Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 01:07:33 PM
By JEFF BARNARD - Associated Press June 19, 2014
GRANTS PASS, Oregon — A conservation group is challenging a national forest timber sale because it may be too close to the den where Oregon's famous wandering wolf, OR-7, is raising pups.
Oregon Wild filed the lawsuit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Medford against the U.S. Forest Service over the Bybee timber sale on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest in the Cascade Range of southwestern Oregon.
It asks a judge to order a closer examination of the harm logging may do not only to potential wilderness and spotted owls, but to wolf habitat as well.
Continued:
http://tinyurl.com/n3cuxjr (http://tinyurl.com/n3cuxjr)
Post by: AspenBud on June 23, 2014, 01:28:56 PM
"Those who are defending the wolves ought to be thinking about what the wolves want," said Ann Forest Burns, vice present of the American Forest Resource Council, which represents timber companies that depend on federal timber. "No wolf chow, no wolves.""
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Post by: rim_runner on June 23, 2014, 01:43:42 PM
Post by: finnman on June 23, 2014, 04:09:12 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 23, 2014, 04:17:24 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 04:22:01 PM
The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on June 23, 2014, 04:57:04 PM
The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Same with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Wyoming. If you live in the upper Midwest they are a fact of life, have been for years long before any release, and by God it hasn't stopped anyone from hunting. But all of those states do now manage wolves to one degree or another.
Post by: AspenBud on June 23, 2014, 04:59:42 PM
The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.
Wanting to stop logging shows just how little a lot of the extremists on the "pro wolf" side don't understand what they're playing with. They think habitat just magically grows and maintains itself if you leave it alone. That might be true with uncontrolled forest fires, but without them...
Post by: KFhunter on June 23, 2014, 06:22:26 PM
The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000
A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only. (example)
Wolves reduce hunter opportunity. I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 23, 2014, 06:38:47 PM
\The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Idaho and Oregon are two entirely different groups of peoples................
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 06:47:48 PM
Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000
A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only. (example)
Wolves reduce hunter opportunity. I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.
I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite" :chuckle: I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite. My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!
Post by: KFhunter on June 23, 2014, 07:56:06 PM
Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000
A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only. (example)
Wolves reduce hunter opportunity. I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.
I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite" :chuckle: I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite. My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!
I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue. I think it's closer to elite than not. Maybe Shockey would yawn :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 09:25:33 PM
Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).
I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite" :chuckle: I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite. My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!
I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.Where in the heck do you come off telling me I take any of my hunts for granted?? Or that I said anyone was undeserving? Or that I look down on anyone whether they are disabled, overweight, or old? The wilderness is limited to mostly able bodied folks and that is just a fact of life...although my grandpa, the one whose horse trailer I borrow (own, now that he has passed away) was disabled and he made it into the wilderness. But there aren't a lot of men like him...he lost one arm and most of the mobility in one leg in Normandy about 70 years ago...that didn't stop him...he was old and disabled and made it into the wilderness to hunt...but he is obviously an exception. And I'm not looking down on folks who can't or don't want to put the effort into hunting wilderness areas, but I sure as heck am not going to agree with your assessment that hunting in a wilderness area is for the "elite"...my family is as blue collar as they get, and we only occasionally hunt wilderness areas...but the people I encounter hunting those areas are just flat hard workers...not "elitists".
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue. I think it's closer to elite than not. Maybe Shockey would yawn :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 09:42:39 PM
The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Same with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Wyoming. If you live in the upper Midwest they are a fact of life, have been for years long before any release, and by God it hasn't stopped anyone from hunting. But all of those states do now manage wolves to one degree or another.
Not exactly true! I have a lot of family in WI/MN and most no longer go north to hunt because they all say there are too few deer. The last time one brother-in-law hunted northern MN he saw nothing but wolves from his favorite tree stand. Some quit hunting altogether, some have gone elsewhere in the state, none of them, not one of them still goes to northern MN/WI to hunt.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 09:56:46 PM
Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000
A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only. (example)
Wolves reduce hunter opportunity. I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.
I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite" :chuckle: I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite. My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!
I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue. I think it's closer to elite than not. Maybe Shockey would yawn :chuckle:
I am an outfitter and part of my living comes from packing in drop campers to hunt in roadless areas. I agree that it's great that we have those areas, but I have to agree with KFhunter that there is an "elitist" attitude similar to the type of attitude you see with purist fly fishers who look down on other fishers, that you aren't really hunting unless you carry a backpack and hike 10 miles in to hunt. Anyone who can't do that is somehow less of a hunter and did not deserve the animals they have taken.
Most hunters do not have the luxury of owning horses, they are simply out of reach for many hunters and many simply cannot hike 10 or 20 miles with a backpack to recreate. One of the primary reasons I am opposed to expanding wilderness, it will force even more people into already crowded areas with easier access. We have a pretty good balance if we don't go too far one way.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 10:15:39 PM
In all my years hunting I can not think of a single incident where anyone I ever ran into in the wilderness displayed an elitist attitude because they were hunting in the wilderness. I have run across the occasional snobby fly fisherman, usually the guys who flew into the Middle Fork Salmon Basin and felt they owned the river...but never have I encountered someone in a wilderness area that suggested or had a tone in their voice that they were better than any other hunter. To the contrary, I have run into a few folks on more accessible public land who are extremely disrespectful and full of attitude when it comes to hunting. :dunno: When I go hunt the Wenaha East in the wilderness this fall with my in-laws who drew a quality bull tag I will keep an eye out for these elitists...maybe mtncook has run across these guys...I sure haven't...nothing but absolutely stand up people that I've ever encountered.Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000
A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only. (example)
Wolves reduce hunter opportunity. I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.
I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite" :chuckle: I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite. My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!
I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue. I think it's closer to elite than not. Maybe Shockey would yawn :chuckle:
I am an outfitter and part of my living comes from packing in drop campers to hunt in roadless areas. I agree that it's great that we have those areas, but I have to agree with KFhunter that there is an "elitist" attitude similar to the type of attitude you see with purist fly fishers who look down on other fishers, that you aren't really hunting unless you carry a backpack and hike 10 miles in to hunt. Anyone who can't do that is somehow less of a hunter and did not deserve the animals they have taken.
Most hunters do not have the luxury of owning horses, they are simply out of reach for many hunters and many simply cannot hike 10 or 20 miles with a backpack to recreate. One of the primary reasons I am opposed to expanding wilderness, it will force even more people into already crowded areas with easier access. We have a pretty good balance if we don't go too far one way.
I do consider it extraordinarily offensive for KF to suggest that I am or come from a family who is "elitist" because we have hunted wilderness areas. Its hard work to hunt wilderness areas, a lot more work than hunting more accessible public ground...just because someone has a desire to hunt those areas does not mean they are elitist...we all have different reasons for hunting where and when we do...I see no value in judging where and when others want to hunt...never have, never will...but apparently some feel it is their prerogative to pass judgement about someone based on where they might have hunted. Sad.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 11:29:27 PM
In all my years hunting I can not think of a single incident where anyone I ever ran into in the wilderness displayed an elitist attitude because they were hunting in the wilderness. I have run across the occasional snobby fly fisherman, usually the guys who flew into the Middle Fork Salmon Basin and felt they owned the river...but never have I encountered someone in a wilderness area that suggested or had a tone in their voice that they were better than any other hunter. To the contrary, I have run into a few folks on more accessible public land who are extremely disrespectful and full of attitude when it comes to hunting. :dunno: When I go hunt the Wenaha East in the wilderness this fall with my in-laws who drew a quality bull tag I will keep an eye out for these elitists...maybe mtncook has run across these guys...I sure haven't...nothing but absolutely stand up people that I've ever encountered.Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000
A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only. (example)
Wolves reduce hunter opportunity. I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.
I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite" :chuckle: I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite. My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!
I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue. I think it's closer to elite than not. Maybe Shockey would yawn :chuckle:
I am an outfitter and part of my living comes from packing in drop campers to hunt in roadless areas. I agree that it's great that we have those areas, but I have to agree with KFhunter that there is an "elitist" attitude similar to the type of attitude you see with purist fly fishers who look down on other fishers, that you aren't really hunting unless you carry a backpack and hike 10 miles in to hunt. Anyone who can't do that is somehow less of a hunter and did not deserve the animals they have taken.
Most hunters do not have the luxury of owning horses, they are simply out of reach for many hunters and many simply cannot hike 10 or 20 miles with a backpack to recreate. One of the primary reasons I am opposed to expanding wilderness, it will force even more people into already crowded areas with easier access. We have a pretty good balance if we don't go too far one way.
I do consider it extraordinarily offensive for KF to suggest that I am or come from a family who is "elitist" because we have hunted wilderness areas. Its hard work to hunt wilderness areas, a lot more work than hunting more accessible public ground...just because someone has a desire to hunt those areas does not mean they are elitist...we all have different reasons for hunting where and when we do...I see no value in judging where and when others want to hunt...never have, never will...but apparently some feel it is their prerogative to pass judgement about someone based on where they might have hunted. Sad.
I have met a few hunters in the wilderness that exhibited some attitude, but the worst I've seen are hikers near MT Baker that seemed to think they own the wilderness and have told me hunters should not be there. I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.
If you are saying you don't see yourself as better than other hunters and have not commented in that way then some of your posts and comments about other hunters, about outfitters, and about certain persons being liars, may have come across the wrong way. :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2014, 12:40:20 AM
I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.Well, I can't speak to your vague reference of past comments where elitist attitudes have been implied by apparent unnamed wilderness users. All I see in this thread is someone saying that I look down on overweight, disabled, and elderly people because I have hunted in the wilderness and don't think it is a place reserved for the elite. I'm not going to sugar coat it, it is a downright offensive lie to suggest I look down on disabled folks when probably the strongest influence on my hunting ambitions as a youngster was my disabled grandpa who lost a great deal of mobility serving his country in WWII. To suggest I don't think disabled or elderly people or whoever "deserve" to hunt the same places I do...what an absolutely sick joke.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 24, 2014, 04:51:40 AM
In all my years hunting I can not think of a single incident where anyone I ever ran into in the wilderness displayed an elitist attitude because they were hunting in the wilderness. I have run across the occasional snobby fly fisherman, usually the guys who flew into the Middle Fork Salmon Basin and felt they owned the river...but never have I encountered someone in a wilderness area that suggested or had a tone in their voice that they were better than any other hunter. To the contrary, I have run into a few folks on more accessible public land who are extremely disrespectful and full of attitude when it comes to hunting. :dunno: When I go hunt the Wenaha East in the wilderness this fall with my in-laws who drew a quality bull tag I will keep an eye out for these elitists...maybe mtncook has run across these guys...I sure haven't...nothing but absolutely stand up people that I've ever encountered.Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000
A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only. (example)
Wolves reduce hunter opportunity. I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.
I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite" :chuckle: I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite. My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!
I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
but I digress, it's just not important enough of a point to argue. I think it's closer to elite than not. Maybe Shockey would yawn :chuckle:
I am an outfitter and part of my living comes from packing in drop campers to hunt in roadless areas. I agree that it's great that we have those areas, but I have to agree with KFhunter that there is an "elitist" attitude similar to the type of attitude you see with purist fly fishers who look down on other fishers, that you aren't really hunting unless you carry a backpack and hike 10 miles in to hunt. Anyone who can't do that is somehow less of a hunter and did not deserve the animals they have taken.
Most hunters do not have the luxury of owning horses, they are simply out of reach for many hunters and many simply cannot hike 10 or 20 miles with a backpack to recreate. One of the primary reasons I am opposed to expanding wilderness, it will force even more people into already crowded areas with easier access. We have a pretty good balance if we don't go too far one way.
I do consider it extraordinarily offensive for KF to suggest that I am or come from a family who is "elitist" because we have hunted wilderness areas. Its hard work to hunt wilderness areas, a lot more work than hunting more accessible public ground...just because someone has a desire to hunt those areas does not mean they are elitist...we all have different reasons for hunting where and when we do...I see no value in judging where and when others want to hunt...never have, never will...but apparently some feel it is their prerogative to pass judgement about someone based on where they might have hunted. Sad.
THIS fits in well in liberal America...
"I do consider it extraordinarily offensive for KF to suggest that I am or come from a family who is "elitist" because we have hunted wilderness areas. Its hard work to hunt wilderness areas, a lot more work than hunting more accessible public ground"
First claim to be offended ..........then prove the offender was right
Post by: bearpaw on June 24, 2014, 05:50:45 AM
I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.Well, I can't speak to your vague reference of past comments where elitist attitudes have been implied by apparent unnamed wilderness users. All I see in this thread is someone saying that I look down on overweight, disabled, and elderly people because I have hunted in the wilderness and don't think it is a place reserved for the elite. I'm not going to sugar coat it, it is a downright offensive lie to suggest I look down on disabled folks when probably the strongest influence on my hunting ambitions as a youngster was my disabled grandpa who lost a great deal of mobility serving his country in WWII. To suggest I don't think disabled or elderly people or whoever "deserve" to hunt the same places I do...what an absolutely sick joke.
No joke, but I think you are mistaken, please read my post again, I didn't specify anyone in my post, I was referencing various comments I've seen about lazy overweight hunters and other degrading comments that I considered distasteful. There definitely appears to be a failure of consideration for the consequences to the elderly and handicapped when the wilderness advocates rail to create more wilderness in areas currently road accessible by the elderly and handicapped, don't you agree with that? Have you seen any mention of that lost opportunity?
Unless you've made those types of comments about hunters or unless you've failed to consider the loss of opportunity to the elderly and handicapped, then you appear to be taking my generalized comment way too personal. Please read my post again, thanks.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2014, 05:55:14 AM
Not your post bearpaw...KFs. We were not discussing expanding wilderness areas...merely that I set foot to hunt in wilderness and did not think of it as being elitist...that somehow meant I looked down on elderly, disabled people.I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.Well, I can't speak to your vague reference of past comments where elitist attitudes have been implied by apparent unnamed wilderness users. All I see in this thread is someone saying that I look down on overweight, disabled, and elderly people because I have hunted in the wilderness and don't think it is a place reserved for the elite. I'm not going to sugar coat it, it is a downright offensive lie to suggest I look down on disabled folks when probably the strongest influence on my hunting ambitions as a youngster was my disabled grandpa who lost a great deal of mobility serving his country in WWII. To suggest I don't think disabled or elderly people or whoever "deserve" to hunt the same places I do...what an absolutely sick joke.
No joke, but I think you are mistaken, please read my post again, I didn't specify anyone in my post, I was referencing various comments I've seen about lazy overweight hunters and other degrading comments that I considered distasteful. There definitely appears to be a failure of consideration for the consequences to the elderly and handicapped when the wilderness advocates rail to create more wilderness in areas currently road accessible by the elderly and handicapped, don't you agree with that? Have you seen any mention of that lost opportunity?
Unless you've made those types of comments about hunters or unless you've failed to consider the loss of opportunity to the elderly and handicapped, then you appear to be taking my generalized comment way too personal. Please read my post again, thanks.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 24, 2014, 06:02:32 AM
Not your post bearpaw...KFs. We were not discussing expanding wilderness areas...merely that I set foot to hunt in wilderness and did not think of it as being elitist...that somehow meant I looked down on elderly, disabled people.I have read comments on this forum by hunters that seem to imply that if you hike great distances into the wilderness with a pack on your back then you somehow deserve the animal. I also see plenty of comments about lazy over weight hunters and a general attitude by some that disregard handicapped and physically impaired hunters who cannot access wilderness areas.Well, I can't speak to your vague reference of past comments where elitist attitudes have been implied by apparent unnamed wilderness users. All I see in this thread is someone saying that I look down on overweight, disabled, and elderly people because I have hunted in the wilderness and don't think it is a place reserved for the elite. I'm not going to sugar coat it, it is a downright offensive lie to suggest I look down on disabled folks when probably the strongest influence on my hunting ambitions as a youngster was my disabled grandpa who lost a great deal of mobility serving his country in WWII. To suggest I don't think disabled or elderly people or whoever "deserve" to hunt the same places I do...what an absolutely sick joke.
No joke, but I think you are mistaken, please read my post again, I didn't specify anyone in my post, I was referencing various comments I've seen about lazy overweight hunters and other degrading comments that I considered distasteful. There definitely appears to be a failure of consideration for the consequences to the elderly and handicapped when the wilderness advocates rail to create more wilderness in areas currently road accessible by the elderly and handicapped, don't you agree with that? Have you seen any mention of that lost opportunity?
Unless you've made those types of comments about hunters or unless you've failed to consider the loss of opportunity to the elderly and handicapped, then you appear to be taking my generalized comment way too personal. Please read my post again, thanks.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
You specifically quoted my post so I was under the impression you were commenting to my post. :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2014, 06:05:41 AM
Really can't figure this group out sometimes anymore. Hunters alienating fellow hunters. Unreal.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2014, 06:19:26 AM
You specifically quoted my post so I was under the impression you were commenting to my post. :dunno:Yes, I can understand how you would have interpreted it as directed at you. My mistake.
I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.This specifically is what angered me. I find it very offensive, particularly given so much of my hunting influence came from a disabled grandpa. Did we not just have a little discussion yesterday about how unnecessary personal attacks were in these discussions?
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2014, 06:32:34 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 24, 2014, 06:42:19 AM
You specifically quoted my post so I was under the impression you were commenting to my post. :dunno:Yes, I can understand how you would have interpreted it as directed at you. My mistake.I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.This specifically is what angered me. I find it very offensive, particularly given so much of my hunting influence came from a disabled grandpa. Did we not just have a little discussion yesterday about how unnecessary personal attacks were in these discussions?
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
Yes, we all need to make an effort to reduce personal attacks. :tup:
Nice thread jacking. Nice squabbling like a bunch of old hens.
Really can't figure this group out sometimes anymore. Hunters alienating fellow hunters. Unreal.
You are right....
To get back to the original topic, I think this shows that the enviro's will use any reason to prevent logging. We had wolves coming into Ione this winter and breeding with dogs. Wolves come into ranching operations regularly and attack livestock. I doubt logging will cause them to be unsuccessful and from everything I've read if they are uncomfortable they will just move them. So, if anything, the logging will increase local game herds which will benefit hunters and predators.
Post by: AspenBud on June 24, 2014, 08:27:23 AM
The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Same with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Wyoming. If you live in the upper Midwest they are a fact of life, have been for years long before any release, and by God it hasn't stopped anyone from hunting. But all of those states do now manage wolves to one degree or another.
Not exactly true! I have a lot of family in WI/MN and most no longer go north to hunt because they all say there are too few deer. The last time one brother-in-law hunted northern MN he saw nothing but wolves from his favorite tree stand. Some quit hunting altogether, some have gone elsewhere in the state, none of them, not one of them still goes to northern MN/WI to hunt.
I have family in Michigan and I can tell you that wolves haven't caused "the end of all hunting" in the UP whatsoever. I'm sure some deer hunters are seeing fewer deer but they are still going out and hunting. Heck, it's a grouse hunter's paradise there with the state DNR launching their GEMS project to increase grouse habitat and increase hunter access up there.
I'm sure Minnesota and Wisconsin may have people who have decided to give up on certain areas but I'm equally sure others have not and I know for sure that grouse hunters wade right into wolf country there with their dogs. If you don't believe that last point ask people if they do on Upland Journal or any of the sites directed towards Midwestern hunters. Sure, some will say they won't touch those areas, but many will say they don't let wolves stop them.
I'm not saying wolves haven't had an impact in some areas out there, but they didn't bring about the "end of all hunting" as some would suggest. If anything you can about throw a rock and hit a white tail in those states, especially closer to farm country, and now that they do have seasons on wolves it's something of a dead issue, no pun intended.
Post by: KFhunter on June 24, 2014, 09:58:33 AM
You specifically quoted my post so I was under the impression you were commenting to my post. :dunno:Yes, I can understand how you would have interpreted it as directed at you. My mistake.I think a lot of people would consider what you take for granted, a week long pack into the wilderness, pretty elite on the hunting spectrum.This specifically is what angered me. I find it very offensive, particularly given so much of my hunting influence came from a disabled grandpa. Did we not just have a little discussion yesterday about how unnecessary personal attacks were in these discussions?
You look down on the disabled, the over weight, the older folks who can't do it anymore - the folks who don't have a grandpa with a horse trailer - they just aren't committed enough nor deserve to enjoy what you do eh?
I was just giving you back a little of your own medicine when you called me a poacher :tup:
Nope. A poacher is a poacher. Just because you follow all the other rules does not entitle you to poach wildlife. As frustrating as it may be, we have laws in this country for a reason. If you don't like them, then work to change them. Poaching wolves simply ramps up the rhetoric for the anti's...I hope any wolf poachers at this fragile point in wolf management get the book thrown at them...take their guns, truck, make them serve jail time and invoke a lifetime hunting license ban :tup:
If you want to see what a personal attack looks like........
You are sad and pathetic. I hunt in WA too you moron. I was part of 6 successful (in terms of harvest) buck hunts, one was my first muzzleloader kill, and 2 successful bull hunts...all in WA. Then I hunt Idaho and kill a bull and help my dad kill a muley. I did eat my Idaho deer tag this year...just never found one as big as I was after...but I had lots of opportunities.*note* - I didn't run to the mods with that personal attack, I didn't hit the Report to moderator button like what's been going on with wolfbait. Some of you guys have really been trying hard to bait him into a ban.
So all your bs about not "hacking" it in Idaho or WA or wherever...give me a break. Sounds to me like you sit up in NE Wa and cry about hunting...my guess is your just a lousy hunter. I hunt multiple states for lots of reasons, and where I hunt has more to do with friends and family...almost nothing in my hunting plans revolve around wolves.
Last, we do agree on the efficacy of hunting to "control" wolves in NE Wa...the key difference is you think this will cause the extinction of elk and I think you don't know chit about elk if you believe that.
My comment was unfair, I've never seen you put down other hunters for being too heavy or disabled. Like I said I'm guilty of personalizing issues same as you; so for sticking a "you" on there I apologize.
Bearpaw is correct though, I've seen it done many times on this forum typically in ATV threads. Wilderness is a loss of access and where I was going with that is you're in favor of increased wilderness, you're also in favor of blazing trails through private property to access land locked public non-recreational lands. Some contentious points in there I can't come to terms with. In my experience those with your line of thinking do look down on us uneducated neanderthals and many comments from you suggest rural folks need more education so they can understand what you know. It's evident that you look down your nose at rural living folks. I'm a white collar worker who could have worked just about anywhere in the world, I choose to move back home. Without a white collar job I could never have afforded to pick up the old family ranch, or a good portion of it anyways.
Post by: bearpaw on June 24, 2014, 11:07:41 AM
The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Same with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, and Wyoming. If you live in the upper Midwest they are a fact of life, have been for years long before any release, and by God it hasn't stopped anyone from hunting. But all of those states do now manage wolves to one degree or another.
Not exactly true! I have a lot of family in WI/MN and most no longer go north to hunt because they all say there are too few deer. The last time one brother-in-law hunted northern MN he saw nothing but wolves from his favorite tree stand. Some quit hunting altogether, some have gone elsewhere in the state, none of them, not one of them still goes to northern MN/WI to hunt.
I have family in Michigan and I can tell you that wolves haven't caused "the end of all hunting" in the UP whatsoever. I'm sure some deer hunters are seeing fewer deer but they are still going out and hunting. Heck, it's a grouse hunter's paradise there with the state DNR launching their GEMS project to increase grouse habitat and increase hunter access up there.
I'm sure Minnesota and Wisconsin may have people who have decided to give up on certain areas but I'm equally sure others have not and I know for sure that grouse hunters wade right into wolf country there with their dogs. If you don't believe that last point ask people if they do on Upland Journal or any of the sites directed towards Midwestern hunters. Sure, some will say they won't touch those areas, but many will say they don't let wolves stop them.
I'm not saying wolves haven't had an impact in some areas out there, but they didn't bring about the "end of all hunting" as some would suggest. If anything you can about throw a rock and hit a white tail in those states, especially closer to farm country, and now that they do have seasons on wolves it's something of a dead issue, no pun intended.
So to condense your reply, grouse are multiplying because of habitat work and even though wolves have impacted deer populations there are still some people deer hunting in the north woods.
That all makes sense, obviously some north woods residents probably can't travel to the farmlands to hunt and must still hunt in the north if they hunt. Since my wife's family all live central, I can tell you they and most all their friends quit going north to hunt, they all now hunt farm country where there are no wolves. In essence wolves have killed much of the deer hunting in the north woods (pun intended) and much of the tourism from deer hunters. (much like the effects of wolves in parts of ID/MT/WY)
I have never asked family members if deer hunters in those states also hunt grouse like here in WA? Could it be if one reason you see more grouse is because half as many deer hunters are in the woods so far fewer grouse are being taken by hunters?
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2014, 11:12:12 AM
My dad and all of his buddies made an annual trip up there. Now it's pretty much turned into a poker and whiskey trip due to a major lack of deer.
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2014, 11:20:22 AM
Just my :twocents:
I swore off the wolf forum board for a long time, clicked "Ignore" because I was sick of all the trash talk...decided to give it another go. That was pointless.
Post by: AspenBud on June 24, 2014, 11:37:00 AM
I have never asked family members if deer hunters in those states also hunt grouse like here in WA? Could it be if one reason you see more grouse is because half as many deer hunters are in the woods so far fewer grouse are being taken by hunters?
Only if you consider that gun season, at least in Michigan, is limited to 15 days in November. Otherwise it's mostly bow hunters sitting in trees mixed with some muzzle loader folks and at last count it was illegal to pack heat as a bow hunter there.
I'd argue that lake states grouse get a lot more pressure than they do here. Here they are birds of opportunity, there they are birds actively hunted day in and day out by guys with dogs that have hunted nothing else as well as out of state hunters from states that don't have them in numbers. You also have a lot of people hunting them that might not have 50 years ago because the pheasant population crashed in places like Michigan so they hunt the only wild birds that are left to hunt. The birds tend to be jumpier and not very tolerant of pressure, what we have here, you can almost walk on them at times by comparison.
What they have is habitat, or more particularly lots of aspen, and if you don't continually cut those trees the stands will eventually die and the birds with them. If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.
Ruffed grouse field trials for pointing dogs didn't take off there because of a lack of deer hunters. They took off because the states had a lot of birds even long before wolves returned in numbers.
Post by: bearpaw on June 24, 2014, 11:55:33 AM
I have never asked family members if deer hunters in those states also hunt grouse like here in WA? Could it be if one reason you see more grouse is because half as many deer hunters are in the woods so far fewer grouse are being taken by hunters?
Only if you consider that gun season, at least in Michigan, is limited to 15 days in November. Otherwise it's mostly bow hunters sitting in trees mixed with some muzzle loader folks and at last count it was illegal to pack heat as a bow hunter there.
I'd argue that lake states grouse get a lot more pressure than they do here. Here they are birds of opportunity, there they are birds actively hunted day in and day out by guys with dogs that have hunted nothing else as well as out of state hunters from states that don't have them in numbers. The birds tend to be jumpier and not very tolerant of pressure, what we have here, you can almost walk on them at times by comparison.
What they have is habitat, or more particularly lots of aspen, and if you don't continually cut those trees the stands will eventually die and the birds with them. If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.
Ruffed grouse field trials for pointing dogs didn't take off there because of a lack of deer hunters. They took off because the states had a lot of birds even long before wolves returned in numbers.
This is a bit off-topic but my wife's family always talk about deer hunting so I have no idea about grouse there. From your posts I am having trouble determining if you are saying the grouse numbers are increasing or declining and if the grouse habitat is improving or declining?
Quote
Heck, it's a grouse hunter's paradise there with the state DNR launching their GEMS project to increase grouse habitat and increase hunter access up there.
Quote
If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.
Post by: AspenBud on June 24, 2014, 01:59:09 PM
I have never asked family members if deer hunters in those states also hunt grouse like here in WA? Could it be if one reason you see more grouse is because half as many deer hunters are in the woods so far fewer grouse are being taken by hunters?
Only if you consider that gun season, at least in Michigan, is limited to 15 days in November. Otherwise it's mostly bow hunters sitting in trees mixed with some muzzle loader folks and at last count it was illegal to pack heat as a bow hunter there.
I'd argue that lake states grouse get a lot more pressure than they do here. Here they are birds of opportunity, there they are birds actively hunted day in and day out by guys with dogs that have hunted nothing else as well as out of state hunters from states that don't have them in numbers. The birds tend to be jumpier and not very tolerant of pressure, what we have here, you can almost walk on them at times by comparison.
What they have is habitat, or more particularly lots of aspen, and if you don't continually cut those trees the stands will eventually die and the birds with them. If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.
Ruffed grouse field trials for pointing dogs didn't take off there because of a lack of deer hunters. They took off because the states had a lot of birds even long before wolves returned in numbers.
This is a bit off-topic but my wife's family always talk about deer hunting so I have no idea about grouse there. From your posts I am having trouble determining if you are saying the grouse numbers are increasing or declining and if the grouse habitat is improving or declining?QuoteHeck, it's a grouse hunter's paradise there with the state DNR launching their GEMS project to increase grouse habitat and increase hunter access up there.QuoteIf anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.
It depends on where you are. From the perspective of Michigan, national forest land isn't logged like it used to be and state forest land is hit and miss. There is no logging going on in the southern LP and the woods there are aging. Things change about half way up the LP and into the UP, the state does a better job up there.
I'd argue grouse there are at a turning point. 50 years ago much of the state was in the middle of regrowth as much of it had been logged off. That created crazy grouse, and arguably deer, numbers, but as time goes on the forests keep getting older. The deer have the farms to get fat on, the grouse on the other hand are screwed in the absence of cutting and whether they are doing enough of that can be a contentious debate. Younger guys without the perspective of time think things are great, older guys who saw what it was like decades ago have another view.
Minnesota and Wisconsin, while different, are facing the same problem.
Post by: Northway on June 24, 2014, 03:55:21 PM
What's really unfortunate in my eyes in all of these threads is that with the crew of people we've got on this forum, we could really put our collective heads together and get stuff done. We've got outfitters, WDFW, ranchers, farmers, biologists, regular joe hunters...the list goes on. Instead, we choose to piss in each others' cheerio's on a daily basis over and over and over. You all should take a look around. There's a reason it's the same 6 or 8 people constantly in these threads. It's because everyone else is sick of all the trash talk. Consider that next time one of these threads is started.
Just my :twocents:
I swore off the wolf forum board for a long time, clicked "Ignore" because I was sick of all the trash talk...decided to give it another go. That was pointless.
It's one of the negative side-effects resulting from the rise of social media, blogs, etc. There's a certain group of people who use it as a platform to slander & insult others over even minor differences of opinion. They really drown out the conversations. How many people are reading this thread right now who care about this issue but absolutely refuse to post because of the vitriol? I'd bet a beer that a number of them have some interesting things to say.
You can't over-moderate a blog either, though. Go too far one way and it's the anti-social lunatic who shouts every one else out of the room; too far the other and the conversation gets sterile.
I wouldn't turn your back on these difficult topics. I personally use this website along with a bunch of others to test my positions on various issues. You seem like a level-headed guy and if you post something, I read it if I come across it.
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2014, 03:59:00 PM
What's really unfortunate in my eyes in all of these threads is that with the crew of people we've got on this forum, we could really put our collective heads together and get stuff done. We've got outfitters, WDFW, ranchers, farmers, biologists, regular joe hunters...the list goes on. Instead, we choose to piss in each others' cheerio's on a daily basis over and over and over. You all should take a look around. There's a reason it's the same 6 or 8 people constantly in these threads. It's because everyone else is sick of all the trash talk. Consider that next time one of these threads is started.
Just my :twocents:
I swore off the wolf forum board for a long time, clicked "Ignore" because I was sick of all the trash talk...decided to give it another go. That was pointless.
It's one of the negative side-effects resulting from the rise of social media, blogs, etc. There's a certain group of people who use it as a platform to slander & insult others over even minor differences of opinion. They really drown out the conversations. How many people are reading this thread right now who care about this issue but absolutely refuse to post because of the vitriol? I'd bet a beer that a number of them have some interesting things to say.
You can't over-moderate a blog either, though. Go too far one way and it's the anti-social lunatic who shouts every one else out of the room; too far the other and the conversation gets sterile.
I wouldn't turn your back on these difficult topics. I personally use this website along with a bunch of others to test my positions on various issues. You seem like a level-headed guy and if you post something, I read it if I come across it.
Well said. I appreciate the follow up and the compliment. I just feel like a lot of these threads are pissing in the wind because the pissing matches are played out. Nobody wants to hear them anymore. Those that are reading with interesting things to say will not post. It'll be difficult to turn that trend around at this point, if not impossible.
Thanks again.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 24, 2014, 06:54:33 PM
I didn't run to the mods with that personal attack, I didn't hit the Report to moderator button like what's been going on with wolfbait. Some of you guys have really been trying hard to bait him into a ban.Now, since this thread has already been so hi-jacked, in large part because of me, I want to add one more thought. While I have great respect for Jackelope, I disagree with his assessment on participation/comments on these threads. On controversial topics that will undoubtedly result in disagreement, a large percentage of folks are conflict averse and they just aren't going to participate and that is understandable. They don't like conflict and don't want to engage. Thats fine. I'm not sure some of the more controversial threads its necessarily better or more productive to have every one weigh in...if 6 or 8 people are covering all sides of an issue adequately I think it usually does justice to the topic. :dunno:
I've never reported anything to any moderator...I don't even know how one would go about such a thing. And I don't want wolfbait banned...if he's banned I won't be able to teach him anything :chuckle:
In my experience those with your line of thinking do look down on us uneducated neanderthals and many comments from you suggest rural folks need more education so they can understand what you know. It's evident that you look down your nose at rural living folks.
I've never made any comment about someones education level. I have talked about the need to educate various user groups, but I'm not talking academics when I say that...I mean we need to have information etc. made available to these most likely intelligent folks so they better understand whatever the topic issue is. I know plenty of Ph.D's that are dumber than a wheelbarrow...I know plenty of folks with GED's who are far more intelligent than a whole lot of folks, myself included. Last...I have always lived in rural areas...in another year or so I will be back to full time rural living...thank goodness, because I hate living in town! If you knew my background and where I grew up, you would surely know that I do not look down my nose at rural living folks...
I completely agree the personal attacks are the biggest detriment to these threads and what cause them to be de-railed...however, disagreement should be expected and encouraged. If someone points out why they think you are wrong, incorrect, what you are not considering etc. that is not a personal attack...that is just part of a logical discussion when there are multiple "sides" or opinions on a topic. Im far more guilty of being blunt than I am of intentionally trying to make any of these issues "personal"...Without people willing to step up and say things that aren't always popular with the "crowd" I think a lot of these discussions would be boring and provide little value or information to folks who read but don't post a lot. :twocents:
Either way, as has been hashed out repeatedly...many of us, myself included, need to watch to make sure we are not going after the person(s) posting...rather we should all focus on what they post and whether it is logical, defensible, achieves objectives and policies we support etc. There is a clear line IMO between personal attacks and focusing on the issue/problem, and if you are on the side of the line that focuses on the problem/issue then I see no reason to water down what you like/don't like/think/know about whatever that topic happens to be.
Post by: steen on June 24, 2014, 08:55:34 PM
Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting; ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000
A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only. (example)
Wolves reduce hunter opportunity. I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.
I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite" :chuckle: I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite. My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!
I would love to hunt in the wilderness where others don't go but I have to work. So it is not laziness or unwillingness on my part but not enough time and money. If I that kind of time and money I'd be up there as long as is alowed!!!! Honestly I don't think wolves are necessary in the wild unless there are no people. We are a good enough predator and don't need the wolf.
Post by: jackelope on June 24, 2014, 10:00:32 PM
I didn't run to the mods with that personal attack, I didn't hit the Report to moderator button like what's been going on with wolfbait. Some of you guys have really been trying hard to bait him into a ban.Now, since this thread has already been so hi-jacked, in large part because of me, I want to add one more thought. While I have great respect for Jackelope, I disagree with his assessment on participation/comments on these threads. On controversial topics that will undoubtedly result in disagreement, a large percentage of folks are conflict averse and they just aren't going to participate and that is understandable. They don't like conflict and don't want to engage. Thats fine. I'm not sure some of the more controversial threads its necessarily better or more productive to have every one weigh in...if 6 or 8 people are covering all sides of an issue adequately I think it usually does justice to the topic. :dunno:
I've never reported anything to any moderator...I don't even know how one would go about such a thing. And I don't want wolfbait banned...if he's banned I won't be able to teach him anything :chuckle:
In my experience those with your line of thinking do look down on us uneducated neanderthals and many comments from you suggest rural folks need more education so they can understand what you know. It's evident that you look down your nose at rural living folks.
I've never made any comment about someones education level. I have talked about the need to educate various user groups, but I'm not talking academics when I say that...I mean we need to have information etc. made available to these most likely intelligent folks so they better understand whatever the topic issue is. I know plenty of Ph.D's that are dumber than a wheelbarrow...I know plenty of folks with GED's who are far more intelligent than a whole lot of folks, myself included. Last...I have always lived in rural areas...in another year or so I will be back to full time rural living...thank goodness, because I hate living in town! If you knew my background and where I grew up, you would surely know that I do not look down my nose at rural living folks...
I completely agree the personal attacks are the biggest detriment to these threads and what cause them to be de-railed...however, disagreement should be expected and encouraged. If someone points out why they think you are wrong, incorrect, what you are not considering etc. that is not a personal attack...that is just part of a logical discussion when there are multiple "sides" or opinions on a topic. Im far more guilty of being blunt than I am of intentionally trying to make any of these issues "personal"...Without people willing to step up and say things that aren't always popular with the "crowd" I think a lot of these discussions would be boring and provide little value or information to folks who read but don't post a lot. :twocents:
Either way, as has been hashed out repeatedly...many of us, myself included, need to watch to make sure we are not going after the person(s) posting...rather we should all focus on what they post and whether it is logical, defensible, achieves objectives and policies we support etc. There is a clear line IMO between personal attacks and focusing on the issue/problem, and if you are on the side of the line that focuses on the problem/issue then I see no reason to water down what you like/don't like/think/know about whatever that topic happens to be.
I see your point regarding my view on this but I wonder.....how many threads do we need to have break down and end up with the same guys bickering back and forth about the same old thing?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Post by: KFhunter on June 24, 2014, 10:30:23 PM
When wolf huggers quit blaming cattle ranchers for wolves killing cattle
When Idahohnter acknowledges I was right all along.......
Post by: mountainman on June 24, 2014, 10:36:28 PM
When tree huggers quit petitioning WDFW to stop lethal control measures.that's funny, no disrespect Idaho!
When wolf huggers quit blaming cattle ranchers for wolves killing cattle
When Idahohnter acknowledges I was right all along.......
I didn't run to the mods with that personal attack, I didn't hit the Report to moderator button like what's been going on with wolfbait. Some of you guys have really been trying hard to bait him into a ban.Now, since this thread has already been so hi-jacked, in large part because of me, I want to add one more thought. While I have great respect for Jackelope, I disagree with his assessment on participation/comments on these threads. On controversial topics that will undoubtedly result in disagreement, a large percentage of folks are conflict averse and they just aren't going to participate and that is understandable. They don't like conflict and don't want to engage. Thats fine. I'm not sure some of the more controversial threads its necessarily better or more productive to have every one weigh in...if 6 or 8 people are covering all sides of an issue adequately I think it usually does justice to the topic. :dunno:
I've never reported anything to any moderator...I don't even know how one would go about such a thing. And I don't want wolfbait banned...if he's banned I won't be able to teach him anything :chuckle:
In my experience those with your line of thinking do look down on us uneducated neanderthals and many comments from you suggest rural folks need more education so they can understand what you know. It's evident that you look down your nose at rural living folks.
I've never made any comment about someones education level. I have talked about the need to educate various user groups, but I'm not talking academics when I say that...I mean we need to have information etc. made available to these most likely intelligent folks so they better understand whatever the topic issue is. I know plenty of Ph.D's that are dumber than a wheelbarrow...I know plenty of folks with GED's who are far more intelligent than a whole lot of folks, myself included. Last...I have always lived in rural areas...in another year or so I will be back to full time rural living...thank goodness, because I hate living in town! If you knew my background and where I grew up, you would surely know that I do not look down my nose at rural living folks...
I completely agree the personal attacks are the biggest detriment to these threads and what cause them to be de-railed...however, disagreement should be expected and encouraged. If someone points out why they think you are wrong, incorrect, what you are not considering etc. that is not a personal attack...that is just part of a logical discussion when there are multiple "sides" or opinions on a topic. Im far more guilty of being blunt than I am of intentionally trying to make any of these issues "personal"...Without people willing to step up and say things that aren't always popular with the "crowd" I think a lot of these discussions would be boring and provide little value or information to folks who read but don't post a lot. :twocents:
Either way, as has been hashed out repeatedly...many of us, myself included, need to watch to make sure we are not going after the person(s) posting...rather we should all focus on what they post and whether it is logical, defensible, achieves objectives and policies we support etc. There is a clear line IMO between personal attacks and focusing on the issue/problem, and if you are on the side of the line that focuses on the problem/issue then I see no reason to water down what you like/don't like/think/know about whatever that topic happens to be.
I see your point regarding my view on this but I wonder.....how many threads do we need to have break down and end up with the same guys bickering back and forth about the same old thing?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
And you never add to the drama? 9 :dunno: c'mon...relax a little Jack..
Post by: KFhunter on June 24, 2014, 10:39:09 PM
When WDFW adopts a reasonable wolf plan
When WDFW kicks CNW to the curb
When WDFW uses uncorrupted science to manage game herds
When lobbyists no longer control WDFW......then I'll relax.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 25, 2014, 12:04:36 AM
When Idahohnter acknowledges I was right all along.......I really would like to agree with you...but then we would both be wrong :peep: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 25, 2014, 06:44:15 AM
I didn't run to the mods with that personal attack, I didn't hit the Report to moderator button like what's been going on with wolfbait. Some of you guys have really been trying hard to bait him into a ban.Now, since this thread has already been so hi-jacked, in large part because of me, I want to add one more thought. While I have great respect for Jackelope, I disagree with his assessment on participation/comments on these threads. On controversial topics that will undoubtedly result in disagreement, a large percentage of folks are conflict averse and they just aren't going to participate and that is understandable. They don't like conflict and don't want to engage. Thats fine. I'm not sure some of the more controversial threads its necessarily better or more productive to have every one weigh in...if 6 or 8 people are covering all sides of an issue adequately I think it usually does justice to the topic. :dunno:
I've never reported anything to any moderator...I don't even know how one would go about such a thing. And I don't want wolfbait banned...if he's banned I won't be able to teach him anything :chuckle:
In my experience those with your line of thinking do look down on us uneducated neanderthals and many comments from you suggest rural folks need more education so they can understand what you know. It's evident that you look down your nose at rural living folks.
I've never made any comment about someones education level. I have talked about the need to educate various user groups, but I'm not talking academics when I say that...I mean we need to have information etc. made available to these most likely intelligent folks so they better understand whatever the topic issue is. I know plenty of Ph.D's that are dumber than a wheelbarrow...I know plenty of folks with GED's who are far more intelligent than a whole lot of folks, myself included. Last...I have always lived in rural areas...in another year or so I will be back to full time rural living...thank goodness, because I hate living in town! If you knew my background and where I grew up, you would surely know that I do not look down my nose at rural living folks...
I completely agree the personal attacks are the biggest detriment to these threads and what cause them to be de-railed...however, disagreement should be expected and encouraged. If someone points out why they think you are wrong, incorrect, what you are not considering etc. that is not a personal attack...that is just part of a logical discussion when there are multiple "sides" or opinions on a topic. Im far more guilty of being blunt than I am of intentionally trying to make any of these issues "personal"...Without people willing to step up and say things that aren't always popular with the "crowd" I think a lot of these discussions would be boring and provide little value or information to folks who read but don't post a lot. :twocents:
Either way, as has been hashed out repeatedly...many of us, myself included, need to watch to make sure we are not going after the person(s) posting...rather we should all focus on what they post and whether it is logical, defensible, achieves objectives and policies we support etc. There is a clear line IMO between personal attacks and focusing on the issue/problem, and if you are on the side of the line that focuses on the problem/issue then I see no reason to water down what you like/don't like/think/know about whatever that topic happens to be.
I see your point regarding my view on this but I wonder.....how many threads do we need to have break down and end up with the same guys bickering back and forth about the same old thing?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
I agree with some comments made by Idahohntr and by jackelope. The wolf topics and all other topics should provide for a free exchange of information and viewpoints, however, some comments are rude, insulting, or there is name calling. I have allowed myself to make less than desirable comments at times in the past and I regret allowing that to happen as that may have fueled this trend. I will try to do a better job of leading by example in the future. Because wolves are such a polarizing issue, there will be some who comment more and many who may not comment, the key point, if we all try to refrain from the personal attacks and insults we will have more friendly and inviting discussions. The tone of the discussion should not deter participants, it should invite greater participation.
Post by: Axle on June 25, 2014, 07:38:27 AM
Quote
I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting. They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. :twocents:
Not exactly. The Canadian grey wolf was 'unlawfully introduced' - not re-introduced. What few native wolves there were have probably been eaten up by the bigger non-native greys.
And as for hunting, I haven't hunted Idaho but I have many friends who used to but gave up due to there being far less deer and elk than there used to be. The cougars hit the ungulates hard since the late 80s and then the wolf has made further inroads to drastically reduce the numbers.
Post by: jackelope on June 25, 2014, 07:53:46 AM
I didn't run to the mods with that personal attack, I didn't hit the Report to moderator button like what's been going on with wolfbait. Some of you guys have really been trying hard to bait him into a ban.Now, since this thread has already been so hi-jacked, in large part because of me, I want to add one more thought. While I have great respect for Jackelope, I disagree with his assessment on participation/comments on these threads. On controversial topics that will undoubtedly result in disagreement, a large percentage of folks are conflict averse and they just aren't going to participate and that is understandable. They don't like conflict and don't want to engage. Thats fine. I'm not sure some of the more controversial threads its necessarily better or more productive to have every one weigh in...if 6 or 8 people are covering all sides of an issue adequately I think it usually does justice to the topic. :dunno:
I've never reported anything to any moderator...I don't even know how one would go about such a thing. And I don't want wolfbait banned...if he's banned I won't be able to teach him anything :chuckle:
In my experience those with your line of thinking do look down on us uneducated neanderthals and many comments from you suggest rural folks need more education so they can understand what you know. It's evident that you look down your nose at rural living folks.
I've never made any comment about someones education level. I have talked about the need to educate various user groups, but I'm not talking academics when I say that...I mean we need to have information etc. made available to these most likely intelligent folks so they better understand whatever the topic issue is. I know plenty of Ph.D's that are dumber than a wheelbarrow...I know plenty of folks with GED's who are far more intelligent than a whole lot of folks, myself included. Last...I have always lived in rural areas...in another year or so I will be back to full time rural living...thank goodness, because I hate living in town! If you knew my background and where I grew up, you would surely know that I do not look down my nose at rural living folks...
I completely agree the personal attacks are the biggest detriment to these threads and what cause them to be de-railed...however, disagreement should be expected and encouraged. If someone points out why they think you are wrong, incorrect, what you are not considering etc. that is not a personal attack...that is just part of a logical discussion when there are multiple "sides" or opinions on a topic. Im far more guilty of being blunt than I am of intentionally trying to make any of these issues "personal"...Without people willing to step up and say things that aren't always popular with the "crowd" I think a lot of these discussions would be boring and provide little value or information to folks who read but don't post a lot. :twocents:
Either way, as has been hashed out repeatedly...many of us, myself included, need to watch to make sure we are not going after the person(s) posting...rather we should all focus on what they post and whether it is logical, defensible, achieves objectives and policies we support etc. There is a clear line IMO between personal attacks and focusing on the issue/problem, and if you are on the side of the line that focuses on the problem/issue then I see no reason to water down what you like/don't like/think/know about whatever that topic happens to be.
I see your point regarding my view on this but I wonder.....how many threads do we need to have break down and end up with the same guys bickering back and forth about the same old thing?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
I agree with some comments made by Idahohntr and by jackelope. The wolf topics and all other topics should provide for a free exchange of information and viewpoints, however, some comments are rude, insulting, or there is name calling. I have allowed myself to make less than desirable comments at times in the past and I regret allowing that to happen as that may have fueled this trend. I will try to do a better job of leading by example in the future. Because wolves are such a polarizing issue, there will be some who comment more and many who may not comment, the key point, if we all try to refrain from the personal attacks and insults we will have more friendly and inviting discussions. The tone of the discussion should not deter participants, it should invite greater participation.
.....and hopefully accomplish something.
:tup:
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2014, 08:01:08 AM
From the WDFW website:
Quote
Aren’t the wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone non-native or different from earlier wolves?
No. There is no factual basis to the belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states.
Wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data demonstrates that the wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mixed with wolves from Idaho and Montana, along with those from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information illustrates that wolves form a single population across the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and southern Canada.
Recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in reintroductions into Yellowstone.
Post by: wolfbait on June 25, 2014, 08:09:26 AM
actually
When WDFW adopts a reasonable wolf plan
When WDFW kicks CNW to the curb
When WDFW uses uncorrupted science to manage game herds
When lobbyists no longer control WDFW......then I'll relax.
actually
When WDFW explain why they have released wolves throughout WA and then pretended the wolves migrated/are migrating
When WDFW start controlling predators instead of protecting them
When tree huggers quit petitioning WDFW to stop lethal control measures.
When wolf huggers quit blaming cattle ranchers for wolves killing cattle
When WDFW adopts a reasonable wolf plan
When WDFW kicks CNW to the curb
When WDFW uses uncorrupted science to manage game herds
When lobbyists no longer control WDFW......then I'll relax. :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on June 25, 2014, 09:04:30 AM
This theory that the introduced wolves were a different species than the native wolves of this state sure seems to come up a lot.
From the WDFW website:QuoteAren’t the wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone non-native or different from earlier wolves?
No. There is no factual basis to the belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states.
Wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data demonstrates that the wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mixed with wolves from Idaho and Montana, along with those from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information illustrates that wolves form a single population across the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and southern Canada.
Recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in reintroductions into Yellowstone.
Conservation groups sue to force federal decision on protections of rare Alaska wolves
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Three conservation groups have sued to force a federal agency to decide whether a rare Alaska wolf should be listed as endangered.
A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Alexander Archipelago wolves, a subspecies of gray wolves that lives in old-growth forest of southeast Alaska, is 18 months overdue, said Rebecca Noblin, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.
The center, Greenpeace and The Boat Company, a nonprofit educational organization that offers eco-cruises in southeast Alaska, sued Tuesday in federal court in Washington, D.C.
Noblin called the situation for the wolves precarious. The U.S. Forest Service is planning additional timber sales on islands inhabited by the wolves. The groups want the Fish and Wildlife Service to make a decision before more habitat is lost.
"We're concerned that the situation is getting worse for the wolves while the agency sits on its hands," she said.
Agency spokeswoman Andrea Medeiros could not be immediately reached Tuesday for comment.
The wolves den in the root systems of large trees and hunt Sitka black-tailed deer, which depend on high-quality, old forests. They are genetically distinct from other wolves in the Tongass National Forest.
Greenpeace and the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to list the wolves as endangered in August 2011 because of habitat loss from logging. Large-scale logging poses a threat because it fragments low-elevation forests that reduce carrying capacity for deer, according to the groups. Roads that accompany logging lead to unsustainable legal and illegal hunting and trapping, the groups say.
The number of wolves on Prince of Wales Island, where the Forest Service is considering the 9.4-square mile Big Thorne timber sale, has declined since the submission of the petition, according to the groups. David Pearson, a former state research biologist, counted 45 to 50 wolves in the Big Thorne timber sale area in the mid-1990s, but last year he could find evidence of only six or seven wolves, according to the groups.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/5a719de9e0bc47aabffdd12a8bc27f2b/AK--Alexander-Archipelago-Wolves (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/5a719de9e0bc47aabffdd12a8bc27f2b/AK--Alexander-Archipelago-Wolves)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
I guess it depends on the Agenda
Post by: idahohuntr on June 25, 2014, 11:04:36 AM
This theory that the introduced wolves were a different species than the native wolves of this state sure seems to come up a lot.Yes, and it is detrimental to hunters who want wolves off the endangered species list to try and argue in favor of this false idea that these are separate subspecies/species of wolves. The data we have does not support this notion that these are different wolves from a genetic/subspecies etc. standpoint. There may be slightly different physical features...animals from more northern latitudes tend to have larger bodies (whether its moose, deer, wolves...whatever) but they are not a different species/subspecies.
More importantly though, the enviro groups that want to keep wolves listed are certainly going to argue that every pack of wolves is genetically distinct if they can. Why? Because under ESA species can be listed down to the subspecies/MPG level...so it is easier to keep wolves listed if they are all designated as genetically distinct....a bunch of small, genetically different (and separately listed) group of wolves is much easier to keep on ESA than if we follow good science and just agree that a gray wolf is a gray wolf and that we've got a few thousand of them in the northern rocky mountain states and so the probability of extinction is very low.
Hunters who want wolves de-listed and managed more effectively are essentially shooting themselves in the foot when they push this "different wolves" theory.
Post by: wolfbait on June 25, 2014, 11:28:26 AM
This theory that the introduced wolves were a different species than the native wolves of this state sure seems to come up a lot.Yes, and it is detrimental to hunters who want wolves off the endangered species list to try and argue in favor of this false idea that these are separate subspecies/species of wolves. The data we have does not support this notion that these are different wolves from a genetic/subspecies etc. standpoint. There may be slightly different physical features...animals from more northern latitudes tend to have larger bodies (whether its moose, deer, wolves...whatever) but they are not a different species/subspecies.
More importantly though, the enviro groups that want to keep wolves listed are certainly going to argue that every pack of wolves is genetically distinct if they can. Why? Because under ESA species can be listed down to the subspecies/MPG level...so it is easier to keep wolves listed if they are all designated as genetically distinct....a bunch of small, genetically different (and separately listed) group of wolves is much easier to keep on ESA than if we follow good science and just agree that a gray wolf is a gray wolf and that we've got a few thousand of them in the northern rocky mountain states and so the probability of extinction is very low.
Hunters who want wolves de-listed and managed more effectively are essentially shooting themselves in the foot when they push this "different wolves" theory.
"Hunters who want wolves de-listed and managed more effectively are essentially shooting themselves in the foot when they push this "different wolves" theory."
Didn't the USFWS say a wolf was a wolf in order to introduce them in the lower 48? We know that their were native wolves in WA, MT, WY, and Idaho that were different then the wolves that the USFWS introduced. So telling the truth is hurting people who say the wolves that the USFWS introduced were not the wolves that these states originally had? I believe what the USFWS did, releasing wolves on top another species was illegal. We already know they broke the Lacey Act when they introduced them into Idaho.
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2014, 11:39:37 AM
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.
Post by: wolfbait on June 25, 2014, 06:32:08 PM
Wolfbait, can you prove that the wolves in this state from 100 years ago are a different species than the wolves that are here today?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.
Interesting read.
DNA Studies – Smaller Native Wolves Existed in
Northern Rockies before Canadian Wolf Transplant
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2048%20April%202012-Native%20wolves.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2048%20April%202012-Native%20wolves.pdf)
Post by: villageidiot on June 25, 2014, 10:31:08 PM
To sit on ones hands and let the government people make a decision for us is definitely sheeple. When the wolf lovers are convinced their precious vermin are being killed and the population reduced, then and only then will they agree to some sound management of wolves.
If we give in on this then they will continue to cram wolves down our throats. I do believe that if they actually knew the exact numbers killed by SSS they would be willing to sit down for a constructive plan.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 25, 2014, 11:27:50 PM
Yes, interesting might be a good way to describe it. I'm unsure why you are pushing the same deceptive information as the anti-hunting organizations? Don't you want wolves de-listed? Wolves are highly migratory and there is no migration barrier between wolves of upper B.C/Alberta and Idaho/Washington etc. There are lots of gray wolves in the northern rocky mountain states, they are the same wolves reintroduced into Idaho and WY and to suggest otherwise really fits the anti-hunting agenda quite well. Can't we agree that WDFW/USFWS has got this one right?
Interesting read.
DNA Studies – Smaller Native Wolves Existed in
Northern Rockies before Canadian Wolf Transplant
Fixed it for ya.Thank goodnessToo bad there are still a fewbrave mencowardly poachers that are very accurate shots and willhelpexacerbate our wolf problem.
When the wolf lovers are convinced their precious vermin are being killed and the population reduced, then and only then will they agree to some sound management of wolves. I do believe that if they actually knew the exact numbers killed by SSS they would be willing to sit down for a constructive plan.I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming. If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington. It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters. It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do. If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime. I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!
Post by: KFhunter on June 25, 2014, 11:43:00 PM
You and I both have lost, me for aggressive management and you for the current wolf plan and public acceptance.
Neither is likely to happen.
Post by: Romulus1297 on June 25, 2014, 11:58:01 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 26, 2014, 07:09:59 AM
I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming. If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington. It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters. It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do. If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime. I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!
Yep... things have gotten SOOO MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow. The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....
Post by: wolfbait on June 26, 2014, 07:37:02 AM
I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming. If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington. It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters. It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do. If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime. I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!
Yep... things have gotten SOOO MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow. The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....
There will never be a shortage of wolves in WA, look at the bogus wolf plan, WDFW will just keep dumping more wolves where they feel they are needed.
"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.
He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf)
Post by: AspenBud on June 26, 2014, 09:34:14 AM
I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming. If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington. It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters. It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do. If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime. I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!
Yep... things have gotten SOOO MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow. The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....
There will never be a shortage of wolves in WA, look at the bogus wolf plan, WDFW will just keep dumping more wolves where they feel they are needed.
"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.
He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf)
But again, you're in Washington, not Idaho or Wyoming. You have to be able to convince the overall population and right now that general population rather loudly says they either want wolves or just don't have enough of an opinion on the matter to care.
I think some of you are missing the point. At some point this issue may well come to a state wide vote and it doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize how people would vote on an initiative. They will tell WDFW what they want it to do and cram it down your throat. Every poached wolf will ensure that.
This is Lefty land, if you think illegally blowing away animals they want in the state will garner sympathy to your cause, you are in for a disappointment on a monumental scale. The blow back won't be pretty.
Post by: Curly on June 26, 2014, 09:42:54 AM
But again, you're in Washington, not Idaho or Wyoming. You have to be able to convince the overall population and right now that general population rather loudly says they either want wolves or just don't have enough of an opinion on the matter to care.
I think some of you are missing the point. At some point this issue may well come to a state wide vote and it doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize how people would vote on an initiative. They will tell WDFW what they want it to do and cram it down your throat. Every poached wolf will ensure that.
This is Lefty land, if you think illegally blowing away animals they want in the state will garner sympathy to your cause, you are in for a disappointment on a monumental scale. The blow back won't be pretty.
:yeah: Good points. We already got screwed in this state by the Initiatives of '96, any new wildlife type initiatives would likely go the same way.
Post by: KFhunter on June 26, 2014, 10:04:43 AM
I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming. If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington. It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters. It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do. If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime. I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!
Yep... things have gotten SOOO MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow. The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....
There will never be a shortage of wolves in WA, look at the bogus wolf plan, WDFW will just keep dumping more wolves where they feel they are needed.
"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.
He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf)
But again, you're in Washington, not Idaho or Wyoming. You have to be able to convince the overall population and right now that general population rather loudly says they either want wolves or just don't have enough of an opinion on the matter to care.
I think some of you are missing the point. At some point this issue may well come to a state wide vote and it doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize how people would vote on an initiative. They will tell WDFW what they want it to do and cram it down your throat. Every poached wolf will ensure that.
This is Lefty land, if you think illegally blowing away animals they want in the state will garner sympathy to your cause, you are in for a disappointment on a monumental scale. The blow back won't be pretty.
Your threat don't hold any water, folks already threw up their hands and said screw Olympia. Good folks who wouldn't poach a fish would pop a wolf. $20,000+ reward wouldn't even lubricate the lips of folks around Cedar creek.
Thing is, it don't matter. Poaching just isn't going to make an impact no matter how much you all worry about it. Even if they went to Coyote hunting rules statewide, it wouldn't do much to the wolf population. It would educate them some though, so that'd be good.
Post by: rim_runner on June 26, 2014, 10:05:51 AM
"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.
He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."
Regardless of how a department gets their funding they still answer to all the citizens of the state not just those who buy licenses and tags. They are required to deal with all wildlife not just the species of interest to hunters and fishers. For better or worse, right or wrong that’s how things are. The things hunters have done for conservation in the past speak very well for us and I’m sure hunters will be in the forefront for a long time to come but there are a lot of people interested in wildlife that need to step up to the plate and help us. In the past most non-hunters have been content with letting the fish and wildlife department do its job without a lot of interference but one of the key tactics of the anti-hunters it to drive a wedge between the non-hunters and the department. If the public loses faith in the department it allows the anti-hunters to use the courts and the voters to do an end run around the department and has been the source of some very poor wildlife laws. Does this mean that the department is above reproach? No not at all but there is a difference between constructive criticism and rash statements.
Post by: KFhunter on June 26, 2014, 10:16:56 AM
"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.
He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."
Regardless of how a department gets their funding they still answer to all the citizens of the state not just those who buy licenses and tags. They are required to deal with all wildlife not just the species of interest to hunters and fishers. For better or worse, right or wrong that’s how things are. The things hunters have done for conservation in the past speak very well for us and I’m sure hunters will be in the forefront for a long time to come but there are a lot of people interested in wildlife that need to step up to the plate and help us. In the past most non-hunters have been content with letting the fish and wildlife department do its job without a lot of interference but one of the key tactics of the anti-hunters it to drive a wedge between the non-hunters and the department. If the public loses faith in the department it allows the anti-hunters to use the courts and the voters to do an end run around the department and has been the source of some very poor wildlife laws. Does this mean that the department is above reproach? No not at all but there is a difference between constructive criticism and rash statements.
Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way, but they over reached and "settled" for a wolf plan what would ensure a great loss of hunting opportunity in the years to come. Right now WDFW is suppressing wolf impact in order to reach the goals set forth by the asinine wolf plan.
Hide, obscure and misdirect wolf impact, keep the pubic at large in the dark like a mushroom until the wolves are well established.
Post by: Curly on June 26, 2014, 10:19:40 AM
Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way, but they over reached and "settled" for a wolf plan what would ensure a great loss of hunting opportunity in the years to come. Right now WDFW is suppressing wolf impact in order to reach the goals set forth by the asinine wolf plan.
Hide, obscure and misdirect wolf impact, keep the pubic at large in the dark like a mushroom until the wolves are well established.
:yeah:
I still can't believe the bios at WDFW put together the plan they did. And on top of that I couldn't believe the commission approved that garbage. WTH is wrong with them? That plan is a joke. :o
Post by: AspenBud on June 26, 2014, 10:20:58 AM
I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming. If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington. It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters. It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do. If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime. I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!
Yep... things have gotten SOOO MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow. The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....
There will never be a shortage of wolves in WA, look at the bogus wolf plan, WDFW will just keep dumping more wolves where they feel they are needed.
"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.
He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf)
But again, you're in Washington, not Idaho or Wyoming. You have to be able to convince the overall population and right now that general population rather loudly says they either want wolves or just don't have enough of an opinion on the matter to care.
I think some of you are missing the point. At some point this issue may well come to a state wide vote and it doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize how people would vote on an initiative. They will tell WDFW what they want it to do and cram it down your throat. Every poached wolf will ensure that.
This is Lefty land, if you think illegally blowing away animals they want in the state will garner sympathy to your cause, you are in for a disappointment on a monumental scale. The blow back won't be pretty.
Your threat don't hold any water, folks already threw up their hands and said screw Olympia. Good folks who wouldn't poach a fish would pop a wolf. $20,000+ reward wouldn't even lubricate the lips of folks around Cedar creek.
Thing is, it don't matter. Poaching just isn't going to make an impact no matter how much you all worry about it. Even if they went to Coyote hunting rules statewide, it wouldn't do much to the wolf population. It would educate them some though, so that'd be good.
It's not a threat, it's a fact.
You are quite wrong if it (poaching) leads to an initiative that causes the lack of wolf management to be pushed farther into the future than it otherwise would. That would have a HUGE impact.
It also puts a giant black eye on hunting's reputation in a state where the tradition is already heavily under assault.
Post by: bobcat on June 26, 2014, 10:24:48 AM
The plan could have required wolves in western Washington. But it doesn't.
So I actually feel like we should be grateful for what we got.
Post by: Curly on June 26, 2014, 10:27:28 AM
They had no science to back up the plan they came up with. I think it's a joke what we got stuck with. They needed to tell the wolf lovers to pound sand. >:(
Post by: AspenBud on June 26, 2014, 10:27:41 AM
"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.
He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."
Regardless of how a department gets their funding they still answer to all the citizens of the state not just those who buy licenses and tags. They are required to deal with all wildlife not just the species of interest to hunters and fishers. For better or worse, right or wrong that’s how things are. The things hunters have done for conservation in the past speak very well for us and I’m sure hunters will be in the forefront for a long time to come but there are a lot of people interested in wildlife that need to step up to the plate and help us. In the past most non-hunters have been content with letting the fish and wildlife department do its job without a lot of interference but one of the key tactics of the anti-hunters it to drive a wedge between the non-hunters and the department. If the public loses faith in the department it allows the anti-hunters to use the courts and the voters to do an end run around the department and has been the source of some very poor wildlife laws. Does this mean that the department is above reproach? No not at all but there is a difference between constructive criticism and rash statements.
Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way, but they over reached and "settled" for a wolf plan what would ensure a great loss of hunting opportunity in the years to come. Right now WDFW is suppressing wolf impact in order to reach the goals set forth by the asinine wolf plan.
Hide, obscure and misdirect wolf impact, keep the pubic at large in the dark like a mushroom until the wolves are well established.
Most of the public doesn't understand what is going on anyhow. At best they hike in the woods and "watch nature." What WDFW does or does not tell them really depends on whether they are paying much attention anyhow and few do. If I took a random walk down the street in Seattle, Vancouver, or Spokane and asked folks if they had logged into WDFW's website in the last six months, I doubt 50% would say they have.
Post by: KFhunter on June 26, 2014, 10:33:35 AM
The wolf plan could easily have been much worse. The wolf lovers were complaining that 15 breeding pairs wasn't enough. They wanted 30. :yike:
The plan could have required wolves in western Washington. But it doesn't.
So I actually feel like we should be grateful for what we got.
What you're not grasping is 15BP really means 30 on the ground.
In a management vacuum the wolves are breeding as they see fit, WDFW openly admits they've no clue how many BP's or wolves there are. 15bp, 30bp - what's the difference when there's no management?
Post by: bobcat on June 26, 2014, 10:35:33 AM
Aren't you glad the WDFW didn't listen to them?
Post by: KFhunter on June 26, 2014, 10:37:26 AM
So the 30 bp's the wolf huggers wanted would be 60 pair? :o
Aren't you glad the WDFW didn't listen to them?
Without management it'll be 100+
Post by: rim_runner on June 26, 2014, 10:37:44 AM
Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way,
I’ve never seen a plan, especially a government plan, that couldn’t use some improvement. Sometimes that kind of plan needs lots of improvement. So what can be done? Can the plan be revised or changed?
Post by: bobcat on June 26, 2014, 10:39:35 AM
So the 30 bp's the wolf huggers wanted would be 60 pair? :o
Aren't you glad the WDFW didn't listen to them?
Without management it'll be 100+
Maybe so, but would a change in the wolf plan make any difference? :dunno:
Post by: Curly on June 26, 2014, 10:44:55 AM
WDFW submits plan to USFWS and they send it back to WDFW saying "Oh, no. You have to revise the plan. There are not enough wolves in your plan."
Then WDFW argues their case based on available science with the USFWS representatives.
Then wdfw revises the plan to be a little closer to what USFWS expected, but still not quite as many wolves as the feds would like. So the Feds say to revise.
WDFW then pleads their case again based on science and the USFWS eventually gives in saying that the plan is acceptable.
Instead, we get a plan that is too heavy with wolf numbers and the USFWS just approves it. No back and forth (that I know of anyway, maybe I'm wrong). I think it should have been a battle between State and Feds regarding the plan.........not just give them a plan they like right off the bat. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on June 26, 2014, 10:47:54 AM
So the 30 bp's the wolf huggers wanted would be 60 pair? :o
Aren't you glad the WDFW didn't listen to them?
Without management it'll be 100+
Maybe so, but would a change in the wolf plan make any difference? :dunno:
Probably not much difference in the amount of wolves around. But I think it would help hunters feel better if the wolves were delisted and we could shoot them without getting arrested. It would be good PR for wdfw with hunters, but bad PR for wdfw with the wolf huggers. Seems like they'd rather piss off hunters than the wolf lover crowd. They are scared of HSUS, PETA, and the like..........but not worried about hunters. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on June 26, 2014, 10:57:08 AM
So the 30 bp's the wolf huggers wanted would be 60 pair? :o
Aren't you glad the WDFW didn't listen to them?
Without management it'll be 100+
Maybe so, but would a change in the wolf plan make any difference? :dunno:
Probably not much difference in the amount of wolves around. But I think it would help hunters feel better if the wolves were delisted and we could shoot them without getting arrested. It would be good PR for wdfw with hunters, but bad PR for wdfw with the wolf huggers. Seems like they'd rather piss off hunters than the wolf lover crowd. They are scared of HSUS, PETA, and the like..........but not worried about hunters. :twocents:
I think it's something much simpler than that. I think the aim is to have wolves state wide so they'll do it through numbers instead of physically distributing them in various areas.
The whole problem could be "resolved" quickly if the state would relocate some wolves to every corner of the state. But no doubt there is some legal restriction for all I know that prevents that.
Post by: rim_runner on June 26, 2014, 11:11:55 AM
Quote
They are scared of HSUS, PETA, and the like...These groups have a lot of money behind them and are very adept at PR work. They were able to overwhelm the trappers and hound hunters. We all need to take these groups seriously no matter how misguided they are. What is in our favor is the fact even though they get money and support from all over the country they still have to make their case to the Washington state voters.
Post by: bearpaw on June 26, 2014, 11:35:12 AM
Had WDFW put out a reasonable wolf plan for WA it would still be that way,
I’ve never seen a plan, especially a government plan, that couldn’t use some improvement. Sometimes that kind of plan needs lots of improvement. So what can be done? Can the plan be revised or changed?
Yes the wolf plan could be changed if you had a commission with the desire and fortitude to change it.
But the bottom line, I think only public pressure and the legislature will change anything and it's going to take wolf problems in western WA before there's enough public pressure. Eventually wolves will multiply in western Washington and start eating pets, livestock, and invading neighborhoods. When western Washington residents get fed up with wolves like we have in E WA, then we may see meaningful state management. In the meantime I think KFhunter is correct, it really doesn't matter what the left side of Washington does, many eastern Washington residents are going to take care of things quietly when problems occur. This isn't the way I like to see things occur, I would rather see legal management, but this is how it is being forced to happen, just as I have predicted all along as a result of the flawed wolf plan.
Eastern WA isn't Idaho or Montana, that was a correct statement. There are so many people living through the countryside that these wolves are being seen all the time, as more wolves cause more problems more people are getting fed up and taking action. One wolf even had to be spayed that bred with a local dog. In addition three (3) of the collared wolves were killed and eaten by our over-populated cougars since last year. It appears E Washington may be at the point of predator oversaturation. Add to that the fact that many wolves are leaving E WA and going back to Canada, Idaho, or toward W WA and it's becoming evident that E WA just may not be the best home for wolves. I now have less concern about a wolf overpopulation because it's beginning to seem that wolves don't fit in that well, there are too many people, pets, livestock, and cougars. We saw 7 cougars while turkey hunting this spring, two called in, one random sighting, and a female with 3 nearly adult kittens walked past one of our hunting blinds.
GO COUGS :chuckle:
Another Wolf Prediction
Much the same thing will happen in W WA. The masses of wolf lovers living in urban Seattle/Tacoma/Everett/Bellingham are going to try and prevent reasonable wolf management. Even if they raise penalties and offer huge rewards, I predict that W WA will end up just like E WA, which followed the footsteps of Idaho. As wolves multiply the rural residents in W WA will end up quietly taking care of wolf management. Some wolves will leave and others will be eaten by cougars, but the fact is, unmanaged numbers of wolves simply cannot fit in WA. :twocents: