Post by: idahohuntr on April 18, 2014, 02:05:43 PM
Interesting perspectives.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 18, 2014, 02:14:20 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on April 18, 2014, 02:19:32 PM
Post by: AspenBud on April 18, 2014, 03:00:46 PM
"But he said if predators were killing as many game animals as poachers, people would take action.
“Holy buckets, we would be setting budgets aside,” Cummings said. “We would develop a group to figure out what it was and we would develop a plan to deal with it, but we won’t even talk about what impact this has on wildlife.” "
Silly man, that's because cows aren't involved. :bash: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on April 18, 2014, 03:03:36 PM
Quote
Officials tell the Lewiston Tribune in a story on Friday that last year in North Idaho they confirmed poaching of 30 elk, four moose, 13 mule deer and 57 whitetail deer.
Officials say a realistic detection rate is 5 percent, meaning poachers are likely killing about 600 elk, 80 moose, 260 mule deer and 1,000 whitetail annually.
While I agree that poaching is a serious problem that needs addressed I think the statement was indicative of poor mathematics and a general understatement by wildlife officials of actual wolf impacts. Well known government studies indicate one wolf will eat 44 deer or 17 elk in 1 year. Idaho admits to having about 600 wolves (there are probably twice as many as they have found), probably about half of the known wolves are in north Idaho. Using the government statistics 300 wolves would eat 5,100 elk or 13,200 deer annually. Because wolves are obviously taking a mix of animals, the real toll is probably more like 2200 elk, 300 moose, and 6600 deer which obviously is several times worse than the poaching problem.
If poaching was stopped and wolf numbers are reduced to 200 wolves in Idaho, (100 in north Idaho) there obviously would be more abundant wildlife and much better hunting for everyone. :twocents:
Post by: buckfvr on April 18, 2014, 03:10:21 PM
Let me add that I think a big part of the undocumented poaching comes from the people who live on "Wrong Turn Movie Road "..........they kill and eat at their convenience, have forever and will forever. They are out there, and Id bet they account for alot of critters that dont show on harvest reports.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 18, 2014, 03:18:41 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 18, 2014, 06:21:17 PM
Post by: Booman2 on April 18, 2014, 07:46:26 PM
Post by: wolfbait on April 18, 2014, 09:02:24 PM
QuoteOfficials tell the Lewiston Tribune in a story on Friday that last year in North Idaho they confirmed poaching of 30 elk, four moose, 13 mule deer and 57 whitetail deer.
Officials say a realistic detection rate is 5 percent, meaning poachers are likely killing about 600 elk, 80 moose, 260 mule deer and 1,000 whitetail annually.
While I agree that poaching is a serious problem that needs addressed I think the statement was indicative of poor mathematics and a general understatement by wildlife officials of actual wolf impacts. Well known government studies indicate one wolf will eat 44 deer or 17 elk in 1 year. Idaho admits to having about 600 wolves (there are probably twice as many as they have found), probably about half of the known wolves are in north Idaho. Using the government statistics 300 wolves would eat 5,100 elk or 13,200 deer annually. Because wolves are obviously taking a mix of animals, the real toll is probably more like 2200 elk, 300 moose, and 6600 deer which obviously is several times worse than the poaching problem.
If poaching was stopped and wolf numbers are reduced to 200 wolves in Idaho, (100 in north Idaho) there obviously would be more abundant wildlife and much better hunting for everyone. :twocents:
If poachers were stopped today, we would still have the USFWS and WDFW's wolves poaching the herds, and as these poachers that are protected above all else, expand, it won't be long and there won't be any more human poachers, because there won't be anything left to poach. See WDFW have already solved the poaching problem! No worries, look at WDFW's thirty year Wildlands Plan.
Post by: Special T on April 18, 2014, 11:01:48 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 18, 2014, 11:03:04 PM
Post by: Special T on April 18, 2014, 11:08:09 PM
Post by: wolfbait on April 18, 2014, 11:29:04 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 18, 2014, 11:41:07 PM
I know 2 of the guys in this article pretty well...they know North-Central Idaho as good or better than anyone. They very clearly acknowledge that wolves have some impacts, but they also very accurately point out that poaching has more impact to ungulate herds than wolves. I've always had a more optimistic view on the amount of poaching...but these guys know N-C Idaho and they spend a lot of time in the field...I will take their word for it...and I will sure as heck take their math over some of the absurd guessing by others in this thread.Ill say it again for you Idaho,If the people you trust so much know so much of the problem and have all the numbers why don't they do something about the poachers?who cares which group causes more damage DUH. The point is poachers get caught they get dealt with not as much as they should but something any way,With the wolves they get free reign so what point exactly is it that you are trying to make here?the courts are to blame for the poachers but people like you are why the wolves are becoming a problem.Take the blinders off,come up with a solution for your argument's and move on. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on April 19, 2014, 05:10:49 AM
I know 2 of the guys in this article pretty well...they know North-Central Idaho as good or better than anyone. They very clearly acknowledge that wolves have some impacts, but they also very accurately point out that poaching has more impact to ungulate herds than wolves. I've always had a more optimistic view on the amount of poaching...but these guys know N-C Idaho and they spend a lot of time in the field...I will take their word for it...and I will sure as heck take their math over some of the absurd guessing by others in this thread.
My absurd guess was based on government documented statistics arrived upon by researchers investigating wolf kills. Like it or not, those numbers were not a guess, they are a statistical fact. Wolves in the study killed on average the equivalency of 17 elk or 44 deer per year.
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT! ;)
Post by: bearpaw on April 19, 2014, 05:24:18 AM
The amount of meat a wolf eats each year can vary. During a study in Yellowstone Park, 24 wolves were observed for 1 month in 1997 and 57 wolves were observed for 1 month in 1998. A total of 81 wolves were observed for a one month period and 114 kills were observed. This included 106 elk, 6 moose, 1 mule deer, and 1 bison. The average kill rate was 1.4 elk per wolf per month. That study indicates that 1 wolf will eat 17 elk per year. It would require 44 deer to equal the same body mass as 17 elk. So at that rate, 100 wolves will eat about 1700 elk or 4400 deer per year, and 1000 wolves will eat about 17,000 elk or 44,000 deer per year...(USGS Study)
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/severity/results.htm#table1 (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/severity/results.htm#table1)
So at that rate, 100 wolves will eat about 1700 elk or 4400 deer per year.
Because wolves are obviously taking a mix of animals and there are roughly 300 wolves in north Idaho, the real toll is probably more like 2200 elk, 300 moose, and 6600 deer which obviously is several times worse than the poaching problem.
I'm not trying to say poaching is not a problem, but I am saying that wildlife agencies tend to water down the impacts of wolves and other predators when there are numerous studies that clearly indicate the real impacts of these predators.
The math in the quoted story simply doesn't add up. :sry:
Post by: JLS on April 19, 2014, 09:15:20 AM
I'm not going to argue numbers. It's pointless.
Sadly enough, this just goes to show how little objectivity there tends to be in anything that involves the word "wolves". Instead of reading it for what it is, it appears that some just like to use it in some way to confirm their biases.
Myself, I found the estimates surprising and disconcerting.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 19, 2014, 09:29:07 AM
Post by: bigtex on April 19, 2014, 09:37:20 AM
Post by: buckfvr on April 19, 2014, 09:44:32 AM
In other words, that study is not indicative of for each legal animal, an ADDITIONAL animal was taken illegally.
Post by: KFhunter on April 19, 2014, 09:45:45 AM
Agreed with JLS - it's just a smear on real hunters and I'll add it's a deflection to take the spotlight off wolves a little bit.
Post by: buckfvr on April 19, 2014, 09:48:00 AM
Post by: JLS on April 19, 2014, 09:54:25 AM
Of course, that theory supports all of the cover up conspiracies that are so en vogue nowadays. :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on April 19, 2014, 11:00:03 AM
Why would the COs in question care one bit about taking the focus off of wolves?
Of course, that theory supports all of the cover up conspiracies that are so en vogue nowadays. :rolleyes:
I provided the link to the research data showing the proven impact by wolves, no conspiracy theory, just factual data showing an average wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer per year. Pretty hard to dispute printed data from the research study. :twocents:
On the other hand, I see lots of estimates/guesses at poaching impacts. Again, I agree poaching is a significant problem, but the data doesn't indicate poaching is near the problem that wolves/cougars/coyotes/bear are known to be. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on April 19, 2014, 12:31:35 PM
I provided the link to the research data showing the proven impact by wolves, no conspiracy theory, just factual data showing an average wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer per year. Pretty hard to dispute printed data from the research study. :twocents:
I wasn't refuting the numbers nor was I referring to your posted study.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 20, 2014, 02:55:31 PM
Wolves hunt year around, every day! How long before there will be any wolf control in WA? I ask Wacoyote and he didn't have an answer, do you DoW=IDWith people like you running around spewing garbage conspiracies and making hunters look like complete fools to non-hunting voters...I don't know if there will ever be a wolf season in Washington. :tup:
My absurd guess was based on government documented statistics arrived upon by researchers investigating wolf kills. Like it or not, those numbers were not a guess, they are a statistical fact. Wolves in the study killed on average the equivalency of 17 elk or 44 deer per year.Oh, so now you are willing to trust the governments numbers eh? :yike: The government can't count how many wolves there are but when they report how many deer and elk are killed they are "GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT" :chuckle: :chuckle: :tup:
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT! ;)
Anyways, I'm going to stick with info. being reported by the guys in the article...not you internet research/armchair biologist folks. I also do not see this article as downplaying wolf effects in any way...its just pointing out very correctly how people "blow a gasket" about wolves but not so much when it comes to poaching. The majority of the responses in this thread just further validate the points made by these great officers.
Post by: snowpack on April 20, 2014, 03:00:53 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 20, 2014, 09:29:12 PM
Where do you get off,Everyone on this forum blows a gasket,boils over,when poaching is even mentioned.Poachers are held to a much lower regard than wolves on this forum.You sir are speaking out of both sides of your face,Poachers are garbage and should not be protected in any way,Wolves are hazardous to our herds and should be limited enough to stop detrimental damage to the herds while being protected from extinction.Do you get that now,what is being said by me now.I have not seen any where on this forum that all wolves across this state should be killed,I have not read anywhere on this forum anyone defending poachers either. :bash:Wolves hunt year around, every day! How long before there will be any wolf control in WA? I ask Wacoyote and he didn't have an answer, do you DoW=IDWith people like you running around spewing garbage conspiracies and making hunters look like complete fools to non-hunting voters...I don't know if there will ever be a wolf season in Washington. :tup:My absurd guess was based on government documented statistics arrived upon by researchers investigating wolf kills. Like it or not, those numbers were not a guess, they are a statistical fact. Wolves in the study killed on average the equivalency of 17 elk or 44 deer per year.Oh, so now you are willing to trust the governments numbers eh? :yike: The government can't count how many wolves there are but when they report how many deer and elk are killed they are "GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT" :chuckle: :chuckle: :tup:
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT! ;)
Anyways, I'm going to stick with info. being reported by the guys in the article...not you internet research/armchair biologist folks. I also do not see this article as downplaying wolf effects in any way...its just pointing out very correctly how people "blow a gasket" about wolves but not so much when it comes to poaching. The majority of the responses in this thread just further validate the points made by these great officers.
Post by: KFhunter on April 20, 2014, 09:33:51 PM
Where do you get off,Everyone on this forum blows a gasket,boils over,when poaching is even mentioned.Poachers are held to a much lower regard than wolves on this forum.You sir are speaking out of both sides of your face,Poachers are garbage and should not be protected in any way,Wolves are hazardous to our herds and should be limited enough to stop detrimental damage to the herds while being protected from extinction.Do you get that now,what is being said by me now.I have not seen any where on this forum that all wolves across this state should be killed,I have not read anywhere on this forum anyone defending poachers either. :bash:Wolves hunt year around, every day! How long before there will be any wolf control in WA? I ask Wacoyote and he didn't have an answer, do you DoW=IDWith people like you running around spewing garbage conspiracies and making hunters look like complete fools to non-hunting voters...I don't know if there will ever be a wolf season in Washington. :tup:My absurd guess was based on government documented statistics arrived upon by researchers investigating wolf kills. Like it or not, those numbers were not a guess, they are a statistical fact. Wolves in the study killed on average the equivalency of 17 elk or 44 deer per year.Oh, so now you are willing to trust the governments numbers eh? :yike: The government can't count how many wolves there are but when they report how many deer and elk are killed they are "GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT" :chuckle: :chuckle: :tup:
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT! ;)
Anyways, I'm going to stick with info. being reported by the guys in the article...not you internet research/armchair biologist folks. I also do not see this article as downplaying wolf effects in any way...its just pointing out very correctly how people "blow a gasket" about wolves but not so much when it comes to poaching. The majority of the responses in this thread just further validate the points made by these great officers.
Almost true, read the wolf poaching threads with polls. 80% +/- supported wolf poaching.
Other than that carry on :tup:
Post by: JLS on April 20, 2014, 09:34:48 PM
Idaho COs have been on mileage restrictions for over a year now, according to one that I talked to recently down on the Clearwater.
I don't blame the COs for being irritated.
Post by: AspenBud on April 21, 2014, 10:53:20 AM
Where do you get off,Everyone on this forum blows a gasket,boils over,when poaching is even mentioned.Poachers are held to a much lower regard than wolves on this forum.You sir are speaking out of both sides of your face,Poachers are garbage and should not be protected in any way,Wolves are hazardous to our herds and should be limited enough to stop detrimental damage to the herds while being protected from extinction.Do you get that now,what is being said by me now.I have not seen any where on this forum that all wolves across this state should be killed,I have not read anywhere on this forum anyone defending poachers either. :bash:Wolves hunt year around, every day! How long before there will be any wolf control in WA? I ask Wacoyote and he didn't have an answer, do you DoW=IDWith people like you running around spewing garbage conspiracies and making hunters look like complete fools to non-hunting voters...I don't know if there will ever be a wolf season in Washington. :tup:My absurd guess was based on government documented statistics arrived upon by researchers investigating wolf kills. Like it or not, those numbers were not a guess, they are a statistical fact. Wolves in the study killed on average the equivalency of 17 elk or 44 deer per year.Oh, so now you are willing to trust the governments numbers eh? :yike: The government can't count how many wolves there are but when they report how many deer and elk are killed they are "GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT" :chuckle: :chuckle: :tup:
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL FACT! ;)
Anyways, I'm going to stick with info. being reported by the guys in the article...not you internet research/armchair biologist folks. I also do not see this article as downplaying wolf effects in any way...its just pointing out very correctly how people "blow a gasket" about wolves but not so much when it comes to poaching. The majority of the responses in this thread just further validate the points made by these great officers.
Almost true, read the wolf poaching threads with polls. 80% +/- supported wolf poaching.
Indeed
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,105968.0/nowap.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,105968.0/nowap.html)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,148084.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,148084.0.html)
Post by: bearpaw on April 21, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Idaho budgeted 2 million bucks to "control wolves" on top of current hunting/trapping seasons.
Idaho COs have been on mileage restrictions for over a year now, according to one that I talked to recently down on the Clearwater.
I don't blame the COs for being irritated.
The biggest reason Idaho has limited funding is due to wolf impacts. Hunters don't see many elk anymore in numerous wolf impacted zones, so many hunters quit hunting Idaho and western Montana. Meanwhile states with no wolves sell out of elk tags. I have Idaho and Montana residents calling me to hunt in Utah or eastern Montana because their favorite hunting areas in Idaho and western Montana are wiped out, many hunters say all they see is wolves in some areas now.
Wolf control is the smartest move Idaho could make. For each wolf taken out there will be 44 less deer or 17 less elk eaten by wolves. That is money very well invested with a great return potential. Of course I expect the wolf lovers to complain and say it's not true. But it's hard to argue with the math when you figure how much hunters spend and how massive the wolf impacts have been in many areas.
In a few years we'll likely see the same scenario in Washington, WDFW will be lacking funding if wolves impact herds and many hunters will quit buying hunting licenses. Then WDFW will have to spend needed money on some form of wolf control just like they have already had to do in the wedge due to wolves killing cattle.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 21, 2014, 11:54:21 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 21, 2014, 01:09:42 PM
Not to say there aren't poachers there but I am sure this is partly propaganda from the wolf hugging communityThe quotes and information for the basis of the article comes from lifelong hunters...to attribute any of it to "propaganda from the wolf hugging community" is ridiculous. :bash: :bash:
But you certainly are sticking to the wolf nutjob script of "If anyone says any factor besides wolves cause deer and elk mortality they are a wolf hugger" :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 21, 2014, 01:25:19 PM
Not to say there aren't poachers there but I am sure this is partly propaganda from the wolf hugging communityThe quotes and information for the basis of the article comes from lifelong hunters...to attribute any of it to "propaganda from the wolf hugging community" is ridiculous. :bash: :bash:
But you certainly are sticking to the wolf nutjob script of "If anyone says any factor besides wolves cause deer and elk mortality they are a wolf hugger" :tup:
I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.
Post by: bearpaw on April 21, 2014, 01:47:32 PM
Not to say there aren't poachers there but I am sure this is partly propaganda from the wolf hugging communityThe quotes and information for the basis of the article comes from lifelong hunters...to attribute any of it to "propaganda from the wolf hugging community" is ridiculous. :bash: :bash:
But you certainly are sticking to the wolf nutjob script of "If anyone says any factor besides wolves cause deer and elk mortality they are a wolf hugger" :tup:
I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.
piano you hit the nail on the head.... :twocents:
Post by: JLS on April 21, 2014, 02:00:44 PM
Idaho budgeted 2 million bucks to "control wolves" on top of current hunting/trapping seasons.
Idaho COs have been on mileage restrictions for over a year now, according to one that I talked to recently down on the Clearwater.
I don't blame the COs for being irritated.
The biggest reason Idaho has limited funding is due to wolf impacts. Hunters don't see many elk anymore in numerous wolf impacted zones, so many hunters quit hunting Idaho and western Montana. Meanwhile states with no wolves sell out of elk tags. I have Idaho and Montana residents calling me to hunt in Utah or eastern Montana because their favorite hunting areas in Idaho and western Montana are wiped out, many hunters say all they see is wolves in some areas now.
Wolf control is the smartest move Idaho could make. For each wolf taken out there will be 44 less deer or 17 less elk eaten by wolves. That is money very well invested with a great return potential. Of course I expect the wolf lovers to complain and say it's not true. But it's hard to argue with the math when you figure how much hunters spend and how massive the wolf impacts have been in many areas.
In a few years we'll likely see the same scenario in Washington, WDFW will be lacking funding if wolves impact herds and many hunters will quit buying hunting licenses. Then WDFW will have to spend needed money on some form of wolf control just like they have already had to do in the wedge due to wolves killing cattle.
....all of which has nothing really to do with the article.
Go back and read it with an open mind, particularly the quote about "not an attempt to downplay wolves". Rather, they are simply trying to put into perspective the impact that poaching has and how little attention people pay to it.
The opinions and quotes on here very much reinforce the point the COs were trying to make. I'm sure it's all part of the grand attempt to cover everything up.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 21, 2014, 02:14:18 PM
I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.
You guys crack me up...you talk like anyone with any real decision making authority even reads stuff on this forum. I assure you they do not...particularly decision makers outside of Washington State. But mostly you continue to prove exactly what is in the article...people blow a gasket over wolves, they want control boards, increased funding, action plans to reduce wolf numbers, they want it discussed at every commission meeting, they vote for politicians that play the anti-wolf card etc. However, if anybody mentions other limiting factors like poaching, habitat, whatever...its "a deflection to take the heat off wolves" :chuckle: :chuckle You are well trained lemmings I will give you that...watch out for the cliff :yike: :chuckle: :chuckle:
PS - I posted it in the wolf section because the major point of the article related to wolf vs. poaching impacts to ungulates in N-C Idaho. But I'm sure you can spin that into some kind of secret conspiracy led by DOW/CNW to throw you guys off...good thing you are so clever and caught on before total damage was done :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 21, 2014, 02:36:54 PM
:I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.
You guys crack me up...you talk like anyone with any real decision making authority even reads stuff on this forum. I assure you they do not...particularly decision makers outside of Washington State. But mostly you continue to prove exactly what is in the article...people blow a gasket over wolves, they want control boards, increased funding, action plans to reduce wolf numbers, they want it discussed at every commission meeting, they vote for politicians that play the anti-wolf card etc. However, if anybody mentions other limiting factors like poaching, habitat, whatever...its "a deflection to take the heat off wolves" :chuckle: :chuckle You are well trained lemmings I will give you that...watch out for the cliff :yike: :chuckle: :chuckle:
PS - I posted it in the wolf section because the major point of the article related to wolf vs. poaching impacts to ungulates in N-C Idaho. But I'm sure you can spin that into some kind of secret conspiracy led by DOW/CNW to throw you guys off...good thing you are so clever and caught on before total damage was done :chuckle:
If you don't like what's posted or think it's stupid for us to discuss the incredible damage wolves are doing and will continue to do, please feel free to stop posting in this forum. We'll figure out a way to recover from the loss.
Post by: cougarbart on April 21, 2014, 02:43:14 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on April 21, 2014, 02:47:48 PM
You guys crack me up...you talk like anyone with any real decision making authority even reads stuff on this forum. I assure you they do not...particularly decision makers outside of Washington State. But mostly you continue to prove exactly what is in the article...people blow a gasket over wolves, they want control boards, increased funding, action plans to reduce wolf numbers, they want it discussed at every commission meeting, they vote for politicians that play the anti-wolf card etc. However, if anybody mentions other limiting factors like poaching, habitat, whatever...its "a deflection to take the heat off wolves" :chuckle: :chuckle You are well trained lemmings I will give you that...watch out for the cliff :yike: :chuckle: :chuckle:
PS - I posted it in the wolf section because the major point of the article related to wolf vs. poaching impacts to ungulates in N-C Idaho. But I'm sure you can spin that into some kind of secret conspiracy led by DOW/CNW to throw you guys off...good thing you are so clever and caught on before total damage was done :chuckle:
A differant perspective and a very good point,totally agree :tup:
Post by: Special T on April 21, 2014, 04:09:44 PM
The real solution is to axe lots of predators to help the problem. I think its interesting because ID has slowly moved tword longer seasons and more liberal guidelines and it has not helped them recover.
Post by: bearpaw on April 22, 2014, 09:32:19 PM
Idaho budgeted 2 million bucks to "control wolves" on top of current hunting/trapping seasons.
Idaho COs have been on mileage restrictions for over a year now, according to one that I talked to recently down on the Clearwater.
I don't blame the COs for being irritated.
The biggest reason Idaho has limited funding is due to wolf impacts. Hunters don't see many elk anymore in numerous wolf impacted zones, so many hunters quit hunting Idaho and western Montana. Meanwhile states with no wolves sell out of elk tags. I have Idaho and Montana residents calling me to hunt in Utah or eastern Montana because their favorite hunting areas in Idaho and western Montana are wiped out, many hunters say all they see is wolves in some areas now.
Wolf control is the smartest move Idaho could make. For each wolf taken out there will be 44 less deer or 17 less elk eaten by wolves. That is money very well invested with a great return potential. Of course I expect the wolf lovers to complain and say it's not true. But it's hard to argue with the math when you figure how much hunters spend and how massive the wolf impacts have been in many areas.
In a few years we'll likely see the same scenario in Washington, WDFW will be lacking funding if wolves impact herds and many hunters will quit buying hunting licenses. Then WDFW will have to spend needed money on some form of wolf control just like they have already had to do in the wedge due to wolves killing cattle.
....all of which has nothing really to do with the article.
Go back and read it with an open mind, particularly the quote about "not an attempt to downplay wolves". Rather, they are simply trying to put into perspective the impact that poaching has and how little attention people pay to it.
The opinions and quotes on here very much reinforce the point the COs were trying to make. I'm sure it's all part of the grand attempt to cover everything up.
:rolleyes: As easily as they made their statement "not an attempt to downplay wolves", I can make the statement "not an attempt to downplay poaching." Facts are facts, wolves kill more than poachers and it's documented. When you have a valid argument and something more than here say please enlighten us. :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on April 23, 2014, 08:40:58 AM
So, at the end of the day, your "documented fact" is nothing more than an estimate, just like the COs estimate of the number of poached animals.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2014, 10:28:01 AM
the only variable idahohunter that i have is did poaching just start up in 1995? My guess being around n-c idaho the last 40 years is that what the game dept. classifies as poaching has been going on in the regions for 100 years but now all of a sudden it has a big effect on the ungulate herd? I understand that yes it sounds like we only blame the wolf and there are alot of varibles in the equation, but the only new varible is the wolf so that has to be a huge factor!
This is a very good point, one that I missed entirely. Not to excuse poaching at all, but poaching isn't a new strain on the resource and wolves are. So, I guess if we get rid of all the poachers, then the wolves are OK then? Bwahahaha! Yeah, right.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 23, 2014, 10:47:56 AM
:I don't have a problem with someone saying that poachers are a problem, because they are. Even one animal to a poacher is one too many. But to attempt to say "look at this big problem over and quit looking over there" is wolf propaganda. That's exactly what I believe the OP was trying to accomplish. If not, then the OP shouldn't have posted it under the Wolves section. If it's not meant to deflect the 'wolves are decimating our ungulates' argument, then it should have been posted under Elk or the WDFW section. It has absolutely nothing to do with wolves. But it was meant as a deflection. That's precisely why the OP posted it under wolves. In that light, it's a poorly-masked attempt to minimize the impact of wolves on ungulates.
You guys crack me up...you talk like anyone with any real decision making authority even reads stuff on this forum. I assure you they do not...particularly decision makers outside of Washington State. But mostly you continue to prove exactly what is in the article...people blow a gasket over wolves, they want control boards, increased funding, action plans to reduce wolf numbers, they want it discussed at every commission meeting, they vote for politicians that play the anti-wolf card etc. However, if anybody mentions other limiting factors like poaching, habitat, whatever...its "a deflection to take the heat off wolves" :chuckle: :chuckle You are well trained lemmings I will give you that...watch out for the cliff :yike: :chuckle: :chuckle:
PS - I posted it in the wolf section because the major point of the article related to wolf vs. poaching impacts to ungulates in N-C Idaho. But I'm sure you can spin that into some kind of secret conspiracy led by DOW/CNW to throw you guys off...good thing you are so clever and caught on before total damage was done :chuckle:
If you don't like what's posted or think it's stupid for us to discuss the incredible damage wolves are doing and will continue to do, please feel free to stop posting in this forum. We'll figure out a way to recover from the loss.
Nice comment to the guy who started the thread.
Post by: snowpack on April 23, 2014, 10:49:52 AM
That was a thought of mine too. Also the difference in what and where. Poachers are likely focusing on trophy animals (but do take others) in areas near roads or agriculture. Wolves tend to hit the back country hard taking the fawns/calves or slower (pregnant) females. Different impacts on the herds.the only variable idahohunter that i have is did poaching just start up in 1995? My guess being around n-c idaho the last 40 years is that what the game dept. classifies as poaching has been going on in the regions for 100 years but now all of a sudden it has a big effect on the ungulate herd? I understand that yes it sounds like we only blame the wolf and there are alot of varibles in the equation, but the only new varible is the wolf so that has to be a huge factor!
This is a very good point, one that I missed entirely. Not to excuse poaching at all, but poaching isn't a new strain on the resource and wolves are. So, I guess if we get rid of all the poachers, then the wolves are OK then? Bwahahaha! Yeah, right.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 23, 2014, 11:03:52 AM
Nobody said poaching is new...just that wolves get all the fanfare and knowledgable wildlife officials are simply reminding folks that poaching is as or more significant than wolf predation. Why folks are so blinded by wolves they cry foul anytime people bring up other issues like poaching or habitat is hard to understand.the only variable idahohunter that i have is did poaching just start up in 1995? My guess being around n-c idaho the last 40 years is that what the game dept. classifies as poaching has been going on in the regions for 100 years but now all of a sudden it has a big effect on the ungulate herd? I understand that yes it sounds like we only blame the wolf and there are alot of varibles in the equation, but the only new varible is the wolf so that has to be a huge factor!
This is a very good point, one that I missed entirely. Not to excuse poaching at all, but poaching isn't a new strain on the resource and wolves are. So, I guess if we get rid of all the poachers, then the wolves are OK then? Bwahahaha! Yeah, right.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 23, 2014, 11:22:30 AM
Fixed it for Ya!Nobody said poaching is new...just that wolves get all the fanfare and knowledgable wildlife officials are simply Diverting folks that poaching is as, or more significant than wolf predation. Why folks are so blinded by wolves they cry foul anytime people bring up other issues like poaching or habitat is hard to understand.the only variable idahohunter that i have is did poaching just start up in 1995? My guess being around n-c idaho the last 40 years is that what the game dept. classifies as poaching has been going on in the regions for 100 years but now all of a sudden it has a big effect on the ungulate herd? I understand that yes it sounds like we only blame the wolf and there are alot of varibles in the equation, but the only new varible is the wolf so that has to be a huge factor!
This is a very good point, one that I missed entirely. Not to excuse poaching at all, but poaching isn't a new strain on the resource and wolves are. So, I guess if we get rid of all the poachers, then the wolves are OK then? Bwahahaha! Yeah, right.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2014, 12:26:06 PM
Nobody said poaching is new...just that wolves get all the fanfare and knowledgable wildlife officials are simply reminding folks that poaching is as or more significant than wolf predation. Why folks are so blinded by wolves they cry foul anytime people bring up other issues like poaching or habitat is hard to understand.the only variable idahohunter that i have is did poaching just start up in 1995? My guess being around n-c idaho the last 40 years is that what the game dept. classifies as poaching has been going on in the regions for 100 years but now all of a sudden it has a big effect on the ungulate herd? I understand that yes it sounds like we only blame the wolf and there are alot of varibles in the equation, but the only new varible is the wolf so that has to be a huge factor!
This is a very good point, one that I missed entirely. Not to excuse poaching at all, but poaching isn't a new strain on the resource and wolves are. So, I guess if we get rid of all the poachers, then the wolves are OK then? Bwahahaha! Yeah, right.
I don't believe at all that poaching is anywhere near as significant as wolves in affecting ungulate populations. But regardless, even if it were (in whatever fantasy land in which you live), the wolves are a new, added strain on ungulates. We call foul because 1. we don't need them to control ungulate populations (we humans do that just fine when we're allowed), 2. these are not the same wolves that lived here before, and 3. the wolf plan in WA is irresponsible and not tailored to our specific human population density. Apparently, none of the problems that MT, WY, and ID were experiencing were considered in formulating this extreme plan for WA. I will call foul until we can start killing them and will continue after. They don't belong here. They belong in northern remote Canada.
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2014, 01:32:39 PM
Nobody said poaching is new...just that wolves get all the fanfare and knowledgable wildlife officials are simply reminding folks that poaching is as or more significant than wolf predation. Why folks are so blinded by wolves they cry foul anytime people bring up other issues like poaching or habitat is hard to understand.the only variable idahohunter that i have is did poaching just start up in 1995? My guess being around n-c idaho the last 40 years is that what the game dept. classifies as poaching has been going on in the regions for 100 years but now all of a sudden it has a big effect on the ungulate herd? I understand that yes it sounds like we only blame the wolf and there are alot of varibles in the equation, but the only new varible is the wolf so that has to be a huge factor!
This is a very good point, one that I missed entirely. Not to excuse poaching at all, but poaching isn't a new strain on the resource and wolves are. So, I guess if we get rid of all the poachers, then the wolves are OK then? Bwahahaha! Yeah, right.
Guess I'll repeat myself! :dunno:
:rolleyes: As easily as they made their statement "not an attempt to downplay wolves", I can make the statement "not an attempt to downplay poaching." Facts are facts, wolves kill more than poachers and it's documented. When you have a valid argument and something more than here say please enlighten us. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on April 23, 2014, 06:13:05 PM
The article discussed in this thread refers to poaching effects in N-C Idaho. The gentlemen interviewed for the article are senior officers with decades of experience and familiarity with N-C Idaho ungulate herds, habitat, predators, hunting, and poachers. They are all life-long hunters who want to shoot an elk as much as any of us. Given their substantial experience in wildlife abundance, mortality, poaching, and hunting in N-C Idaho they are very qualified to speak to relative mortality factors IMO. They are not suggesting that wolves do not have an impact. So, please share what experience you have that qualifies you to speak more knowledgeably than those 3 officers of the factors influencing wildlife in N-C Idaho? Wait, let me guess...wolfbaits posts?? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:Nobody said poaching is new...just that wolves get all the fanfare and knowledgable wildlife officials are simply reminding folks that poaching is as or more significant than wolf predation. Why folks are so blinded by wolves they cry foul anytime people bring up other issues like poaching or habitat is hard to understand.the only variable idahohunter that i have is did poaching just start up in 1995? My guess being around n-c idaho the last 40 years is that what the game dept. classifies as poaching has been going on in the regions for 100 years but now all of a sudden it has a big effect on the ungulate herd? I understand that yes it sounds like we only blame the wolf and there are alot of varibles in the equation, but the only new varible is the wolf so that has to be a huge factor!
This is a very good point, one that I missed entirely. Not to excuse poaching at all, but poaching isn't a new strain on the resource and wolves are. So, I guess if we get rid of all the poachers, then the wolves are OK then? Bwahahaha! Yeah, right.
I don't believe at all that poaching is anywhere near as significant as wolves in affecting ungulate populations. But regardless, even if it were (in whatever fantasy land in which you live), the wolves are a new, added strain on ungulates.
We call foul because 1. we don't need them to control ungulate populations (we humans do that just fine when we're allowed), 2. these are not the same wolves that lived here before, and 3. the wolf plan in WA is irresponsible and not tailored to our specific human population density. Apparently, none of the problems that MT, WY, and ID were experiencing were considered in formulating this extreme plan for WA. I will call foul until we can start killing them and will continue after. They don't belong here. They belong in northern remote Canada.None of your points above pertains to anything in the article that is the topic of this thread...nobody is talking about "needing" wolves, or where the wolves came from or what the WA wolf plan is. Did you even read the article? You probably don't even know where Idaho is...fortunately you don't let your ignorance stop you from speaking up :stup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2014, 06:22:18 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on April 23, 2014, 08:19:26 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 23, 2014, 08:30:06 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 23, 2014, 09:27:42 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 23, 2014, 10:00:07 PM
I don't support wolves in any way but I don't feel this article has some underlying theme of wolf support. I also have to laugh when folks believe that WDFW has anything to do with the wolf populations in washington. They have to follow what is set by the feds and then by what is set by our lawmakers. The majority of WDFW is on our side but at the same time they have to enforce what the people vote for. I have never met a wdfw officer that was in support of bear bait bans or using dogs for cougar, but it was passed into law so they have to do their job. I think the WDFW does a great job with what they are given. We have a state with a ton of hunters and a limited amount of game and then split by 50% non-hunters and 50% hunters, their job isn't even close to easy.My sentiments exactly...well said. We as hunters have to provide comment/direction/opinion to wdfw on what they can do better or change, but I think we also need to keep in mind what you said and not alienate or denigrate them in ways that become detrimental to sustaining good sportsmen-agency relationships. They are very much on our side in general and whether you like them or not we have no bigger ally when it comes to protecting the hunting in this state.
I read this article then reread it,I then went and did some research on the subject of Idaho,Lots of pictures of half eaten carcases found they are checking the bodies for any lead with metal detectors...............No specifics on what was found as far as bullets go but a lot of evidence of predation in the photos.No police reports or arrest stats given.Now I would hope we could all agree on the number of deer or elk it takes to sustain 1 wolf.That being said I would think that there would be a lot of news on poachers being caught if they are killing so much more than the wolves.Now Im not saying your wrong maybe the poachers do kill 10 times more than wolves,Im open to that concept no prob.But if thats true in my op that blows the crap out of your theory that these officers are top notch,know all,scientifically superior ETC.If they cant catch more of the poachers then they are far from superior in their evidence gathering skills.I appreciate that you read this with an open mind and certainly can understand your point about these officers. I think it points to resources (number of officers and time they have to committ) more than their capabilities. Like most states you've got one or 2 wardens per county or something :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on April 23, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
I don't support wolves in any way but I don't feel this article has some underlying theme of wolf support. I also have to laugh when folks believe that WDFW has anything to do with the wolf populations in washington. They have to follow what is set by the feds and then by what is set by our lawmakers. The majority of WDFW is on our side but at the same time they have to enforce what the people vote for. I have never met a wdfw officer that was in support of bear bait bans or using dogs for cougar, but it was passed into law so they have to do their job. I think the WDFW does a great job with what they are given. We have a state with a ton of hunters and a limited amount of game and then split by 50% non-hunters and 50% hunters, their job isn't even close to easy.
Not exactly correct. Wolves have been delisted in the eastern 1/3 of Washington for a few years. It's the Washington self inflicted wolf plan and lack of hiring adequate wolf trappers to prove wolf numbers that is holding up management in this area. ;)
I definitely agree that WDFW has quite the balancing act with WA demographics and politics.
Post by: Buzz2401 on April 24, 2014, 07:11:49 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 24, 2014, 07:33:13 AM
I don't support wolves in any way but I don't feel this article has some underlying theme of wolf support. I also have to laugh when folks believe that WDFW has anything to do with the wolf populations in washington. They have to follow what is set by the feds and then by what is set by our lawmakers. The majority of WDFW is on our side but at the same time they have to enforce what the people vote for. I have never met a wdfw officer that was in support of bear bait bans or using dogs for cougar, but it was passed into law so they have to do their job. I think the WDFW does a great job with what they are given. We have a state with a ton of hunters and a limited amount of game and then split by 50% non-hunters and 50% hunters, their job isn't even close to easy.
You can laugh all you want but you're absolutely wrong that the DFW has nothing to do with the wolf populations in WA. It was the DFW which proposed the wolf plan which was accepted by the USFWS without reservation, a wolf plan that is way over the top given our population density and in comparison to the plans submitted by WY, MT, and ID. It's the DFW which continues to protect the wolf statewide even though they've been delisted in the eastern third of the state by the feds. In addition, MT, ID, and WY have stood up to the USFWS during the planning stages of the program and further when the wolves became a problem there. WA, on the other hand, has been doing everything they can to kiss the USFWS's butt on wolves in WA and continues to ignore the problems our citizens are experiencing daily.
The comparison of the wolf plan to the baiting and hounding bans is also way off the mark. The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum. So, there's no valid comparison to a wolf plan which was put in place and adopted by the DFW/Wildlife Commission. Not sure where you're getting your information but it's incredibly inaccurate.
Post by: AspenBud on April 24, 2014, 09:05:28 AM
The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum.
Of all the things related to wolves that make you lose sleep, that precedent should be the one that frightens you most. With all of the posts and polls on here about poaching and poisoning wolves, all of the vitriolic talk about them, animal rights groups could scoop up all the propaganda they need off H-W alone.
But you're smarter than everyone, I know. Guess we'll see.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 24, 2014, 10:28:28 AM
Post by: wolfbait on April 24, 2014, 10:35:26 AM
The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum.
Of all the things related to wolves that make you lose sleep, that precedent should be the one that frightens you most. With all of the posts and polls on here about poaching and poisoning wolves, all of the vitriolic talk about them, animal rights groups could scoop up all the propaganda they need off H-W alone.
But you're smarter than everyone, I know. Guess we'll see.
The "environmentalists" have told so many lies by now their credibility, much like certain WDFW biologists is going down the drain. What they could get off of a hunting site pales compared to the propaganda they already run on. Your little threat is pure BS. :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on April 24, 2014, 11:31:53 AM
The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum.
Of all the things related to wolves that make you lose sleep, that precedent should be the one that frightens you most. With all of the posts and polls on here about poaching and poisoning wolves, all of the vitriolic talk about them, animal rights groups could scoop up all the propaganda they need off H-W alone.
But you're smarter than everyone, I know. Guess we'll see.
The "environmentalists" have told so many lies by now their credibility, much like certain WDFW biologists is going down the drain. What they could get off of a hunting site pales compared to the propaganda they already run on. Your little threat is pure BS. :chuckle:
I think you need to spend some time in Seattle and see how many of the "lies" you talk about are known or cared about. While you're at it go to Bellingham, Vancouver, and Spokane. I don't think you'll be happy with what you find.
If you hate wolves, great. But for God's sake shut your mouth for once and think about how what you say here can be used against allowing wolf hunting. Animal rights groups got hound hunting shut down when the internet was still on dial up and a relatively new and unknown thing, they did it with just a few misguided peoples' videos and photos slapped onto TV and newspaper ads.
Post by: bearpaw on April 24, 2014, 11:48:26 AM
There will be far more support against poaching if they quit trying to lie about wolf impacts being less than everyone has seen.
My Advice - Leave faulty wolf statements out of the story if you want to be taken seriously. Talk to us about poachers and the need to eliminate poaching and you will get all the support you need. :twocents:
What wolf lovers will do to try and protect their beloved wolves is simply astounding. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 24, 2014, 12:10:03 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 24, 2014, 12:48:48 PM
:chuckle: :yeah:The bait and hound bans were put in place by public referendum.
Of all the things related to wolves that make you lose sleep, that precedent should be the one that frightens you most. With all of the posts and polls on here about poaching and poisoning wolves, all of the vitriolic talk about them, animal rights groups could scoop up all the propaganda they need off H-W alone.
But you're smarter than everyone, I know. Guess we'll see.
The "environmentalists" have told so many lies by now their credibility, much like certain WDFW biologists is going down the drain. What they could get off of a hunting site pales compared to the propaganda they already run on. Your little threat is pure BS. :chuckle:
I think you need to spend some time in Seattle and see how many of the "lies" you talk about are known or cared about. While you're at it go to Bellingham, Vancouver, and Spokane. I don't think you'll be happy with what you find.
If you hate wolves, great. But for God's sake shut your mouth for once and think about how what you say here can be used against allowing wolf hunting. Animal rights groups got hound hunting shut down when the internet was still on dial up and a relatively new and unknown thing, they did it with just a few misguided peoples' videos and photos slapped onto TV and newspaper ads.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 24, 2014, 01:08:42 PM
This whole article is ridiculous and shows the ineptitude of some agency personnel and their lack of ability to understand wildlife, the public, and the issues. Obviously whomever wrote this was trying to make wolf impacts seem less important. The fact that it was written about Idaho speaks volumes, most everyone who lives in north Idaho is aware of the severity of wolf impacts, except for a half dozen wolf advocates (lovers) on this forum it's pretty unanimous that wolves threaten modern game management, that's why Idaho is managing wolves and other predators the way they are. Predators must be controlled.Where to begin.
There will be far more support against poaching if they quit trying to lie about wolf impacts being less than everyone has seen.
My Advice - Leave faulty wolf statements out of the story if you want to be taken seriously. Talk to us about poachers and the need to eliminate poaching and you will get all the support you need. :twocents:
What wolf lovers will do to try and protect their beloved wolves is simply astounding. :chuckle:
First, the agency personnel quoted in the article know far more about wolves, wildlife, hunting, poaching and the associated complexity of these issues in N-C idaho than you ever will. If you do buy or own an outfit in the Lolo or other nearby zone I hope you get a chance to meet Mark Hill or George Fischer or Barry Cummings...you would delete this post right now if you even had a clue who these guys were, how much they know, and how much they do for wildlife in Idaho. These guys are not saying there just aren't any wolf impacts in Idaho so stop lying about it. For you to imply you have some superior knowledge that these "inept" staff do not is hilarious...you know how to make a dollar off of the public's resources...that's what your good at...you have no clue when it comes to the complexities and challenges of modern wildlife management.
The fact that it is nearly unanimous on this forum that wolves "threaten modern game management" is absolutely meaningless. Several centuries ago it was unanimous that the earth was flat...popularity does not make for good science or substitute for fact. Your notion that wolves "threaten modern game management" is another absurd statement not supported by any data. Wolf numbers are declining and elk/deer populations are doing well...your doom and gloom bs just didn't play out...go find a new conspiracy drum to beat because there is not much credibility left for you wolf nutjobs...and that goes the same for the enviro whack jobs too who claimed wolf hunting would cause extermination...you are all the same clueless people, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. Same goes for your statement about everyone in "North Idaho knows"...sorry if the mechanic buying a half-rack up in athol thinks wolves are the problem...I will stick with what the wildlife professionals have to say.
Post by: stevemiller on April 24, 2014, 09:46:13 PM
Post by: bearpaw on April 24, 2014, 10:34:34 PM
This whole article is ridiculous and shows the ineptitude of some agency personnel and their lack of ability to understand wildlife, the public, and the issues. Obviously whomever wrote this was trying to make wolf impacts seem less important. The fact that it was written about Idaho speaks volumes, most everyone who lives in north Idaho is aware of the severity of wolf impacts, except for a half dozen wolf advocates (lovers) on this forum it's pretty unanimous that wolves threaten modern game management, that's why Idaho is managing wolves and other predators the way they are. Predators must be controlled.Where to begin.
There will be far more support against poaching if they quit trying to lie about wolf impacts being less than everyone has seen.
My Advice - Leave faulty wolf statements out of the story if you want to be taken seriously. Talk to us about poachers and the need to eliminate poaching and you will get all the support you need. :twocents:
What wolf lovers will do to try and protect their beloved wolves is simply astounding. :chuckle:
First, the agency personnel quoted in the article know far more about wolves, wildlife, hunting, poaching and the associated complexity of these issues in N-C idaho than you ever will. If you do buy or own an outfit in the Lolo or other nearby zone I hope you get a chance to meet Mark Hill or George Fischer or Barry Cummings...you would delete this post right now if you even had a clue who these guys were, how much they know, and how much they do for wildlife in Idaho. These guys are not saying there just aren't any wolf impacts in Idaho so stop lying about it. For you to imply you have some superior knowledge that these "inept" staff do not is hilarious...you know how to make a dollar off of the public's resources...that's what your good at...you have no clue when it comes to the complexities and challenges of modern wildlife management.
The fact that it is nearly unanimous on this forum that wolves "threaten modern game management" is absolutely meaningless. Several centuries ago it was unanimous that the earth was flat...popularity does not make for good science or substitute for fact. Your notion that wolves "threaten modern game management" is another absurd statement not supported by any data. Wolf numbers are declining and elk/deer populations are doing well...your doom and gloom bs just didn't play out...go find a new conspiracy drum to beat because there is not much credibility left for you wolf nutjobs...and that goes the same for the enviro whack jobs too who claimed wolf hunting would cause extermination...you are all the same clueless people, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. Same goes for your statement about everyone in "North Idaho knows"...sorry if the mechanic buying a half-rack up in athol thinks wolves are the problem...I will stick with what the wildlife professionals have to say.
Speaking of comments that are meaningless! :chuckle:
I am disappointed to hear your comment about the people, it's the people that have pushed so hard to get wolf management. The professionals were in wolf denial until the Idaho people voted in a new governor who told IDFG what to do to get wolves under control. Governor Otter told IDGF they had to stop wolf shooting investigations and they could not pass any info to USFWS. THAT IS A FACT!
It appears your wolf professionals were told how to let wolf management happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's obvious you think you know more than everyone else, but that is why Idaho has wolf management taking place and why Idaho is getting wolves under control, because of the people telling the wolf professionals they were wrong about wolves and it's time to manage them. :twocents:
The governor and legislature (representatives for the people) just passed more wolf legislation to further handle the wolf problem. The people are also funding Idaho trappers who are also taking care of the wolf problem.
Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......
I've got other things that need done, so I have to end this discussion for now. Good luck hunting this weekend if you are going.
idahohuntr: If these individuals are doing so much how could Idaho have any kind of poaching problem?PS I never saw any rebuttal from you on my last post,Does the silence mean you agree with what I said?I cant tell because I showed you their incompetence but yet you come back without anything to say on that subject and still beat your chest at how much they know,Or do for the wildlife in Idaho. By the way you do realize that they hunt wolves in Idaho and not here in WA. right? :dunno:
You do seem to make a good point there Steve. I would add a few extra comments. Wildlife agents depend on citizens for help with the poaching problem. We should all be trying to work together to reduce the poaching that does occur. I don't know any good sportsmen who like poachers, but these holier-than-thou types who look down there nose at the citizens concerns and refuse to manage wolves, continue to deny proven facts and figures from studies proving wolf impacts and herd declines, and continually blame wolf impacts on other factors, just exactly why do these people expect the citizens to want to help them with anything?
This has to be a two way street. If wildlife agencies want help from the citizens, they need to start doing their jobs at managing wolves and other predators, this nonsense of denying ranchers compensation after it was promised, this nonsense of continually bumping the wolf numbers to a higher target, this nonsense of ignoring impacts on game herds and then saying the statewide numbers are holding, this has alienated sportsmen and the citizens. Idahohntr doesn't care and as he stated he could care less what anyone on this forum thinks.
But I disagree, this forum is a huge cross section of Washington's hunters, we are the hunters of this state, we buy the hunting licenses and tags that support wildlife management, only a fool would say it doesn't matter what everyone on this forum thinks. That's my :twocents:
Anyway take care everyone, I've got to go.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 24, 2014, 11:39:41 PM
Your revisionist history is as hilarious as it is pathetic. Everything you just described about Otter is grossly mis-characterized. You are implying there was a wedge between IDFG and Otter/State Legislature and that demonstrates how ignorant you are on this topic. Otter fully supported IDFG's wolf management plan as drafted by IDFG WILDLIFE PROFESSIONALS! Otter's notice was to the federal government and USFWS that Idaho would no longer serve as the designated agent of wolf management and was in response to re-listing after one successful public hunt managed by IDFG...the people of Idaho, IDFG, and Otter were all largely on the same page. We were frustrated as hell by the re-listing by a federal judge. Now, another little "FACT" for you to consider: Otter was elected governor in 2006. His famous remarks about getting the first wolf tag and killing all but 100 wolves were made in 2007. His letter to USFWS letting them know the state would not spend any money on wolf management was sent in 2010. As a republican in Idaho there was absolutely no danger of Otter losing his seat in the 2010 election. Your suggestion that there was some bravado election where the people of Idaho brought in a new governor to straighten out IDFG or whatever your fantasy was is about as big a lie as I have seen on this forum. Your inability to tell the truth is actually kind of disgusting. You know the truth and yet you sit here and spread misinformation to everyone on this forum as if any idiot that searched for Otter on Wikipedia would not be able to confirm everything I just wrote. :bash:
I am disappointed to hear your comment about the people, it's the people that have pushed so hard to get wolf management. The professionals were in wolf denial until the Idaho people voted in a new governor who told IDFG what to do to get wolves under control. Governor Otter told IDGF they had to stop wolf shooting investigations and they could not pass any info to USFWS. THAT IS A FACT!
It appears your wolf professionals were told how to let wolf management happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's obvious you think you know more than everyone else, but that is why Idaho has wolf management taking place and why Idaho is getting wolves under control, because of the people telling the wolf professionals they were wrong about wolves and it's time to manage them. :twocents:
The governor and legislature (representatives for the people) just passed more wolf legislation to further handle the wolf problem. The people are also funding Idaho trappers who are also taking care of the wolf problem.
Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......
I've got other things that need done, so I have to end this discussion for now. Good luck hunting this weekend if you are going.
Idahohntr doesn't care and as he stated he could care less what anyone on this forum thinks.And just where did I say I don't care what anyone thinks? I engage in a lot of dialogue because I have an interest in other view points. What I actually was pointing out to you is that just because a majority of members have a particular viewpoint does not mean they are "right". Science is not the collection of popular opinion....if it were, the earth would still be flat in the views of most. If you want to keep your head buried in the sand and be the Chairman of the Flat Earth Society....go for it. :tup: Just don't try and use garbage about how majority opinion makes anyone right or wrong...that's not how science works...it is how democracy works though and is precisely why I am sensitive to people spouting garbage about wolves and then those same people wondering why we don't get to manage them in Washington like they are in Idaho. When it comes to hunters views on management priorities and preferences, those social issues should absolutely be made by us license buying hunters...but when it comes to things like causes of declines in elk herds or status/abundance of elk herds...those are not things to be decided by majority opinion...those are to be determined by professionals using objective data collected in an appropriate way. Scientific management is a key principle to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation...as far as I am concerned if you don't support the basic tenets of the NAMWC then go hunt in Europe and stay the hell out of the U.S. :twocents:
But I disagree, this forum is a huge cross section of Washington's hunters, we are the hunters of this state, we buy the hunting licenses and tags that support wildlife management, only a fool would say it doesn't matter what everyone on this forum thinks. That's my :twocents:
Post by: JLS on April 25, 2014, 05:43:22 AM
Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......
Well, I stopped at the CDA office the other day on my way through to talk to them about elk hunting. I found out that a couple of the actually TEACH wolf trapping, so I guess your lumping them as wolf lovers is likely not very correct.
And, whether you agree with their math or not really has no bearing whatsoever as to their thoughts on wolves. YOU were the one who got it in your mind that they were trying to deflect for some reason. Nothing whatsoever in the article supports that, other than you lacking objectivity in the matter.
The COs that I talked to were very professional, and very knowledgeable. Hardly the clown show that some would like to portray them as.
Post by: bearpaw on April 25, 2014, 02:41:52 PM
Your revisionist history is as hilarious as it is pathetic. Everything you just described about Otter is grossly mis-characterized. You are implying there was a wedge between IDFG and Otter/State Legislature and that demonstrates how ignorant you are on this topic. Otter fully supported IDFG's wolf management plan as drafted by IDFG WILDLIFE PROFESSIONALS! Otter's notice was to the federal government and USFWS that Idaho would no longer serve as the designated agent of wolf management and was in response to re-listing after one successful public hunt managed by IDFG...the people of Idaho, IDFG, and Otter were all largely on the same page. We were frustrated as hell by the re-listing by a federal judge. Now, another little "FACT" for you to consider: Otter was elected governor in 2006. His famous remarks about getting the first wolf tag and killing all but 100 wolves were made in 2007. His letter to USFWS letting them know the state would not spend any money on wolf management was sent in 2010. As a republican in Idaho there was absolutely no danger of Otter losing his seat in the 2010 election. Your suggestion that there was some bravado election where the people of Idaho brought in a new governor to straighten out IDFG or whatever your fantasy was is about as big a lie as I have seen on this forum. Your inability to tell the truth is actually kind of disgusting. You know the truth and yet you sit here and spread misinformation to everyone on this forum as if any idiot that searched for Otter on Wikipedia would not be able to confirm everything I just wrote. :bash:
I am disappointed to hear your comment about the people, it's the people that have pushed so hard to get wolf management. The professionals were in wolf denial until the Idaho people voted in a new governor who told IDFG what to do to get wolves under control. Governor Otter told IDGF they had to stop wolf shooting investigations and they could not pass any info to USFWS. THAT IS A FACT!
It appears your wolf professionals were told how to let wolf management happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's obvious you think you know more than everyone else, but that is why Idaho has wolf management taking place and why Idaho is getting wolves under control, because of the people telling the wolf professionals they were wrong about wolves and it's time to manage them. :twocents:
The governor and legislature (representatives for the people) just passed more wolf legislation to further handle the wolf problem. The people are also funding Idaho trappers who are also taking care of the wolf problem.
Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......
I've got other things that need done, so I have to end this discussion for now. Good luck hunting this weekend if you are going.Idahohntr doesn't care and as he stated he could care less what anyone on this forum thinks.And just where did I say I don't care what anyone thinks? I engage in a lot of dialogue because I have an interest in other view points. What I actually was pointing out to you is that just because a majority of members have a particular viewpoint does not mean they are "right". Science is not the collection of popular opinion....if it were, the earth would still be flat in the views of most. If you want to keep your head buried in the sand and be the Chairman of the Flat Earth Society....go for it. :tup: Just don't try and use garbage about how majority opinion makes anyone right or wrong...that's not how science works...it is how democracy works though and is precisely why I am sensitive to people spouting garbage about wolves and then those same people wondering why we don't get to manage them in Washington like they are in Idaho. When it comes to hunters views on management priorities and preferences, those social issues should absolutely be made by us license buying hunters...but when it comes to things like causes of declines in elk herds or status/abundance of elk herds...those are not things to be decided by majority opinion...those are to be determined by professionals using objective data collected in an appropriate way. Scientific management is a key principle to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation...as far as I am concerned if you don't support the basic tenets of the NAMWC then go hunt in Europe and stay the hell out of the U.S. :twocents:
But I disagree, this forum is a huge cross section of Washington's hunters, we are the hunters of this state, we buy the hunting licenses and tags that support wildlife management, only a fool would say it doesn't matter what everyone on this forum thinks. That's my :twocents:
I think you have the dates regarding Otter pretty close, no disagreement about when he made his statements. But, whether you like it or not the people I know in Idaho are voting for Otter in great part for his statements and positive actions on wolf management. I am an ardent supporter of the north American wildlife management model and most major wildlife groups. My impression and thoughts on wolf management remains as stated. You are refabricating my comments to a different context than stated, if you think I did that to you I apologize. This discussion is no longer fruitful for anyone, not the sort of discussion escalation that I want to be involved with. Have a great weekend. :twocents:
Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......
Well, I stopped at the CDA office the other day on my way through to talk to them about elk hunting. I found out that a couple of the actually TEACH wolf trapping, so I guess your lumping them as wolf lovers is likely not very correct.
And, whether you agree with their math or not really has no bearing whatsoever as to their thoughts on wolves. YOU were the one who got it in your mind that they were trying to deflect for some reason. Nothing whatsoever in the article supports that, other than you lacking objectivity in the matter.
The COs that I talked to were very professional, and very knowledgeable. Hardly the clown show that some would like to portray them as.
I'm pretty sure most of the regions teach wolf trapping and most of the agents I deal with are some of the best you will meet. Please don't try to distort what I say, it's the wolf supporters in agencies who try to hide the impacts of wolves that I am opposed to. Much of the best data showing wolf impacts are coming from IDFG. I applaud the efforts of these professionals in IDFG who will present the facts for everyone to see. :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on April 25, 2014, 07:05:12 PM
The same WDFW that protects predators, above all else. How long? Ten years?
Post by: KFhunter on April 25, 2014, 07:22:46 PM
After 18 years of wolves in ID, MT, and Wyoming does anyone think WA has a different wolf? Does anyone think WA is running their agency different then Idaho? Does anyone remember how long it took for IDFG to finally admit that yes it was wolves that were decimating the herds? And Finally how long do you think it will take WDFW to admit the game herds are decimated and in a predator pit?
The same WDFW that protects predators, above all else. How long? Ten years?
Probably until WA voters do the same thing as Idaho voters :chuckle:
couldn't resist
Post by: KFhunter on April 25, 2014, 07:35:46 PM
Maybe the wardens are good guys at their job, I do hope they are. But I still think they made a mistake/miscalculation or simply love wolves, whatever the case may be with their comment, the math simply doesn't add up with their comparison. Just sayin......
Well, I stopped at the CDA office the other day on my way through to talk to them about elk hunting. I found out that a couple of the actually TEACH wolf trapping, so I guess your lumping them as wolf lovers is likely not very correct.
And, whether you agree with their math or not really has no bearing whatsoever as to their thoughts on wolves. YOU were the one who got it in your mind that they were trying to deflect for some reason. Nothing whatsoever in the article supports that, other than you lacking objectivity in the matter.
The COs that I talked to were very professional, and very knowledgeable. Hardly the clown show that some would like to portray them as.
I'll give those guy's the benefit of the doubt -the CO's featured in this article- and lay the blame for deflection (unintended or otherwise) at the Spokesmen Review's feet.
To me it's an obvious deflection, you could write a stand alone story about poaching without dragging wolves into the mix, but then again who would read it? Toss a wolf in the mix and all the sudden it's being read; so maybe it's not a deflection but rather a sad attempt at getting some readership.
pick your poison
Post by: idaho guy on April 28, 2014, 02:13:59 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 28, 2014, 02:57:11 PM
Whoa....
Post by: idaho guy on April 28, 2014, 03:15:44 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 28, 2014, 03:21:03 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 28, 2014, 11:02:22 PM
Idaho hunter please just admit that the wolves are a major problem for our elk and deer herds. You have Idaho hunter as your title but if you cant admit what the wolves have done to our game herds I am starting to think we are hunting in different states! I dont want this to be an attack against you at all just can not understand at all where you are coming from on the wolves.Ugh...this one just won't die. I've never said there are not areas that have not been impacted by wolves. Don't read what others say I've said...really read my own posts as the basis for what I think, not somebody's distorted interpretation. Wolves in particular areas have impacted ungulate herds and in some very specific areas they are very much the limiting factor to population growth. However, you are dead wrong if you think that all herds have just been decimated in Idaho and you are equally wrong if you think all game numbers and areas that truly have experienced marked declines are because of wolves. I don't know how long you have lived and hunted in Idaho but elk hunting is still pretty good in many areas...deer hunting took a hit after back to back hard winters in 2008 and 2009 but I am seeing signs of improvement there as well. Hunter success rates in most units of N. Idaho are as good or better than they were 10-15 years ago. Part of my dismay in some of the comments above stems from completely unintelligent discussion about what and how IDFG (or other state agencies) are managing wolves. They have been hamstrung by federal laws and associated lawsuits from enviro whacko groups and so when I see sportsmen attack our best ally (stage game agencies) without any real basis it irritates me. You think IDFG doesn't know how to manage wolves? Or they don't know whats happening in the Lolo or Unit 1 moose or Unit 7 elk or the Middle Fork Zone??? Give me a break...these wildlife professionals have done a heck of a job and when I see groups or people attack them in a misleading way it irritates the hell out of me...like suggesting Otter was elected to clean house at IDFG or something :rolleyes: IDFG gets the crap beat out of 'em for sending in a trapper to the Middle Fork at public meetings, only to have hunters say they don't know what they are doing??? Guess what...its almost entirely the same staff since wolves started really making headlines in the early 2000's. All along IDFG has been saying they can manage wolves just like any other predator or game animal they've been managing for 75 years...enviro whackos claimed they would decimate all the wolves...wolf whackos claimed IDFG would ruin all the deer and elk hunting. Guess who was right? IDFG. End of discussion...if you are in one of the fringe groups pack up your bags and go home.
I think people say the word wolf and then all these idiots that moved to Idaho from California think that before wolves every hunter shot a 6 pt bull every year :chuckle: :chuckle: If you hunt public ground in any western state with OTC tags and you think you should kill a bull every year...you need a reality check.
Bearpaw is spot on on about everything he has posted about the wolf and wildlife management.That is a good one :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Oh wait...you were being serious :yike:
Please, go back and read how ol Bearpaw described Otter/IDFG/Wolves and tell me he is "spot on" :chuckle: The guy made up all this bravado bs that never happened, completely mis-characterized how Otter and IDFG worked together...but yea, other than missing all the pertinent dates, facts, details, and substantive evidence his description was "spot on" :tup: At least as spot on as all of his other wolf thread posts. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on April 28, 2014, 11:29:25 PM
Idaho hunter please just admit that the wolves are a major problem for our elk and deer herds. You have Idaho hunter as your title but if you cant admit what the wolves have done to our game herds I am starting to think we are hunting in different states! I dont want this to be an attack against you at all just can not understand at all where you are coming from on the wolves.Ugh...this one just won't die. I've never said there are not areas that have not been impacted by wolves. Don't read what others say I've said...really read my own posts as the basis for what I think, not somebody's distorted interpretation. Wolves in particular areas have impacted ungulate herds and in some very specific areas they are very much the limiting factor to population growth. However, you are dead wrong if you think that all herds have just been decimated in Idaho and you are equally wrong if you think all game numbers and areas that truly have experienced marked declines are because of wolves. I don't know how long you have lived and hunted in Idaho but elk hunting is still pretty good in many areas...deer hunting took a hit after back to back hard winters in 2008 and 2009 but I am seeing signs of improvement there as well. Hunter success rates in most units of N. Idaho are as good or better than they were 10-15 years ago. Part of my dismay in some of the comments above stems from completely unintelligent discussion about what and how IDFG (or other state agencies) are managing wolves. They have been hamstrung by federal laws and associated lawsuits from enviro whacko groups and so when I see sportsmen attack our best ally (stage game agencies) without any real basis it irritates me. You think IDFG doesn't know how to manage wolves? Or they don't know whats happening in the Lolo or Unit 1 moose or Unit 7 elk or the Middle Fork Zone??? Give me a break...these wildlife professionals have done a heck of a job and when I see groups or people attack them in a misleading way it irritates the hell out of me...like suggesting Otter was elected to clean house at IDFG or something :rolleyes: IDFG gets the crap beat out of 'em for sending in a trapper to the Middle Fork at public meetings, only to have hunters say they don't know what they are doing??? Guess what...its almost entirely the same staff since wolves started really making headlines in the early 2000's. All along IDFG has been saying they can manage wolves just like any other predator or game animal they've been managing for 75 years...enviro whackos claimed they would decimate all the wolves...wolf whackos claimed IDFG would ruin all the deer and elk hunting. Guess who was right? IDFG. End of discussion...if you are in one of the fringe groups pack up your bags and go home.
I think people say the word wolf and then all these idiots that moved to Idaho from California think that before wolves every hunter shot a 6 pt bull every year :chuckle: :chuckle: If you hunt public ground in any western state with OTC tags and you think you should kill a bull every year...you need a reality check.Bearpaw is spot on on about everything he has posted about the wolf and wildlife management.That is a good one :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Oh wait...you were being serious :yike:
Please, go back and read how ol Bearpaw described Otter/IDFG/Wolves and tell me he is "spot on" :chuckle: The guy made up all this bravado bs that never happened, completely mis-characterized how Otter and IDFG worked together...but yea, other than missing all the pertinent dates, facts, details, and substantive evidence his description was "spot on" :tup: At least as spot on as all of his other wolf thread posts. :chuckle:
Make any claims you want Idahohntr, I am not getting drawn into your nonsense game, people can see the history and facts that I have presented speak for themself. :twocents:
Post by: idaho guy on April 29, 2014, 09:49:01 AM
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 10:15:47 AM
Idaho hunter I have lived in north Idaho for 21 years and I moved her from Montana not California. I have lived in this area (nortwest) montana,idaho my whole life. You live in Washington but appear to be an expert on Idaho hunting. Read my post I said I think the idaho fish and game does a great job and totally agree that they were hamstrung by the feds. I also said that I took the wolf trapping class from them and they totally see the problem just were not allowed to implement effective wolf management soon enough. So before you go off please read my post also. I did kill my elk every year in the 90s early 2000 so ya Idaho hunting was that good. There are still good elk numbers in areas of the panhandle and we still kill elk but if you spend time in the woods you cant deny the very real effect wolves have had. In Idaho if you take advantage of the liberal seasons we are in the woods 11 months out of the year chasing some critter. In the fall I am hunting with everyone else deer, elk etc, winter we are chasing lions, spring through summer bears turkeys etc. and still trying to do my part with the wolves the rest of the time. I am out there all the time and dont need a biologist to tell me there are way more wolves than people think and they are wreaking havoc. I have watched as the wolves move in and then see another honey hole ruined or changed. If you still have some honey holes that have not been impacted its because the wolves are not there in large numbers yet. My qestion to you was what is your point? If anybody says hey wolves are a major problem(in addition to habititat and everything else) they are a conspiracy theorist? A wolf hating wacko nut job? I wish you were right and the wolf issue is not the major limiting factor right now. But you are not and I dont see why you are making this argument. I think we have a chance to get predators under control here BECAUSE OF OUR FISH & GAME DEPT. But trying to dismiss wolves as no big deal is not helping the problem -especially in Wa where your game dept seems to love predators already(except for the human kind)
Very well detailed and accurate reply in every way. What you said is what most people who spend much time in the Idaho mountains will say. I just talked to an Idaho resident last night who is down near Boise, he was telling me that he saw more deer and elk along the Payette winter range this year than he has seen in several years. The reduction in wolf numbers the last few years seems to be already starting to pay off in some areas. Thanks for your insight. :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on April 29, 2014, 10:55:15 AM
Idaho hunter I have lived in north Idaho for 21 years and I moved her from Montana not California. I have lived in this area (nortwest) montana,idaho my whole life. You live in Washington but appear to be an expert on Idaho hunting. Read my post I said I think the idaho fish and game does a great job and totally agree that they were hamstrung by the feds. I also said that I took the wolf trapping class from them and they totally see the problem just were not allowed to implement effective wolf management soon enough. So before you go off please read my post also. I did kill my elk every year in the 90s early 2000 so ya Idaho hunting was that good. There are still good elk numbers in areas of the panhandle and we still kill elk but if you spend time in the woods you cant deny the very real effect wolves have had. In Idaho if you take advantage of the liberal seasons we are in the woods 11 months out of the year chasing some critter. In the fall I am hunting with everyone else deer, elk etc, winter we are chasing lions, spring through summer bears turkeys etc. and still trying to do my part with the wolves the rest of the time. I am out there all the time and dont need a biologist to tell me there are way more wolves than people think and they are wreaking havoc. I have watched as the wolves move in and then see another honey hole ruined or changed. If you still have some honey holes that have not been impacted its because the wolves are not there in large numbers yet. My qestion to you was what is your point? If anybody says hey wolves are a major problem(in addition to habititat and everything else) they are a conspiracy theorist? A wolf hating wacko nut job? I wish you were right and the wolf issue is not the major limiting factor right now. But you are not and I dont see why you are making this argument. I think we have a chance to get predators under control here BECAUSE OF OUR FISH & GAME DEPT. But trying to dismiss wolves as no big deal is not helping the problem -especially in Wa where your game dept seems to love predators already(except for the human kind)
Very well detailed and accurate reply in every way. What you said is what most people who spend much time in the Idaho mountains will say. I just talked to an Idaho resident last night who is down near Boise, he was telling me that he saw more deer and elk along the Payette winter range this year than he has seen in several years. The reduction in wolf numbers the last few years seems to be already starting to pay off in some areas. Thanks for your insight. :tup:
X2 :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on April 29, 2014, 11:04:40 AM
Idaho hunter I have lived in north Idaho for 21 years and I moved her from Montana not California. I have lived in this area (nortwest) montana,idaho my whole life. You live in Washington but appear to be an expert on Idaho hunting. Read my post I said I think the idaho fish and game does a great job and totally agree that they were hamstrung by the feds. I also said that I took the wolf trapping class from them and they totally see the problem just were not allowed to implement effective wolf management soon enough. So before you go off please read my post also. I did kill my elk every year in the 90s early 2000 so ya Idaho hunting was that good. There are still good elk numbers in areas of the panhandle and we still kill elk but if you spend time in the woods you cant deny the very real effect wolves have had. In Idaho if you take advantage of the liberal seasons we are in the woods 11 months out of the year chasing some critter. In the fall I am hunting with everyone else deer, elk etc, winter we are chasing lions, spring through summer bears turkeys etc. and still trying to do my part with the wolves the rest of the time. I am out there all the time and dont need a biologist to tell me there are way more wolves than people think and they are wreaking havoc. I have watched as the wolves move in and then see another honey hole ruined or changed. If you still have some honey holes that have not been impacted its because the wolves are not there in large numbers yet. My qestion to you was what is your point? If anybody says hey wolves are a major problem(in addition to habititat and everything else) they are a conspiracy theorist? A wolf hating wacko nut job? I wish you were right and the wolf issue is not the major limiting factor right now. But you are not and I dont see why you are making this argument. I think we have a chance to get predators under control here BECAUSE OF OUR FISH & GAME DEPT. But trying to dismiss wolves as no big deal is not helping the problem -especially in Wa where your game dept seems to love predators already(except for the human kind):chuckle: I was speaking generally about new-comers, not you specifically. I don't care where you are from. My family has hunted N-C Idaho since the early 1900's (probably longer, but that is all I can confirm with photos/journals). I have only lived in Washington a short time and continue to hunt and recreate in Idaho every year...surely you are not suggesting my washington residence limits my knowledge of hunting in Idaho??
Go re-read my post, I answer all of your questions. You continue to misinterpret what I said. Nowhere have I ever suggested wolves don't ever cause problems...its the "wolves will end hunting as we know it" mindset that I get vocal about. The data do not support these claims. 20 years of wolves in Idaho and still huge amounts of game to hunt. Habitat, access, agriculture, maybe even poaching are a much bigger issue overall to ungulates in Idaho...wolves take the blame for poor habitat, bad winters, poaching and many other things is my biggest point. If elk or deer decline in an area (a big if) it is not automatic that wolves are the culprit. In some cases yes, but not in all cases.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 29, 2014, 11:12:58 AM
I am glad to see wolfbait and bearpaw both now acknowledge that much of Idaho (20 YEARS AFTER WOLVES) is good deer and elk hunting. Seems just a few short months ago both were claiming wolves had decimated most of Idaho and Washington was next. Now they seem to be getting on the bandwagon of Idaho is ok now. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:Idaho hunter I have lived in north Idaho for 21 years and I moved her from Montana not California. I have lived in this area (nortwest) montana,idaho my whole life. You live in Washington but appear to be an expert on Idaho hunting. Read my post I said I think the idaho fish and game does a great job and totally agree that they were hamstrung by the feds. I also said that I took the wolf trapping class from them and they totally see the problem just were not allowed to implement effective wolf management soon enough. So before you go off please read my post also. I did kill my elk every year in the 90s early 2000 so ya Idaho hunting was that good. There are still good elk numbers in areas of the panhandle and we still kill elk but if you spend time in the woods you cant deny the very real effect wolves have had. In Idaho if you take advantage of the liberal seasons we are in the woods 11 months out of the year chasing some critter. In the fall I am hunting with everyone else deer, elk etc, winter we are chasing lions, spring through summer bears turkeys etc. and still trying to do my part with the wolves the rest of the time. I am out there all the time and dont need a biologist to tell me there are way more wolves than people think and they are wreaking havoc. I have watched as the wolves move in and then see another honey hole ruined or changed. If you still have some honey holes that have not been impacted its because the wolves are not there in large numbers yet. My qestion to you was what is your point? If anybody says hey wolves are a major problem(in addition to habititat and everything else) they are a conspiracy theorist? A wolf hating wacko nut job? I wish you were right and the wolf issue is not the major limiting factor right now. But you are not and I dont see why you are making this argument. I think we have a chance to get predators under control here BECAUSE OF OUR FISH & GAME DEPT. But trying to dismiss wolves as no big deal is not helping the problem -especially in Wa where your game dept seems to love predators already(except for the human kind)
Very well detailed and accurate reply in every way. What you said is what most people who spend much time in the Idaho mountains will say. I just talked to an Idaho resident last night who is down near Boise, he was telling me that he saw more deer and elk along the Payette winter range this year than he has seen in several years. The reduction in wolf numbers the last few years seems to be already starting to pay off in some areas. Thanks for your insight. :tup:
X2 :tup:
Post by: idaho guy on April 29, 2014, 02:31:14 PM
***************I am glad to see wolfbait and bearpaw both now acknowledge that much of Idaho (20 YEARS AFTER WOLVES) is good deer and elk hunting. Seems just a few short months ago both were claiming wolves had decimated most of Idaho and Washington was next. Now they seem to be getting on the bandwagon of Idaho is ok now. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:Idaho hunter I have lived in north Idaho for 21 years and I moved her from Montana not California. I have lived in this area (nortwest) montana,idaho my whole life. You live in Washington but appear to be an expert on Idaho hunting. Read my post I said I think the idaho fish and game does a great job and totally agree that they were hamstrung by the feds. I also said that I took the wolf trapping class from them and they totally see the problem just were not allowed to implement effective wolf management soon enough. So before you go off please read my post also. I did kill my elk every year in the 90s early 2000 so ya Idaho hunting was that good. There are still good elk numbers in areas of the panhandle and we still kill elk but if you spend time in the woods you cant deny the very real effect wolves have had. In Idaho if you take advantage of the liberal seasons we are in the woods 11 months out of the year chasing some critter. In the fall I am hunting with everyone else deer, elk etc, winter we are chasing lions, spring through summer bears turkeys etc. and still trying to do my part with the wolves the rest of the time. I am out there all the time and dont need a biologist to tell me there are way more wolves than people think and they are wreaking havoc. I have watched as the wolves move in and then see another honey hole ruined or changed. If you still have some honey holes that have not been impacted its because the wolves are not there in large numbers yet. My qestion to you was what is your point? If anybody says hey wolves are a major problem(in addition to habititat and everything else) they are a conspiracy theorist? A wolf hating wacko nut job? I wish you were right and the wolf issue is not the major limiting factor right now. But you are not and I dont see why you are making this argument. I think we have a chance to get predators under control here BECAUSE OF OUR FISH & GAME DEPT. But trying to dismiss wolves as no big deal is not helping the problem -especially in Wa where your game dept seems to love predators already(except for the human kind)
Very well detailed and accurate reply in every way. What you said is what most people who spend much time in the Idaho mountains will say. I just talked to an Idaho resident last night who is down near Boise, he was telling me that he saw more deer and elk along the Payette winter range this year than he has seen in several years. The reduction in wolf numbers the last few years seems to be already starting to pay off in some areas. Thanks for your insight. :tup:
X2 :tup:
They were acknowleding that effective wolf management is working. Reducing wolves is helping in some areas was the point to what bearpaw said. Wolves are the main limiting factor in the size and health of our deer and elk herds.(Where they are present in large numbers) I agree with you that habitat is a strong second. Poachers suck but I dont see how one poacher could come close to what one wolf pack does in a year-I wont qoute stats or articles or biologist I see it everyday in the woods. Again I think Idaho will fix the problem and I am optimistic. Washington is another story
Post by: bearpaw on April 29, 2014, 05:08:16 PM
***************I am glad to see wolfbait and bearpaw both now acknowledge that much of Idaho (20 YEARS AFTER WOLVES) is good deer and elk hunting. Seems just a few short months ago both were claiming wolves had decimated most of Idaho and Washington was next. Now they seem to be getting on the bandwagon of Idaho is ok now. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:Idaho hunter I have lived in north Idaho for 21 years and I moved her from Montana not California. I have lived in this area (nortwest) montana,idaho my whole life. You live in Washington but appear to be an expert on Idaho hunting. Read my post I said I think the idaho fish and game does a great job and totally agree that they were hamstrung by the feds. I also said that I took the wolf trapping class from them and they totally see the problem just were not allowed to implement effective wolf management soon enough. So before you go off please read my post also. I did kill my elk every year in the 90s early 2000 so ya Idaho hunting was that good. There are still good elk numbers in areas of the panhandle and we still kill elk but if you spend time in the woods you cant deny the very real effect wolves have had. In Idaho if you take advantage of the liberal seasons we are in the woods 11 months out of the year chasing some critter. In the fall I am hunting with everyone else deer, elk etc, winter we are chasing lions, spring through summer bears turkeys etc. and still trying to do my part with the wolves the rest of the time. I am out there all the time and dont need a biologist to tell me there are way more wolves than people think and they are wreaking havoc. I have watched as the wolves move in and then see another honey hole ruined or changed. If you still have some honey holes that have not been impacted its because the wolves are not there in large numbers yet. My qestion to you was what is your point? If anybody says hey wolves are a major problem(in addition to habititat and everything else) they are a conspiracy theorist? A wolf hating wacko nut job? I wish you were right and the wolf issue is not the major limiting factor right now. But you are not and I dont see why you are making this argument. I think we have a chance to get predators under control here BECAUSE OF OUR FISH & GAME DEPT. But trying to dismiss wolves as no big deal is not helping the problem -especially in Wa where your game dept seems to love predators already(except for the human kind)
Very well detailed and accurate reply in every way. What you said is what most people who spend much time in the Idaho mountains will say. I just talked to an Idaho resident last night who is down near Boise, he was telling me that he saw more deer and elk along the Payette winter range this year than he has seen in several years. The reduction in wolf numbers the last few years seems to be already starting to pay off in some areas. Thanks for your insight. :tup:
X2 :tup:
They were acknowleding that effective wolf management is working. Reducing wolves is helping in some areas was the point to what bearpaw said. Wolves are the main limiting factor in the size and health of our deer and elk herds.(Where they are present in large numbers) I agree with you that habitat is a strong second. Poachers suck but I dont see how one poacher could come close to what one wolf pack does in a year-I wont qoute stats or articles or biologist I see it everyday in the woods. Again I think Idaho will fix the problem and I am optimistic. Washington is another story
Right on again Idaho guy. Don't mind Idahohntr, he only seems to be on this site to distort what you say or to argue. :twocents: