf study he was doing under Gary Power. I was floored, to say the least and asked him if he was for the wolves or against them. He told me he was for the introduction of wolves and wanted them in idaho. The important thing to remember here is ; If the 9 wolf kills on Silver creek road that week were reported as lion kills, what about the rest of the study in the whole Salmon area that winter? Now both these guys are pulling good wages and have been for years working for the Idaho Fish & Game Dept. I hope that they are proud of their study. I just wanted them to know I didn’t forget about that special moment. Believe me I never will. Steve, Thanks for the opportunity to tell you my story. Feel free to send it to anyone you please.
Sincerely, Shane McAfee
That sucks, Let me tell you one thing called integrity it's rare, very rare nowadays.That biologist you ran into has none. As for the "9 dead elk (8 cow elk & 1-6×6 bull) on Silver Creek road (a 14 mile stretch) all killed within a week in my opinion. All where killed by a pack of about 8 wolves in my opinion, by the tracks around the kills,the way the elk were killed, and the fact I lived with the pack in the area constantly. Wolf tracks everywhere,some of the elk eaten, some not, most had intestines pulled out some didn’t" .This common in winter for a wolf pack.See as it gets later in winter they only eat the inside's because the meat has no energy value or protein in it for them.So they kill openly like that to just eat the proteins from the liver and heart.This biologist should have had the ball's to tell you the truth and that it is a wolf kill and this is why it's happening instead if being the coward he is.
Thank you WACenturion for your time ,but as a biologist shouldn't you be serving the wildlife and habitat instead of the hunters and fisherman ? "not being disrespectful just wanting open advice "one reason I talk so much on here" . I personally DON'T like wolves but they have a place in the wild. This thread is on YNP not WA OR Idaho but YNP. I have a far great complex view of this issue I have since I ran into my first one Bow hunting in the Water shed there were 3 that had me scared for my life.Since I didn't know how many there were I could only see three about 60 yards off.I climb the nearest tree I could This was in 2007,I was told I didn't see wolves by Tom Schirm the POS biologist down there in walla walla.That pack still hasn't been confirmed.Even though hundreds of people know where they are at.
I have a lot of learning to do yes ,but I have done a hell of lot more to help than most who mumble and grown about BS on here.If my words are read by blind eye's than were going to have a disagreement. I hope to help hunters and give them better game and more opportunity's to harvest or help wildlife than there are right now.For this to be done you need to manage predators and get them under control and in a hurry.I know how fast they can spread and reproduce as well as make life hell for hunting.My family owns some of the best hunting in western Montana,It's gone to hell and a hand basket due to wolves clearing game out of there.My grandpa is lucky to see a whitetail deer in the back grass fields where growing up there was always at least 20 head out there.I have a strong view of this issue.For one thing that the amount of wolves right now are way too high and they need to be much ,much lower.In order for this to happen you need the right people in the right places.To help get trapping allowed in WA and the use of dog's .
All of my instructors only work about 2 to 3 quarters a year in school due to the amount of contract and field work they still do.All of them are highly respected out here in the western U.S. as biologist's,Forester's,and Recreational management types.One of them was the lead on the American prairie reserve in Montana.
I know most of you have already made up your minds that if someone doesn't think like you, than there wrong and no matter what your right.If you keep looking back how are you supposed to continue forward ?
Post by: wolfbait on January 16, 2014, 06:27:19 PM
If you don't learn from past history, you will get to suffer through the same BS twice. Uncontrolled wolves or wildlife we can't have both.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 16, 2014, 06:52:04 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 16, 2014, 07:49:19 PM
Wolves are being controlled in YNP and there is more life in YNP than ever before. :chuckle:
I hope that you are being sarcastic, because your own graph showed us otherwise
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 16, 2014, 09:03:51 PM
Wolves are being controlled in YNP and there is more life in YNP than ever before. :chuckle:
I hope that you are being sarcastic, because your own graph showed us otherwise
Have you even watched the video that started this thread?
and YNP is very much alive with more animals than just Elk
Post by: Wacenturion on January 16, 2014, 09:13:53 PM
To give you a simple answer let me just say, you are serving wildlife and habitat when you serve the public, primarily the hunters and fishermen who have funded wildlife management in this country for decades.
It a cycle....if you manage properly to protect and restore habitat, wildlife flourishes. When wildlife, which we will call a product for the sake of this discussion flourishes, so does interest in pursuing that product. More licenses are sold, and in addition many more dollars are spent across the board in communities for lodging, food, gas, equipment, guide services, etc. It get broader when you start thinking major expenditures like boats, SUV's, campers. The demand grows because there is a product out there that can provide opportunity and sustain itself in appropriate healthy numbers.
As one of my duties during my career I had the pleasure to manage Washington's Wild Turkey Program for 20 years, as a lesser part of other programs I was responsible for. Many in WDFW, in decision making positions I might add, both in HQ and the regions themselves, didn't want turkeys because they weren't native or they were just something else to have to deal with. They were going to compete with native species, they were possibly going to out compete western gray squirrels and sharp-tailed grouse, they were going to eat rare slugs, they were going to pull the moon out of it's gravitational orbit...whetever frickin excuse they could dream up. For those 20 years I continually had to answer the same stupid questions, and from educated biologists none the less. Fortunately I don't give up very easy and decided early on to lose an occasional battle to eventually win the war.
The point I'm leading to is they also said it wouldn't work, we tried it in the 60's. Yeah, we did. Couple small releases and that was it. Without new genes into the two small populations we had, turkeys didn't maintain themselves much beyond 15-20 years in two areas. Turkey tag sales went down to I believe a low of 62 at one point which was 1987 if I recall. The new introductions statewide and follow up introductions of additional birds as well as trap and transfer in state over that 20 year period, gave us what we now have today...three different subspecies and multiple bird limits. Tag sales are through the roof.
That is a prime example of what I'm referring to above. Kind of like the movie "Field of Dreams"..... "If you build it they will come". If you translate that to wildlife management when you put a product out there the public will utilize it. That equates to dollars. Problem is wildlife agencies are notorious for not putting those funds from licenses and funding sources like PR and DJ back into the resource and on the ground. That's too much work. Easier to go the meeting and planning route. Upland bird numbers in Washington is a prime example of ignoring the problem and not putting revenues on the ground.
Ask yourself who actually spends serious money on fish and wildlife. It's the people who buy licenses and all the related expenditures I mentioned above. Like wolfbait mentioned....you don't see many folks coming to Idaho to see wolves. Ask yourself another question and try to put yourself in the shoes of a normal person. Would you like to visit Yellowstone and see elk everywhere as well as Bison, Moose and other animals. Or would you perfer just to possibly have a chance to see a wolf or a pack and not much more? I know what I would want.
Fish and Wildlife agencies rolled over years ago to the invisible environmentalist monster they assumed is out there. Those agencies bought into the political correctness BS. Instead of forcing the tree huggers to make their case they just rolled on many issues, rather than telling them to prove it or shut up. Just look at the difference of opinions between Al Gore and the global warming crew vs. Alaska Fish and Wildlife biologists when it comes to polar bear status. My money is on Alaska Fish and Game. When did all these city dwelling, save the earth types, become credible sources of scientific data?
The negatives with wolf introductions are immense. Not only does it affect wildlife and the associated recreation use and expenditures that go with it, but everyday life for a magnitude of rural folks who have to now tolerate their presence and have their livelihood affected in a negative way by them. Just my opinion.
Post by: Axle on January 16, 2014, 09:49:40 PM
Quote
Wolves are being controlled in YNP and there is more life in YNP than ever before. :chuckle:
I hope that you are being sarcastic, because your own graph showed us otherwise
Have you even watched the video that started this thread?
and YNP is very much alive with more animals than just Elk
Yep! more alive than ever - with mice and rats!
The wolves ate the coyotes which ate the mice and rats.
Now lime disease can rule the park. Ticks need a food source after all.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 16, 2014, 10:34:34 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 16, 2014, 10:47:53 PM
Antelope I buy into that theory and it's one of the upshots of having wolves, but I'm not ready to buy into the red fox theory. Besides red fox is the most widespread and abundant Canidae out there.
Post by: LDennis24 on January 16, 2014, 10:52:53 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 16, 2014, 11:02:24 PM
I have forest protection next quarter where we dive into how to stop weeds and forb's and preserve the forest
I love the insight btw LDennis24 with concerns It give's me plenty of questions to ask when we have our seminars with our instructors .
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 07:13:32 AM
Here's something for you to think about. Have you considered that many of the instructors in our universities and colleges have their own agendas and that many are pro-wolfers and are opposed to hunting and ranching as we know it in the west?
If you have an open mind and truly want to be a good biologist who can think on his own and arrive at honest conclusions, you need to recognize people for what they stand for and be able to understand how their agenda affects what they say or teach. You need to decide if you are a follower or a leader. :twocents:
I do think we can live with a reasonable number of wolves, especially if they are influenced by hunting, etc, to stay in our parks and wilderness areas. But the biggest problem with the wolf introduction is that wolf proponents are trying to force too many wolves into too many inhabited areas and that causes too many impacts on our modern ecosystems. If they would take a more reasonable approach wolves would be far more accepted. I probably wouldn't even be wasting so much of my time fighting against wolves if I trusted our F&G to take a reasonable approach that caused less impacts by wolves on our herds, livestock, and lifestyles. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 08:07:16 AM
"Thank you WACenturion for your time ,but as a biologist shouldn't you be serving the wildlife and habitat instead of the hunters and fisherman ? "not being disrespectful just wanting open advice "one reason I talk so much on here" . I personally DON'T like wolves but they have a place in the wild."
To give you a simple answer let me just say, you are serving wildlife and habitat when you serve the public, primarily the hunters and fishermen who have funded wildlife management in this country for decades.
It a cycle....if you manage properly to protect and restore habitat, wildlife flourishes. When wildlife, which we will call a product for the sake of this discussion flourishes, so does interest in pursuing that product. More licenses are sold, and in addition many more dollars are spent across the board in communities for lodging, food, gas, equipment, guide services, etc. It get broader when you start thinking major expenditures like boats, SUV's, campers. The demand grows because there is a product out there that can provide opportunity and sustain itself in appropriate healthy numbers.
As one of my duties during my career I had the pleasure to manage Washington's Wild Turkey Program for 20 years, as a lesser part of other programs I was responsible for. Many in WDFW, in decision making positions I might add, both in HQ and the regions themselves, didn't want turkeys because they weren't native or they were just something else to have to deal with. They were going to compete with native species, they were possibly going to out compete western gray squirrels and sharp-tailed grouse, they were going to eat rare slugs, they were going to pull the moon out of it's gravitational orbit...whetever frickin excuse they could dream up. For those 20 years I continually had to answer the same stupid questions, and from educated biologists none the less. Fortunately I don't give up very easy and decided early on to lose an occasional battle to eventually win the war.
The point I'm leading to is they also said it wouldn't work, we tried it in the 60's. Yeah, we did. Couple small releases and that was it. Without new genes into the two small populations we had, turkeys didn't maintain themselves much beyond 15-20 years in two areas. Turkey tag sales went down to I believe a low of 62 at one point which was 1987 if I recall. The new introductions statewide and follow up introductions of additional birds as well as trap and transfer in state over that 20 year period, gave us what we now have today...three different subspecies and multiple bird limits. Tag sales are through the roof.
That is a prime example of what I'm referring to above. Kind of like the movie "Field of Dreams"..... "If you build it they will come". If you translate that to wildlife management when you put a product out there the public will utilize it. That equates to dollars. Problem is wildlife agencies are notorious for not putting those funds from licenses and funding sources like PR and DJ back into the resource and on the ground. That's too much work. Easier to go the meeting and planning route. Upland bird numbers in Washington is a prime example of ignoring the problem and not putting revenues on the ground.
Ask yourself who actually spends serious money on fish and wildlife. It's the people who buy licenses and all the related expenditures I mentioned above. Like wolfbait mentioned....you don't see many folks coming to Idaho to see wolves. Ask yourself another question and try to put yourself in the shoes of a normal person. Would you like to visit Yellowstone and see elk everywhere as well as Bison, Moose and other animals. Or would you perfer just to possibly have a chance to see a wolf or a pack and not much more? I know what I would want.
Fish and Wildlife agencies rolled over years ago to the invisible environmentalist monster they assumed is out there. Those agencies bought into the political correctness BS. Instead of forcing the tree huggers to make their case they just rolled on many issues, rather than telling them to prove it or shut up. Just look at the difference of opinions between Al Gore and the global warming crew vs. Alaska Fish and Wildlife biologists when it comes to polar bear status. My money is on Alaska Fish and Game. When did all these city dwelling, save the earth types, become credible sources of scientific data?
The negatives with wolf introductions are immense. Not only does it affect wildlife and the associated recreation use and expenditures that go with it, but everyday life for a magnitude of rural folks who have to now tolerate their presence and have their livelihood affected in a negative way by them. Just my opinion.
I wished you were still in WDFW and would eventually become the director. Thanks again for serving the citizens of WA so well. :tup:
Post by: RadSav on January 17, 2014, 10:12:40 AM
I wished you were still in WDFW and would eventually become the director. Thanks again for serving the citizens of WA so well. :tup:
Something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy...But the same thing I've been selfishly thinking over the past 24 hours.
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 10:21:26 AM
Hey jon.brown509
With pretty much any profession when a new hire is fresh out of school or academy one the first things they're told is: "OK, forget everything you just learned in school"
I don't care what profession you go into, that's one of the first things you'll hear. The reason is as Dale pointed out, you pay to go to school and their mission even beyond educating is indoctrination of it's students in how the university wants to shape whatever program.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 17, 2014, 12:27:09 PM
I understand why you would speculate here's an idea to think about.Wolves hate coyotes 9 times out of ten they will kill them.When ever coyotes leave an area foxes always thrive and repopulate quickly.Much like what the wolves did as long as coyotes are looking over there backs they are now ignoring foxes due to them being the lesser predator now.Hopefully this makes some clarity on the subject.
I have forest protection next quarter where we dive into how to stop weeds and forb's and preserve the forest
I love the insight btw LDennis24 with concerns It give's me plenty of questions to ask when we have our seminars with our instructors .
With that said, coyotes looking over there backs, the wolfs need to be looking over there backs as well. Looking down the barrels of all humans rifles. Again we are the dominant predator and for us to allow this is crude and insane. Our forefathers are all probably sick to there stomach that our society even allows this conversation after all the effort they put in to eradicate such a useless species as the wolf.
Post by: The scout on January 17, 2014, 12:36:48 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 02:59:52 PM
jon,
Here's something for you to think about. Have you considered that many of the instructors in our universities and colleges have their own agendas and that many are pro-wolfers and are opposed to hunting and ranching as we know it in the west?
If you have an open mind and truly want to be a good biologist who can think on his own and arrive at honest conclusions, you need to recognize people for what they stand for and be able to understand how their agenda affects what they say or teach. You need to decide if you are a follower or a leader. :twocents:
I do think we can live with a reasonable number of wolves, especially if they are influenced by hunting, etc, to stay in our parks and wilderness areas. But the biggest problem with the wolf introduction is that wolf proponents are trying to force too many wolves into too many inhabited areas and that causes too many impacts on our modern ecosystems. If they would take a more reasonable approach wolves would be far more accepted. I probably wouldn't even be wasting so much of my time fighting against wolves if I trusted our F&G to take a reasonable approach that caused less impacts by wolves on our herds, livestock, and lifestyles. :twocents:
:yeah: I couldn't agree with you more for once Bearpaw,Now you know why i'm going to school to be able to fix it ,Most of my instructors have a feeling of we need wolves out there the number is yet to be figured out and that is causing the problem ,
:twocents:If you knew that there were only 3-5 dogs per pack and that there would never be more per pack do you think that would be a good number?If every year you knew the number of elk would never drop by more than 25% do to the low pack numbers and that lucky individuals who would have a lottery type draw get the chance to go shoot a dog that needs to be replaced would you be ok with that plan?
:twocents:As far as opposed to ranching and farming I know 100% for sure our main wildlife instructor doesn't have a single problem with ranchers he is one, from eastern Montana, lol But he also understands both sides of the subject and try's his best to help balance the two out.
Now Huntincouple I wouldn't say useless they have place and a need just the way there allowing them to explode and expand rapidly is whats causing the bad name"like stated above" .But I couldn't agree with you more wolves need to understand if there's humans in this area or cattle they need to get as far away as possible "not always possible but they can at least try to avoid people" .Maybe not a rifle aiming down every wolf ,only trouble making wolves should have there dick hit the dirt.Otherwise all your doing is causing more harm than good. If you want to know what made people sick in the early 1900's ask them about Passenger pigeons :( they did a great job eradicating them.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 17, 2014, 06:28:24 PM
jon,
Here's something for you to think about. Have you considered that many of the instructors in our universities and colleges have their own agendas and that many are pro-wolfers and are opposed to hunting and ranching as we know it in the west?
If you have an open mind and truly want to be a good biologist who can think on his own and arrive at honest conclusions, you need to recognize people for what they stand for and be able to understand how their agenda affects what they say or teach. You need to decide if you are a follower or a leader. :twocents:
I do think we can live with a reasonable number of wolves, especially if they are influenced by hunting, etc, to stay in our parks and wilderness areas. But the biggest problem with the wolf introduction is that wolf proponents are trying to force too many wolves into too many inhabited areas and that causes too many impacts on our modern ecosystems. If they would take a more reasonable approach wolves would be far more accepted. I probably wouldn't even be wasting so much of my time fighting against wolves if I trusted our F&G to take a reasonable approach that caused less impacts by wolves on our herds, livestock, and lifestyles. :twocents:
:yeah: I couldn't agree with you more for once Bearpaw,Now you know why i'm going to school to be able to fix it ,Most of my instructors have a feeling of we need wolves out there the number is yet to be figured out and that is causing the problem ,
:twocents:If you knew that there were only 3-5 dogs per pack and that there would never be more per pack do you think that would be a good number?If every year you knew the number of elk would never drop by more than 25% do to the low pack numbers and that lucky individuals who would have a lottery type draw get the chance to go shoot a dog that needs to be replaced would you be ok with that plan?
:twocents:As far as opposed to ranching and farming I know 100% for sure our main wildlife instructor doesn't have a single problem with ranchers he is one, from eastern Montana, lol But he also understands both sides of the subject and try's his best to help balance the two out.
Now Huntincouple I wouldn't say useless they have place and a need just the way there allowing them to explode and expand rapidly is whats causing the bad name"like stated above" .But I couldn't agree with you more wolves need to understand if there's humans in this area or cattle they need to get as far away as possible "not always possible but they can at least try to avoid people" .Maybe not a rifle aiming down every wolf ,only trouble making wolves should have there dick hit the dirt.Otherwise all your doing is causing more harm than good. If you want to know what made people sick in the early 1900's ask them about Passenger pigeons :( they did a great job eradicating them.
From observation of trying to detier unwanted animals from ones property, banging pots and pans does not work so well. Shots from high powered rifles gets there attention a whole lot better. As for the slander words you use, please remember this is a family site and we and others use this site as a educational tool. We educate our 4yr old daughter with threads as this so she learns how the world works. And believe you me she already can read the slander you post and I would prefer if you could please not type it in. Thanks!!!!
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 06:52:43 PM
jon,
Here's something for you to think about. Have you considered that many of the instructors in our universities and colleges have their own agendas and that many are pro-wolfers and are opposed to hunting and ranching as we know it in the west?
If you have an open mind and truly want to be a good biologist who can think on his own and arrive at honest conclusions, you need to recognize people for what they stand for and be able to understand how their agenda affects what they say or teach. You need to decide if you are a follower or a leader. :twocents:
I do think we can live with a reasonable number of wolves, especially if they are influenced by hunting, etc, to stay in our parks and wilderness areas. But the biggest problem with the wolf introduction is that wolf proponents are trying to force too many wolves into too many inhabited areas and that causes too many impacts on our modern ecosystems. If they would take a more reasonable approach wolves would be far more accepted. I probably wouldn't even be wasting so much of my time fighting against wolves if I trusted our F&G to take a reasonable approach that caused less impacts by wolves on our herds, livestock, and lifestyles. :twocents:
:yeah: I couldn't agree with you more for once Bearpaw,Now you know why i'm going to school to be able to fix it ,Most of my instructors have a feeling of we need wolves out there the number is yet to be figured out and that is causing the problem ,
:twocents:If you knew that there were only 3-5 dogs per pack and that there would never be more per pack do you think that would be a good number?If every year you knew the number of elk would never drop by more than 25% do to the low pack numbers and that lucky individuals who would have a lottery type draw get the chance to go shoot a dog that needs to be replaced would you be ok with that plan?
:twocents:As far as opposed to ranching and farming I know 100% for sure our main wildlife instructor doesn't have a single problem with ranchers he is one, from eastern Montana, lol But he also understands both sides of the subject and try's his best to help balance the two out.
Now Huntincouple I wouldn't say useless they have place and a need just the way there allowing them to explode and expand rapidly is whats causing the bad name"like stated above" .But I couldn't agree with you more wolves need to understand if there's humans in this area or cattle they need to get as far away as possible "not always possible but they can at least try to avoid people" .Maybe not a rifle aiming down every wolf ,only trouble making wolves should have there dick hit the dirt.Otherwise all your doing is causing more harm than good. If you want to know what made people sick in the early 1900's ask them about Passenger pigeons :( they did a great job eradicating them.
From observation of trying to detier unwanted animals from ones property, banging pots and pans does not work so well. Shots from high powered rifles gets there attention a whole lot better. As for the slander words you use, please remember this is a family site and we and others use this site as a educational tool. We educate our 4yr old daughter with threads as this so she learns how the world works. And believe you me she already can read the slander you post and I would prefer if you could please not type it in. Thanks!!!!
If wolves were hunted as a predator , the lower 48 could not keep up with their increase, protecting them, should bring a question mark in your mind, of why?
Pro-wolf people always bring up habitat, what they are really saying is land grab by the USFW via state game agencies and the environmentalist. SS
Post by: Axle on January 17, 2014, 07:19:19 PM
Quote
If wolves were hunted as a predator , the lower 48 could not keep up with their increase, protecting them, should bring a question mark in your mind, of why?
Pro-wolf people always bring up habitat, what they are really saying is land grab by the USFW via state game agencies and the environmentalist. SS
And isn't this all about Agenda 21?
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 07:29:32 PM
QuoteIf wolves were hunted as a predator , the lower 48 could not keep up with their increase, protecting them, should bring a question mark in your mind, of why?
Pro-wolf people always bring up habitat, what they are really saying is land grab by the USFW via state game agencies and the environmentalist. SS
And isn't this all about Agenda 21?
Yep, but no one wants to talk about it> Then there is the Wildlands Project, Huge corridors with no human contact, which equals a land grab by the feds. Mineral rights will disappear, and the list goes on.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 07:44:15 PM
Second Habitat is such a poor argument for people because of how complex habitats can be wal-mart could be a habitat.It's like the pro wolf peoples use habitat like anti wolf people use Non native both poor arguments. I hope wolves get hunted like predators there needs to be that fear in them but like I said above sometimes hunters do more harm than good 'unintentionally'
Until we as hunters can fight out the seattle-tacoma area for what happens in the woods across the state i don't see this happening any time soon :ACRY:
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 07:56:49 PM
In all honesty i'm sorry for slander "took me a second to see it" :DOH: didn't realize i was doing that. Pot's and pans really? High powered rifle? say you do take out a wolf and it was the alpha now the pack is going to be lead by a Juvenal and lead that pack into a lot of trouble congrats,A better way to handle that is to Not say shoo wolf shoo "i've never heard that before made me lol", You could instead try more non lethal ways,not saying the wolf wouldn't deserve that but until you understand how the social understandings of a wolf pack are,you could kill the wrong dog and bring in a obama wolf into your area :twocents: Biggest example of that is when you see people dropping collared wolves "normally alpha is collared"
Second Habitat is such a poor argument for people because of how complex habitats can be wal-mart could be a habitat.It's like the pro wolf peoples use habitat like anti wolf people use Non native both poor arguments. I hope wolves get hunted like predators there needs to be that fear in them but like I said above sometimes hunters do more harm than good 'unintentionally'
Until we as hunters can fight out the seattle-tacoma area for what happens in the woods across the state i don't see this happening any time soon :ACRY:
So now we are going the other way, (Second Habitat is such a poor argument for people because of how complex habitats can be wal-mart could be a habitat.)
Really, have you discussed this with Idahohunter or wacoyote? Because they really like the habitat discussion. Isn't the lack of elk, moose, deer, etc all about not enough habitat or poor habitat? It surely couldn't be that excessive predators are killing off the game herds?
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 08:14:44 PM
Any how by the end we went over our data to find out that they liked a couple of plants that we are seeing a lot less of around Gardiner Mt, So they started planting a couple of plots and let me tell you this winter they had the most elk around there than there has been for a couple years now.
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 08:18:38 PM
So if you did this study, why didn't you collect Elk scat from all over the country and see what was in it?
This would have to be done seasonally too BTW
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 08:34:32 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 08:51:03 PM
Rule number one we don't know anything about eco systems they are too complex to understand main reason we try to handle populations.Now don't get wrong what lil we do know about food source and best breeding areas we can try to replicate but at the same time you never know if it should work.Elk can survive no matter what look at how diverse they can be,Now with the vegetation loss and winter grounds being destroyed than throw a apex predator in the mix Elk are in a hard place right mainly in Idaho,There is a food loss compared to five or ten years ago.But with new technologies were aiming to get things better.I went to a study area where they are testing Elk on different plants they eat"These pet ones seem more like lamas to me"We took them up in a horse trailer, out to the woods and let them eat whatever they wanted.Guess who had to follow what they ate and record it for hours? lol
Any how by the end we went over our data to find out that they liked a couple of plants that we are seeing a lot less of around Gardiner Mt, So they started planting a couple of plots and let me tell you this winter they had the most elk around there than there has been for a couple years now.
"Rule number one we don't know anything about eco systems they are too complex to understand main reason we try to handle populations"
I think your teacher needs to be taught by wildlife managers of the past instead of the new progressive ideology.
First off the ecosystem, was controlled by hunting up until the wolf introduction, and as you see it was doing very well, otherwise the wolf introduction would never have been possible. With out prey the wolves would never have survived and with wolves the man controlled ecosystem will die, in other wards it will revert back to the days when there was very little game.
There will be lots of habitat with nothing on it and the feds will own all of it.
Post by: The scout on January 17, 2014, 09:27:48 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 09:35:58 PM
second tell me what is habitat?
third one apex predator doesn't change eco system
fourth my teachers have more respect from hunters ,fisherman and outdoorsman
in the northwest,and all over the U.S.
fifth i'm sure one "extremest"opinion won't cause them to change the way they have been doing things which has them as the number one wildlife biology program in the U.S.
sixth I'm pretty sure you and me are going to disagree with your doomsday theory :tinfoil:
and i'm going to leave it at that because by the look of your user name you well never have a open mind about wildlife.You well only care about YOUR hunting and just forget about the rest of the wildlife
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 09:38:09 PM
seems to be ton's of vegetation where my family has hunted for generations and in the last ten years went from us tagging out every year to zero elk sign but tons of wolf crap everywhere.sorry but your getting brainwashed by your professors jon brown.the hunter's are out in reality.i get so frustrated listening to this crap sorry. :bash:Who is getting brainwashed ? I just said the same thing about my grandparents place up in Montana I hate it ,Why i'm trying to fix it.
Post by: The scout on January 17, 2014, 09:39:06 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 09:43:11 PM
"scout"
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 09:43:57 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 17, 2014, 09:45:32 PM
Post by: The scout on January 17, 2014, 09:46:09 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 09:46:48 PM
SSS, a few guys on here are against this filosiphy but what will it take to change their minds? Is see a poll question!
Already been done
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,105968.msg1381854.html#msg1381854 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,105968.msg1381854.html#msg1381854)
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 09:48:07 PM
This jon.brown509 character is hard to figure, he flip flops all over the place like a trout on a hot sandy bank.
Thats because his buddies ran off and left him, now he's a fish out of water, gasping on air. Not a pretty sight for his class mates.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 09:52:45 PM
I have friends everywhere wolfbait only thung thats not going to pretty is the look on your face when I have a pack of wolves no longer stealing my air for a trophy pic :IBCOOL:
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 09:56:08 PM
first hunting only controls population not eco systems bud
second tell me what is habitat?
third one apex predator doesn't change eco system
fourth my teachers have more respect from hunters ,fisherman and outdoorsman
in the northwest,and all over the U.S.
fifth i'm sure one "extremest"opinion won't cause them to change the way they have been doing things which has them as the number one wildlife biology program in the U.S.
sixth I'm pretty sure you and me are going to disagree with your doomsday theory :tinfoil:
and i'm going to leave it at that because by the look of your user name you well never have a open mind about wildlife.You well only care about YOUR hunting and just forget about the rest of the wildlife
Do you even know what ecosystem means? Do you think that the game herds we had twenty years ago were not controlled by hunting and management? Do you think that introducing a predator that was never in the lower 48, and then protecting it above all other wildlife is wildlife management. Is this what you were taught by your new progressive teachers?
Post by: The scout on January 17, 2014, 09:58:25 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 10:01:54 PM
Alight let me help you out. I do not like wolves ,coyotes,cougars,bobcats or anything in that predator area I have made a killing off of my skill's as a predator hunter.Now i'm trying to make it a career as a wildlife biologist.My family on both sides are all ranchers and farmers,I grew up dealing with things that happen in that line of work and some you shouldn't have to face Like grizzly bears.As I start learning more about wildlife a couple of views have changed but not that much i just now have a understanding as too what leads predators to do the things they do when I try to explain that all i get is kill them all responses.
I have friends everywhere wolfbait only thung thats not going to pretty is the look on your face when I have a pack of wolves no longer stealing my air for a trophy pic :IBCOOL:
You don't come off as sounding that way in your past post. Would you like to talk about habitat some more?
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 10:03:45 PM
hey be nice his family is made of farmers and ranchers :chuckle:
We been down that road in past post with people who claimed the same, right here on this site back in 09. It didn't fly then and it ain't flying now
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 10:16:07 PM
Herds 20 years ago where so unhealthy and had so many diseases that it devastated the landscape,And for the record the predator was in the lower 48 started in Montana :)
Tell you what wolfbait come on down to Mosco and tell every one of them how progressive they are,Or would you rather roar from a keyboard ?lol pretty sure they would love you Funny how so many people down here in idaho love these guys for attempting to spear head a better wolf management plan that the " :tree1:" can't turn down. :chuckle:
I'm telling you bud you have me laughing pretty good at how bad you think we are being taught come on down and chat with them i think they well put your mind at ease.lol
I just probably suck at regurgitating what i'm taught lol :DOH:
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 10:28:11 PM
it's the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit.Hunting only can fix the population not the eco system see there are four levels Organism – population – community –ecosystem Great example of a failed attempt at fixing the community was that crap they did along the Columbia river it didn't fix a thing and did nothing but waste money resources and time.
Herds 20 years ago where so unhealthy and had so many diseases that it devastated the landscape,And for the record the predator was in the lower 48 started in Montana :)
Tell you what wolfbait come on down to Mosco and tell every one of them how progressive they are,Or would you rather roar from a keyboard ?lol pretty sure they would love you Funny how so many people down here in idaho love these guys for attempting to spear head a better wolf management plan that the " :tree1:" can't turn down. :chuckle:
I'm telling you bud you have me laughing pretty good at how bad you think we are being taught come on down and chat with them i think they well put your mind at ease.lol
I just probably suck at regurgitating what i'm taught lol :DOH:
"it's the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit.Hunting only can fix the population not the eco system see there are four levels Organism – population – community –ecosystem"
I thought we were talking about the impact wolves were having on the game herds? Then we went to habitat, now we are dealing with "your ecosystem".
Did you know that we, thats the people of this age have micro ecosystems? Do you know what that means? It means that everything up until the Yukon wolves were introduced and in WA case cougars and bears were allowed to be hunted with hounds and controlled predators, we had a balanced ecosystem. Because they took away the tools to manage predators we no longer have the balance.
Each state controls their "ecosystem" different.
Post by: JLS on January 17, 2014, 10:30:52 PM
I thought we were talking about the impact wolves were having on the game herds? Then we went to habitat, now we are dealing with "your ecosystem".
I thought we were talking about Agenda 21, black helicopters, and the UN takeover of the world?
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 10:32:02 PM
:tup:
my team is going to the superbowl btw GO HAWKS !!!!!!
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2014, 10:35:52 PM
Post by: Axle on January 20, 2014, 09:05:36 PM
Quote
Did you know that we, thats the people of this age have micro ecosystems? Do you know what that means? It means that everything up until the Yukon wolves were introduced and in WA case cougars and bears were allowed to be hunted with hounds and controlled predators, we had a balanced ecosystem. Because they took away the tools to manage predators we no longer have the balance.
You are right Wolfbait. God gave mankind the authority to manage wildlife when he created Adam. In the 'absence' of mankind, God did create a system that will manage itself; but in a system without humans, there is not a managed or over-abundant supply of food for mankind. Mankind in responsible for 'managing' the 'balance' as needed or necessary. The management that has been done in the past few decades has gone miserably wrong but look who has been in Olympia and the Whitehouse and it will come as no surprise. Our management tools are being destroyed.
Man is responsible for managing the animal kingdom. Many state that we are the apex predator. They are wrong. We are not predators (though this may seem to be splitting hairs (hares? :chuckle:) to some) but we are the 'managers'. It is our God-given responsibility. This is the truth that many do not want to hear but it is the responsibility we have been given.
When evil-doers want to separate us from God's will, they do things such as - introduce a non-native species like the Canadian Grey wolf (which was only introduced to destroy).
Those of us who want to properly manage are sad to see the introduction of non-native wolves. We also didn't like the managed and aggressive increase in cougars and bears which wiped out many strong elk herds. The decrease in elk herds cut season dates shorter and made some areas a permit only area.
There is a plan of action in place and we are seeing it play out before our eyes.
If there were any natives wolves left, I would consider a managed number of them. I do not support a non-native wolf anywhere in this nation. Not even in a zoo! I don't trust disease!
Manager will be held to a higher level when judged. :hello:
Post by: Spurs on January 21, 2014, 06:02:12 PM
Hornocker?s recommendations indicate that he had learned the balance-of-nature theory was a figment of the imagination and that uncontrolled predators will eventually deplete game populations. David Mech continued to observe the wolf and moose populations on Isle Royale and the wolf and white-tailed deer populations in Minnesota and proved the destructive theory was wrong.
For several years there had been 20-25 wolves and about 600 moose on the 210 square mile island. The wolves were killing most of the calves each year and the moose population remained about the same.
Then, in the late 1960s and early 70s, several severe winters hit and, with easier hunting in deep snow, wolves began to kill large numbers of moose that were not eaten. The moose population nose-dived and the wolf population quickly doubled.
But as more moose were killed, the Isle Royale wolves, with no alternate prey species, began to starve. Soon, disease and cannibalism caused additional deaths.
Mech was also observing the wolf and white-tailed deer situation in northeastern Minnesota and the same scenario played out there, with some exceptions. The wolves quickly destroyed much of the famous whitetail herd during the severe 1968-69 winter and most of the fawns that were born in 1969 failed to survive.
As was the case on Isle Royale with moose, the wolves quickly increased when prey was easier to kill and the increased number of wolves then killed more adult deer. But unlike, Isle Royale, many of the wolves turned to moose, their alternate prey species, while others left the area, killing livestock, domestic animals and pets and eating garbage to survive.
The wolves that remained killed most of the remaining deer and then killed each other seeking food in adjacent pack?s territory while younger wolves starved. Mech learned the hard way what experienced outdoorsmen already knew, that wolves and other predators must be killed whenever their prey species declines.
Minnesota was forced to shut down all deer hunting statewide in 1971 and Mech denounced the balance-of-nature theory and said that wolf control programs were essential to maintain healthy prey and predator populations.
Idaho Biologists Conceal Truth
Yet university wildlife biologists like Idaho?s Jim Peek continued to teach the false theory, and brainwashed IDFG wildlife biologists and commissioners continued to preach and practice it.
Unlike Dr. Mech, they have ignored 30 years of long term scientific studies which proved, beyond any doubt, that predators must be killed to restore healthy predator prey balance whenever natural or man caused disasters, including overharvesting, reduce the available prey population.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website) … ompass.pdf
Post by: Spurs on January 21, 2014, 06:19:09 PM
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF)
As we are seeing, wolves need to be controlled, hunting them as a big game animal is not control.
Post by: bigmacc on January 21, 2014, 07:29:10 PM
Wolves Killing off Deer
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF)
As we are seeing, wolves need to be controlled, hunting them as a big game animal is not control.
That was a very sobering read,thanks Spurs.
Post by: Axle on January 21, 2014, 08:03:11 PM
Quote
Wolves Killing off Deer
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E3D7163EE033A25755C2A9639C946697D6CF)
Good one Spurs! And to think - they actually referred to them as Timber Wolves which is what we had back then. Imagine that.