Post by: wolfbait on December 06, 2014, 01:21:27 PM
When two packs of wolves began attacking livestock in Montana‟s Madison Valley in March 2004, FWS Wolf Recovery Chief Ed Bangs received complaints from Montana's congressional delegation, the governor, ranchers and local officials. The angry response forced Bangs to order both wolf packs destroyed, yet he blamed the critics‟ attitude on “wolf folklore and mythology”.
His comments were published in the April 4, 2003 Bozeman Daily Chronicle, which said “in extremely rare cases, wolves have bitten people, although most of those incidents involved rabid wolves or ones that had been fed and become accustomed to being around people. In North America, however, there are no documented cases of a healthy, wild wolf attacking people.”
The article blames hatred of wolves in Europe on the fact they “occasionally” attacked livestock and said the “Three Little Pigs” and “Little Red Riding Hood” evolved from that hatred. False claims in the article typify the half- truths and lies that have convinced many urban dwellers to accept reintroduction of wolves on a worldwide basis.
Wolf Facts
Notwithstanding the wolf advocates‟ propaganda, several thousand recorded human deaths resulting from wolf attacks worldwide have been compiled and published. Many were copied from historical records covering only brief periods in time.
For example, during one three year period from June 1764 to June 1767, 210 recorded wolf attacks in the Gevauden Region of southern France resulted in 49 people wounded and 113 killed. Of those killed, at least 98 were partially consumed.
The government record keepers were familiar with attacks by rabid wolves and none of the 210 attacks fell into that category. Proof of this is that most of the dead victims were eaten and none of the survivors died from rabies.
From 1800-1824, statistics compiled from French records show that 225 victims were attacked by rabid wolves and another 295 were attacked by non-rabid wolves. But wolf attacks on humans dropped dramatically in France and other European countries during that period.
Wolf attack victims in France declined from 1,724 in the previous 100 years, to 196 in the next 175 years.
What Caused the Change?
The same two things caused the decline in wolf attacks on several continents. (1) Widespread use of firearms for protection from wolves in rural areas; and (2) massive predator control programs which resulted in wolves becoming extinct in France, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
The same thing occurred in the United States for the exact same reasons. In most other countries wolf control programs substantially reduced wolf populations as
well as the number of wolf attacks on humans, except during major wars when wolf control was abandoned.
In Russia between 1944 and 1950, 22 children between the ages of 3 and 17 were attacked and killed by wolves in areas around Kirov. A government commission documented 80 Russians dying from wolf attacks during that period.
What Happened in Alaska
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, market hunters in Alaska killed tens of thousands of big game animals to feed a mushrooming population, including 15,000-20,000 miners living in or near Fairbanks. In 1917 a Fairbanks game warden estimated that 2,800 Dall sheep had been killed for the market during the previous four years.
Until 1925 when commercial market hunting was outlawed, the hunters scattered balls of sheep gut-fat laced with strychnine around their meat caches to kill wolves. Wolves were very scarce then and Alaska had more than one million caribou.
Between 1891 and 1902, 1,208 reindeer were brought to Alaska to provide income for the Eskimos. By 1932 that original reindeer herd had peaked at 641,000 animals and recovering wolves were killing thousands of reindeer.
In 1935, the federal government hired a specialist to shoot and trap wolves to halt the decline of reindeer and big game. Many of the Eskimo reindeer herders expressed fear of wolf attacks and allowed the wolves to slaughter and scatter the reindeer.
When Prey Declined, Attacks on Humans Increased
By 1940, there were only about 250,000 reindeer left and many of them were scattered. From 1942-45 there were four highly publicized wolf attacks on humans, three involving serious injuries and two resulting in deaths in which rabies was a factor.
In 1944 FWS in Denver, Colorado, trained Alaskan predator control agents in the use of poison to kill wolves. By then most of the reindeer were gone and the caribou herd had reached an all time low of 140,000.
About 65 percent of the caribou taken by Alaska hunters then were from the Nelchina Basin herd, which ranged between the Wrangell and Alaska Ranges. Wolves had reduced caribou recruitment to only seven calves per 100 total adults in the fall counts.
The federal government implemented a massive control effort, which included poisoning and aerial gunning. Predator agents killed more than 300 wolves in a three-year period in the Nelchina Basin and the ratio of caribou calves to adult cows and bulls jumped to 15 per 100. This allowed hunters to double their caribou harvest.
In March of 1952 the FWS predator agents moved to the arctic slope north of the Brooks Range. Seven FWS predator control agents flying out of Umiat in three light airplanes killed 161 wolves in the first three weeks. By
May they had killed 259 wolves of which 102 were recovered for their pelts and biological information.
Wolves at a bait station. Pictured here is Dr. John Buckley, then head of the Wildlife Unit at the University of Alaska, at a poison bait station near Northway Village. After extensive predator control from 1946 to 1957, the Northway area and most other parts of interior Alaska had record moose, sheep, and caribou populations.
Following the intensive wolf control in the late 1940s and 50s, Alaska‟s moose, sheep, caribou and deer populations reached record highs. Wolves were increasing again but, with abundant big game, there were no recorded wolf attacks on humans.
With statehood in 1960, limited seasons were established for wolf hunting and trapping and the wolf bounty was discontinued in 1968. Alaska guides were reporting declining big game numbers again and in 1969 two wolves attacked a man near his cabin on Wien Lake
Like many back country dwellers, Alex Lamont wore a sidearm and shot the first wolf while it was biting his leg. Then he shot and killed the other wolf at close range.
The Cycle Repeats Itself
This was the first recorded wolf attack on a human in Alaska since the last big game decline in the 1940s. The ban on aerial wolf hunting followed and wolf advocates solicited funding and political support in the „lower 48‟ to stop any wolf control in Alaska.
ADFG biologist Mark McNay published accounts of 43 wolf attacks or other significant encounters with humans in Alaska between 1974 and 2000. These included two dozen instances where the wolves were killed and most were checked for rabies.
The most highly publicized attack occurred at a logging camp near Icy Bay on April 26, 2000. Two boys, ages 6 and 9 were playing behind the school when a wolf chased them and attacked the younger boy, biting him severely on the back and buttocks.
Within seconds, witnesses threw rocks at the wolf and shouted but it picked up the boy and ran. It dropped the boy to get a better grip and a black Labrador retriever appeared and jumped between the wolf and the boy.
The boy‟s father shot the wolf and a necropsy revealed it was healthy with a normal amount of interior body fat. This incident was the subject of heated debate in the Alaska Legislature and wolf control was proposed for some rural areas to enhance public safety.
Fatal Encounters Lack Proof
When there are witnesses to a wolf attack they will normally attempt to aid the victim and prevent a fatality. When there are no witnesses, wildlife biologists do not classify it as a predatory attack by wolves.
For example, a child turned up missing one afternoon and searchers found wolf tracks and drag marks made by the child‟s body. Yet that was not classified as a wolf attack. In another incident, a trapper failed to show up in a settlement at an appointed time and experienced woodsmen searched in the vicinity of his cabin for several days.
They finally found a few scattered human bones and identified some shredded clothing. The large leg bones were shattered indicating that wolves, not bears, had fed on his remains, yet the cause of death might have been a bear attack, a heart attack or simply an accident.
Recent Attacks in Other Countries
Most people with some knowledge of wolves are aware of recent happenings in India when wolves carried off and ate dozens of children over a period of several months. Not so well publicized are recent attacks in other Asian countries.
In Iran in 1996, 329 people attacked and bitten by wolves received rabies treatment. In December 1997, a 4- year-old boy was seized by a wolf and eaten in Dushab village in central Iran according to newspaper accounts.
It would require far more space than is available here to list all of the documented wolf attacks in other countries during recent years. There are far fewer predatory attacks than occurred a hundred years ago but, when combined with attacks by rabid wolves, the number is still significant.
Yet worldwide wolf advocates have convinced a new generation of urban dwellers to accept reintroduced wolves in countries where they were exterminated earlier in order to protect citizens and their livestock and pets from wolf attacks.
By classifying attacks as being by wolves that are “habituated to humans”, or “provoked” or by rabid wolves, wolf advocates somehow excuse the increased frequency of wolf attacks which is tied directly to declining populations of prey species.
They lie about how wolves and humans have “peacefully coexisted for hundreds of years” and point out that we are less likely to be killed by a wolf than by a tiger in India, or a bear or a mountain lion in North America.
It is true that the average American‟s odds of being bitten by a rattlesnake are far greater than being attacked by a wolf. Yet we cannot ignore the reality that a single wolf is a formidable predator capable of killing deer, elk, moose, buffalo and man.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%204%20June%202004%20Controlling%20predators.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%204%20June%202004%20Controlling%20predators.pdf)
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)
DNA and Investigation Confirm Candice Bernier Killed by Wolves http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/12/07/dna-and-investigation-confirm-candice-bernier-killed-by-wolves/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/12/07/dna-and-investigation-confirm-candice-bernier-killed-by-wolves/)
Post by: predkiller on December 06, 2014, 06:35:32 PM
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2014, 06:54:41 PM
Post by: hrd2fnd on December 06, 2014, 07:01:44 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 06, 2014, 07:03:26 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on December 06, 2014, 07:32:30 PM
Post by: wolfbait on December 06, 2014, 08:23:43 PM
Wild wolves generally fear and avoid people, and rarely pose a threat to human safety. In the past 60 years, there have been two wolf-caused human fatalities in North America (Canada and Alaska). Two broad summaries published in 2002 documented 28 reports of wolf aggression towards humans in North America from 1969 to 2001. Nineteen of these involved wolves habituated to people and five involved people accompanied by domestic dogs. There have been no physical attacks on people by wolves in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming from the time wolf recovery began in the 1980s.
Wolves passing near, watching, or otherwise behaving in a non-threatening way near humans should not necessarily be considered dangerous. But wolves can become habituated to humans in areas where they regularly encounter humans or human food. To avoid habituation, wolves should never be fed or approached. If wolves seem too comfortable near people, or frequent roads or trails where close encounters are morelikely, they should be hazed using non-lethal methods like air horns or other scare devices.
In the extremely rare event of an encounter with an aggressive wolf, don’t run or turn your back. Stand your ground, act aggressively by stepping toward the wolf and yelling or clapping your hands if it tries to approach. Use air horns or other loud noise-makers. Stare directly at the wolf and retreat slowly while facing the wolf. Climb a tree if necessary. If a wolf attacks, fight back with any means possible, including bear spray or firearms if necessary. Wolf-dog hybrids, which cannot necessarily be distinguished from wild wolves, can be more dangerous to humans than wild wolves because they have lost their natural fear of humans. While they are bred from domestic dogs, they still retain the predatory instinct from their wolf ancestry.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#9 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#9)
Post by: Bango skank on December 10, 2014, 10:10:42 PM
We can agree the wolves have killed an American based on the DNA report so I'm sure the other side is already changing the rhetoric on "wolves have never killed anyone..."
No, they still say this and believe it. it is one of those little bits of false info that are repeated so often everybody just takes for granted that they are true.
Post by: jasnt on December 10, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
problem is one of the wolves favorite tactic is one wolf distracts while the rest attack from behind.
Post by: birddogdad on December 15, 2014, 12:41:24 PM
Probably wont make news until they film a wolf dragging off some poor child, then the wolf weenies will say the kid should not have been alone :bash:
Post by: The scout on December 15, 2014, 12:52:03 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 15, 2014, 01:17:55 PM
100% agree that the subject title accurately reflects the content :tup:
We know that you love the wolves very much. You also love quotes. Here's one you posted just last week:
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
No ideas, no events. Just casting stones. What does that make you here?
Post by: mountainman on December 15, 2014, 07:18:28 PM
Good article, wolfbait. Thanks for posting it makes some interesting points with statistics, which are always good.:chuckle:100% agree that the subject title accurately reflects the content :tup:
We know that you love the wolves very much. You also love quotes. Here's one you posted just last week:
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
No ideas, no events. Just casting stones. What does that make you here?
Post by: bearpaw on December 15, 2014, 07:31:50 PM
Do wolves attack people?
Wild wolves generally fear and avoid people, and rarely pose a threat to human safety. In the past 60 years, there have been two wolf-caused human fatalities in North America (Canada and Alaska). Two broad summaries published in 2002 documented 28 reports of wolf aggression towards humans in North America from 1969 to 2001. Nineteen of these involved wolves habituated to people and five involved people accompanied by domestic dogs. There have been no physical attacks on people by wolves in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming from the time wolf recovery began in the 1980s.
Wolves passing near, watching, or otherwise behaving in a non-threatening way near humans should not necessarily be considered dangerous. But wolves can become habituated to humans in areas where they regularly encounter humans or human food. To avoid habituation, wolves should never be fed or approached. If wolves seem too comfortable near people, or frequent roads or trails where close encounters are morelikely, they should be hazed using non-lethal methods like air horns or other scare devices.
In the extremely rare event of an encounter with an aggressive wolf, don’t run or turn your back. Stand your ground, act aggressively by stepping toward the wolf and yelling or clapping your hands if it tries to approach. Use air horns or other loud noise-makers. Stare directly at the wolf and retreat slowly while facing the wolf. Climb a tree if necessary. If a wolf attacks, fight back with any means possible, including bear spray or firearms if necessary. Wolf-dog hybrids, which cannot necessarily be distinguished from wild wolves, can be more dangerous to humans than wild wolves because they have lost their natural fear of humans. While they are bred from domestic dogs, they still retain the predatory instinct from their wolf ancestry.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#9 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#9)
There have been two close calls in Washington that I can recall. Hirshey was nearly attacked a couple years ago. In elk season this last fall a hunter shot an attacking wolf, had he not had a rifle he probably would not have lived to tell the story. Both of those incidents are documented on this forum.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 15, 2014, 07:40:14 PM
Post by: mountainman on December 15, 2014, 08:16:40 PM
Post by: wolfbait on December 15, 2014, 08:39:56 PM
Do wolves attack people?
Wild wolves generally fear and avoid people, and rarely pose a threat to human safety. In the past 60 years, there have been two wolf-caused human fatalities in North America (Canada and Alaska). Two broad summaries published in 2002 documented 28 reports of wolf aggression towards humans in North America from 1969 to 2001. Nineteen of these involved wolves habituated to people and five involved people accompanied by domestic dogs. There have been no physical attacks on people by wolves in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming from the time wolf recovery began in the 1980s.
Wolves passing near, watching, or otherwise behaving in a non-threatening way near humans should not necessarily be considered dangerous. But wolves can become habituated to humans in areas where they regularly encounter humans or human food. To avoid habituation, wolves should never be fed or approached. If wolves seem too comfortable near people, or frequent roads or trails where close encounters are morelikely, they should be hazed using non-lethal methods like air horns or other scare devices.
In the extremely rare event of an encounter with an aggressive wolf, don’t run or turn your back. Stand your ground, act aggressively by stepping toward the wolf and yelling or clapping your hands if it tries to approach. Use air horns or other loud noise-makers. Stare directly at the wolf and retreat slowly while facing the wolf. Climb a tree if necessary. If a wolf attacks, fight back with any means possible, including bear spray or firearms if necessary. Wolf-dog hybrids, which cannot necessarily be distinguished from wild wolves, can be more dangerous to humans than wild wolves because they have lost their natural fear of humans. While they are bred from domestic dogs, they still retain the predatory instinct from their wolf ancestry.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#9 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#9)
There have been two close calls in Washington that I can recall. Hirshey was nearly attacked a couple years ago. In elk season this last fall a hunter shot an attacking wolf, had he not had a rifle he probably would not have lived to tell the story. Both of those incidents are documented on this forum.
We never did hear the story as to what happened with the wolf attack in the Pasaytan not long ago, do you suppose it didn't look to good for the wolf/wolves and WDFW?
Post by: AspenBud on December 16, 2014, 12:03:06 PM
Not that rare..
Compared to most all other predators in the lower 48 it is quite rare. Not saying that can't change, in fact it probably will, but at this time it's a fact. Aggressive wolves are simply an over hyped talking point used by people who don't want them around to scare people. You don't hear much about aggressive wolves in the news because it doesn't occur much. Cougars and bears...sorry, way more common and thereby way more reported as it's seen as way more of a problem. I have a problem with the over hyping of wolf aggression these days, mostly because people see it as a propaganda move. People do need to be aware of the dangers,there are things to do and not do around wolves, but as they are often represented people don't see it as a public service announcement. On the flip side the truly pro wolf side is in utter denial about what wolves can do and have their own spin on them and I have a problem with that as well. :bdid:
Post by: GameHunter1959 on December 16, 2014, 01:06:10 PM
Do wolves attack people?
Wild wolves generally fear and avoid people, and rarely pose a threat to human safety. In the past 60 years, there have been two wolf-caused human fatalities in North America (Canada and Alaska). Two broad summaries published in 2002 documented 28 reports of wolf aggression towards humans in North America from 1969 to 2001. Nineteen of these involved wolves habituated to people and five involved people accompanied by domestic dogs. There have been no physical attacks on people by wolves in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming from the time wolf recovery began in the 1980s.
Wolves passing near, watching, or otherwise behaving in a non-threatening way near humans should not necessarily be considered dangerous. But wolves can become habituated to humans in areas where they regularly encounter humans or human food. To avoid habituation, wolves should never be fed or approached. If wolves seem too comfortable near people, or frequent roads or trails where close encounters are morelikely, they should be hazed using non-lethal methods like air horns or other scare devices.
In the extremely rare event of an encounter with an aggressive wolf, don’t run or turn your back. Stand your ground, act aggressively by stepping toward the wolf and yelling or clapping your hands if it tries to approach. Use air horns or other loud noise-makers. Stare directly at the wolf and retreat slowly while facing the wolf. Climb a tree if necessary. If a wolf attacks, fight back with any means possible, including bear spray or firearms if necessary. Wolf-dog hybrids, which cannot necessarily be distinguished from wild wolves, can be more dangerous to humans than wild wolves because they have lost their natural fear of humans. While they are bred from domestic dogs, they still retain the predatory instinct from their wolf ancestry.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#9 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#9)
There have been two close calls in Washington that I can recall. Hirshey was nearly attacked a couple years ago. In elk season this last fall a hunter shot an attacking wolf, had he not had a rifle he probably would not have lived to tell the story. Both of those incidents are documented on this forum.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Hirshey was back country hunting and happened to spot a buck deer head laying on the hillside from several hundred yards away. Then she looked near by and saw a wolf and wolf den. It's been a few years since I read her post, but I don't remember her being almost attacked etc.
Post by: wolfbait on December 16, 2014, 05:04:52 PM
Post by: AspenBud on December 16, 2014, 05:51:50 PM
You are Wrong! The wolves were prey-testing her.
I'd have to go back and read the account, but I would swear she said she went to check out a kill??? That's always a big no no, it was even before wolves since cats and bears can get protective of those too. Like I said, lots of fear mongering, not enough practical dos and don't and definitely not much advice on hunting them despite all the talk.
Post by: mountainman on December 16, 2014, 06:59:56 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2014, 07:07:42 PM
Here are the links to what I believe you are looking for.You are Wrong! The wolves were prey-testing her.
I'd have to go back and read the account, but I would swear she said she went to check out a kill??? That's always a big no no, it was even before wolves since cats and bears can get protective of those too. Like I said, lots of fear mongering, not enough practical dos and don't and definitely not much advice on hunting them despite all the talk.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034831.html#msg1034831 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034831.html#msg1034831)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034964.html#msg1034964 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034964.html#msg1034964)
Post by: Axle on December 16, 2014, 07:17:16 PM
Quote
Well said its a tragedy they reintroduced them again. Next up is total destruction of either private property or the wolf packs. Not enough room for both
It is a tragedy indeed! And they planned it all along but it is far from a re-introduction. The Canadian gray wolf is not native here so there is no such thing as 're-introducing them'. Especially since we still had a few native Timber wolves around. Canadian grays will kill off the smaller native Timber wolf (which is still a very destructive wolf).
Post by: AspenBud on December 17, 2014, 07:15:53 AM
Here are the links to what I believe you are looking for.You are Wrong! The wolves were prey-testing her.
I'd have to go back and read the account, but I would swear she said she went to check out a kill??? That's always a big no no, it was even before wolves since cats and bears can get protective of those too. Like I said, lots of fear mongering, not enough practical dos and don't and definitely not much advice on hunting them despite all the talk.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034831.html#msg1034831 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034831.html#msg1034831)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034964.html#msg1034964 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034964.html#msg1034964)
So about what I figured with the added twist of walking into a denning area. Nothing about the encounter should be surprising then. That's as good as stumbling on a sow with cubs. :yike:
Post by: AspenBud on December 17, 2014, 07:38:20 AM
Might go back and 're read all the confrontations in past posts..the you can come back and tell the posters they are liers. ...
I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm telling you I can think of three bear attacks off the top of my head for this year alone and I'm probably forgetting some. Those attacks sent people to the hospital.
Whatever encounters people are having with wolves, so far, they aren't amounting to much. Probably because relative to bears and mountain lions there are very few. Like I said, that could well change.
It would be far more helpful for people to know what not to do around wolves and how to hunt them than to continually yell into an echo chamber about Little Red Riding Hood stories that most of the public brushes off anyhow. Why? Because wolves are here and more are coming whether we want them or not.
Post by: mountainman on December 17, 2014, 07:26:57 PM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on December 19, 2014, 10:27:08 PM
Here are the links to what I believe you are looking for.You are Wrong! The wolves were prey-testing her.
I'd have to go back and read the account, but I would swear she said she went to check out a kill??? That's always a big no no, it was even before wolves since cats and bears can get protective of those too. Like I said, lots of fear mongering, not enough practical dos and don't and definitely not much advice on hunting them despite all the talk.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034831.html#msg1034831 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034831.html#msg1034831)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034964.html#msg1034964 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79244.msg1034964.html#msg1034964)
Thanks Bob...
That's was what I thought happened. I would not consider that an "almost attack by wolves" situation. I would call that a wolf encounter. I am sure there are plenty more to come.
Post by: clockwork on December 30, 2014, 12:06:29 AM
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
Post by: wolfbait on December 30, 2014, 06:16:16 AM
Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
Quite sure a Canadian School teacher would argue your opinion if she could. Most of the US went wolf free for several years so it's easy to say the US hasn't had much of a wolf problem where attacks are concerned. Now we have the USFWS releasing fake wolves they bred up along with the wolves from Canada, what happens when the wolves kill off their prey in an area inhabited by people? Wolf history shows wolves then target people. We now have wolves that haven't been hunted for several years that have no fear of humans, these wolves have been seen inside city limits where little kids play, I guess if a child is taken WDFW will surely have an answer for the parents and the community.
Then there is the diseases that wolves spread, which most of the lower 48 have never had to deal with, another concern that the federal and state game agencies down play.
You can say you are more concerned about a cat getting you, but then you have never had wolves after you, have you? And have you forgotten the impact wolves have and will have on livestock? In the Methow there have been several livestock killed by wolves and each time the local WDFW biologist lied about what killed them.
In six years we have watched as WDFW pretend to care about confirming wolf packs and breeding pairs, one year WDFW said the wolves had grown by one wolf, according to WDFW we now have 52 wolves and 5 breeding pairs. If WDFW had to perform like the working class, quite sure WA would have been delisted in 2010 with wolves to spare.
Post by: Special T on December 30, 2014, 09:59:22 AM
Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
What you see here on this site is a push back against the WDFW. Many of us realize that the WDFW COULD have done several things to passify sportsmen but instead chose to side with Anti hunting groups. Since 50-70% of the wolf population needs to be harvested EACH YEAR inorder to keep wolf numbers stable(zero growth or loss) according to a study i have posted on here before (as has Wolfbait) done outside of Denali NP. According to that same survy only 3-7% of the popoulation can be harvested by hunting alone. Since this state essentially has no real trapping the WDFW could have at least SEEMED more hunter friendly by delisting the NE corner (rockies) when the Feds did... They chose not to. The WDFW COULD have told everyone they had the right to defend thier property from the beginning. Since it is very hard to actually hunt them,(as we have seen in ID) then it makes very little difference from a harvest standpoint.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 30, 2014, 10:30:16 AM
Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
Not sure where you came from, but I have to call BS on your post. Many of us don't want wolves here and the WDFW and the greenies don't care. The whole way through the process of formulating the outrageous wolf plan, they didn't listen to a single, well-prepared argument against their wolf plan. And, as far as posing a minimal threat is concerned, that's because you're not a rancher and the wolves have only been back a relatively short time. Give them a chance. The threat will increase very quickly and it's getting bigger. The ungulate herds are threatened. The way of life of ranchers is threatened. The economies of communities that survive on hunting and hunting-related commerce are threatened. Hunters are already being threatened.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 30, 2014, 10:40:29 AM
Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.I agree with your general view that wolves do not pose a significant threat to hunters...certainly not more than a myriad of other potential dangers.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
Be preapred to be villified if you make reasonable comments about a controversial species like wolves. Many folks who engage on wolf topics can not tolerate the idea that wolves are not as good or as bad as the extremists on both sides like to portray them.
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 11:12:37 AM
Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.
If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. :chuckle:
One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.
So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 30, 2014, 11:39:31 AM
Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger. If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety. Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf. This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective. Lightning strikes kill too. Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? :chuckle:Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.
If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. :chuckle:
One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.
So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 12:03:51 PM
Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger. If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety. Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf. This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective. Lightning strikes kill too. Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? :chuckle:Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.
If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. :chuckle:
One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.
So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. :chuckle:
HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.
You are somewhat correct, in addition to wolves, cougars and other predators have impacted my neighbors and fellow residents in Stevens County. WDFW has no kudos coming for predator management, Washington predator management is laughable at best.
Post by: jasnt on December 30, 2014, 12:38:22 PM
couldn't agree more. Our predator laws are a joke! I dont think wdfw are our enemy, but they sure haven't shown they are allies! Seems like they are starting to realize the cougar problems but not making much if any head way. We need to take hunting regulations and laws out of the hands of voters! We need much more aggressive predator plans. The deer and elk populations are our money makers. Why would we not be fighting to raise heard numbers and health? They complain that Washington's hunters are declining, non residents are low. Wdfw should be fighting hand over fist to raise numbers and quality game, improving habitat and opportunities. Washington is a sad state in many of these categories. We need some serious changes soon!Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger. If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety. Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf. This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective. Lightning strikes kill too. Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? :chuckle:Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.
If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. :chuckle:
One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.
So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. :chuckle:
HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.
You are somewhat correct, in addition to wolves, cougars and other predators have impacted my neighbors and fellow residents in Stevens County. WDFW has no kudos coming for predator management, Washington predator management is laughable at best.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 30, 2014, 01:32:05 PM
Perceived risk and actual risk are very different things bearpaw. I can't speak to how your guides or neighbors perceive the risk of wolves...all I can rely on is decades of data that demonstrate the dangers of slipping and falling in your shower are about 10,000x more likely to kill you than a pack of wolves. About the only thing that would make me behave differently or really think about wolves is if I were running hounds where wolves frequent.Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger. If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety. Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf. This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective. Lightning strikes kill too. Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? :chuckle:Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.
If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. :chuckle:
One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.
So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. :chuckle:
HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.
I remember several years ago outside the Selway Bar in Kooskia a guy telling me the wolves had gotten so bad that he figured he would probably die fairly young as a result of those crazy monster packs stalking and killing him. We went back inside and he lit up another Marlboro and ordered a double whiskey. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 30, 2014, 01:55:59 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2014, 02:03:50 PM
Perceived risk and actual risk are very different things bearpaw. I can't speak to how your guides or neighbors perceive the risk of wolves...all I can rely on is decades of data that demonstrate the dangers of slipping and falling in your shower are about 10,000x more likely to kill you than a pack of wolves. About the only thing that would make me behave differently or really think about wolves is if I were running hounds where wolves frequent.Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger. If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety. Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf. This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective. Lightning strikes kill too. Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? :chuckle:Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.
If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. :chuckle:
One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.
So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. :chuckle:
HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.
I remember several years ago outside the Selway Bar in Kooskia a guy telling me the wolves had gotten so bad that he figured he would probably die fairly young as a result of those crazy monster packs stalking and killing him. We went back inside and he lit up another Marlboro and ordered a double whiskey. :chuckle:
Nice try with the perceived risk baloney, you never give up on protecting wolves. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 30, 2014, 05:50:56 PM
You're right. Its really, really dangerous out there. You and Piano should get all of your friends, family, and clients to stop hunting...its just too dangerous. :chuckle:Perceived risk and actual risk are very different things bearpaw. I can't speak to how your guides or neighbors perceive the risk of wolves...all I can rely on is decades of data that demonstrate the dangers of slipping and falling in your shower are about 10,000x more likely to kill you than a pack of wolves. About the only thing that would make me behave differently or really think about wolves is if I were running hounds where wolves frequent.Nobody said wolves pose "NO" danger. If you live or hunt in an area "loaded" with wolves, they still pose a very minimal threat to public safety. Many, many, many more significant safety concerns should be on your mind if you step outside your home or walk in the woods, even in GMU 111, than getting attacked by a wolf. This isn't downplaying any danger...its a matter of keeping appropriate perspective. Lightning strikes kill too. Shall we all stay hunkered down in bomb shelters? :chuckle:Im far more concerned about being ambushed by a cougar than being attacked by the handful of wolves sparsely distributed through the state. At least im more likely to see the wolves coming.
But come on guys. Were outdoorsmen, if we were truly scared of this kind of thing we'd never go in the woods because theres alot more real dangers out there than a hypothetically aggressive wolf.
You dont want wolves here? Then state a reasonable case. We all know that wolves have historically posed minimal threat to public safety. And the argument about "canadian grays" is weak too.
The real motivation here is deer and elk populations, gotta keep it real if you want any credibility.
The danger posed by wolves varies depending where you live.
If you live in an area with no wolves then there is very little danger posed by wolves. :chuckle:
One of my neighbors has had wolves trying to attack his penned german shepherds in his back yard. He fired shots to scare them away. Another neighbor was hunting in GMU 111 and was attacked by wolves and wounded one in self defense as it charged him at close range which WDFW confirmed. Another friend was held in a tree stand for several hours as a wolf pack howled around him after scaring him up the tree. Several residents in my county have lost livestock to wolves (confirmed), and some residents have had their pets come up missing after wolves were sighted.
So in summation it's pretty easy to say wolves pose no danger when they aren't living and eating where you live. :chuckle:
HHHMMMM, you speak a different story than many of those who live with wolves. Much different than people I know in Idaho who have been stalked by wolves, including my son and other guides and hunters I know in Idaho. Much different than my neighbors in WA that I mentioned.
I remember several years ago outside the Selway Bar in Kooskia a guy telling me the wolves had gotten so bad that he figured he would probably die fairly young as a result of those crazy monster packs stalking and killing him. We went back inside and he lit up another Marlboro and ordered a double whiskey. :chuckle:
Nice try with the perceived risk baloney, you never give up on protecting wolves. :chuckle:
Post by: clockwork on January 07, 2015, 10:46:34 AM
if you heard wolves around you and ran up a tree, you didnt get attacked. you just got scared and ran up a tree. maybe it would have been the first wolf attack in washington history, maybe not, we'll never know. better safe than sorry i guess.
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:59 AM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
Post by: AspenBud on January 07, 2015, 12:42:00 PM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 07, 2015, 12:55:37 PM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Post by: MR5x5 on January 07, 2015, 02:48:48 PM
Post by: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 10:06:09 AM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.
My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it.
But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.
Post by: wolfbait on January 08, 2015, 11:18:38 AM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.
My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it.
But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.
First off how does anyone count wolves? The USFWS counted wolves at the bare minimum, when wolf numbers would be at their lowest, as does state game agencies that now have wolves.
We really don't have a clue as to how fast wolves multiply as there has never been any honesty from either federal or state agencies confirming known wolf packs etc.. Remember what Ed Bangs said? "we will not count wolves that do not belong to a wolf pack". Remember the USFWS telling the lie that only the alpha male and female breed, and then we find out that some of the packs had up to three litters.
WA wolves multiplied by one wolf in 2013 according to WDFW, now there's some accuracy.
Since the wolf introduction much of the info. the USFWS presented for their push to introduce the wolves has been proven to be lies. You say the lower 48 has less then 10,000 wolves is that your count or the the USFWS's count?
The "public", do you mean the people who don't have skin in the game, the people who believe the same lies the USFWS told which is now being regurgitate by WDFW?
With more WDFW paid studies maybe they can change WA's wolves into a special wolf and if they publish their new studies over and over agin, will it change the outcome.
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 08, 2015, 11:24:52 AM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.
My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it.
But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.
Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season?
Post by: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 03:26:45 PM
First off how does anyone count wolves? The USFWS counted wolves at the bare minimum, when wolf numbers would be at their lowest, as does state game agencies that now have wolves.
We really don't have a clue as to how fast wolves multiply as there has never been any honesty from either federal or state agencies confirming known wolf packs etc.. Remember what Ed Bangs said? "we will not count wolves that do not belong to a wolf pack". Remember the USFWS telling the lie that only the alpha male and female breed, and then we find out that some of the packs had up to three litters.
WA wolves multiplied by one wolf in 2013 according to WDFW, now there's some accuracy.
Since the wolf introduction much of the info. the USFWS presented for their push to introduce the wolves has been proven to be lies. You say the lower 48 has less then 10,000 wolves is that your count or the the USFWS's count?
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you claiming there are more wolves in the lower 48 than coyotes? Or that at the very least their numbers are the same?
The public sees coyotes. They almost never see wolves.
The "public", do you mean the people who don't have skin in the game
You can walk into Seattle and ask people if they're ever seen a coyote and many will tell you yes. Many will likely tell you they've seen them in the suburbs or the city itself. Good luck finding anyone with the same response regarding wolves there.
My point is it's easy to win hearts and minds over coyotes. Like I said, they are everywhere and not going away. People know that. It's a lot harder to convince people that an animal that they never see, that the official statistics show is small in number (I'm not saying those are right by the way), is in need of such drastic measures.
People might agree that the count is off, but many will look you in the eye and say "but what if you are wrong?"
It's something that HSUS preys on and why I think arguing for coyote like seasons is doomed to failure. If it comes to a ballot initiative, and it probably would, it would fail in a flash.
--------------------------------------------
The state of Washington estimates there are 50,000 coyotes here. That's one state with almost as many coyotes as all of Canada has in wolves...and Washington is not unique in the number of coyotes it has. Knowing that fact alone people, with skin in the game or not, won't back a 365/24/7 "season."
Post by: AspenBud on January 08, 2015, 03:35:22 PM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.
My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it.
But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.
Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season?
No, but the poisons used to kill off wolves killed coyotes too. The traps used to catch wolves when they were eradicated caught coyotes too. The same hunters often killed coyotes too. And so on. One group of canines ceased to exist, the other carried on. One has a proven track record of handling just about anything that kills them, one does not.
And again, there are 50,000 coyotes in Washington alone. Let me know when the wolf population gets that high in the lower 48 let alone one state.
The animals, at present, are not comparable and the public won't support such hunting of wolves when the nation of Canada, a country with more empty space and fewer people, barely has more wolves than Washington does coyotes. It's an easy case to make and the people being convinced don't have to be tree hugging flower children to buy into it.
Post by: steen on January 08, 2015, 06:58:49 PM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality. what you are scared of is ungulate populations. how much livestock has been lost to coyotes and cougar over the years? lots. yet noone seemed to rally around ranchers this adamantly on these issues before. i heard nothing before about the risks of coyotes spreading diseases. yet, apparently, wolves are a serious vector. as a hunter its a little annoying to see our community against native wildlife. its wilderness for a reason and if its too dangerous stay in the city, thats how i look at it.
if you heard wolves around you and ran up a tree, you didnt get attacked. you just got scared and ran up a tree. maybe it would have been the first wolf attack in washington history, maybe not, we'll never know. better safe than sorry i guess.
You can shoot a cougar, bear and a coyote if it attacks but not a wolf? I'm not afraid of a cougar, bear, or coyote when in the woods cause I always have a tag to them!!!
Post by: idahohuntr on January 08, 2015, 10:04:09 PM
Post by: villageidiot on January 09, 2015, 10:31:54 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 10, 2015, 09:22:33 AM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.
My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it.
But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.
Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season?
No, but the poisons used to kill off wolves killed coyotes too. The traps used to catch wolves when they were eradicated caught coyotes too. The same hunters often killed coyotes too. And so on. One group of canines ceased to exist, the other carried on. One has a proven track record of handling just about anything that kills them, one does not.
And again, there are 50,000 coyotes in Washington alone. Let me know when the wolf population gets that high in the lower 48 let alone one state.
The animals, at present, are not comparable and the public won't support such hunting of wolves when the nation of Canada, a country with more empty space and fewer people, barely has more wolves than Washington does coyotes. It's an easy case to make and the people being convinced don't have to be tree hugging flower children to buy into it.
Who's been counting the coyotes A-bud?
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2015, 10:33:50 AM
Post by: AspenBud on January 10, 2015, 10:57:17 AM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.
My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it.
But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.
Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season?
No, but the poisons used to kill off wolves killed coyotes too. The traps used to catch wolves when they were eradicated caught coyotes too. The same hunters often killed coyotes too. And so on. One group of canines ceased to exist, the other carried on. One has a proven track record of handling just about anything that kills them, one does not.
And again, there are 50,000 coyotes in Washington alone. Let me know when the wolf population gets that high in the lower 48 let alone one state.
The animals, at present, are not comparable and the public won't support such hunting of wolves when the nation of Canada, a country with more empty space and fewer people, barely has more wolves than Washington does coyotes. It's an easy case to make and the people being convinced don't have to be tree hugging flower children to buy into it.
Who's been counting the coyotes A-bud?
Are you saying you think the states are over counting coyotes now?
Post by: wolfbait on January 10, 2015, 01:21:39 PM
unless there has been a centuries old conspiracy to cover up wolf attacks on people, i'd say your risk of being attacked by wolves is probably low enough. dogs and livestock are at risk, humans statistically are not. thats the reality.
You can play russian roullette and chances are you won't get shot, but why put a bullet in the revolver at all?
I think more people are upset with the management, or lack there of, of wolves, then actual wolves themselves. If you had a coyote like season on wolves, what do you think would happen to the population?
The coyote comparison is a bad one at this point in time. They are better at adapting to living everywhere and their numbers faaaaaaaaaarrrrr surpass wolves. You could safely argue there are more of them in the lower 48 than there are wolves the lower 48, Canada, and Alaska combined.
Maybe a better comparison would be Idaho's wolf season? Seems that they have a very liberal season and still can't keep them in check.
Last time I checked the state of Idaho had put out some stats that indicated they had slowed their growth or even started to cause a decline in their numbers.
My point is it's a very hard sell when saying we should have a season like we do on coyotes. Coyotes are like rats, they breed and breed and breed and they can live anywhere. Their unending numbers bear that out. It's super easy to justify open season 365/24/7 with no limits on them because they have proven they can and will bounce back. There are also tens of thousands of them in Washington alone. The public will support it.
But when the official number of wolves in the lower 48 is under 10,000, an animal that unlike coyotes we successfully eliminated 100 years ago, it's pretty much impossible to justify that to the public. Even if it can be justified scientifically the public won't look at it through that lens.
Were the wolves eradicated by a coyote like season?
No, but the poisons used to kill off wolves killed coyotes too. The traps used to catch wolves when they were eradicated caught coyotes too. The same hunters often killed coyotes too. And so on. One group of canines ceased to exist, the other carried on. One has a proven track record of handling just about anything that kills them, one does not.
And again, there are 50,000 coyotes in Washington alone. Let me know when the wolf population gets that high in the lower 48 let alone one state.
The animals, at present, are not comparable and the public won't support such hunting of wolves when the nation of Canada, a country with more empty space and fewer people, barely has more wolves than Washington does coyotes. It's an easy case to make and the people being convinced don't have to be tree hugging flower children to buy into it.
Who's been counting the coyotes A-bud?
Are you saying you think the states are over counting coyotes now?
Well we have seen WDFW's accuracy at counting wolves, remember WDFW's one new wolf for 2013? I am curious at how they came to the 50,000 mark that you stated above, and how is it that they count these coyotes? Perhaps WDFW could learn to count wolves the same as they do coyotes.
Sounds like WDFW:
Feds Don’t Confirm Wolf Reports
Back in January, Statesman environmental reporter Rocky Barker interviewed federal Wolf Recovery Coordinator Carter Niemeyer concerning three packs of wolves that have reportedly been seen in the Boise foothills. Despite the sightings, Niemeyer said no (depredation) complaints had been filed so FWS made no effort to confirm the wolves‟ existence.
Read More @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%204%20June%202004%20Controlling%20predators.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%204%20June%202004%20Controlling%20predators.pdf)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 17, 2015, 07:58:51 AM
Wolf: What's to Misunderstand?
http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Misunderstand-Thomas-K-Remington/dp/150539709X/ (http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Misunderstand-Thomas-K-Remington/dp/150539709X/)
All of this based on a fabricated recovery baseline of 300 wolves in the Northern Rockies. Due to corrupt manipulation of data, lawsuits and activist judges, wolves in the Northern Rockies have climbed to 3,000 – 6,000, depending on which lie you choose to believe. This book explores the actual history of wolves, including diseases and attacks on humans. I've laid out for the reader a truthful examination of events, as well as a break down of the Environmental Impact Statement for Wolf Reintroduction. I've included information about the corruption and politics that took place before wolves were removed from Federal protection in the Western Great Lakes. To bring wolves to the Yellowstone National Park area, somebody went to Canada to trap, tag and radio-collar gray wolves. Without the existence of a paper trail, it has become difficult to know exactly what took place. This book examines all the evidence, including testimony from those who say the wolf was brought into the U.S. illegally and full of disease. There is an entire chapter on some of the more prominent and vitally important diseases that wolves carry and spread to humans. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, refusing to examine historic documents that clearly show a world-wide problem with disease, instead told the citizens of this nation there was no evidence to support any claims on any serious threat to humans and other wildlife. Instead, their concerns were only for the wolf. In selling the public on placing wolves in the U.S., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completely ignored all of the human elements of what the event would do and bring. This action clearly shows the mindset of the wolf recovery team and those behind the push, against the wishes of a corrupt, inept United States Congress, to force humans to coexist with wolves. The world doesn't revolve around gray wolves or those that are in love with this vicious killer
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2015, 08:15:19 AM
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2015, 09:19:56 AM
I think a better book title would be: Tom Remingtons half truths and lies. You don't need to like wolves in any way to reject the guys who write this bs. It is perfectly legitimate to want managed wolf numbers and harvest without resorting to these wild conspiracies which when repeated to non-hunters only serves to solidify the stereotypes antis peg us with.
You have the same line of BS for everyone who shows the true wolves or wolf history, if you don't agree with what has happened or is happening.
Maybe you should write a book, you could title it "Idahohunter's Disney Wolves".
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2015, 10:46:09 AM
Post by: mfswallace on January 17, 2015, 10:54:45 AM
Our mutual desire to manage and hunt wolves in WA is hindered when guys like this tell lies that ultimately paint those who want management as conspiracy theorists.
Just curious ID, what is your background that gives you so much knowledge on wolves( and the ESA you just commented inferring Doc has less knowledge than you on the inner workings??)? Not that Remington is a PHD but to spend over a year researching specifics for a book should give him some credibility. Are you a PHD or work in the field? Nothing sinister just trying to gauge your credibility on the subjects you seem to speak up on most...so I might have a better understanding into what I can take from your thoughts
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2015, 11:57:36 AM
This issue in my mind is very similar to gun rights advocates who had their open carry demonstration recently...did it help 2nd amendment advocates in any way in this state? Or is it just what 594 advocates need to pass the next set of gun control initiatives?
Post by: mfswallace on January 17, 2015, 12:00:19 PM
I have education and experience in the wildlife field and esa issues. I have worked with docs staff more than once to educate them on esa issues...I am not a phd. But my background is irrelevant...I just want people to think for themselves...and to better enable that I am not shy about challenging the statements of folks who may even have the same end goal as me. When folks start giving half the information on issues like wolf disease, 'illegal' introductions, attacks etc. in my view it actually undermines the credibility of the folks that simply want management and wolf control actions. It makes it easier to marginalize hunters in the publics mind and that is a scary thing in a state like WA. We don't need to step out on these really unsupported limbs to tell the public in WA that hunters want management, rural citizens want management, and all those that enjoy all kinds of Wildlife should want responsible management. ( I am using 'management' in the popular context on this site...hunting, trapping, lethal removals etc).
This issue in my mind is very similar to gun rights advocates who had their open carry demonstration recently...did it help 2nd amendment advocates in any way in this state? Or is it just what 594 advocates need to pass the next set of gun control initiatives?
Thanks for response
Post by: wolfbait on January 17, 2015, 12:23:49 PM
Our mutual desire to manage and hunt wolves in WA is hindered when guys like this tell lies that ultimately paint those who want management as conspiracy theorists.
I have education and experience in the wildlife field and esa issues. I have worked with docs staff more than once to educate them on esa issues...I am not a phd. But my background is irrelevant...I just want people to think for themselves...and to better enable that I am not shy about challenging the statements of folks who may even have the same end goal as me. When folks start giving half the information on issues like wolf disease, 'illegal' introductions, attacks etc. in my view it actually undermines the credibility of the folks that simply want management and wolf control actions. It makes it easier to marginalize hunters in the publics mind and that is a scary thing in a state like WA. We don't need to step out on these really unsupported limbs to tell the public in WA that hunters want management, rural citizens want management, and all those that enjoy all kinds of Wildlife should want responsible management. ( I am using 'management' in the popular context on this site...hunting, trapping, lethal removals etc).
This issue in my mind is very similar to gun rights advocates who had their open carry demonstration recently...did it help 2nd amendment advocates in any way in this state? Or is it just what 594 advocates need to pass the next set of gun control initiatives?
"When folks start giving half the information on issues like wolf disease, 'illegal' introductions, attacks etc. in my view it actually undermines the credibility of the folks that simply want management and wolf control actions."
So basically you don't want the public to know about wolf attacks, wolf diseases, and why/how the wolves ended up ID, MT and Wyoming? You would just a soon go with CNW etc..
Do you think wolf management will be hindered if the public finds out what wolves are really about instead of the Disney wolf that mainstream media portrays?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2015, 12:46:52 PM
Our mutual desire to manage and hunt wolves in WA is hindered when guys like this tell lies that ultimately paint those who want management as conspiracy theorists.I have education and experience in the wildlife field and esa issues. I have worked with docs staff more than once to educate them on esa issues...I am not a phd. But my background is irrelevant...I just want people to think for themselves...and to better enable that I am not shy about challenging the statements of folks who may even have the same end goal as me. When folks start giving half the information on issues like wolf disease, 'illegal' introductions, attacks etc. in my view it actually undermines the credibility of the folks that simply want management and wolf control actions. It makes it easier to marginalize hunters in the publics mind and that is a scary thing in a state like WA. We don't need to step out on these really unsupported limbs to tell the public in WA that hunters want management, rural citizens want management, and all those that enjoy all kinds of Wildlife should want responsible management. ( I am using 'management' in the popular context on this site...hunting, trapping, lethal removals etc).
This issue in my mind is very similar to gun rights advocates who had their open carry demonstration recently...did it help 2nd amendment advocates in any way in this state? Or is it just what 594 advocates need to pass the next set of gun control initiatives?
"When folks start giving half the information on issues like wolf disease, 'illegal' introductions, attacks etc. in my view it actually undermines the credibility of the folks that simply want management and wolf control actions."
So basically you don't want the public to know about wolf attacks, wolf diseases, and why/how the wolves ended up ID, MT and Wyoming? You would just a soon go with CNW etc..
Do you think wolf management will be hindered if the public finds out what wolves are really about instead of the Disney wolf that mainstream media portrays?
I want the public to know the whole story and the real story. Not the half truths pushed by groups like DoW and BGF etc.
I think wolf harvest/management will be hindered or never realized in WA if the public believes hunters are as whacko as anti hunters.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 17, 2015, 12:54:15 PM
I have education and experience in the wildlife field and esa issues. I have worked with docs staff more than once to educate them on esa issues...I am not a phd. But my background is irrelevant...I just want people to think for themselves...and to better enable that I am not shy about challenging the statements of folks who may even have the same end goal as me. When folks start giving half the information on issues like wolf disease, 'illegal' introductions, attacks etc. in my view it actually undermines the credibility of the folks that simply want management and wolf control actions. It makes it easier to marginalize hunters in the publics mind and that is a scary thing in a state like WA. We don't need to step out on these really unsupported limbs to tell the public in WA that hunters want management, rural citizens want management, and all those that enjoy all kinds of Wildlife should want responsible management. ( I am using 'management' in the popular context on this site...hunting, trapping, lethal removals etc).
This issue in my mind is very similar to gun rights advocates who had their open carry demonstration recently...did it help 2nd amendment advocates in any way in this state? Or is it just what 594 advocates need to pass the next set of gun control initiatives?
So is this how you educated them???????
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168723.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168723.0.html)
Post by: Jingles on January 17, 2015, 12:55:49 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2015, 12:56:50 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 17, 2015, 01:05:50 PM
How about this one.
http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397998 (http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397998)