Post by: gfull on October 09, 2014, 12:41:15 PM
Makes sense to me. Why should they have all the fun. Maybe, once the libs get a taste of these killing machines, they will rethink their wolf re-introduction strategy.
Post by: boneaddict on October 09, 2014, 12:56:55 PM
Post by: headshot5 on October 09, 2014, 01:05:01 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 09, 2014, 01:06:38 PM
Post by: baldopepper on October 09, 2014, 01:12:27 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 09, 2014, 01:15:24 PM
Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.
My assumption was that he was saying that to prove a point. Something along the lines of, wait until they directly impact you, type of deal. I could be mistaken but that is how I took it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 09, 2014, 01:15:37 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 09, 2014, 01:17:09 PM
Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.
My assumption was that he was saying that to prove a point. Something along the lines of, wait until they directly impact you, type of deal. I could be mistaken but that is how I took it.
Of course he was. I bet those folks are really tired of W.WA residents without a clue deciding the fate of E.WA residents living with the problem.
Post by: PA BEN on October 09, 2014, 01:19:35 PM
Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 09, 2014, 01:23:15 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 09, 2014, 01:34:57 PM
Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.
I understand your viewpoint but think it's a little extreme. Maybe there will be less wildlife to hunt, but I doubt there will ever be none. I also don't believe any rancher will be out of business as a result of the presence of wolves. And if wolves for some weird reason never do become established on the west side of the state, I would prefer that. We don't want them over here just like we don't want them over there. But it's not like we have a choice- they're wild animals and go where they want.
Post by: KFhunter on October 09, 2014, 01:35:53 PM
Wish I knew anything about live trapping, I'd be tempted to do a little clandestine relocation operation. Not that I would ever suggest that anyone attempt to do such a thing and I'd never suggest that if they did it that they should choose the Tiger Mtn area as a release point.
Do you need to borrow a stock trailer? :chuckle:
Post by: PA BEN on October 09, 2014, 01:58:09 PM
You as a businessman can take a 100,000 dollars lost over night and stay in business? Tell that to the cattlemen at that meeting who were almost in tears telling about their loses. Talking about all the years it took to build their cattle business so they can retire and pass the business to his son and grandson, (who was at the meeting too.) No one at that meeting wanted to wish wolves on anybody and go through what they have gone through, BUT, if thats what it will take so be it.Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.
I understand your viewpoint but think it's a little extreme. Maybe there will be less wildlife to hunt, but I doubt there will ever be none. I also don't believe any rancher will be out of business as a result of the presence of wolves. And if wolves for some weird reason never do become established on the west side of the state, I would prefer that. We don't want them over here just like we don't want them over there. But it's not like we have a choice- they're wild animals and go where they want.
Post by: AspenBud on October 09, 2014, 02:16:03 PM
I'm betting confirming wolf packs is going to be pretty tough on the Westside (in the thick jungle).
Not to mention sheer numbers of people, cars, and everything else that goes with modern life. Even the prey base is different, including an elk species that is bigger and isn't descended from imported Yellowstone elk.
Like I've said, western Washington, in every way, is nothing like anywhere that wolves have occurred so far in the lower 48. Once they cross that mountain range they are no longer in the middle of nowhere and unlike coyotes they don't blend in well. They will have A LOT more hazards and obstacles, the biggest of which starts with over 5 million people.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on October 09, 2014, 02:17:04 PM
You as a businessman can take a 100,000 dollars lost over night and stay in business? Tell that to the cattlemen at that meeting who were almost in tears telling about their loses. Talking about all the years it took to build their cattle business so they can retire and pass the business to his son and grandson, (who was at the meeting too.) No one at that meeting wanted to wish wolves on anybody and go through what they have gone through, BUT, if thats what it will take so be it.Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.
I understand your viewpoint but think it's a little extreme. Maybe there will be less wildlife to hunt, but I doubt there will ever be none. I also don't believe any rancher will be out of business as a result of the presence of wolves. And if wolves for some weird reason never do become established on the west side of the state, I would prefer that. We don't want them over here just like we don't want them over there. But it's not like we have a choice- they're wild animals and go where they want.
I haven't heard of any ranchers taking a $100k loss overnight. Even with todays inflated beef prices I haven't heard of anything that significant.
I am not saying that this hasn't added (once again) more stress on the cattle farmers, but I am saying that I think you or they may have inflated the number there quite a bit. As much of a pro-ranchers as I am on this subject, I don't think I would inflate the numbers.
Oh and don't bother telling me that I don't know what it's like to have the government force me to take losses - our family business is spending close to 100k (that's a real number this time) on health care for our employees. I get way less coverage than I used to, it costs three times as much, oh and here's the best part: Even though I technically own zero shares in the company, I still have to pay taxes on my health benefits because I am an "implied shareholder". Oh and the government doesn't compensate me or my family for any of these things.
My biggest complaint in the entire wolf issue is that it doesn't seem that we give the ranchers the right to shoot back. Let the ranchers watch over their cattle and shoot wolves that are getting too close. Makes sense to me???
Curtis
Post by: baldopepper on October 09, 2014, 02:20:18 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 09, 2014, 02:25:28 PM
Post by: PA BEN on October 09, 2014, 02:30:29 PM
Bobcat I agree with you that a lot of the hysteria and hyperbole about wolves is unrealistic, but really the problem is that people are just realistically afraid to live around wolves. Obviously they are not the man eating, night stalking devils that some seem to believe, but on the other hand they are not the cute, cudily basically harmless animal that others would have you believe. The point with me is that many people who want wolf reintroduction really want them to be a long ways away from them and it's unfair to those people who have to live near them. I also believe that wolf introduction is being done without a real assessment on the end effect regarding our big game management. No, I don't think they will wipe out every game animal in an area, but to think they won't severely impact big game herds is naïve also. Even if you are not a hunter I would think you'd have to be concerned with the uncountable kill tally from large numbers of wolves in an area. Guess it's kind of like new prisons to me, everyone wants more to get criminals off the street, they just don't want them in their neighborhood. People on the westside don't want wolves around simply because they are afraid of them, I think the only way they'll really sympathize with the eastside folks is when they experience that fear first hand. I don't buy any conspiracy on the part of WDFW or any of the Big Govt. is out to get me stuff. WDFW is caught in the middle of an issue that they are underfunded and undermanned to really deal with , but are responsible for handling. I don't suspect we'll really see wolves on the westside for a long time, if ever, but honestly believe that if they did show up over here there'd be a whole different management plan in effect.:yeah:
The question was asked about the wildlife. As long as there's a surplus we will have hunting. When the big game we hunt is down to 25% then the hunting will stop. Strate from the meeting.
Post by: bobcat on October 09, 2014, 02:37:19 PM
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 09, 2014, 02:39:53 PM
Bobcat I agree with you that a lot of the hysteria and hyperbole about wolves is unrealistic, but really the problem is that people are just realistically afraid to live around wolves. Obviously they are not the man eating, night stalking devils that some seem to believe, but on the other hand they are not the cute, cudily basically harmless animal that others would have you believe. The point with me is that many people who want wolf reintroduction really want them to be a long ways away from them and it's unfair to those people who have to live near them. I also believe that wolf introduction is being done without a real assessment on the end effect regarding our big game management. No, I don't think they will wipe out every game animal in an area, but to think they won't severely impact big game herds is naïve also. Even if you are not a hunter I would think you'd have to be concerned with the uncountable kill tally from large numbers of wolves in an area. Guess it's kind of like new prisons to me, everyone wants more to get criminals off the street, they just don't want them in their neighborhood. People on the westside don't want wolves around simply because they are afraid of them, I think the only way they'll really sympathize with the eastside folks is when they experience that fear first hand. I don't buy any conspiracy on the part of WDFW or any of the Big Govt. is out to get me stuff. WDFW is caught in the middle of an issue that they are underfunded and undermanned to really deal with , but are responsible for handling. I don't suspect we'll really see wolves on the westside for a long time, if ever, but honestly believe that if they did show up over here there'd be a whole different management plan in effect.
I would also add to this that many people are under the false impression that wolves only kill the weak, injured, starving, or what have you? They truly believe that they will just balance out the ecosystem and until they see thrill kills or killing healthy animals and just eating parts of them, they will never understand.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 09, 2014, 02:40:48 PM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
I think if ranchers were allowed to protect their livestock by killing wolves they wouldn't have NEARLY the issue with them and would learn to live with them. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on October 09, 2014, 02:43:16 PM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
I think if ranchers were allowed to protect their livestock by killing wolves they wouldn't have NEARLY the issue with them and would learn to live with them. :twocents:
I'm sure they are already doing that, they just don't tell anybody. And, isn't it actually legal in some situations?
Post by: vandeman17 on October 09, 2014, 02:45:59 PM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
I think if ranchers were allowed to protect their livestock by killing wolves they wouldn't have NEARLY the issue with them and would learn to live with them. :twocents:
I'm sure they are already doing that, they just don't tell anybody. And, isn't it actually legal in some situations?
I am sure some are and I have no problem with it but by making it legal, it would give them the trust that at least there is empathy for their situation. WDFW is in a tough spot as well with this whole thing
Post by: AspenBud on October 09, 2014, 02:48:46 PM
Bobcat I agree with you that a lot of the hysteria and hyperbole about wolves is unrealistic, but really the problem is that people are just realistically afraid to live around wolves. Obviously they are not the man eating, night stalking devils that some seem to believe, but on the other hand they are not the cute, cudily basically harmless animal that others would have you believe. The point with me is that many people who want wolf reintroduction really want them to be a long ways away from them and it's unfair to those people who have to live near them. I also believe that wolf introduction is being done without a real assessment on the end effect regarding our big game management. No, I don't think they will wipe out every game animal in an area, but to think they won't severely impact big game herds is naïve also. Even if you are not a hunter I would think you'd have to be concerned with the uncountable kill tally from large numbers of wolves in an area. Guess it's kind of like new prisons to me, everyone wants more to get criminals off the street, they just don't want them in their neighborhood. People on the westside don't want wolves around simply because they are afraid of them, I think the only way they'll really sympathize with the eastside folks is when they experience that fear first hand. I don't buy any conspiracy on the part of WDFW or any of the Big Govt. is out to get me stuff. WDFW is caught in the middle of an issue that they are underfunded and undermanned to really deal with , but are responsible for handling. I don't suspect we'll really see wolves on the westside for a long time, if ever, but honestly believe that if they did show up over here there'd be a whole different management plan in effect.
I would also add to this that many people are under the false impression that wolves only kill the weak, injured, starving, or what have you? They truly believe that they will just balance out the ecosystem and until they see thrill kills or killing healthy animals and just eating parts of them, they will never understand.
I hate to break it to you but not all animals are born equal. While some might look healthy that does not mean that under the hood they have the tools needed to survive. Weakness encompasses far more than physical appearance or health when talking about wild animals. Dog breeding is a great comparison. High levels of selectivity lead to better specimens, water that down and you get inferior specimens. We have a lot of genetically watered down ungulate populations...which is a problem for both pro wolfers and pro management folks whether they understand/believe it or not.
Post by: PA BEN on October 09, 2014, 02:49:26 PM
:yeah: No one said the wolves will all be gone. But with the wolf management plan as it stands right now, the wolves will be very out of control sooner than later. They said it's a 38% growth rate in the last few years, unchecked they will be out of control.But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
I think if ranchers were allowed to protect their livestock by killing wolves they wouldn't have NEARLY the issue with them and would learn to live with them. :twocents:
Post by: vandeman17 on October 09, 2014, 02:55:47 PM
Bobcat I agree with you that a lot of the hysteria and hyperbole about wolves is unrealistic, but really the problem is that people are just realistically afraid to live around wolves. Obviously they are not the man eating, night stalking devils that some seem to believe, but on the other hand they are not the cute, cudily basically harmless animal that others would have you believe. The point with me is that many people who want wolf reintroduction really want them to be a long ways away from them and it's unfair to those people who have to live near them. I also believe that wolf introduction is being done without a real assessment on the end effect regarding our big game management. No, I don't think they will wipe out every game animal in an area, but to think they won't severely impact big game herds is naïve also. Even if you are not a hunter I would think you'd have to be concerned with the uncountable kill tally from large numbers of wolves in an area. Guess it's kind of like new prisons to me, everyone wants more to get criminals off the street, they just don't want them in their neighborhood. People on the westside don't want wolves around simply because they are afraid of them, I think the only way they'll really sympathize with the eastside folks is when they experience that fear first hand. I don't buy any conspiracy on the part of WDFW or any of the Big Govt. is out to get me stuff. WDFW is caught in the middle of an issue that they are underfunded and undermanned to really deal with , but are responsible for handling. I don't suspect we'll really see wolves on the westside for a long time, if ever, but honestly believe that if they did show up over here there'd be a whole different management plan in effect.
I would also add to this that many people are under the false impression that wolves only kill the weak, injured, starving, or what have you? They truly believe that they will just balance out the ecosystem and until they see thrill kills or killing healthy animals and just eating parts of them, they will never understand.
I hate to break it to you but not all animals are born equal. While some might look healthy that does not mean that under the hood they have the tools needed to survive. Weakness encompasses far more than physical appearance or health when talking about wild animals. Dog breeding is a great comparison. High levels of selectivity lead to better specimens, water that down and you get inferior specimens. We have a lot of genetically watered down ungulate populations...which is a problem for both pro wolfers and pro management folks whether they understand/believe it or not.
So are you saying every single animal a wolf kills has some sort of weakness and that wolves inherently know this? Do you have a source for this or is this your opinion. I find it very hard to believe
Post by: buckfvr on October 09, 2014, 02:56:50 PM
The push for wolves is and has been about one thing........chewing the deer and elk herds down to the point they need to be protected, ending hunting, and getting guns............if you cant connect those dots, you arent paying attention.
Post by: AspenBud on October 09, 2014, 03:06:20 PM
Bobcat I agree with you that a lot of the hysteria and hyperbole about wolves is unrealistic, but really the problem is that people are just realistically afraid to live around wolves. Obviously they are not the man eating, night stalking devils that some seem to believe, but on the other hand they are not the cute, cudily basically harmless animal that others would have you believe. The point with me is that many people who want wolf reintroduction really want them to be a long ways away from them and it's unfair to those people who have to live near them. I also believe that wolf introduction is being done without a real assessment on the end effect regarding our big game management. No, I don't think they will wipe out every game animal in an area, but to think they won't severely impact big game herds is naïve also. Even if you are not a hunter I would think you'd have to be concerned with the uncountable kill tally from large numbers of wolves in an area. Guess it's kind of like new prisons to me, everyone wants more to get criminals off the street, they just don't want them in their neighborhood. People on the westside don't want wolves around simply because they are afraid of them, I think the only way they'll really sympathize with the eastside folks is when they experience that fear first hand. I don't buy any conspiracy on the part of WDFW or any of the Big Govt. is out to get me stuff. WDFW is caught in the middle of an issue that they are underfunded and undermanned to really deal with , but are responsible for handling. I don't suspect we'll really see wolves on the westside for a long time, if ever, but honestly believe that if they did show up over here there'd be a whole different management plan in effect.
I would also add to this that many people are under the false impression that wolves only kill the weak, injured, starving, or what have you? They truly believe that they will just balance out the ecosystem and until they see thrill kills or killing healthy animals and just eating parts of them, they will never understand.
I hate to break it to you but not all animals are born equal. While some might look healthy that does not mean that under the hood they have the tools needed to survive. Weakness encompasses far more than physical appearance or health when talking about wild animals. Dog breeding is a great comparison. High levels of selectivity lead to better specimens, water that down and you get inferior specimens. We have a lot of genetically watered down ungulate populations...which is a problem for both pro wolfers and pro management folks whether they understand/believe it or not.
So are you saying every single animal a wolf kills has some sort of weakness and that wolves inherently know this? Do you have a source for this or is this your opinion. I find it very hard to believe
I think every animal they take down had a weakness they exploited. It's called survival of the fittest for a reason. Some will make it, some will not. Some chance is involved there but at the end of it some, and it may only be a small fraction, are better able to fend for themselves than others. Equality does not exist in the natural world.
Post by: AspenBud on October 09, 2014, 03:08:39 PM
The push for wolves is and has been about one thing........chewing the deer and elk herds down to the point they need to be protected, ending hunting, and getting guns............if you cant connect those dots, you arent paying attention.
My boss showed me a picture of a buddy of his the other day...standing next to a nice bull elk he got in Montana last week. Looks like wolves are falling short of that goal...though he did do it with a bow and not a gun....
Post by: vandeman17 on October 09, 2014, 03:12:13 PM
Bobcat I agree with you that a lot of the hysteria and hyperbole about wolves is unrealistic, but really the problem is that people are just realistically afraid to live around wolves. Obviously they are not the man eating, night stalking devils that some seem to believe, but on the other hand they are not the cute, cudily basically harmless animal that others would have you believe. The point with me is that many people who want wolf reintroduction really want them to be a long ways away from them and it's unfair to those people who have to live near them. I also believe that wolf introduction is being done without a real assessment on the end effect regarding our big game management. No, I don't think they will wipe out every game animal in an area, but to think they won't severely impact big game herds is naïve also. Even if you are not a hunter I would think you'd have to be concerned with the uncountable kill tally from large numbers of wolves in an area. Guess it's kind of like new prisons to me, everyone wants more to get criminals off the street, they just don't want them in their neighborhood. People on the westside don't want wolves around simply because they are afraid of them, I think the only way they'll really sympathize with the eastside folks is when they experience that fear first hand. I don't buy any conspiracy on the part of WDFW or any of the Big Govt. is out to get me stuff. WDFW is caught in the middle of an issue that they are underfunded and undermanned to really deal with , but are responsible for handling. I don't suspect we'll really see wolves on the westside for a long time, if ever, but honestly believe that if they did show up over here there'd be a whole different management plan in effect.
I would also add to this that many people are under the false impression that wolves only kill the weak, injured, starving, or what have you? They truly believe that they will just balance out the ecosystem and until they see thrill kills or killing healthy animals and just eating parts of them, they will never understand.
I hate to break it to you but not all animals are born equal. While some might look healthy that does not mean that under the hood they have the tools needed to survive. Weakness encompasses far more than physical appearance or health when talking about wild animals. Dog breeding is a great comparison. High levels of selectivity lead to better specimens, water that down and you get inferior specimens. We have a lot of genetically watered down ungulate populations...which is a problem for both pro wolfers and pro management folks whether they understand/believe it or not.
So are you saying every single animal a wolf kills has some sort of weakness and that wolves inherently know this? Do you have a source for this or is this your opinion. I find it very hard to believe
I think every animal they take down had a weakness they exploited. It's called survival of the fittest for a reason. Some will make it, some will not. Some chance is involved there but at the end of it some, and it may only be a small fraction, are better able to fend for themselves than others. Equality does not exist in the natural world.
A weakness in regards to the wolves sheer power, speed, numbers etc. A bull elk that breaks away from the herd to browse on some grass, gets surrounded by wolves, taken down, partially eaten and left for scavengers was weak? I think you are stretching an already weak argument but it is your opinion and we are all entitled to them.
Post by: buckfvr on October 09, 2014, 03:19:53 PM
The push for wolves is and has been about one thing........chewing the deer and elk herds down to the point they need to be protected, ending hunting, and getting guns............if you cant connect those dots, you arent paying attention.
My boss showed me a picture of a buddy of his the other day...standing next to a nice bull elk he got in Montana last week. Looks like wolves are falling short of that goal...though he did do it with a bow and not a gun....
I never suggested they are achieving their goals, and despite the wolf problems here in n.e. wa., I notched my elk tag, a bow bull, not a gun................not that that has a thing to do with it.
Post by: Elkslayer on October 09, 2014, 03:28:54 PM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
The problem isn't that the ranchers don't know how to deal with the wolves. They know exactly how to deal with them! When you have an outside party come in and start telling them how they are going to deal with them and start forcing all these non-lethal methods on them and telling them they have to do this, this and this before lethal action can be taken is where the problem is.
The other problem is that the N/E corner is averaging 2-3 new packs per year and we are being told there is absolutely nothing that can be done until wolves have populated all regions of the state before any managment will be looked at. WDWF's own estimate is for this to possibly happen by 2021. So at that rate we are looking at 25-30 packs in the N/E corner alone. Sorry but there is absolutely no way we have the game population to support that amount of wolves.
Post by: MR5x5 on October 09, 2014, 03:36:12 PM
15,000 of 19,000 Yellowstone Elk herd were clearly weak.
All but a couple of the 1000 Moose were clearly weak.
We are now starting to find out how many of the Bison are clearly weak.
Sure it took 15 years happen. Sure the original predictions were 7-12% impact to herds. Sure some level of animals survive in all impacted areas. Sure the introduction of Canadian wolves exterminated the documented Native wolves in the release area. Sure the the ESA was directly violated by the release of these wolves with direct evidence of native species. But who really cares?
Estimates are that there are at least 10 times and as many as 20 times the amount of wolves originally agreed to. The environmentalists are useful idiots. But what is the bigger game being played out? Land grab? Gun Grab? Both? Something else? It sure as hell isn't being done for natures sake.
Bring some wolves to the west side. You say they won't survive? Then I guess there is no reason to worry. You say you don't want to spend anymore money on this. I suspect we can find some volunteers. You say wolves don't bother people? Of course they don't where they don't exist. You should look around the world. Ask the Russians if wolves kill people?
Yes, it does look like they are here to stay. World history demonstrates they will dominate their environment if not proactively controlled. Check the impact on Caribou herds in Canada. Lots of interesting wolf work done there. They will not be proactively controlled until the the west side, granola eating, sandal wearing NIMBYs have a chance to experience them.
So lets got on with so we can got on with it.
Post by: bone collector 12 on October 09, 2014, 04:07:08 PM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."But bears Cougars and coyotes are regulated Wolves are not
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
Post by: KFhunter on October 09, 2014, 05:57:33 PM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
All the ranchers I've talked too know the wolves are here to stay and know that ranching as they knew it is changed forever.
Cougars, Bears and Coyotes do prey on livestock and there are losses due to those animals, it's negligible especially when compared to what wolves can do; but none the less there are some losses. The ranchers deal with it and have the legal means to do so. If Coyotes are bad WDFW will give out a permit to use foothold traps and you can already shoot them 24/7 365. Cougars, WDFW will allow hounds to run them on occasion and will even live trap bears for you. If those animals are caught in the act there is no serious investigation or false allegations of poaching. Not so much with wolves.
Ranchers want the tools as mentioned above and the freedom to deal with it. Right now they'll get into a lot of trouble for shooting a wolf that doesn't quite meet the definition "caught in the act" and quite frankly do not trust WDFW enough to utilize that rule, or at least report they've used that rule :chuckle:
Who in their right mind would report that they've shot a wolf and hope for a fair investigation? Not only that but suffer public condemnation, ridicule and death threats when WDFW releases all the names to the media?
A good example is the recent attack on the Aladdin highway where construction crews and other passers by witnessed wolves giving chase to cattle. What a perfect time to shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act rule" provided by WDFW....but then look how WDFW handled it, refused to admit it was wolves and told them all it was coyotes at first. Would you legally shoot a wolf if WDFW was telling you that you must be mistaken, it must be a coyote, it's not in the act or any other excuse they can come up with to say it wasn't a wolf? I'd be in fear they'd accuse me of poaching a wolf and that my cattle weren't really in any danger, and if a cow was down I'd be worried they'd say the cow died of some other cause and a wolf was merely scavenging which doesn't fit the "caught in the act" rule.
I know WDFW is between a rock and a hard spot with the wetside voters and I don't envy the tight rope they walk, I understand that. The problem I have is members of WDFW is the lack of honesty and openness. Too many times they've obfuscated the truth about wolf kills, they haven't done enough to locate, collar and verify pack status. Given the tight rope they walk I still think they could do a better job serving Washington's hunting community. They could do a better job documenting wolf impact areas in regards to ungulate numbers but they won't even broach that subject other than to say they'll do a study if they see significant wolf impact; which there clearly is if anyone spends any time in a wolf area, it's eerily deserted of large game animals.
I think WDFW could do a few key things to help ranchers and still have very little effect on the wolf recovery.
1) Set up body gripping trap permits in wolf impacted grazing allotments, along the same lines as they currently do for coyotes.
2) Identify and contact livestock owners when range areas overlap wolf denning sites. Have the ranchers sign a non-disclosure agreement and make wolf movement date available to them.
3) Divorce all WDFW funding from advocacy groups. Remove all paid members of conservation groups off WDFW staffing and commission members. Maintain an impartial wolf advocacy group, commission members and discourage all WDFW staffing from joining advocacy groups.
4) Hire hunters to remove wolves where permitted trapping is failing prevent wolf conflict.
5) keep all dealings with ranchers private, refuse to release names of those individuals who shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act" rule.
6) keep private all ranchers names who are loosing livestock to wolves and where preventive measure are being employed.
given a little more time and thought I'm sure I could come up with a lot more ideas to help WDFW's image and public cooperation, especially the cooperation of ranchers. WDFW isn't doing any of these things and it would appear that they have little desire to improve their image or public trust.
Post by: PA BEN on October 09, 2014, 06:30:07 PM
Post by: wolfbait on October 09, 2014, 07:11:09 PM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
All the ranchers I've talked too know the wolves are here to stay and know that ranching as they knew it is changed forever.
Cougars, Bears and Coyotes do prey on livestock and there are losses due to those animals, it's negligible especially when compared to what wolves can do; but none the less there are some losses. The ranchers deal with it and have the legal means to do so. If Coyotes are bad WDFW will give out a permit to use foothold traps and you can already shoot them 24/7 365. Cougars, WDFW will allow hounds to run them on occasion and will even live trap bears for you. If those animals are caught in the act there is no serious investigation or false allegations of poaching. Not so much with wolves.
Ranchers want the tools as mentioned above and the freedom to deal with it. Right now they'll get into a lot of trouble for shooting a wolf that doesn't quite meet the definition "caught in the act" and quite frankly do not trust WDFW enough to utilize that rule, or at least report they've used that rule :chuckle:
Who in their right mind would report that they've shot a wolf and hope for a fair investigation? Not only that but suffer public condemnation, ridicule and death threats when WDFW releases all the names to the media?
A good example is the recent attack on the Aladdin highway where construction crews and other passers by witnessed wolves giving chase to cattle. What a perfect time to shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act rule" provided by WDFW....but then look how WDFW handled it, refused to admit it was wolves and told them all it was coyotes at first. Would you legally shoot a wolf if WDFW was telling you that you must be mistaken, it must be a coyote, it's not in the act or any other excuse they can come up with to say it wasn't a wolf? I'd be in fear they'd accuse me of poaching a wolf and that my cattle weren't really in any danger, and if a cow was down I'd be worried they'd say the cow died of some other cause and a wolf was merely scavenging which doesn't fit the "caught in the act" rule.
I know WDFW is between a rock and a hard spot with the wetside voters and I don't envy the tight rope they walk, I understand that. The problem I have is members of WDFW is the lack of honesty and openness. Too many times they've obfuscated the truth about wolf kills, they haven't done enough to locate, collar and verify pack status. Given the tight rope they walk I still think they could do a better job serving Washington's hunting community. They could do a better job documenting wolf impact areas in regards to ungulate numbers but they won't even broach that subject other than to say they'll do a study if they see significant wolf impact; which there clearly is if anyone spends any time in a wolf area, it's eerily deserted of large game animals.
I think WDFW could do a few key things to help ranchers and still have very little effect on the wolf recovery.
1) Set up body gripping trap permits in wolf impacted grazing allotments, along the same lines as they currently do for coyotes.
2) Identify and contact livestock owners when range areas overlap wolf denning sites. Have the ranchers sign a non-disclosure agreement and make wolf movement date available to them.
3) Divorce all WDFW funding from advocacy groups. Remove all paid members of conservation groups off WDFW staffing and commission members. Maintain an impartial wolf advocacy group, commission members and discourage all WDFW staffing from joining advocacy groups.
4) Hire hunters to remove wolves where permitted trapping is failing prevent wolf conflict.
5) keep all dealings with ranchers private, refuse to release names of those individuals who shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act" rule.
6) keep private all ranchers names who are loosing livestock to wolves and where preventive measure are being employed.
given a little more time and thought I'm sure I could come up with a lot more ideas to help WDFW's image and public cooperation, especially the cooperation of ranchers. WDFW isn't doing any of these things and it would appear that they have little desire to improve their image or public trust.
Well Said! :tup:
Post by: Hunting7mm on October 09, 2014, 08:30:10 PM
Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: mfswallace on October 09, 2014, 09:10:52 PM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
All the ranchers I've talked too know the wolves are here to stay and know that ranching as they knew it is changed forever.
Cougars, Bears and Coyotes do prey on livestock and there are losses due to those animals, it's negligible especially when compared to what wolves can do; but none the less there are some losses. The ranchers deal with it and have the legal means to do so. If Coyotes are bad WDFW will give out a permit to use foothold traps and you can already shoot them 24/7 365. Cougars, WDFW will allow hounds to run them on occasion and will even live trap bears for you. If those animals are caught in the act there is no serious investigation or false allegations of poaching. Not so much with wolves.
Ranchers want the tools as mentioned above and the freedom to deal with it. Right now they'll get into a lot of trouble for shooting a wolf that doesn't quite meet the definition "caught in the act" and quite frankly do not trust WDFW enough to utilize that rule, or at least report they've used that rule :chuckle:
Who in their right mind would report that they've shot a wolf and hope for a fair investigation? Not only that but suffer public condemnation, ridicule and death threats when WDFW releases all the names to the media?
A good example is the recent attack on the Aladdin highway where construction crews and other passers by witnessed wolves giving chase to cattle. What a perfect time to shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act rule" provided by WDFW....but then look how WDFW handled it, refused to admit it was wolves and told them all it was coyotes at first. Would you legally shoot a wolf if WDFW was telling you that you must be mistaken, it must be a coyote, it's not in the act or any other excuse they can come up with to say it wasn't a wolf? I'd be in fear they'd accuse me of poaching a wolf and that my cattle weren't really in any danger, and if a cow was down I'd be worried they'd say the cow died of some other cause and a wolf was merely scavenging which doesn't fit the "caught in the act" rule.
I know WDFW is between a rock and a hard spot with the wetside voters and I don't envy the tight rope they walk, I understand that. The problem I have is members of WDFW is the lack of honesty and openness. Too many times they've obfuscated the truth about wolf kills, they haven't done enough to locate, collar and verify pack status. Given the tight rope they walk I still think they could do a better job serving Washington's hunting community. They could do a better job documenting wolf impact areas in regards to ungulate numbers but they won't even broach that subject other than to say they'll do a study if they see significant wolf impact; which there clearly is if anyone spends any time in a wolf area, it's eerily deserted of large game animals.
I think WDFW could do a few key things to help ranchers and still have very little effect on the wolf recovery.
1) Set up body gripping trap permits in wolf impacted grazing allotments, along the same lines as they currently do for coyotes.
2) Identify and contact livestock owners when range areas overlap wolf denning sites. Have the ranchers sign a non-disclosure agreement and make wolf movement date available to them.
3) Divorce all WDFW funding from advocacy groups. Remove all paid members of conservation groups off WDFW staffing and commission members. Maintain an impartial wolf advocacy group, commission members and discourage all WDFW staffing from joining advocacy groups.
4) Hire hunters to remove wolves where permitted trapping is failing prevent wolf conflict.
5) keep all dealings with ranchers private, refuse to release names of those individuals who shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act" rule.
6) keep private all ranchers names who are loosing livestock to wolves and where preventive measure are being employed.
given a little more time and thought I'm sure I could come up with a lot more ideas to help WDFW's image and public cooperation, especially the cooperation of ranchers. WDFW isn't doing any of these things and it would appear that they have little desire to improve their image or public trust.
Well Said! :tup:
:tup:
Post by: Silent-one on October 09, 2014, 09:38:33 PM
Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.
I understand your viewpoint but think it's a little extreme. Maybe there will be less wildlife to hunt, but I doubt there will ever be none. I also don't believe any rancher will be out of business as a result of the presence of wolves. And if wolves for some weird reason never do become established on the west side of the state, I would prefer that. We don't want them over here just like we don't want them over there. But it's not like we have a choice- they're wild animals and go where they want.
And why is this such a ridiculous idea Bobcat? The majority of the people in the state that want the wolves are from the west side. So give them what they want!
What is ridiculous is you telling us that we just need to learn to deal with them. Then at the same time you say don't bring them over here cause I don't want to deal with them.
West Coast mentality I guess! :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on October 09, 2014, 09:44:18 PM
Post by: Silent-one on October 09, 2014, 09:50:51 PM
Post by: jasnt on October 09, 2014, 10:10:05 PM
It's ridiculous because it costs money. Do you want all your license fee money going towards increasing the number of wolves in this state? Do you realize what it costs to capture and move wild animals around like that? The wolves will go where they want. They don't need our help.
how would it be increasing the number of wolves? :dunno:
we'll just donate a few of our packs to the SW left coast. If you'll take the lookout, huckleberry, and dirty shirt packs then we'll throw in the Sherman pack for free. :chuckle:
we can pay for it with a new tax on sandals or vegetables :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on October 09, 2014, 10:17:25 PM
It's ridiculous because it costs money. Do you want all your license fee money going towards increasing the number of wolves in this state? Do you realize what it costs to capture and move wild animals around like that? The wolves will go where they want. They don't need our help.
how would it be increasing the number of wolves? :dunno:
we'll just donate a few of our packs to the SW left coast. If you'll take the lookout, huckleberry, and dirty shirt packs then we'll throw in the Sherman pack for free. :chuckle:
we can pay for it with a new tax on sandals or vegetables :chuckle:
Wolves spread out over a bigger area = more wolves. Regardless, I simply don't want the state wasting money on wolves. But then I'm not really a fan of moving any kind of wildlife around, including elk.
Post by: PA BEN on October 10, 2014, 04:42:51 AM
They are trapping and callering them now. It's not like they will be going out of their way to trap them. I understand you sportsmen don't want them in your backyard, but the way I see it the only choice the Libs in this state can do to ease the pain that we are going through is to spread the love. So stand up and help us out. Go to the meeting in Lynnwood and speak up. Don't just go there and say not in my backyard, voice your concern about the States wolf management plan and how it doesn't work. You guys are feeling the pressure that wolves might be there sooner than later, well you better get on the boat now and help out.It's ridiculous because it costs money. Do you want all your license fee money going towards increasing the number of wolves in this state? Do you realize what it costs to capture and move wild animals around like that? The wolves will go where they want. They don't need our help.
how would it be increasing the number of wolves? :dunno:
we'll just donate a few of our packs to the SW left coast. If you'll take the lookout, huckleberry, and dirty shirt packs then we'll throw in the Sherman pack for free. :chuckle:
we can pay for it with a new tax on sandals or vegetables :chuckle:
Wolves spread out over a bigger area = more wolves. Regardless, I simply don't want the state wasting money on wolves. But then I'm not really a fan of moving any kind of wildlife around, including elk.
Post by: villageidiot on October 10, 2014, 05:32:51 AM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
Sorry but you are underestimating ranchers ability to control wolves. If the ranchers were allowed to kill wolves that were threatening their livestock they most certainly would. They have some very creative tools they can use and once the wolves are delisted they will use them. They do deal with cougars and bears and use the SSS method. Your not seeing all the methods they use in the newspapers because it does not benefit them in any way for the public to know. Some ranchers are already dealing with the wolf problem on their own. They have no choice if they want to survive. They've seen the response from the Feds and WDFW on wolf depredations and it's not acceptable at all. This wolf introduction is turning perfectly good honest working people into criminals to stay in business.
Post by: AspenBud on October 10, 2014, 06:52:26 AM
Bobcat I agree with you that a lot of the hysteria and hyperbole about wolves is unrealistic, but really the problem is that people are just realistically afraid to live around wolves. Obviously they are not the man eating, night stalking devils that some seem to believe, but on the other hand they are not the cute, cudily basically harmless animal that others would have you believe. The point with me is that many people who want wolf reintroduction really want them to be a long ways away from them and it's unfair to those people who have to live near them. I also believe that wolf introduction is being done without a real assessment on the end effect regarding our big game management. No, I don't think they will wipe out every game animal in an area, but to think they won't severely impact big game herds is naïve also. Even if you are not a hunter I would think you'd have to be concerned with the uncountable kill tally from large numbers of wolves in an area. Guess it's kind of like new prisons to me, everyone wants more to get criminals off the street, they just don't want them in their neighborhood. People on the westside don't want wolves around simply because they are afraid of them, I think the only way they'll really sympathize with the eastside folks is when they experience that fear first hand. I don't buy any conspiracy on the part of WDFW or any of the Big Govt. is out to get me stuff. WDFW is caught in the middle of an issue that they are underfunded and undermanned to really deal with , but are responsible for handling. I don't suspect we'll really see wolves on the westside for a long time, if ever, but honestly believe that if they did show up over here there'd be a whole different management plan in effect.
I would also add to this that many people are under the false impression that wolves only kill the weak, injured, starving, or what have you? They truly believe that they will just balance out the ecosystem and until they see thrill kills or killing healthy animals and just eating parts of them, they will never understand.
I hate to break it to you but not all animals are born equal. While some might look healthy that does not mean that under the hood they have the tools needed to survive. Weakness encompasses far more than physical appearance or health when talking about wild animals. Dog breeding is a great comparison. High levels of selectivity lead to better specimens, water that down and you get inferior specimens. We have a lot of genetically watered down ungulate populations...which is a problem for both pro wolfers and pro management folks whether they understand/believe it or not.
So are you saying every single animal a wolf kills has some sort of weakness and that wolves inherently know this? Do you have a source for this or is this your opinion. I find it very hard to believe
I think every animal they take down had a weakness they exploited. It's called survival of the fittest for a reason. Some will make it, some will not. Some chance is involved there but at the end of it some, and it may only be a small fraction, are better able to fend for themselves than others. Equality does not exist in the natural world.
A weakness in regards to the wolves sheer power, speed, numbers etc. A bull elk that breaks away from the herd to browse on some grass, gets surrounded by wolves, taken down, partially eaten and left for scavengers was weak? I think you are stretching an already weak argument but it is your opinion and we are all entitled to them.
There is nothing to stretch. Ungulates can and do survive in areas that wolves occur. Your argument is that they vacuum everything up, that there are no survivors and that strength (which can refer to a lot of different factors) isn't helpful at all in fending off wolves. If that were true we wouldn't be having this argument as every animal living should have been gone thanks to wolves long ago.
Elk in the lower 48 haven't dealt with wolves in a looooong time. That means many have survived that otherwise would not have and the gene pool has become diluted. Many of them are at a distinct disadvantage compared to elk and other ungulates that have had to live with them all along. That doesn't really paint a rosy picture for ungulates down here.
But as you say, we're all entitled to our opinions.
Post by: AspenBud on October 10, 2014, 06:56:11 AM
It's ridiculous because it costs money. Do you want all your license fee money going towards increasing the number of wolves in this state? Do you realize what it costs to capture and move wild animals around like that? The wolves will go where they want. They don't need our help.
how would it be increasing the number of wolves? :dunno:
we'll just donate a few of our packs to the SW left coast. If you'll take the lookout, huckleberry, and dirty shirt packs then we'll throw in the Sherman pack for free. :chuckle:
we can pay for it with a new tax on sandals or vegetables :chuckle:
Yeah, that's funny. Dump them in a west side corner that bleeds red as much as the east side. So much for getting back at Liberals.
Post by: AspenBud on October 10, 2014, 07:01:36 AM
But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."
Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.
Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.
All the ranchers I've talked too know the wolves are here to stay and know that ranching as they knew it is changed forever.
Cougars, Bears and Coyotes do prey on livestock and there are losses due to those animals, it's negligible especially when compared to what wolves can do; but none the less there are some losses. The ranchers deal with it and have the legal means to do so. If Coyotes are bad WDFW will give out a permit to use foothold traps and you can already shoot them 24/7 365. Cougars, WDFW will allow hounds to run them on occasion and will even live trap bears for you. If those animals are caught in the act there is no serious investigation or false allegations of poaching. Not so much with wolves.
I think WDFW could do a few key things to help ranchers and still have very little effect on the wolf recovery.
1) Set up body gripping trap permits in wolf impacted grazing allotments, along the same lines as they currently do for coyotes.
2) Identify and contact livestock owners when range areas overlap wolf denning sites. Have the ranchers sign a non-disclosure agreement and make wolf movement date available to them.
3) Divorce all WDFW funding from advocacy groups. Remove all paid members of conservation groups off WDFW staffing and commission members. Maintain an impartial wolf advocacy group, commission members and discourage all WDFW staffing from joining advocacy groups.
4) Hire hunters to remove wolves where permitted trapping is failing prevent wolf conflict.
5) keep all dealings with ranchers private, refuse to release names of those individuals who shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act" rule.
6) keep private all ranchers names who are loosing livestock to wolves and where preventive measure are being employed.
given a little more time and thought I'm sure I could come up with a lot more ideas to help WDFW's image and public cooperation, especially the cooperation of ranchers. WDFW isn't doing any of these things and it would appear that they have little desire to improve their image or public trust.
I have to agree with you here.
Post by: gr8whthunter on October 10, 2014, 07:26:16 AM
*to the pro wolf people sorry but im not sorry and dont let my judgment or my ideas on the subject reflect badly on any other outdoorsmen or sportsmen*
Post by: AspenBud on October 10, 2014, 08:43:55 AM
i havent even read this thread but if they do bring wolves to the wetside and i see any, there will be dead wolf carcasses thats all i gotta say and thats my :twocents:,
That's a statistical inevitability. There are as many or more people packed into western Washington than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Eastern Washington combined. Wolves have over 5 million ways to die in a much smaller space here. This is not BFE.
Post by: gr8whthunter on October 10, 2014, 09:14:41 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on October 10, 2014, 09:19:15 AM
BFE? Bigfoot evidence?
I assume he meant butt #@%$ Egypt
Post by: gfull on October 10, 2014, 09:58:53 AM
Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.
Didn't mean my post to sound as if I agree with this idea, and I too do not want any more monies spent on any wolf program. I certainly understand the ranchers' and hunters' perspective on this issue. I agree that wolves will be on our side soon enough. It will be very interesting to see how westsiders take to the idea of having wolves in their backyards. I for one am not looking forward to it.
Post by: buckfvr on October 10, 2014, 10:08:49 AM
I will not tolerate an aggressive animal. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 10, 2014, 10:16:08 AM