Post by: bearpaw on January 11, 2015, 09:28:05 PM
By Rich Landers Jan 11, 2015 The Spokesman-Review
Opposing views of gray wolf recovery in Washington are on display in a Spokane-area battle of the billboards.
The Defenders of Wildlife, a national wildlife advocacy group, has contracted for nine billboard posters that appeared this month. The message responds to a similar outdoor advertising campaign initiated in November by an anti-wolf group called Washington Residents Against Wolves.
Four of the eight WARAW billboards feature photos of a deer, an elk, a calf, a dog and a young girl on a swing with the text: “The Wolf – Who’s Next on Their Menu?”
“What we want is for people to ask very serious questions about the presence of wolves in Washington State before the reality confronts them,” said WARAW spokesman Luke Hedquist in a media release introducing the campaign.
continued:
http://tinyurl.com/m9qmccv (http://tinyurl.com/m9qmccv)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 06:57:25 AM
Post by: zwickeyman on January 12, 2015, 07:08:29 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 08:07:06 AM
Post by: ribka on January 12, 2015, 08:15:09 AM
Do a quick check to see how much money radical anti-hunting anti-gun groups like PETA, HSUS, PAWS take in ( tens of millions of $) verses WARAW. And members of radical groups like PETA have been linked to acts of terrorism.
Really really weird :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 08:21:06 AM
Is it just me or is it weird someone would support/defend anti-hunting anti-firearm groups on a hunting forum?
Do a quick check to see how much money radical anti-hunting anti-gun groups like PETA, HSUS, PAWS take in ( tens of millions of $) verses WARAW. And members of radical groups like PETA have been linked to acts of terrorism.
Really really weird :dunno:
Nope, not just you.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 08:26:30 AM
I wonder how much good could be done if these polarized groups, each supposedly caring deeply about wildlife, put their billboard money into conservation, habitat, and access projects?
How do you know that supporters of either side don't put money into conservation, habitat, and access projects? Perhaps some of these people put more money into conservation, habitat, and access projects than you do?
Perhaps the people who put up signs wanting wolf management have come up against a brick wall, maybe the only option available is to educate the public regarding the need for wolf management. You may be overlooking the benefits of advertising to educate the public. Isn't advertising what the wolf groups have done to get public support for wolves? If that billboard advertising wasn't effective why are the wolf groups putting up their own billboards? Maybe in a perfect world your comment would apply, but given the circumstances of wolf management it seems that one side has benefitted from advertising cute cuddly wolves to the public and the other side has figured out that perhaps the other side of the wolf story needs to be made public.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 08:36:44 AM
I wonder how much good could be done if these polarized groups, each supposedly caring deeply about wildlife, put their billboard money into conservation, habitat, and access projects?
How do you know that supporters of either side don't put money into conservation, habitat, and access projects? Perhaps some of these people put more money into conservation, habitat, and access projects than you do?
Perhaps the people who put up signs wanting wolf management have come up against a brick wall, maybe the only option available is to educate the public regarding the need for wolf management. You may be overlooking the benefits of advertising to educate the public. Isn't advertising what the wolf groups have done to get public support for wolves? If that billboard advertising wasn't effective why are the wolf groups putting up their own billboards? Maybe in a perfect world your comment would apply, but given the circumstances of wolf management it seems that one side has benefitted from advertising cute cuddly wolves to the public and the other side has figured out that perhaps the other side of the wolf story needs to be made public.
I know very well, Dale, as do you. Hunters put more money into habitat than all other groups combined. HSUS spends nothing on habitat yet is a big money supporter of the big, diseased dogs. The Defenders of Wildlife, as well, puts very little if anything into habitat. Their money goes into litigation for efforts to tie up hunts and responsible management of wolves. Anyone who doesn't know what hunters do for conservation and what these greenie groups don't do, doesn't want to know.
Post by: timberfaller on January 12, 2015, 08:57:37 AM
What they spend their money on is, buildings, cages and how to not get caught euthanizing overcrowding problems.
They go on PR campaigns about how broke they are so please donate FOOD and money and volunteer to help these poor abandoned pets.
Most monies go to the higher ups and DNC politicians.
I don't suffer from the Rodney King Syndrome!! :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 12, 2015, 09:01:40 AM
Polarized wolf groups battle with billboards
Four of the eight WARAW billboards feature photos of a deer, an elk, a calf, a dog and a young girl on a swing with the text: “The Wolf – Who’s Next on Their Menu?”
“What we want is for people to ask very serious questions about the presence of wolves in Washington State before the reality confronts them,” said WARAW spokesman Luke Hedquist in a media release introducing the campaign.
If they want to ask serious questions, then they need to get real. That would be a billboard which asks the question “The Family Dog – Who’s Next on Their Menu?” because that is the real danger to children. Wolves are not out stalking people's children. But dogs kill children on a regular basis. In 2013 and 2014 there were 18 children each year who died from dog attacks. And the average number of fatal dog attacks each year in the US is around 30. (including adults)
Then there are the non fatal dog attacks. http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/MMWR_5226.pdf (http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/MMWR_5226.pdf)
"In 1994, the most recent year for which published data are
available, an estimated 4.7 million dog bites occurred in the
United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required
medical care (1). Of an estimated 333,700 patients treated
for dog bites in emergency departments (EDs) in 1994 (2),
approximately 6,000 (1.8%) were hospitalized "
Over 150,000 of these victims were children 14 and under.
Meanwhile these billboards are trying to get people to freak out about something that isn't happening.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2015, 10:02:01 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 10:09:28 AM
Yes, my comment was idealistic and I acknowledge hunters in general have put most of their money where their mouth is...I just loathe the idea of putting lots of money into pr and legal fees etc. like the antis do...even if it's 'necessary'.I wonder how much good could be done if these polarized groups, each supposedly caring deeply about wildlife, put their billboard money into conservation, habitat, and access projects?Maybe in a perfect world your comment would apply, but given the circumstances of wolf management it seems that one side has benefitted from advertising cute cuddly wolves to the public and the other side has figured out that perhaps the other side of the wolf story needs to be made public.
Sitka you make great points on the effectiveness of said billboards.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 10:25:44 AM
Polarized wolf groups battle with billboards
Four of the eight WARAW billboards feature photos of a deer, an elk, a calf, a dog and a young girl on a swing with the text: “The Wolf – Who’s Next on Their Menu?”
“What we want is for people to ask very serious questions about the presence of wolves in Washington State before the reality confronts them,” said WARAW spokesman Luke Hedquist in a media release introducing the campaign.
If they want to ask serious questions, then they need to get real. That would be a billboard which asks the question “The Family Dog – Who’s Next on Their Menu?” because that is the real danger to children. Wolves are not out stalking people's children. But dogs kill children on a regular basis. In 2013 and 2014 there were 18 children each year who died from dog attacks. And the average number of fatal dog attacks each year in the US is around 30. (including adults)
Then there are the non fatal dog attacks. http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/MMWR_5226.pdf (http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/MMWR_5226.pdf)
"In 1994, the most recent year for which published data are
available, an estimated 4.7 million dog bites occurred in the
United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required
medical care (1). Of an estimated 333,700 patients treated
for dog bites in emergency departments (EDs) in 1994 (2),
approximately 6,000 (1.8%) were hospitalized "
Over 150,000 of these victims were children 14 and under.
Meanwhile these billboards are trying to get people to freak out about something that isn't happening.
Household pets are a choice each of us is allowed to make. Wolves are not are not a choice. The argument is oranges to apples and is false. They are two separate issues.
And, as far as something that's not happening is concerned, that's untrue. We know that around the world, there is danger from wolves and people do get attacked. The misleading argument that the wolf lovers love to use is that there's statistically no danger from wolves in The US. That's only true because they haven't been around. Give them a chance. They will change the statistics, especially if we keep coddling the greenies and not wiping out the problem animals.
Post by: ribka on January 12, 2015, 10:35:53 AM
I applaud the use of the same type propaganda against the wolf luver anti- hunting anti- gun crowd. Good for WARAW. They should post billboards of wolves ripping fetuses out of elk and moose cows, pics of the family pet fluffy ripped apart from wolves and a child crying near by the torn apart carcass. Post historical stats noting the well- documented 100's of wolf human attacks in Europe and Asia over the years.
Commercials during the Super bowl would be even better.
Polarized wolf groups battle with billboards
Four of the eight WARAW billboards feature photos of a deer, an elk, a calf, a dog and a young girl on a swing with the text: “The Wolf – Who’s Next on Their Menu?”
“What we want is for people to ask very serious questions about the presence of wolves in Washington State before the reality confronts them,” said WARAW spokesman Luke Hedquist in a media release introducing the campaign.
If they want to ask serious questions, then they need to get real. That would be a billboard which asks the question “The Family Dog – Who’s Next on Their Menu?” because that is the real danger to children. Wolves are not out stalking people's children. But dogs kill children on a regular basis. In 2013 and 2014 there were 18 children each year who died from dog attacks. And the average number of fatal dog attacks each year in the US is around 30. (including adults)
Then there are the non fatal dog attacks. http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/MMWR_5226.pdf (http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/MMWR_5226.pdf)
"In 1994, the most recent year for which published data are
available, an estimated 4.7 million dog bites occurred in the
United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required
medical care (1). Of an estimated 333,700 patients treated
for dog bites in emergency departments (EDs) in 1994 (2),
approximately 6,000 (1.8%) were hospitalized "
Over 150,000 of these victims were children 14 and under.
Meanwhile these billboards are trying to get people to freak out about something that isn't happening.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 10:39:18 AM
Polarized wolf groups battle with billboards
Four of the eight WARAW billboards feature photos of a deer, an elk, a calf, a dog and a young girl on a swing with the text: “The Wolf – Who’s Next on Their Menu?”
“What we want is for people to ask very serious questions about the presence of wolves in Washington State before the reality confronts them,” said WARAW spokesman Luke Hedquist in a media release introducing the campaign.
If they want to ask serious questions, then they need to get real. That would be a billboard which asks the question “The Family Dog – Who’s Next on Their Menu?” because that is the real danger to children. Wolves are not out stalking people's children. But dogs kill children on a regular basis. In 2013 and 2014 there were 18 children each year who died from dog attacks. And the average number of fatal dog attacks each year in the US is around 30. (including adults)
Then there are the non fatal dog attacks. http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/MMWR_5226.pdf (http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/MMWR_5226.pdf)
"In 1994, the most recent year for which published data are
available, an estimated 4.7 million dog bites occurred in the
United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required
medical care (1). Of an estimated 333,700 patients treated
for dog bites in emergency departments (EDs) in 1994 (2),
approximately 6,000 (1.8%) were hospitalized "
Over 150,000 of these victims were children 14 and under.
Meanwhile these billboards are trying to get people to freak out about something that isn't happening.
Household pets are a choice each of us is allowed to make. Wolves are not are not a choice. The argument is oranges to apples and is false. They are two separate issues.
And, as far as something that's not happening is concerned, that's untrue. We know that around the world, there is danger from wolves and people do get attacked. The misleading argument that the wolf lovers love to use is that there's statistically no danger from wolves in The US. That's only true because they haven't been around. Give them a chance. They will change the statistics, especially if we keep coddling the greenies and not wiping out the problem animals.
The biggest difference is that the wolf groups like to use statistics from large cities and areas where there are no wolves. In areas with wolves there are wolf problems. It is a favorite ploy to water down the stats by including data from other areas that are not impacted by wolves.
It is important to teach the urban population that these problems do exist and these problems are affecting other people. Can you imagine the press and uproar if a pack of wolves went into Seattle or Spokane and killed dozens of dogs and other pets and then attacked someone jogging down the street, all within the city limits.
That is what happened to the McIrvin's, Dashiel's, and the hunter who was attacked by wolves, all in Stevens County.
Post by: ribka on January 12, 2015, 10:44:13 AM
Public opinion is swayed by emotion not facts
Yes, my comment was idealistic and I acknowledge hunters in general have put most of their money where their mouth is...I just loathe the idea of putting lots of money into pr and legal fees etc. like the antis do...even if it's 'necessary'.I wonder how much good could be done if these polarized groups, each supposedly caring deeply about wildlife, put their billboard money into conservation, habitat, and access projects?Maybe in a perfect world your comment would apply, but given the circumstances of wolf management it seems that one side has benefitted from advertising cute cuddly wolves to the public and the other side has figured out that perhaps the other side of the wolf story needs to be made public.
Sitka you make great points on the effectiveness of said billboards.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 12, 2015, 10:48:22 AM
Household pets are a choice each of us is allowed to make. Wolves are not are not a choice. The argument is oranges to apples and is false. They are two separate issues.
They aren't a choice to your neighbor down the street. But the reality is, all this billboard campaign does is stir up imagined fear. It's not addressing reality. Remember the little boy who cried wolf? If you keep making things up, or postulating things that aren't happening, eventually people won't hear the rest of your message. They will ignore you.
The message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on January 12, 2015, 10:49:23 AM
Post by: CP on January 12, 2015, 10:51:58 AM
Remember the little boy who cried wolf?
I believe he was eaten by a wolf.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 12, 2015, 10:52:04 AM
It just makes those of us who want to discuss the negative impacts of wolves in the environment look like idiots. Seriously, this is almost as bad as the birthers still wanting to see the presidents birth certificate.
Someone who gets it!
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 10:53:25 AM
Household pets are a choice each of us is allowed to make. Wolves are not are not a choice. The argument is oranges to apples and is false. They are two separate issues.
They aren't a choice to your neighbor down the street. But the reality is, all this billboard campaign does is stir up imagined fear. It's not addressing reality. Remember the little boy who cried wolf? If you keep making things up, or postulating things that aren't happening, eventually people won't hear the rest of your message. They will ignore you.
The message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
Maybe these problems don't exist for you where you live, but for the people purchasing the billboards the problems do exist!
It is important to teach the urban population that these problems do exist and these problems are affecting other people. Can you imagine the press and uproar if a pack of wolves went into Seattle or Spokane and killed dozens of dogs and other pets and then attacked someone jogging down the street, all within the city limits.
That is what happened to the McIrvin's, Dashiel's, and the hunter who was attacked by wolves, all in Stevens County.
Dozens of livestock killed and a hunter who had to protect himself against a pack of wolves that had surrounded him and a wolf that was leaping at him from behind.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 10:56:05 AM
Household pets are a choice each of us is allowed to make. Wolves are not are not a choice. The argument is oranges to apples and is false. They are two separate issues.
They aren't a choice to your neighbor down the street. But the reality is, all this billboard campaign does is stir up imagined fear. It's not addressing reality. Remember the little boy who cried wolf? If you keep making things up, or postulating things that aren't happening, eventually people won't hear the rest of your message. They will ignore you.
The message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
I disagree. There is no comparison between wolves and pets. And, I'm not making anything up. It's a fact that there are plenty of documented attacks by wolves. You're sugar-coating. You're the one making things up. Wolves in the remote regions on wilderness areas and across the northern parts of Canada are far different then the same animals in populated areas of WA. It's a bad situation and many of the wolves are being allowed to populate inappropriate areas of our state. Ignore it all you want. That doesn't make it better.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 11:15:24 AM
Quote
The message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
I couldn't agree more that wolves need to be managed, I've never stated that all wolves need wiped out, in fact I don't think anyone has said that on this forum.
No matter if you want to admit it or not, people have been attacked in Washington. It's a shame that some people are not put into the same shoes as hirshey when she was stalked by wolves, our family friend who was forced to stay in a tree while wolves surrounded him, and my neighbor who shot an attacking wolf this last fall after being surrounded by wolves which has been confirmed by WDFW.
Does someone have to die before you will admit people have been attacked in WA?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 11:16:29 AM
It just makes those of us who want to discuss the negative impacts of wolves in the environment look like idiots. Seriously, this is almost as bad as the birthers still wanting to see the presidents birth certificate.Amen.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on January 12, 2015, 11:24:21 AM
QuoteThe message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
I couldn't agree more that wolves need to be managed, I've never stated that all wolves need wiped out, in fact I don't think anyone has said that on this forum.
No matter if you want to admit it or not, people have been attacked in Washington. It's a shame that some people are not put into the same shoes as hirshey when she was stalked by wolves, our family friend who was forced to stay in a tree while wolves surrounded him, and my neighbor who shot an attacking wolf this last fall after being surrounded by wolves which has been confirmed by WDFW.
Does someone have to die before you will admit people have been attacked in WA?
Has anyone even really been attacked yet? I have heard of a couple close encounters between hunters and wolves, but cannot recall any where injuries were received.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 11:27:28 AM
So you're saying advertising is ineffective? Please post link to a study.No I did not say that...advertising can be very effective.
Public opinion is swayed by emotion not factsYes, my comment was idealistic and I acknowledge hunters in general have put most of their money where their mouth is...I just loathe the idea of putting lots of money into pr and legal fees etc. like the antis do...even if it's 'necessary'.I wonder how much good could be done if these polarized groups, each supposedly caring deeply about wildlife, put their billboard money into conservation, habitat, and access projects?Maybe in a perfect world your comment would apply, but given the circumstances of wolf management it seems that one side has benefitted from advertising cute cuddly wolves to the public and the other side has figured out that perhaps the other side of the wolf story needs to be made public.
Sitka you make great points on the effectiveness of said billboards.
And I understand wanting to fight fire with fire. When you have 2 screeching children fighting in the car, if you are one of those children, you might as well screech too. I'm just dreaming of an idealistic world where we kick all of the screeching children out of the car so the middle 90% of the public can manage wildlife without so much propaganda and distortion. It's incredibly difficult to take extremes on both sides seriously when both make extreme exxagerations...the damage however is...it's hard for the general public to sort out who is credible when you are surrounded by loud screeching children whose solution is to out yell the other child.
As an aside...I once got into a little hotwater when I described a couple of regional entities debating an environmental issue as crying children... to an audience of 400 or so...I even put up a slide full of pictures of crying children...not everyone saw the humor!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 12, 2015, 11:51:40 AM
I disagree. There is no comparison between wolves and pets.
You're right, there is no comparison. Dogs cause far more damage to farm animals and other dogs. And dogs actually regularly attack and kill and maim humans. And dogs are a plague on wild animals. (cats are a plague on song birds)
I have seen many dog attacks on other people's dogs and cats, and I have seen a lot of dog damage to livestock including neighbors' dogs that got into our chicken house when I was a kid, a domestic sheep on Kodiak that had two large dogs grab it by the neck (the sheep was on a tether unlike the dogs) and they proceeded to pull the hide off the sheep all the way to it's ass. I pulled in right after the attack and the poor sheep was standing there quivering and had to be put down. My neighbors pygmy goat was also attacked and consumed by neighboring dogs. It was also on a tether. Ive seen cows harassed by dogs until it affected milk production, and calves killed.
But that's not the point. The point is people should be able to protect their animals and property, and if need be their families from wolves or dogs without fear of the law. If that had been allowed from the start, there would be a lot less controversy about bringing wolves back and the government might even be getting more co-operation from people. Letting wolves get started without having to fear humans if they misbehaved was a bad idea.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 11:52:37 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 12, 2015, 12:05:06 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 12, 2015, 12:12:19 PM
QuoteThe message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
I couldn't agree more that wolves need to be managed, I've never stated that all wolves need wiped out, in fact I don't think anyone has said that on this forum.
No matter if you want to admit it or not, people have been attacked in Washington. It's a shame that some people are not put into the same shoes as hirshey when she was stalked by wolves, our family friend who was forced to stay in a tree while wolves surrounded him, and my neighbor who shot an attacking wolf this last fall after being surrounded by wolves which has been confirmed by WDFW.
Does someone have to die before you will admit people have been attacked in WA?
Has anyone even really been attacked yet? I have heard of a couple close encounters between hunters and wolves, but cannot recall any where injuries were received.
Depends on your definition of what it is to be attacked. Thankfully we can defend ourselves before it gets to point of receiving personal injury.
WDFW said the guy in Stevens CO who shot the wolf was defending himself and no charges were levied, therefore he must have been attacked. If there was no attack then he wasn't defending himself and it would be contrary to law "poaching" and he would have faced charges.
Seems to me people have been attacked in WA.
Post by: KFhunter on January 12, 2015, 12:14:39 PM
I disagree. There is no comparison between wolves and pets.
You're right, there is no comparison. Dogs cause far more damage to farm animals and other dogs. And dogs actually regularly attack and kill and maim humans. And dogs are a plague on wild animals. (cats are a plague on song birds)
I have seen many dog attacks on other people's dogs and cats, and I have seen a lot of dog damage to livestock including neighbors' dogs that got into our chicken house when I was a kid, a domestic sheep on Kodiak that had two large dogs grab it by the neck (the sheep was on a tether unlike the dogs) and they proceeded to pull the hide off the sheep all the way to it's ass. I pulled in right after the attack and the poor sheep was standing there quivering and had to be put down. My neighbors pygmy goat was also attacked and consumed by neighboring dogs. It was also on a tether. Ive seen cows harassed by dogs until it affected milk production, and calves killed.
But that's not the point. The point is people should be able to protect their animals and property, and if need be their families from wolves or dogs without fear of the law. If that had been allowed from the start, there would be a lot less controversy about bringing wolves back and the government might even be getting more co-operation from people. Letting wolves get started without having to fear humans if they misbehaved was a bad idea.
We shoot dogs harassing or threatening us. If WA went to coyote rules for wolves it would be much the same. Wolves would then live in the hills far away from people and would be shot when they threatened livestock - then this issue would go away....AND we'd still have plenty of wolves in Washington.
The problem is social tolerance for this doesn't exist for the pro-wolfers, they'd rather force these wolves upon us and try to figure out why our social tolerance for wolves doesn't exist either.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on January 12, 2015, 12:29:41 PM
QuoteThe message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
I couldn't agree more that wolves need to be managed, I've never stated that all wolves need wiped out, in fact I don't think anyone has said that on this forum.
No matter if you want to admit it or not, people have been attacked in Washington. It's a shame that some people are not put into the same shoes as hirshey when she was stalked by wolves, our family friend who was forced to stay in a tree while wolves surrounded him, and my neighbor who shot an attacking wolf this last fall after being surrounded by wolves which has been confirmed by WDFW.
Does someone have to die before you will admit people have been attacked in WA?
Has anyone even really been attacked yet? I have heard of a couple close encounters between hunters and wolves, but cannot recall any where injuries were received.
Depends on your definition of what it is to be attacked. Thankfully we can defend ourselves before it gets to point of receiving personal injury.
WDFW said the guy in Stevens CO who shot the wolf was defending himself and no charges were levied, therefore he must have been attacked. If there was no attack then he wasn't defending himself and it would be contrary to law "poaching" and he would have faced charges.
Seems to me people have been attacked in WA.
Feeling threatened and being attacked are two different things. You can shoot animals if you feel threatened.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 12, 2015, 12:31:18 PM
QuoteThe message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
I couldn't agree more that wolves need to be managed, I've never stated that all wolves need wiped out, in fact I don't think anyone has said that on this forum.
No matter if you want to admit it or not, people have been attacked in Washington. It's a shame that some people are not put into the same shoes as hirshey when she was stalked by wolves, our family friend who was forced to stay in a tree while wolves surrounded him, and my neighbor who shot an attacking wolf this last fall after being surrounded by wolves which has been confirmed by WDFW.
Does someone have to die before you will admit people have been attacked in WA?
Dale, you are being disingenuous by saying there aren't people on this site who have stated that wolves need to be wiped out. I could name several and paste some of their quotes, but it's not worth the effort.
Hershy may have been stalked by wolves, possibly out of curiosity or because she was near a den, but she was not attacked. The guy in the tree was not attacked. Ill even give you the young guy who shot the wolf. It's possible he was attacked. Was he bitten?
But there is one commonality here. These three people were all out in wolf country which is no different than being in bear country or cougar country. You need to be aware and you need to be prepared. I know people who have climbed trees because bears were in the area too. I also have friends who have been attacked by bears and bitten, one two different times. I can think of 5 off the top of my head including one who was seriously mauled last summer. It's part of the risk of being in the outdoors. Nobody puts up billboards implying bears need to be reduced or killed off because they will eat children. But they don't belong in people habitat and the ones that cross the line need to be removed. When we are in the woods we are in their habitat and need to realize that and be prepared.
I'm glad all three mentioned were unscathed for their adventures. My own adventures involved bears (I've only seen a handful of wolves in the wild), and in mostly unarmed situations so I know the feeling. Even the couple times I was armed, facing down a big brownie at 25 yards or less is a hair raising proposition. But I'm still not going to proclaim we need to kill bears because they will eat children. And I won't let fear keep me out of the wilderness.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 12, 2015, 12:33:20 PM
We shoot dogs harassing or threatening us. If WA went to coyote rules for wolves it would be much the same. Wolves would then live in the hills far away from people and would be shot when they threatened livestock - then this issue would go away....AND we'd still have plenty of wolves in Washington.
The problem is social tolerance for this doesn't exist for the pro-wolfers, they'd rather force these wolves upon us and try to figure out why our social tolerance for wolves doesn't exist either.
You may be surprised, but I totally agree with this.
Post by: PA BEN on January 12, 2015, 12:40:47 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 01:01:32 PM
QuoteThe message should be, wolves need to be managed in balance with other game animals and people should be able to protect their pets and farm animals. Adding children to the mix dilutes the message, and distracts from the real problems associated with wolves.
I couldn't agree more that wolves need to be managed, I've never stated that all wolves need wiped out, in fact I don't think anyone has said that on this forum.
No matter if you want to admit it or not, people have been attacked in Washington. It's a shame that some people are not put into the same shoes as hirshey when she was stalked by wolves, our family friend who was forced to stay in a tree while wolves surrounded him, and my neighbor who shot an attacking wolf this last fall after being surrounded by wolves which has been confirmed by WDFW.
Does someone have to die before you will admit people have been attacked in WA?
Dale, you are being disingenuous by saying there aren't people on this site who have stated that wolves need to be wiped out. I could name several and paste some of their quotes, but it's not worth the effort.
Hershy may have been stalked by wolves, possibly out of curiosity or because she was near a den, but she was not attacked. The guy in the tree was not attacked. Ill even give you the young guy who shot the wolf. It's possible he was attacked. Was he bitten?
But there is one commonality here. These three people were all out in wolf country which is no different than being in bear country or cougar country. You need to be aware and you need to be prepared. I know people who have climbed trees because bears were in the area too. I also have friends who have been attacked by bears and bitten, one two different times. I can think of 5 off the top of my head including one who was seriously mauled last summer. It's part of the risk of being in the outdoors. Nobody puts up billboards implying bears need to be reduced or killed off because they will eat children. But they don't belong in people habitat and the ones that cross the line need to be removed. When we are in the woods we are in their habitat and need to realize that and be prepared.
I'm glad all three mentioned were unscathed for their adventures. My own adventures involved bears (I've only seen a handful of wolves in the wild), and in mostly unarmed situations so I know the feeling. Even the couple times I was armed, facing down a big brownie at 25 yards or less is a hair raising proposition. But I'm still not going to proclaim we need to kill bears because they will eat children. And I won't let fear keep me out of the wilderness.
Funny how some of you guys will attempt to twist things to suit your narrative. :chuckle:
PROVE IT!
I don't remember anyone saying wolves need removed from earth. Myself and many others most certainly advocate that wolves do not belong in all areas of the west, (such as in all areas of Washington). Many of us simply want to see some management. I don't remember a single post where anyone has stated all wolves should be killed. So show me your proof, show me where all these members have advocated the killing of all wolves. This is laughable at best!
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 01:15:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 01:18:32 PM
For those who say wolves do not attack people!
I found these recent reports with one quick internet search, and there are several reports I know of that did not show up with that search. What is telling is the recent dates, like it or not and contrary to what wolf supporters and many agencies claim, wolf attacks seem to be on the increase!
For those who say wolves do not attack people!
http://www.adn.com/article/wolves-killed-alaska-teacher-2010-state-says (http://www.adn.com/article/wolves-killed-alaska-teacher-2010-state-says)
Wolves Killed Alaska Teacher
Dec 6, 2011 - Candice Berner was attacked and killed in March 2010 by two or more wolves while jogging near the village of Chignik Lake on the Alaska.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/outdoor-skills/survival/When-Wolves-Attack-Noah-Graham-Survival.html (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/outdoor-skills/survival/When-Wolves-Attack-Noah-Graham-Survival.html)
When Wolves Attack
By: Joe Spring
Jan 6, 2014
Sixteen-year-old Noah Graham was lying down during a late-summer camping trip when he felt jaws clamp down on the back of his head. He reached back and touched a Wolf’s face.
http://www.kxly.com/news/Hunter-Becomes-The-Hunted-In-Idaho-Wolf-Attack/9226008 (http://www.kxly.com/news/Hunter-Becomes-The-Hunted-In-Idaho-Wolf-Attack/9226008)
Hunter becomes the hunted in Idaho Wolf Attack
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/20/17386543-stay-calm-woman-walks-away-after-canada-wolf-attack?lite (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/20/17386543-stay-calm-woman-walks-away-after-canada-wolf-attack?lite)
'Stay calm': Woman walks away after Canada wolf attack
Wednesday Mar 20, 2013 10:12 AM
By John Newland, Staff Writer, NBC News
A woman in Manitoba, Canada, was receiving rabies treatment Wednesday after surviving a roadside attack by a timber wolf.
http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/526931/Mattson-treed-by-pack-of-wolves.html?nav=5003 (http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/526931/Mattson-treed-by-pack-of-wolves.html?nav=5003)
Mattson treed by pack of wolves
November 8, 2010
By Dionna Harris
ESCANABA - When Delta Conservation District Executive Director Rory Mattson headed out to begin a forestry project Oct. 8 along Trombley Road, he didn't expect to find himself treed by a small pack of wolves.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/elk-hunter-run-northeast-washington-wolves/)
November 5, 2014
Elk Hunter Has Run-in With Northeast Washington Wolves
(I don't have time to post all the dozens and dozens of reports of wolf attacks on pets and livestock, some of which are also in NE WA)
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 01:26:50 PM
Perhaps wolfbait could draw us a map of where he would like wolves established in Wa to settle this argument :chuckle:
In many cases your antagonistic comments/behavior promotes the worst comments from other members. Wolfbait will have to speak for himself, but I don't remember anyone saying all wolves should be killed. It seems to me most people object to the fact that unmanaged numbers of wolves are being forced into the areas where we live and hunt.
My Opinion
If wolf numbers are managed and some other predator numbers are reduced to make room for wolves, then there should not be a problem, there should be little impacts on our herds having a few wolves in remote areas where they do not impact human inhabitants and livestock. Some areas in Idaho where the wolf populations and bear and lion populations are being reduced this is already beginning to balance out.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2015, 01:41:25 PM
Sounds like Hoquiam needs a few of our wolves.
"...anywhere as long as it's not my backyard." The point that wolves are being allowed to populate areas which are totally unsuitable is lost on these guys. The wolf shot in Pullman is a prime example. The Palouse is totally agricultural. There's no wilderness and there's really very little woodland - they don't belong there. Wilderness areas maybe. Forested areas close to cities and towns, people? Definitely not. Why is it that MT with 1/8th our population and twice the land mass has 10 pairs of wolves in their plan (and they still can't keep up with them), and we have 15? It makes no sense. Having wolves is one thing. Tolerating them where they don't belong is another. We have 4+ million acres of wilderness in WA. They should be restricted to but controlled in those places and eradicated anywhere else.
Post by: KFhunter on January 12, 2015, 01:50:53 PM
HW members want them documented and de-listed where possible and most would like the current wolf plan revisited.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2015, 02:01:34 PM
The bulk of HW members are not anti-wolf, they're pro management.
HW members want them documented and de-listed where possible and most would like the current wolf plan revisited.
Thankyou, agreed! :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2015, 03:44:05 PM
I will ignore your pot/kettle comment to stay on topic here.Perhaps wolfbait could draw us a map of where he would like wolves established in Wa to settle this argument :chuckle:
In many cases your antagonistic comments/behavior promotes the worst comments from other members. Wolfbait will have to speak for himself, but I don't remember anyone saying all wolves should be killed. It seems to me most people object to the fact that unmanaged numbers of wolves are being forced into the areas where we live and hunt.
My Opinion
If wolf numbers are managed and some other predator numbers are reduced to make room for wolves, then there should not be a problem, there should be little impacts on our herds having a few wolves in remote areas where they do not impact human inhabitants and livestock. Some areas in Idaho where the wolf populations and bear and lion populations are being reduced this is already beginning to balance out.
I would say ALL HW members support wolf management and hunting. I seriously would like to know where folks like wolfbait would tolerate wolves in Wa state. Piano says wilderness only. What about some of you others...where can wolves live in WA? Everywhere as long as they are kept to 1 pack per 100 sq miles....or ??? What is acceptable?
Post by: ribka on January 12, 2015, 03:58:04 PM
I will ignore your pot/kettle comment to stay on topic here.Perhaps wolfbait could draw us a map of where he would like wolves established in Wa to settle this argument :chuckle:
In many cases your antagonistic comments/behavior promotes the worst comments from other members. Wolfbait will have to speak for himself, but I don't remember anyone saying all wolves should be killed. It seems to me most people object to the fact that unmanaged numbers of wolves are being forced into the areas where we live and hunt.
My Opinion
If wolf numbers are managed and some other predator numbers are reduced to make room for wolves, then there should not be a problem, there should be little impacts on our herds having a few wolves in remote areas where they do not impact human inhabitants and livestock. Some areas in Idaho where the wolf populations and bear and lion populations are being reduced this is already beginning to balance out.
I would say ALL HW members support wolf management and hunting. I seriously would like to know where folks like wolfbait would tolerate wolves in Wa state. Piano says wilderness only. What about some of you others...where can wolves live in WA? Everywhere as long as they are kept to 1 pack per 100 sq miles....or ??? What is acceptable?
Post by: KFhunter on January 12, 2015, 04:18:54 PM
I will ignore your pot/kettle comment to stay on topic here.Perhaps wolfbait could draw us a map of where he would like wolves established in Wa to settle this argument :chuckle:
In many cases your antagonistic comments/behavior promotes the worst comments from other members. Wolfbait will have to speak for himself, but I don't remember anyone saying all wolves should be killed. It seems to me most people object to the fact that unmanaged numbers of wolves are being forced into the areas where we live and hunt.
My Opinion
If wolf numbers are managed and some other predator numbers are reduced to make room for wolves, then there should not be a problem, there should be little impacts on our herds having a few wolves in remote areas where they do not impact human inhabitants and livestock. Some areas in Idaho where the wolf populations and bear and lion populations are being reduced this is already beginning to balance out.
I would say ALL HW members support wolf management and hunting. I seriously would like to know where folks like wolfbait would tolerate wolves in Wa state. Piano says wilderness only. What about some of you others...where can wolves live in WA? Everywhere as long as they are kept to 1 pack per 100 sq miles....or ??? What is acceptable?
There's plenty of folks on both ends of the spectrum on HW.
The bulk of HW understands there's going to be wolves in WA, accepts that and are even a little excited at the opportunity to hunt them (this IS a hunting site is it not?)....but we want pro-active management from WDFW, we want our game managers to be on top of the wolf issue not behind it, and we want them to be more transparent.
I think I speak for a lot of HW members when I say we were not being served very well by our past game managers. WDFW hasn't been transparent enough on wolf issues, they haven't been documenting them fast enough and they've even gone so far as to hide or cover up wolf conflict. We want better and I'm hopeful the new director can make some positive changes.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2015, 08:06:47 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2015, 10:41:09 AM
How about WDFW's condescending attitude at wolf meetings? Refusal to answer questions?
How about the public comment period when drafting our current wolf plan?
How about refusal of cattlemen money to fund a WDFW trapper and bio ride along?
How about CNW sitting on the Commission?
How about WDFW repeatedly denying wolf depredation?
How about WDFW denying wolf even exist in an area?
How about WDFW forcing their own field officers to phone Olympia for permission to say "yes, a wolf killed this calf"
How about WDFW pulling authorization from local LE to determine wolf depredation?
How about WDFW's acceptance of monies from NGO's who support the wolf agenda but disallow monies from pro-management NGO's?
How much you need? You want copies of my emails to WDFW public comment periods? Copies of my Emails to district reps?
You can pound sand you think I'll play that game with you.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2015, 11:10:42 AM
On the condescending attitude, there is a rep for the wa trappers association that sent out a note after the Colville meeting appalled at how the public treated wdfw. You might be surprised at the cooperation and dialogue you get if you respectfully engage wdfw staff AND demonstrate a willingness to listen.
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
I wish the reverse was true as well.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2015, 12:09:42 PM
Now, I'm directing this all at you but I intend it for all who have genuine interest in wa wolf management...be proactive in getting information straight from the tap...not the junk filtered by various advocacy groups. You still may not like the answer but at least then your criticisms will be founded in facts and thus much more credible. One last thing...offering solutions is a good way to open doors to criticisms you may have. Everybody can list all the problems and critique all the decisions of wdfw managers...critics are dime a dozen...problem solvers...rare.
Post by: bearpaw on January 13, 2015, 07:02:43 PM
Then it appears the only thing missing is engagement. If you really want results you have to talk to the right people. You can not address specific, tough issues by emailing comments during a public comment period and attending large adversarial public meetings. Pick up the phone...you might be surprised.
Now, I'm directing this all at you but I intend it for all who have genuine interest in wa wolf management...be proactive in getting information straight from the tap...not the junk filtered by various advocacy groups. You still may not like the answer but at least then your criticisms will be founded in facts and thus much more credible. One last thing...offering solutions is a good way to open doors to criticisms you may have. Everybody can list all the problems and critique all the decisions of wdfw managers...critics are dime a dozen...problem solvers...rare.
:chuckle:
While it would be nice if your idealistic comments about WDFW were true, my experiences with too many of the voices at WDFW/Olympia prove your comments are mostly false. Sorry, but the reality is WDFW has pretty much ignored everyone's input except the wolfers. I know because I've talked to most of them, they already have their minds made up on most issues and it's a waste of time to try and talk to them. I'm hoping the change in director will bring a change in upper management attitudes.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2015, 10:18:08 PM
Yes, many of the big issues are resolved at high policy levels, but providing input to technical staff who communicate to the policy makers can have an impact. My perception is that WDFW definitely wants a wolf hunting season...its just an absolute mine field to get there. Google Unsworth and check out some of the green group articles about him floating around...one was titled "Idaho gun nut next director" or something close to that...as soon as Jim utters a word about wolves you can bet he will be attacked as trying to implement Idaho's plans and actions in Washington...my biggest concern is how long he will last in this state. There are already articles and links urging people to write the governor to block the hiring of Unsworth :yike:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 14, 2015, 02:10:50 PM
Anti gunners propaganda fills TV screens with messages that guns serve no purpose, they are dangerous and your kid will end up being shot in school if we don't eliminate private gun ownership. Then hunters turn around and use the same cheap scare tactics against wolf recovery. And with wolves, the message has even less credibility than with guns. People, children included, do die from guns in high numbers. But I still don't believe that guns ownership should be banned. But implying that children are going to be eaten by wolves is ludicrous. And if you think that's a good message to use, then I guess you also accept that children are going to be killed by guns, therefor guns should be controlled or banned.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 02:21:33 PM
Ever heard that you have to fight fire with fire? That's exactly what needs to happen in the media wolf debate. The greenies don't hesitate to embellish so that they can garner more support. Why shouldn't the ranchers meet them head-on? After all, it's the ranchers who have the most to lose here. It's not like the wolves are ever going to be eradicated now, far from it.
Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2015, 05:34:19 PM
Post by: ribka on January 14, 2015, 07:26:31 PM
Pman- I forgot about the I 594 campaign. I remember watching the TV ads and they were filled with misinformation and lies. I see by using sensationalism this misinformation this method was not an effective way to push their anti gun agenda. sarc
show billboard pics of wolf killed dead family pets, mutilated elk and deer.
Doctors, water, baby cribs kill 1000's of children a year too. i guess ban them with the firearms
I was thinking about this thread again today while working out at the gym. Then it hit me. What I don't like about the billboard campaign is the fact that hunters are using the same tactics on the wolf issue as gun control people are using against gun owners. The politics of fear. I don't like it no matter which side is using it. Why does an issue have to be decided on by who can scare the most people into sharing their point of view?
Anti gunners propaganda fills TV screens with messages that guns serve no purpose, they are dangerous and your kid will end up being shot in school if we don't eliminate private gun ownership. Then hunters turn around and use the same cheap scare tactics against wolf recovery. And with wolves, the message has even less credibility than with guns. People, children included, do die from guns in high numbers. But I still don't believe that guns ownership should be banned. But implying that children are going to be eaten by wolves is ludicrous. And if you think that's a good message to use, then I guess you also accept that children are going to be killed by guns, therefor guns should be controlled or banned.
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 14, 2015, 07:58:07 PM
It's the residents of Stevens County who are already losing to wolves, no scare tactics about it, simply the truth of the matter. The rest of the state needs educated, even some on this forum appear to be ignoring the wolf damage that has already occurred.
It has become easy to just sit on my fingers and watch the progression of woves in this state. 4+ years ago when we expressed our concerns, the sentiment was nothing to worry about they aren't in my area. As they move west more folks are interested.
Have a buddy who went through the state of Idaho trapping class to get a permit. He said the instructor was from Alaska and during one of the breaks they sort of went off topic and Washington came up. He said that by the time Washington makes the management goals. Most of the state will be on a permit draw and you will call your friends asking if they want to go because one of you had drawn a permit.
He said his trap line was in a valley that he went up one side and back down the other and he trapped 30 + a year and the next year he repeated it. I think he said his trap line was 4 days each way.
I do look forward to the time when Bobcat has wolves in his backyard and for the record I have offered to donate to getting him some!!! :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on January 14, 2015, 09:22:31 PM
I do look forward to the time when Bobcat has wolves in his backyard and for the record I have offered to donate to getting him some!!! :twocents:
Not sure why all the love for me but I really don't care when the wolves get here. I know they will eventually, it's just a matter of when. The elk in SW Wa. are going extinct from hoof rot. All the timber companies with the exception of Port Blakely have closed their land to hunting by everyone except a small number of paying customers.
Those are the issues that really matter, and I'm in the process of learning other states so that within a few years I may not hunt this state for anything except maybe grouse and coyotes. I'm tired of losing access to hunting areas and I'm discouraged by the loss of at least 50% of the elk in SW Washington.
Bring on the wolves!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 15, 2015, 01:15:06 AM
Have a buddy who went through the state of Idaho trapping class to get a permit. He said the instructor was from Alaska and during one of the breaks they sort of went off topic and Washington came up. He said that by the time Washington makes the management goals. Most of the state will be on a permit draw and you will call your friends asking if they want to go because one of you had drawn a permit.
Bogus claim. Montana and Idaho have met their goals and are harvesting wolves and they haven't gone to permit draws yet. If Washington does, it ill only be because the State sees draw hunts as a cash cow, it wont be from wolves.
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2015, 07:33:13 AM
The new director came from IDFG, an outfit with a poor record in wolf management. It took IDFG several years to finally admit that wolves were the reason for the decline in the game herds, blaming habitat instead.
Now look at WA with wolf reports coming from all over and the fact it doesn't seem to make a difference in wolves being documented. The last pack WDFW confirmed they said they had known about the pack for a year, but yet they had refuse to confirm it until livestock predation.
I think the billboard idea was perfect! Mainstream media will not touch anything that tells the full truth about wolves, it's all spoon fed wolf propaganda from WDFW or CNW etc.. I think people were/are starting to ask questions and of course the pro-wolf side don't want any of the "wrong" questions answered. Defenders of Wildlife plastering their "I love the wolf" signs up all over kind of proves that.
Post by: ribka on January 15, 2015, 07:52:41 AM
Compare Washington's population vs the population of Idaho and Montana and it is easy to see that Washington will eventually go to a draw system for most units for hunting. Look at the diminishing quotas for fishing over the past two decades. The intro of wolves will speed this process.
Take a page out the current transparent administration's propaganda handbook and use it against wolves
Biden's back in chains speech to an African American audience
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9dv4bdUBjwAf777w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTByN2RnbHFoBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMw--?p=biden+put+you+in+chains&vid=619c74c4170925f587d94821e0375f0f&l=&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.607996558692978146%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fbiden-tells-african-american-audience-gop-ticket-would-put-them-back-in-chains%2F&tit=Biden+tells+African-American+audience+GOP+ticket+would+put+them+%26quot%3Bback+in+chains%26quot%3B&c=0&sigr=13bnqa06p&sigt=12q0gogi2&age=0&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b (https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9dv4bdUBjwAf777w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTByN2RnbHFoBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMw--?p=biden+put+you+in+chains&vid=619c74c4170925f587d94821e0375f0f&l=&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.607996558692978146%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fbiden-tells-african-american-audience-gop-ticket-would-put-them-back-in-chains%2F&tit=Biden+tells+African-American+audience+GOP+ticket+would+put+them+%26quot%3Bback+in+chains%26quot%3B&c=0&sigr=13bnqa06p&sigt=12q0gogi2&age=0&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b)
Have a buddy who went through the state of Idaho trapping class to get a permit. He said the instructor was from Alaska and during one of the breaks they sort of went off topic and Washington came up. He said that by the time Washington makes the management goals. Most of the state will be on a permit draw and you will call your friends asking if they want to go because one of you had drawn a permit.
Bogus claim. Montana and Idaho have met their goals and are harvesting wolves and they haven't gone to permit draws yet. If Washington does, it ill only be because the State sees draw hunts as a cash cow, it wont be from wolves.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 15, 2015, 11:40:47 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 11:48:18 AM
I agree with Ribka. Washington is tightly regulated for harvest already. How much buffer can they give to wolves? The state's elk population is around 60,000; of which harvest is around 7,300 a year. Even with only 150 wolves (15 packs, 10 wolves/pack, 20 elk per wolf per year) that is 3,000 elk/year--probably going to be more wolves than that though. I'd be surprised if it didn't go draw only---if they kept it OTC, I would guess that seasons would be cut way back.Wolves will not be much of a factor in whether WA ever adopts a permit only system. Wolves can impact elk herds; most hunters over estimate or exaggerate the impact/potential impact.
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 15, 2015, 04:22:03 PM
Wolves will not be much of a factor in whether WA ever adopts a permit only system. Wolves can impact elk herds; most hunters over estimate or exaggerate the impact/potential impact.
I could perhaps give you a few cattle ranchers names in Stevens county you could have this debate with on their losses.
If I run out of ideas KFHunter could help as well.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2015, 04:24:47 PM
Wolves will not be much of a factor in whether WA ever adopts a permit only system. Wolves can impact elk herds; most hunters over estimate or exaggerate the impact/potential impact.
I could perhaps give you a few cattle ranchers names in Stevens county you could have this debate with on their losses.
If I run out of ideas KFHunter could help as well.
If Elk go to a permit system Ridgeratt it's due to poor habitat, nothing to do with wolves move along nothing to look at here.
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 15, 2015, 04:33:36 PM
If Elk go to a permit system Ridgeratt it's due to poor habitat, nothing to do with wolves move along nothing to look at here.
"KF" you were able to respond with a straight face. :chuckle: :chuckle: I am impressed. Looks like you have been converted by the liberals.
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2015, 04:34:24 PM
If Elk go to a permit system Ridgeratt it's due to poor habitat, nothing to do with wolves move along nothing to look at here.
"KF" you were able to respond with a straight face. :chuckle: :chuckle: I am impressed. Looks like you have been converted by the liberals.
I been at this a while.
Post by: bearpaw on January 15, 2015, 07:54:20 PM
Have a buddy who went through the state of Idaho trapping class to get a permit. He said the instructor was from Alaska and during one of the breaks they sort of went off topic and Washington came up. He said that by the time Washington makes the management goals. Most of the state will be on a permit draw and you will call your friends asking if they want to go because one of you had drawn a permit.
Bogus claim. Montana and Idaho have met their goals and are harvesting wolves and they haven't gone to permit draws yet. If Washington does, it ill only be because the State sees draw hunts as a cash cow, it wont be from wolves.
Truth: Idaho has eliminated or reduced many elk hunts and Montana's late Yellowstone hunts were eliminated. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 11:47:49 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 11:51:46 PM
By all means, could you please send me the names of the cattle ranchers in Stevens County who have experienced high losses of ELK. I am very intrigued by these cattle operations that are losing elk!!!!!! That is amazing!!!!
Wolves will not be much of a factor in whether WA ever adopts a permit only system. Wolves can impact elk herds; most hunters over estimate or exaggerate the impact/potential impact.
I could perhaps give you a few cattle ranchers names in Stevens county you could have this debate with on their losses.
If I run out of ideas KFHunter could help as well.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 11:54:07 PM
I agree. We all know habitat is irrelevant. I was hunting over in a subduvision/shopping mall yesterday...I did not see one trophy class bull. The wolves must have got him.
Wolves will not be much of a factor in whether WA ever adopts a permit only system. Wolves can impact elk herds; most hunters over estimate or exaggerate the impact/potential impact.
I could perhaps give you a few cattle ranchers names in Stevens county you could have this debate with on their losses.
If I run out of ideas KFHunter could help as well.
If Elk go to a permit system Ridgeratt it's due to poor habitat, nothing to do with wolves move along nothing to look at here.
Post by: bearpaw on January 16, 2015, 12:20:27 PM
What hunts has idaho eliminated because of wolves?
Well that's real easy! :chuckle:
All general season cow hunts, even archery cow hunts have been completely eliminated in all nine of the panhandle's management units. Do I need to cite more eliminated hunts because there are many more units which have had seasons eliminated?
How about (all cow hunts) that have been eliminated in the Lolo Zone, Middle Fork Zone, and Selway Zone? I think that's a total of 18 game management units that Idaho has said are impacted by wolves and the general cow elk seasons have been completely eliminated and most of these units with the exception of 2 or 3 units do not have any controlled hunt tags for cows either!
Post by: idahohuntr on January 16, 2015, 01:18:24 PM
Any bull hunts?What hunts has idaho eliminated because of wolves?
Well that's real easy! :chuckle:
All general season cow hunts, even archery cow hunts have been completely eliminated in all nine of the panhandle's management units. Do I need to cite more eliminated hunts because there are many more units which have had seasons eliminated?
How about (all cow hunts) that have been eliminated in the Lolo Zone, Middle Fork Zone, and Selway Zone? I think that's a total of 18 game management units that Idaho has said are impacted by wolves and the general cow elk seasons have been completely eliminated and most of these units with the exception of 2 or 3 units do not have any controlled hunt tags for cows either!
Post by: mountainman on January 16, 2015, 03:26:05 PM
:(What hunts has idaho eliminated because of wolves?
Well that's real easy! :chuckle:
All general season cow hunts, even archery cow hunts have been completely eliminated in all nine of the panhandle's management units. Do I need to cite more eliminated hunts because there are many more units which have had seasons eliminated?
How about (all cow hunts) that have been eliminated in the Lolo Zone, Middle Fork Zone, and Selway Zone? I think that's a total of 18 game management units that Idaho has said are impacted by wolves and the general cow elk seasons have been completely eliminated and most of these units with the exception of 2 or 3 units do not have any controlled hunt tags for cows either!
nice edit! ;)I agree. We all know habitat is irrelevant. I was hunting over in a subduvision/shopping mall yesterday...I did not see one trophy class bull. The wolves must have got him.
Wolves will not be much of a factor in whether WA ever adopts a permit only system. Wolves can impact elk herds; most hunters over estimate or exaggerate the impact/potential impact.
I could perhaps give you a few cattle ranchers names in Stevens county you could have this debate with on their losses.
If I run out of ideas KFHunter could help as well.
If Elk go to a permit system Ridgeratt it's due to poor habitat, nothing to do with wolves move along nothing to look at here.