Post by: wolfbait on May 29, 2015, 09:55:38 PM
https://www.facebook.com/download/1433754386931863/MuleyCrazy15.3.17-22.pdf
Wolves and Livestock: The Never Ending Battle
http://tomremington.com/2015/05/29/wolves-and-livestock-the-never-ending-battle/
Post by: nwwanderer on May 30, 2015, 03:44:40 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 30, 2015, 04:40:44 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 31, 2015, 11:07:10 AM
Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? :chuckle:
Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.
Post by: KFhunter on May 31, 2015, 11:33:00 AM
Quote
I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs
next time put that first in your post so I can stop reading it and not waste my time on the rest of it
thanks for your cooperation
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2015, 08:37:51 PM
Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing? :chuckle:
Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? :chuckle:
Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.
"Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing?"
Ranchers hold state game agencies accountable, how many wolf packs have been confirmed just in WA because of livestock depredation?
As far as Wyoming, they didn't take the bait of managing wolves as a big game animal do to the fact that it has been proven it doesn't work.
I find it comical that you stress honesty with the wolf issue, yet anyone who doesn't agree with you is dismissed as clueless. Kay's assessment of the wolf situation in this article is right on the money.
Charles Kay predicted what the outcome would be regarding the wolf introduction, and he was right!
What they Didn't Tell You About Wolf Recovery
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf
QuoteI stopped reading after 2 paragraphs
next time put that first in your post so I can stop reading it and not waste my time on the rest of it
thanks for your cooperation
Post by: mfswallace on May 31, 2015, 11:39:41 PM
QuoteI stopped reading after 2 paragraphs
next time put that first in your post so I can stop reading it and not waste my time on the rest of it
thanks for your cooperation
Or just stop posting anything :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2015, 02:09:49 AM
While Idahohntr was busy calling Dr Kay clueless, wolves were busy proving Dr Kay's is spot on regarding wolf impacts on livestock! :chuckle:
Quote
Local wolf pack takes sheep herd
May 26, 2015 WEI
In the evenings, Janet and Buol Heslin can sit on their back porch in Alta and watch wolves emerge from the nearby national forest. The couple has raised sheep for the last 10 years and the last seven on their farm in Wyoming, and they’ve had a few problems with wolves.
http://tinyurl.com/o93r4xr
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2015, 02:18:15 AM
Quote
Wolf Depredation on Cattle in Europe
May 22, 2015 WEI
A new report to the European Commission “Exploring Traditional Husbandry Methods to Reduce Wolf Predation on Free-Ranging Cattle in Portugal and Spain” offers a look at the problems faced by livestock producers in this region of the Iberian Peninsula, but does little to suggest viable relief from problems specifically identified by cattle producers.
http://tinyurl.com/pddcrs8
Post by: rasbo on June 01, 2015, 06:01:27 AM
Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing? :chuckle:please elaborate
Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? :chuckle:
Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 01, 2015, 06:21:09 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 01, 2015, 06:22:43 AM
In areas that wolves inhabit it's not a question of "Will they kill livestock?" the qustion is "How soon will they kill? and/or "How many times will they kill before they have to be removed?"You are calling kay an expert because he said wolves will eat livestock?
While Idahohntr was busy calling Dr Kay clueless, wolves were busy proving Dr Kay's is spot on regarding wolf impacts on livestock! :chuckle:QuoteLocal wolf pack takes sheep herd
May 26, 2015 WEI
In the evenings, Janet and Buol Heslin can sit on their back porch in Alta and watch wolves emerge from the nearby national forest. The couple has raised sheep for the last 10 years and the last seven on their farm in Wyoming, and they’ve had a few problems with wolves.
http://tinyurl.com/o93r4xr
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 01, 2015, 07:06:23 AM
No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.right.
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2015, 07:49:02 AM
No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.right.
So tell us who holds the USFWS or state game agencies accountable do to wolf predation besides ranchers?
Look at the Lolo elk herd as an example of accountability by IDFG. Look how long it took before IDFG was forced to admit wolves were the reason for the decline of the Lolo herd. And even when they had a chance to kill more wolves to help the herd Unsworth refuse, saying it wouldn't matter. One wolf will kill 20+ elk per year.
"Department director Jim Unsworth told the advisory group it will take time to see how wolves affect different aspects of the Washington landscape compared to previous wolf introductions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming."
I think hunters should tie in with the ranchers over the wolf issue as their interests are basically the same concerning wolf control.
There will be the usual number of fools who believe groups like CNW, DoW, Sierra Club and HSUS support hunters and ranchers in WA, but not many people are easily fooled after the bogus wolf plan.
"Yes, hunter's interests are represented well in the group. I spoke with every member there, and spent extra time talking to the members from CNW, DofW, Sierra Club, and HSUS. 3 of these members grew up in and understand our hunting heritage, and are not opposed to hunting personally or as a representative of their group. The other member has never been exposed to hunting, but is not against hunting at all."
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,174866.100.html
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 01, 2015, 07:54:57 AM
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
Post by: nwwanderer on June 01, 2015, 07:56:00 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2015, 08:25:16 AM
OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
"To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat."
WDFW claim wolves started coming into WA in 2002, 13 years later they claim most of WA wolves are in the North East corner of the state, why is that I wonder? According to WDFW it would appear that the wolves are not dispersing. Could it be that taking out some of the wolves that were killing cattle curtailed their movement into the rest of the state? Or are WDFW getting caught in another wolf lie?
My guess is the USFWS have already dumped wolves in Utah as well as Colorado, hard release. It takes awhile before they become noticeable unless they start killing livestock. http://tomremington.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/scan0006.pdf
A wolf was shot not too long ago in Colorado.
Officials confirm gray wolf killed in Colorado by legal coyote hunter
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS May 28, 2015
DENVER — Wildlife officials say a coyote-like animal killed near Kremmling was a gray wolf.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Thursday that DNA tests at its Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, were used to confirm the species.
A legal coyote hunter shot the animal April 29 and immediately notified state wildlife officials. The gray wolf is listed as an endangered species under state and federal law.
Most gray wolves live in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin but are known to wander thousands of miles in search of food or a mate. A gray wolf that wandered into Colorado in 2009 was found dead along a county road in Rio Blanco County.
Officials later determined the wolf had been poisoned.
source:
http://tinyurl.com/ndo84mw
"Officials later determined the wolf had been poisoned."
Sounds like the folks in Colorado have some wolf recipes, I wonder how many times the USFWS etc. have been caught releasing wolves in Colorado?
Post by: jasnt on June 01, 2015, 12:16:08 PM
There will be the usual number of fools who believe groups like CNW, DoW, Sierra Club and HSUS support hunters and ranchers in WA, but not many people are easily fooled after the bogus wolf plan.
Bingo we have a winner!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 01, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 01, 2015, 01:38:24 PM
Post by: jasnt on June 01, 2015, 02:17:53 PM
Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card :twocents:
Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card :twocents:
Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card :twocents:everything wolfbait posts idahohunter says its a lie. Wolfbait could start a thread about the sky being blue or the earth round and idahohunter would say nay. Then start throwing in the foil hat guy. Any more I can't take Idaho hunter serious on any matter!
Post by: mountainman on June 01, 2015, 03:01:03 PM
:yeah:Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card :twocents:Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card :twocents:Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card :twocents:everything wolfbait posts idahohunter says its a lie. Wolfbait could start a thread about the sky being blue or the earth round and idahohunter would say nay. Then start throwing in the foil hat guy. Any more I can't take Idaho hunter serious on any matter!
Post by: bearpaw on June 02, 2015, 08:18:48 AM
No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.
OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on June 02, 2015, 09:07:51 AM
No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
People are going to protect their livestock and pets. All keeping that illegal (or extremely hard to prove as legitimate) does is keep it buried underground. It's one thing to have a discussion about a hunting season/limits/etc. It's entirely another to tell people they can do nothing about a wolf problem or that if they do they will most likely be burned at the stake legally and financially.
When you live in the sticks you have space, people target shoot, people shoot varmints, gun shots don't really get peoples' attention...been there, done that. If someone shoots a wolf and buries the thing NO ONE will know unless a person is incredibly stupid. That is reality. If a grouse hunter with a dog or a hiker packing heat with a dog is walking in the woods where no one is around, and a wolf shows up threatening their dog and they shoot it, do people honestly think that person is going to report it? No, most likely they will, at best, drag the corpse off into the bushes and get out of the area fast. That is reality.
The sooner the state recognizes that and backs off of it, the sooner the state can have a more realistic conversation about when and how to institute a wolf season.
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2015, 12:41:26 PM
OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
Ranchers and hunters don't share the same interests? Are you kidding?
They're joined at the hip. From private property hunting cattle ranch, hunting agriculture lands used to feed the cattle, open range grazing the list goes on.. one affects the other and quite frankly it's the hunters who benefit more from the hunter/rancher relationship.
Yes, we as hunters need to get behind the ranchers in the wolf fight as we do share a common end goal; who cares if we have different motivation.
Post by: bearpaw on June 02, 2015, 12:59:32 PM
OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
Ranchers and hunters don't share the same interests? Are you kidding?
They're joined at the hip. From private property hunting cattle ranch, hunting agriculture lands used to feed the cattle, open range grazing the list goes on.. one affects the other and quite frankly it's the hunters who benefit more from the hunter/rancher relationship.
Yes, we as hunters need to get behind the ranchers in the wolf fight as we do share a common end goal; who cares if we have different motivation.
:yeah: Exactly right! Most ranchers I know are also hunters and fishers and care more about what actually happens to the land than anyone else. I think this attitude we hear at times about ranchers is just an ill-perceived thought some hunters have imagined that don't really know many ranchers. Sure the big corporate farms have a different agenda, but there are no big corporate farms in NE WA that I know of? Corporate farms are found more in the intensively farmed areas, not in the wildlife rich areas.
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2015, 01:53:13 PM
OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
Ranchers and hunters don't share the same interests? Are you kidding?
They're joined at the hip. From private property hunting cattle ranch, hunting agriculture lands used to feed the cattle, open range grazing the list goes on.. one affects the other and quite frankly it's the hunters who benefit more from the hunter/rancher relationship.
Yes, we as hunters need to get behind the ranchers in the wolf fight as we do share a common end goal; who cares if we have different motivation.
:yeah: Exactly right! Most ranchers I know are also hunters and fishers and care more about what actually happens to the land than anyone else. I think this attitude we hear at times about ranchers is just an ill-perceived thought some hunters have imagined that don't really know many ranchers. Sure the big corporate farms have a different agenda, but there are no big corporate farms in NE WA that I know of? Corporate farms are found more in the intensively farmed areas, not in the wildlife rich areas.
:yeah: :tup:
I think the last wolf killed livestock that was reported to WDFW in the Methow was the calf at a ranch up Alder Cr a couple of years ago. Wolf scat and tracks where the wolf killed the calf, and yet Scott Fitkin of WDFW, found a coyote track and then called it a coyote kill.
Many people who raise livestock, aren't calling WDFW over wolf problems anymore.
How many people besides Bearpaw make their living by hunting? Ranchers have far more at stake then the average hunter, Without ranchers their is no accountability.
WDFW claim the wolves haven't impact the game herds in WA yet. What have WA's wolves been eating since 2002?
One wolf will kill 20+ elk per year, compare a deer to an elk.
Bearpaw said "social tolerance" has already started on a downward spiral, I am quite sure some of the public has already started a wolf management program of their own.
Personally I don't think it will matter in the confirmation process, as WDFW have a six year prediction as to when the BP confirmation for the wolf plan will be met, which is all that counts. WA could have a couple hundred wolf packs but it is WDFW's select breeding pairs that decide when wolves are delisted.
KFHunter-Ranchers and hunters don't share the same interests? Are you kidding?
They're joined at the hip. From private property hunting cattle ranch, hunting agriculture lands used to feed the cattle, open range grazing the list goes on.. one affects the other and quite frankly it's the hunters who benefit more from the hunter/rancher relationship.
Yes, we as hunters need to get behind the ranchers in the wolf fight as we do share a common end goal; who cares if we have different motivation.
Post by: nwwanderer on June 02, 2015, 02:03:55 PM
Private production land nationally is held by family farms, about 97%. Large corporations, Monsanto, do not farm or graze, not enough money in it. Certainly, farms have grown and fewer families produce. You need to realize that the 80 acre family homestead is not going to support a $600,000 combine. Less than one half % produce more than 80% of the food, not much political clout there. If you enjoy large game populations keeping that one and one half percent that produce all of the food on the land is critical. Poor management decisions like protecting wolves taking private property is just another group of producers that leave production. We enjoy feeding all of you at the smallest cost for income on the planet. Keeping it that way is at risk and the wolf is just a very small example with huge individual consequences.
Post by: AspenBud on June 02, 2015, 04:58:07 PM
Hunters rely on private land, about 75% of wildlife depends on private, read crop and grazing, for habitat. I know many will say they only hunt public land, the critters use private to feed themselves. We produce the habitat and food they rely on. Find an old hunting family member ask him them where their grandfather hunted. If they lived in eastern Washington it was isolated areas with dismal wildlife populations. People planted the elk in most Washington's east side. They simply were not here. Lewis and Clark ate dogs, horses, native supplied roots and fish once they topped the Rockies. They very nearly starved to death twice in the interior. Though wolf pelts were traded here, the source was not normally local.
Private production land nationally is held by family farms, about 97%. Large corporations, Monsanto, do not farm or graze, not enough money in it. Certainly, farms have grown and fewer families produce. You need to realize that the 80 acre family homestead is not going to support a $600,000 combine. Less than one half % produce more than 80% of the food, not much political clout there. If you enjoy large game populations keeping that one and one half percent that produce all of the food on the land is critical. Poor management decisions like protecting wolves taking private property is just another group of producers that leave production. We enjoy feeding all of you at the smallest cost for income on the planet. Keeping it that way is at risk and the wolf is just a very small example with huge individual consequences.
The section in bold...That historical fact poses a problem in the current political climate. Imported wolves eating imported elk...you know where that goes.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2015, 09:51:55 PM
It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
Post by: mfswallace on June 02, 2015, 10:06:02 PM
It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
What is the reason then ??
Post by: villageidiot on June 02, 2015, 10:27:15 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2015, 05:52:16 AM
Hunters rely on private land, about 75% of wildlife depends on private, read crop and grazing, for habitat. I know many will say they only hunt public land, the critters use private to feed themselves. We produce the habitat and food they rely on. Find an old hunting family member ask him them where their grandfather hunted. If they lived in eastern Washington it was isolated areas with dismal wildlife populations. People planted the elk in most Washington's east side. They simply were not here. Lewis and Clark ate dogs, horses, native supplied roots and fish once they topped the Rockies. They very nearly starved to death twice in the interior. Though wolf pelts were traded here, the source was not normally local.
Private production land nationally is held by family farms, about 97%. Large corporations, Monsanto, do not farm or graze, not enough money in it. Certainly, farms have grown and fewer families produce. You need to realize that the 80 acre family homestead is not going to support a $600,000 combine. Less than one half % produce more than 80% of the food, not much political clout there. If you enjoy large game populations keeping that one and one half percent that produce all of the food on the land is critical. Poor management decisions like protecting wolves taking private property is just another group of producers that leave production. We enjoy feeding all of you at the smallest cost for income on the planet. Keeping it that way is at risk and the wolf is just a very small example with huge individual consequences.
The section in bold...That historical fact poses a problem in the current political climate. Imported wolves eating imported elk...you know where that goes.
Yep, it turns elk into wolf chit while Unsworth and the rest of WDFW blame it on habitat, poachers, climate change and too many people.
Twenty years later when there are 20 elk left WDFW will come out with the statement that, it was wolves that caused the major decline in the elk herds and other ungulates and WDFW will begin the importation elk etc..
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2015, 06:13:05 AM
It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
What is the reason then ??
Maybe Bearpaw gave out too much information, as you know I-hunter rarely reads past the first two lines if he doesn't agree with what is being said.
"Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who."
In 2010 I talk to a guy down by Wenatchee who told me of a ranch that had been taking care of their own wolf problems for several years, I wonder how many more ranches in WA were doing the same.
WDFW refuse to confirm the first wolf pack in WA despite reliable wolf reports 3 to 4 years prior to the lie of first wolf pack in 70 years. Why is that?
WDFW claim most of WA's wolves are in the NE corner, another lie. Wolves are spread throughout WA now WDFW just refuses to confirm.
WDFW claim they manage all wildlife, if they were managing the game herds they would implement strict predator control, but instead they predict the weather and kill more breeding stock.
Good info. Bearpaw :tup: Probably more then I-hunter etc. wanted.
Post by: AspenBud on June 03, 2015, 07:18:15 AM
Hunters rely on private land, about 75% of wildlife depends on private, read crop and grazing, for habitat. I know many will say they only hunt public land, the critters use private to feed themselves. We produce the habitat and food they rely on. Find an old hunting family member ask him them where their grandfather hunted. If they lived in eastern Washington it was isolated areas with dismal wildlife populations. People planted the elk in most Washington's east side. They simply were not here. Lewis and Clark ate dogs, horses, native supplied roots and fish once they topped the Rockies. They very nearly starved to death twice in the interior. Though wolf pelts were traded here, the source was not normally local.
Private production land nationally is held by family farms, about 97%. Large corporations, Monsanto, do not farm or graze, not enough money in it. Certainly, farms have grown and fewer families produce. You need to realize that the 80 acre family homestead is not going to support a $600,000 combine. Less than one half % produce more than 80% of the food, not much political clout there. If you enjoy large game populations keeping that one and one half percent that produce all of the food on the land is critical. Poor management decisions like protecting wolves taking private property is just another group of producers that leave production. We enjoy feeding all of you at the smallest cost for income on the planet. Keeping it that way is at risk and the wolf is just a very small example with huge individual consequences.
The section in bold...That historical fact poses a problem in the current political climate. Imported wolves eating imported elk...you know where that goes.
Yep, it turns elk into wolf chit while Unsworth and the rest of WDFW blame it on habitat, poachers, climate change and too many people.
Twenty years later when there are 20 elk left WDFW will come out with the statement that, it was wolves that caused the major decline in the elk herds and other ungulates and WDFW will begin the importation elk etc..
At least part of that is right. If the elk weren't in eastern WA to begin with then the argument that the habitat isn't well suited holds some water. Or so can be argued. They didn't exist for a reason.
I'm not sure anyone is going to bat an eye unless Roosevelts, which have always been in Washington, unlike eastern WA elk, start to go off a cliff.
There has been a canary in the coal mine for some time now, the pheasant. The state doesn't really do a lot to ensure their numbers are stable or growing these days. They have even cut back on pheasant release. Of course they have, they are non-natives. If elk in eastern WA were introduced then they can argue the same thing.
Obviously a similar argument can be made about at least some of the wolves here now, but it's difficult to support it if they have been crossing the border for years anyhow and when people see any return resulting from intro in other states as just reestablishing what was once here anyhow the argument has a hard time gaining traction.
Like I said, the history behind elk is not helpful in the current political climate.
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2015, 08:37:21 AM
Ya, ya, we've all heard the rubbish from certain biologists that predators have no impact, but the reality is those predators are not eating grasshoppers all year to survive. Studies done by other biologists have found that 1 cougar on average kills 25 to 50 deer per year. Studies done on wolves have found that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer on the average per year. Studies done on bear and coyotes have found that in some areas bear or coyotes have the highest predation rate on calf elk or fawn deer.
Washington has record numbers of cougar, a growing population of wolves, and huge numbers of bear and coyotes. All combined the predator impact is so high that mule deer in many areas will continue to decline even if all hunting was stopped. Currently in NE WA only buck deer 3 point or larger are hunted and darn few are taken. No doe and no fawns are hunted, yet the population continues to decline.
Those deer are not getting on a space ship and leaving earth, they are being turned into predator poo at an alarming rate. So back to my first comment, WDFW is going to experience the same decline in tag sales as other wolf states if they don't start managing predators like a wildlife agency instead of a predator protection agency. I like to support our agencies but I will oppose increases in license fees if it's obvious the increase is needed due to continued mismanagement of predators. Current cougar management is laughable at best.
Post by: AspenBud on June 03, 2015, 09:12:09 AM
Speaking of history, the history of WDFW is that they want more and more money as the years go by. They would be well advised to take a hard look at the loss of ungulates and hunting opportunity to excessive numbers of cougar/bear/wolves/coyotes. History in Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming tell us what the expanding wolf population will do if left unmanaged.
Ya, ya, we've all heard the rubbish from certain biologists that predators have no impact, but the reality is those predators are not eating grasshoppers all year to survive. Studies done by other biologists have found that 1 cougar on average kills 25 to 50 deer per year. Studies done on wolves have found that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer on the average per year. Studies done on bear and coyotes have found that in some areas bear or coyotes have the highest predation rate on calf elk or fawn deer.
Washington has record numbers of cougar, a growing population of wolves, and huge numbers of bear and coyotes. All combined the predator impact is so high that mule deer in many areas will continue to decline even if all hunting was stopped. Currently in NE WA only buck deer 3 point or larger are hunted and darn few are taken. No doe and no fawns are hunted, yet the population continues to decline.
Those deer are not getting on a space ship and leaving earth, they are being turned into predator poo at an alarming rate. So back to my first comment, WDFW is going to experience the same decline in tag sales as other wolf states if they don't start managing predators like a wildlife agency instead of a predator protection agency. I like to support our agencies but I will oppose increases in license fees if it's obvious the increase is needed due to continued mismanagement of predators. Current cougar management is laughable at best.
First, I agree with your overall point.
But the portion I bolded brings to mind something. At some point either cougars, bears, coyotes, or wolves are going to die because they have no more food to eat. There will be a re-balancing at some point. However, if many of these animals are simply going to out strip their food supply and die from starvation anyhow then it really only makes sense to manage their numbers, keep food for them and us abundant, and carry on. I'd really like to see that point made a lot more.
What's the difference if predators are kept in check with a bullet versus starvation? Dead is dead. Starvation implies a problem. It implies things got out of balance, how is that a good thing? That needs to be asked.
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2015, 09:53:10 AM
Speaking of history, the history of WDFW is that they want more and more money as the years go by. They would be well advised to take a hard look at the loss of ungulates and hunting opportunity to excessive numbers of cougar/bear/wolves/coyotes. History in Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming tell us what the expanding wolf population will do if left unmanaged.
Ya, ya, we've all heard the rubbish from certain biologists that predators have no impact, but the reality is those predators are not eating grasshoppers all year to survive. Studies done by other biologists have found that 1 cougar on average kills 25 to 50 deer per year. Studies done on wolves have found that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer on the average per year. Studies done on bear and coyotes have found that in some areas bear or coyotes have the highest predation rate on calf elk or fawn deer.
Washington has record numbers of cougar, a growing population of wolves, and huge numbers of bear and coyotes. All combined the predator impact is so high that mule deer in many areas will continue to decline even if all hunting was stopped. Currently in NE WA only buck deer 3 point or larger are hunted and darn few are taken. No doe and no fawns are hunted, yet the population continues to decline.
Those deer are not getting on a space ship and leaving earth, they are being turned into predator poo at an alarming rate. So back to my first comment, WDFW is going to experience the same decline in tag sales as other wolf states if they don't start managing predators like a wildlife agency instead of a predator protection agency. I like to support our agencies but I will oppose increases in license fees if it's obvious the increase is needed due to continued mismanagement of predators. Current cougar management is laughable at best.
First, I agree with your overall point.
But the portion I bolded brings to mind something. At some point either cougars, bears, coyotes, or wolves are going to die because they have no more food to eat. There will be a re-balancing at some point. However, if many of these animals are simply going to out strip their food supply and die from starvation anyhow then it really only makes sense to manage their numbers, keep food for them and us abundant, and carry on. I'd really like to see that point made a lot more.
What's the difference if predators are kept in check with a bullet versus starvation? Dead is dead. Starvation implies a problem. It implies things got out of balance, how is that a good thing? That needs to be asked.
I agree with most of what you said. The problem is that before things level out the predator's food supply (deer, elk, moose, wild sheep, livestock, pets) will have to tank before predators starve off and it all balances out. The compounded problem is that some of those species will suffer greater losses while other species will survive the higher predator numbers. I think the example of mule deer and whitetail in NE WA is a perfect example of that. Mule deer continue to decline while WT have slowly recovered from the winters of 07/08.
We pay F&G agencies to manage wildlife so all species are maintained in healthy numbers, so we don't have extreme population swings, so that wild animals do not impact ranchers and other residents, and so that hunters can harvest the excess abundance.
Post by: KFhunter on June 03, 2015, 10:24:08 AM
I watch a deer winter range pretty carefully and notice there's only a handful of mule deer this year and lot's of whitetail deer, the cats lacking more mule deer up higher in the range have moved down into the valley bottoms to get after the whitetail deer. Even after the green up the cats were still down low..not good.
Did some ATV scouting this spring checking on a small mule deer herd that's in a certain area every year and it's desolate, not a single hoof print to be found. Very strange to ride though an area checking for tracks and not see any sign of deer for several square miles, it weirds me out :o
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2015, 10:54:57 AM
excellent point about disproportionate depredation on certain species, mule deer are taking the brunt of the high cougar population but there is overlap with the wolves piling on top of the already too high cougar yearly take.
I watch a deer winter range pretty carefully and notice there's only a handful of mule deer this year and lot's of whitetail deer, the cats lacking more mule deer up higher in the range have moved down into the valley bottoms to get after the whitetail deer. Even after the green up the cats were still down low..not good.
Did some ATV scouting this spring checking on a small mule deer herd that's in a certain area every year and it's desolate, not a single hoof print to be found. Very strange to ride though an area checking for tracks and not see any sign of deer for several square miles, it weirds me out :o
:yeah: There used to be good mule deer hunting in the wedge as well as pother NE GMU's, the cougars are surviving by eating whitetail but continue to wipe out the mule deer every time they find one. Mule deer are in a true full blown predator pit in NE WA. It's not hunters impacting mule deer, hardly any mule deer are killed by hunters, only 3pt+ bucks are hunted. Yet cougars are eating fawns, does, and all bucks year around.
Post by: Special T on June 05, 2015, 11:30:43 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 11:53:49 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2015, 12:04:56 PM
Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.
WDFW could have open season with multiple takes on cougars and bears, or hunt them like coyotes until the numbers come down.
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 12:08:03 PM
Post by: mfswallace on June 05, 2015, 12:24:52 PM
Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.
Keep defending but still wrong :tup:
Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2015, 12:30:37 PM
"“Shall it be a gross misdemeanor to take, hunt, or attract black bears with bait, or to hunt bears, cougars, bobcat or lynx with dogs?"
Yes votes: 63%.
Post by: Special T on June 05, 2015, 03:04:25 PM
I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.
While this MIGHT be true we will never know. How? Because they have instituted quoats instead. Most of which are never met and were set almost arbitratily. This is one instance where the WDFW shows its true colors. Wolves are not really controlled in ID MT or even WY. Wolves are smart enough to stay away after getting shot at... At least during daylight. The WDFW COULD have allowed residents to shoot Wolves to protect property much sooner than they did.(Only doing so after much pressure) They COULD have increased the number of spring bear tags, and made cougar hunting nearly year round. (Because it so hard to foot hunt cougars)
When the WDFW games the numbers trying to protect bears and cougars yet we harvest LESS than before the ban how much sense does that make?
I judge the WDFW from thier actions and my disdane is fueled by the fact that the things they say do not line up with those actions.
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2015, 09:13:10 PM
I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.
I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.
Post by: bobcat on June 05, 2015, 09:17:23 PM
I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.
I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.
Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.
Post by: JLS on June 05, 2015, 09:38:49 PM
Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.
Keep defending but still wrong :tup:
Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!
By law they are not allowed to come out in opposition or support of a citizen's initiative, so your blame here is pointless.
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2015, 10:31:33 PM
I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.
I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.
Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.
Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.
Post by: mfswallace on June 05, 2015, 10:36:08 PM
Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.
Keep defending but still wrong :tup:
Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!
By law they are not allowed to come out in opposition or support of a citizen's initiative, so your blame here is pointless.
Ok, opposition isn't the correct word but, my blame is very pointed. WDFW could of and should of come out with information that would help educate the uneducated citizens as to what the true impact of there ignorance would be. They did not!
Post by: Humptulips on June 06, 2015, 12:37:40 AM
I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.
I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.
Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.
Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.
Dale,
Over 60% of the unit quotas are not met and the season runs until March 31st in those units.
What's more is most of the cougar killed are taken in a moment of opportunity by deer and elk hunters. With all the deer and elk seasons closed after the first of the year it would seem like the chances of much harvest in those first three months of the year would be slim.
If WDFW would embrace a longer season I still don't think it would substantially increase the harvest without additional methods being allowed. It would show they recognized the problem though.
Post by: wolfbait on June 06, 2015, 06:19:18 AM
I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.
I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.
Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.
Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.
Dale,
Over 60% of the unit quotas are not met and the season runs until March 31st in those units.
What's more is most of the cougar killed are taken in a moment of opportunity by deer and elk hunters. With all the deer and elk seasons closed after the first of the year it would seem like the chances of much harvest in those first three months of the year would be slim.
If WDFW would embrace a longer season I still don't think it would substantially increase the harvest without additional methods being allowed. It would show they recognized the problem though.
I think there would be quite the increase in harvest especially in communities where cougars are coming down into the lower valleys to kill deer etc.. A friend of mine has had three to five cougars in his barn the last three years, he could have shot every one of them if the season would have been open. People are seeing cougars closer to town more frequently as well as in the surrounding farmlands.
It isn't that WDFW couldn't manage cougars better, they just don't want to.
Post by: Special T on June 06, 2015, 06:33:47 AM
Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.
Keep defending but still wrong :tup:
Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!
By law they are not allowed to come out in opposition or support of a citizen's initiative, so your blame here is pointless.
While they cannot come out and say Yes or No on an initiate they could point out the impacts to the public. The WDFW is currently on a information campaign about the dangers of illegal shellfish sales and why the departments role is important... They COULD have pointed out the useful role hunters play in managing game but they chose to sit on thier hands instead.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 06, 2015, 06:48:49 AM
................................
Can't really blame it on the WDFW. The people of this state voted to ban the only effective method of managing cougar populations - hound hunting.
Keep defending but still wrong :tup:
Did Washington Department of Fish and Wolves come out in opposition of banning hound hunting while knowing the consequences of the ban, NO!! I blame the agency that is responsible for managing all wildlife responsibly for maximum benefit with science! What a joke that anyone defends them because they go with politic vs science!!
By law they are not allowed to come out in opposition or support of a citizen's initiative, so your blame here is pointless.
While they cannot come out and say Yes or No on an initiate they could point out the impacts to the public. The WDFW is currently on a information campaign about the dangers of illegal shellfish sales and why the departments role is important... They COULD have pointed out the useful role hunters play in managing game but they chose to sit on thier hands instead.
Post by: grundy53 on June 06, 2015, 07:40:54 AM
You'll never get an answer.It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
What is the reason then ??
Post by: grundy53 on June 06, 2015, 07:43:09 AM
Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card :twocents::chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2015, 05:27:41 PM
I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.
I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.
Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.
Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.
Dale,
Over 60% of the unit quotas are not met and the season runs until March 31st in those units.
What's more is most of the cougar killed are taken in a moment of opportunity by deer and elk hunters. With all the deer and elk seasons closed after the first of the year it would seem like the chances of much harvest in those first three months of the year would be slim.
If WDFW would embrace a longer season I still don't think it would substantially increase the harvest without additional methods being allowed. It would show they recognized the problem though.
We are in much different areas and sometimes it's easy for us to think how things are in our own areas without realizing things may be different in other areas. In NE WA we have so many cats the cougar quota gets shut down early almost every year. Without doubt if the season was longer in NE WA more cougar would be killed. We saw 10 cougar in the flesh last year while turkey, bear, and deer hunting, most were within 5 or 6 miles of Colville or Kettle Falls.
Admittedly it is probably much harder for hunters to harvest cougars in your area so I understand your reasoning, but cougars can be killed where I live by boot hunters or easily shot in peoples yards if we had liberal seasons. One of my guides has walked down three different cougars within 5 miles of Colville.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 06, 2015, 05:37:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2015, 05:41:42 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 06, 2015, 10:21:41 PM
Habitat.You'll never get an answer.It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
What is the reason then ??
It most certainly is not because south idaho and utah has more poachers and ranchers killing wolves than their colleagues in North idaho, central idaho, eastern wa, western montana, and Wyoming.
Post by: jasnt on June 06, 2015, 11:50:03 PM
You can get on a good track in the snow and walk them down here. :tup::yeah: we have lots of cougar and every year the season is closed early rarely does it even make it to mid January. Last year I did not get my cat. But it was not cause lack of cats or even lack of sightings. I simply made about every mistake at the worst times.
Post by: Romulus1297 on June 07, 2015, 12:08:47 AM
Time to stop doing that >:( >:(You can get on a good track in the snow and walk them down here. :tup::yeah: we have lots of cougar and every year the season is closed early rarely does it even make it to mid January. Last year I did not get my cat. But it was not cause lack of cats or even lack of sightings. I simply made about every mistake at the worst times.
Post by: jasnt on June 07, 2015, 12:32:38 AM
i agrea! Lessons learnedTime to stop doing that >:( >:(You can get on a good track in the snow and walk them down here. :tup::yeah: we have lots of cougar and every year the season is closed early rarely does it even make it to mid January. Last year I did not get my cat. But it was not cause lack of cats or even lack of sightings. I simply made about every mistake at the worst times.
Post by: mfswallace on June 07, 2015, 06:01:11 AM
Habitat.You'll never get an answer.It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
What is the reason then ??
It most certainly is not because south idaho and utah has more poachers and ranchers killing wolves than their colleagues in North idaho, central idaho, eastern wa, western montana, and Wyoming.
I bet no one saw that coming :chuckle:
Post by: jasnt on June 07, 2015, 08:43:08 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 07, 2015, 09:13:12 AM
Yea...common sense is not all that common :tup:Habitat.You'll never get an answer.It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
What is the reason then ??
It most certainly is not because south idaho and utah has more poachers and ranchers killing wolves than their colleagues in North idaho, central idaho, eastern wa, western montana, and Wyoming.
I bet no one saw that coming :chuckle:
Post by: grundy53 on June 07, 2015, 09:39:37 AM
What about the habitat keeps the wolves from moving in?Habitat.You'll never get an answer.It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled. As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests. If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great. We should. But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management. The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different.
To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.
I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:
Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.
Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.
Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.
In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.
Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted. :twocents:
What is the reason then ??
It most certainly is not because south idaho and utah has more poachers and ranchers killing wolves than their colleagues in North idaho, central idaho, eastern wa, western montana, and Wyoming.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 07, 2015, 09:46:55 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 07, 2015, 09:49:24 AM
You are kidding right? You think animals are just randomly distributed across the landscape?No I don't. You are the one that said habitat. I just wanted you to elaborate. So, could you answer the question?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 07, 2015, 09:53:53 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 07, 2015, 09:58:15 AM
You answered your own question...Animals are not randomly distributed across the landscape. They seek preferred habitat...deer, elk, wolves, whatever...they don't just spread out randomly.
They don't spread out randomly. However they do go where there is prey for them. I would say there is plenty of prey in Utah and southern Idaho. Mexican wolves survive in worse habitat. The open prairie used to have tons of wolves. I don't think your cop out works.
Post by: jasnt on June 07, 2015, 10:11:30 AM
:yeah: look at the wolf the went to the Grand Canyon? Wouldn't think that was suitable "habitat"You answered your own question...Animals are not randomly distributed across the landscape. They seek preferred habitat...deer, elk, wolves, whatever...they don't just spread out randomly.
They don't spread out randomly. However they do go where there is pray for them. I would say there is plenty of prey in Utah and southern Idaho. Mexican wolves survive in worse habitat. The open prairie used to have tons of wolves. I don't think your cop out works.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 07, 2015, 10:15:08 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 07, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
What cop out? 20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?You are using habitat as broad brush. There is plenty suitable habitat. Just because it doesn't have wolves doesn't mean it's not suitable. I think there are many factors that influence the spread of wolves. Not just one. Are ranchers and hunters a huge factor? Probably not but it doesn't mean they are not a factor. I would definitely say it isn't just "habitat".
Post by: idahohuntr on June 07, 2015, 10:33:34 AM
Post by: Humptulips on June 07, 2015, 11:40:58 AM
You're right in that we tend to look at the state from our little piece of it. We have a lot of cougar here but with the brush, when you see one it is for an instant. It would be near impossible to track one down even with snow. There is a wide gap between seeing one and getting a shot off. You may well be right on the east side. I don't see it making any difference on the west side.I don't think any amount of cougar hunting without the use of hounds would have any effect on the cougar population. But I do agree- there's no reason we can't have a much more liberal cougar hunting season.
I'm sorry but that isn't exactly true. WDFW has put very limited quotas on cougar and shuts the season down in many units on Dec 31 instead of letting hunters take more cougar like we should be doing.
Yes I know that, but how many cougars would really be killed without the use of hounds? A few more might be killed but is that really going to make a significant difference? That's all I was saying. If it were up to me the cougar season would be year 'round. Why not? Most guys are only going to kill one by chance while hunting something else.
Actually if the season ran until March 31 instead of only Dec 31, I think numerous additional cats would be taken. If that wasn't enough they could make the season longer. The point is that it's WDFW's choice to limit the cougar hunting in spite of record cougar numbers.
Dale,
Over 60% of the unit quotas are not met and the season runs until March 31st in those units.
What's more is most of the cougar killed are taken in a moment of opportunity by deer and elk hunters. With all the deer and elk seasons closed after the first of the year it would seem like the chances of much harvest in those first three months of the year would be slim.
If WDFW would embrace a longer season I still don't think it would substantially increase the harvest without additional methods being allowed. It would show they recognized the problem though.
We are in much different areas and sometimes it's easy for us to think how things are in our own areas without realizing things may be different in other areas. In NE WA we have so many cats the cougar quota gets shut down early almost every year. Without doubt if the season was longer in NE WA more cougar would be killed. We saw 10 cougar in the flesh last year while turkey, bear, and deer hunting, most were within 5 or 6 miles of Colville or Kettle Falls.
Admittedly it is probably much harder for hunters to harvest cougars in your area so I understand your reasoning, but cougars can be killed where I live by boot hunters or easily shot in peoples yards if we had liberal seasons. One of my guides has walked down three different cougars within 5 miles of Colville.
It would sure make you think WDFW understood the problem if they opened the season year round and unlimited tags. I really don't think they have a clue though on how many cougar are out there.
Back to wolves, I really wonder if there will ever be that many wolves here. Deer and elk numbers are really beat down. You add another predator into the mix and what will there be for them to eat. There aren't many livestock for them. ID and MT had a tremendous amount of game to fuel the wolves expansion. That is the main difference between them and us (W WA). You east siders may be arm pit deep n them before they are spread clear to the North Peninsula.
Post by: bearpaw on June 07, 2015, 12:23:58 PM
What cop out? 20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?
If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often. :twocents:
Utah has some of the most abundant elk and mule deer herds anywhere. As someone who has a fair amount of experience in the 3 areas you mention please let me remind you that we are talking about open country that is much easier to hunt and spot wolves than the thick forests of northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeast WA. There are sheep and cattle grazed on most of these areas and herders live with the sheep for 5 years at a time, ranchers check their cattle all the time too. When wolves move in it's not long until they are in the sheep and they get dealt with. I have talked to ranchers who have told me they killed wolves and I've heard rumors about other wolves that were killed. There was 1 wolf taken legally in southern Idaho last winter, I think 2 the year before. The illegal kills outnumber the legal kills in those areas. Total kills outnumber the wolves I believe currently live there by the number of tracks that I've seen in south Idaho, and Utah. I'm in those areas almost every day from mid-sept until Feb or March every year. I will say there are a lot more wolves in eastern Montana, I believe that is because there aren't as many people living there, so the wolf population is growing faster in eastern Montana and becoming more of a problem there. Wolves will live in open country where there is food, the arctic is a prime example, wolves follow the caribou and muskox herds. But most of southern Idaho and Utah I doubt wolves ever become as big a problem as other areas, the locals are probably not going to let that happen.
Post by: jasnt on June 07, 2015, 01:34:45 PM
That is exactly how I feel! It's getting to were I hear "habitat" and I just cringe. It seems to be the number 1 response when anyone doesn't want to accept the real problem like the wolves and woodland caribou and the elk in the Lolo zone. And yes it is sad because habitat is important and needs to not be a four letter word, it needs to be an important part of conservation. I don't understand how anyone could believe that an apex predator that works with such amazing team work and persistence could not make a huge difference in game populations. We are the stewards of this earth. If we want to continue to have hunt-able populations of deer, elk, moose, sheep, and predators as well then we need to manage all those game sp. for that purpose. Which costs $ paid for mostly by us who hunt them. Habitat is an important role in doing that but not #1 reason for any type of decline in game populations but it seems to be the go to answer these days even when it's clearly not the issue
Post by: idahohuntr on June 07, 2015, 04:59:30 PM
It is not poachers. Habitat just is not as suitable...doesn't mean they can't survive in those areas, but it is not preferred. It has nothing to do with any level of poaching going on. Obviously there are scumbag poachers wherever you go, but they are absolutely not even close to why there are far less wolves in some areas of s. Idaho. Because habitat is not as suitable I agree with you wolves won't ever be much of a factor in those areas...the only way you get a sizeable wolf population in those areas is if the wolf numbers increase exponentially higher than what they are now in areas of more suitable habitat causing them to spread into more marginal areas...but given the IDFG administration over the past 30 years including Unsworth and his replacement...that's not gonna happen any time soon.What cop out? 20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?
If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often. :twocents:
Utah has some of the most abundant elk and mule deer herds anywhere. As someone who has a fair amount of experience in the 3 areas you mention please let me remind you that we are talking about open country that is much easier to hunt and spot wolves than the thick forests of northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeast WA. There are sheep and cattle grazed on most of these areas and herders live with the sheep for 5 years at a time, ranchers check their cattle all the time too. When wolves move in it's not long until they are in the sheep and they get dealt with. I have talked to ranchers who have told me they killed wolves and I've heard rumors about other wolves that were killed. There was 1 wolf taken legally in southern Idaho last winter, I think 2 the year before. The illegal kills outnumber the legal kills in those areas. Total kills outnumber the wolves I believe currently live there by the number of tracks that I've seen in south Idaho, and Utah. I'm in those areas almost every day from mid-sept until Feb or March every year. I will say there are a lot more wolves in eastern Montana, I believe that is because there aren't as many people living there, so the wolf population is growing faster in eastern Montana and becoming more of a problem there. Wolves will live in open country where there is food, the arctic is a prime example, wolves follow the caribou and muskox herds. But most of southern Idaho and Utah I doubt wolves ever become as big a problem as other areas, the locals are probably not going to let that happen.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: mfswallace on June 07, 2015, 06:56:17 PM
It is not poachers. Habitat just is not as suitable...doesn't mean they can't survive in those areas, but it is not preferred. It has nothing to do with any level of poaching going on. Obviously there are scumbag poachers wherever you go, but they are absolutely not even close to why there are far less wolves in some areas of s. Idaho. Because habitat is not as suitable I agree with you wolves won't ever be much of a factor in those areas...the only way you get a sizeable wolf population in those areas is if the wolf numbers increase exponentially higher than what they are now in areas of more suitable habitat causing them to spread into more marginal areas...but given the IDFG administration over the past 30 years including Unsworth and his replacement...that's not gonna happen any time soon.What cop out? 20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?
If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often. :twocents:
Utah has some of the most abundant elk and mule deer herds anywhere. As someone who has a fair amount of experience in the 3 areas you mention please let me remind you that we are talking about open country that is much easier to hunt and spot wolves than the thick forests of northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeast WA. There are sheep and cattle grazed on most of these areas and herders live with the sheep for 5 years at a time, ranchers check their cattle all the time too. When wolves move in it's not long until they are in the sheep and they get dealt with. I have talked to ranchers who have told me they killed wolves and I've heard rumors about other wolves that were killed. There was 1 wolf taken legally in southern Idaho last winter, I think 2 the year before. The illegal kills outnumber the legal kills in those areas. Total kills outnumber the wolves I believe currently live there by the number of tracks that I've seen in south Idaho, and Utah. I'm in those areas almost every day from mid-sept until Feb or March every year. I will say there are a lot more wolves in eastern Montana, I believe that is because there aren't as many people living there, so the wolf population is growing faster in eastern Montana and becoming more of a problem there. Wolves will live in open country where there is food, the arctic is a prime example, wolves follow the caribou and muskox herds. But most of southern Idaho and Utah I doubt wolves ever become as big a problem as other areas, the locals are probably not going to let that happen.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
You don't even realize your hypocrisy do you :dunno:
The last 30 years have seen an explosion of wolves because of idfw and unsworthy
Post by: mountainman on June 07, 2015, 07:22:14 PM
:yeah:It is not poachers. Habitat just is not as suitable...doesn't mean they can't survive in those areas, but it is not preferred. It has nothing to do with any level of poaching going on. Obviously there are scumbag poachers wherever you go, but they are absolutely not even close to why there are far less wolves in some areas of s. Idaho. Because habitat is not as suitable I agree with you wolves won't ever be much of a factor in those areas...the only way you get a sizeable wolf population in those areas is if the wolf numbers increase exponentially higher than what they are now in areas of more suitable habitat causing them to spread into more marginal areas...but given the IDFG administration over the past 30 years including Unsworth and his replacement...that's not gonna happen any time soon.What cop out? 20 years after wolf introductions and they are nonexistent or at extremely low abundance in south idaho, utah, eastern montana...and it's not because of a lack of prey or extra poaching...gee...what could it be?
If you don't really know why try to act like you have the right answer by simply saying "habitat"? People see right through that worn out excuse that's used so often when bio's or managers don't have enough info or want to deny the real answers to a problem. Instead of crying "wolf" they cry "habitat" and that is exactly how more and more people are viewing that! It's too bad, because habitat is a very important consideration, but it is misconstrued far too often. :twocents:
Utah has some of the most abundant elk and mule deer herds anywhere. As someone who has a fair amount of experience in the 3 areas you mention please let me remind you that we are talking about open country that is much easier to hunt and spot wolves than the thick forests of northern Idaho, western Montana, and northeast WA. There are sheep and cattle grazed on most of these areas and herders live with the sheep for 5 years at a time, ranchers check their cattle all the time too. When wolves move in it's not long until they are in the sheep and they get dealt with. I have talked to ranchers who have told me they killed wolves and I've heard rumors about other wolves that were killed. There was 1 wolf taken legally in southern Idaho last winter, I think 2 the year before. The illegal kills outnumber the legal kills in those areas. Total kills outnumber the wolves I believe currently live there by the number of tracks that I've seen in south Idaho, and Utah. I'm in those areas almost every day from mid-sept until Feb or March every year. I will say there are a lot more wolves in eastern Montana, I believe that is because there aren't as many people living there, so the wolf population is growing faster in eastern Montana and becoming more of a problem there. Wolves will live in open country where there is food, the arctic is a prime example, wolves follow the caribou and muskox herds. But most of southern Idaho and Utah I doubt wolves ever become as big a problem as other areas, the locals are probably not going to let that happen.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
You don't even realize your hypocrisy do you :dunno:
The last 30 years have seen an explosion of wolves because of idfw and unsworthy
Post by: Gringo31 on June 09, 2015, 11:09:48 AM
Quote
It has nothing to do with any level of poaching going on.
So poaching can reduce deer and elk numbers but it doesn't have any effect of wolves.....
OR
Maybe it has an effect on wolves in other areas just not southern Idaho or Utah. :dunno:
Got it :tup: :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2015, 12:04:35 PM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: WAPatriot on June 09, 2015, 12:07:35 PM
Post by: WAPatriot on June 09, 2015, 12:11:19 PM
I refuse to call a rancher killing wolves that are killing his cows a poacher. We don't call a father that killed a rapist of his daughter a murderer but a hero. When the state and Feds sit on their hands and do nothing the rancher is forced to protect his property. A good number of livestock owners have been forced to become criminals according to the law. If the law becomes legal for a skum bag to rape your 5 year old daughter you will not abide by the law. Are you a murderer or a hero?
Yeah that
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2015, 05:24:06 AM
Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing? :chuckle:
Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? :chuckle:
Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.
Busted! Paid Government Shill Exposes The Whole Operation!
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2015, 07:23:08 AM
In the absence of facts to rebut my points you go back to your black helicopter stuff huh? I'm shocked :chuckle:Wolves are not all over Utah, Colorado and other southern states because of rancher mandated killing? :chuckle:
Wyoming "stuck to its guns" in classifying wolves as a predator so they can be shot on sight unlike Idaho and Montana which 'caved'? :chuckle:
Maybe there was something useful in the article, but I stopped reading after 2 paragraphs when it became clear that the author was clueless about wolves and wolf management in the West.
Busted! Paid Government Shill Exposes The Whole Operation!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on June 15, 2015, 10:01:06 AM
Quote
Poaching doesn't explain the difference in abundance between the areas being discussed. When there are few or no wolves present...it's difficult to poach them
Chicken or egg?