Post by: jmscon on May 27, 2016, 11:16:29 AM
I see a lot of people bashing wolves in this state, I get it. I'm not a big fan of Grizzlies, wolves, etc., things that can attack me and take away from hunting. And having ranchers loosing animals and having their hands tied is pretty frustrating! But back, before the white man came, there was a symbiotic relationship between the indigenous people and the indigenous animals. There were healthy herds of elk, deer, moose, goats, sheep, antelope, etc. and a big population of predators, wolves, coyotes, brown and black bears, cougars, people.
When the white man came in numbers we needed food, deer, elk and antelope were on the menu. Wolves, cougar and bears were seen as a threat and were hunted, in some cases, until extinction. At the turn of the twentieth century there were few elk, deer, sheep, goats and little to no antelope. Wolves and grizzlies were almost gone. The indigenous people were fewer in numbers too.
With the threat of having popular hunting game being gone the state started restricting hunting. Wolves and grizzlies were no longer a threat and coyotes and cougars were in check. The deer and elk populations grew and grew. And along with that came the diseases. The slow old and weak, what the predators usually target, were allowed to keep breeding. Hunters were not inclined to shoot a deer with hair loss "What the heck is wrong with that thing?! I don't want to touch it let alone eat it!".
Now a lot of the western states have the same problems, diseased game animals and low predator rates. Residents are up in arms (on both sides of the issue) about reintroduction or natural migration of these predators back into the ecosystem. These predators will target both the strong and weak animals but will have more success against the weak and diseased. Slowly but surely making the herds stronger.
I don't like the idea of having fewer animals, less tags, less area to hunt in or the damage to livestock that has and will occur. But I do like the thought of heathier herds! I can also think of a few guys that would be very happy if they could add a full wolf mount to their collection!
:stirthepot: :peep:
Post by: 2MANY on May 27, 2016, 11:20:12 AM
The white man came.
End of story.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 27, 2016, 11:22:17 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on May 27, 2016, 11:22:43 AM
Post by: h20hunter on May 27, 2016, 11:27:30 AM
Post by: mfswallace on May 27, 2016, 11:27:42 AM
This symbiotic relationship u speak of has no bearing in the Now, 300million humans who have created city's and homes throughout the landscape that once Was :twocents:
And not to derail what should be such a
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 27, 2016, 11:27:54 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 27, 2016, 11:29:19 AM
Post by: grundy53 on May 27, 2016, 11:42:34 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 27, 2016, 11:47:16 AM
Post by: jackelope on May 27, 2016, 11:50:49 AM
I'm impressed I was on board for moving this right away to off topics figuring it would blow up. Hopefully it stays civil, lots of eyes watching. :peep:
It's been 31 minutes.
I've been saving this one for a special occasion
Post by: Rainier10 on May 27, 2016, 11:55:38 AM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on May 27, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 27, 2016, 11:58:21 AM
Hell just turn the rich guys loose and let em "poach"!!! GrinAs long as they have good lawyers, it won't be poaching.
Post by: Special T on May 27, 2016, 12:00:05 PM
Post by: NRA4LIFE on May 27, 2016, 12:05:53 PM
T-minus 3 hours to some Cold Snacks.
Post by: Reidus on May 27, 2016, 12:14:32 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 27, 2016, 12:18:00 PM
Man has replaced the wolf, why do we need them?Once man and hunting seasons happened, the balance the wolf and other predators kept went the way of the dodo, and was taken over by man. Both apex predators trying to maintain their ways is no good.
Post by: luvmystang67 on May 27, 2016, 12:30:15 PM
If survival of the fittest is supported in nature by liberals (wolves make the prey stronger as a species), how can they turn around and preach support for drug dealers, criminals and lazy bums and not see the connection between the two.
I suppose they could say the same (but inverse) about the typical conservative.
Regardless, the biggest problem with your post is suggesting that you will EVER be able to shoot a wolf in this state (legally). Whether it is good or not, the best way for liberal Seattle to end hunting is to reduce opportunity, increase cost and therefore decrease overall support for the sport. They play the long game and its working. Kids now don't grow up hunting. Eventually their kids will vote for it to be illegal because killing game animals seems sparse. Introducing predators does rebalance the herds... when you use them as a replacement for hunters. The wolves will do nothing to help your hunting opportunity or quality of game animals. They'll run through all of the sick ones and then take out the healthy ones.
I watched a pack of wolves take down a BEAUTIFUL 6x6 in yellowstone. When a kid asked their subaru driving parent with swarovski spotting scope why the wolves did it, the mom said "well that one must have been sick". I said BS, they did it because they're hungry predators and they're out of food.
The thing is, with humans as the predators and developed brains, we can create programs to manage herds to preserve herds for future use. Other predators do not manage their resources that way. They grow in population until they wipe out the food source and then eventually fall into a natural balance. They do not have the mental capacity to manage. That being said... I often think ours are managed by idiots so I don't know if we're really better off.
I hope the wolves get sick and nature picks them off for us.
Post by: jmscon on May 27, 2016, 12:31:35 PM
Heathy as in less disease.
Thought this would be a good one for a long weekend! :chuckle:
Post by: timberfaller on May 27, 2016, 12:47:42 PM
YEP had "man" left them right where they were! NEVER was a need to relocate them, they were migrating just fine on their own accord!!!
Government is about WASTING tax dollars, even if they has to CREATE ways of doing it!!!
Post by: Kittman on May 27, 2016, 01:29:32 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on May 27, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
Post by: Reidus on May 27, 2016, 02:32:47 PM
Man introduces the disease and the wolves move in and thrive on the diseased animals.
Post by: MR5x5 on May 27, 2016, 03:37:51 PM
Post by: mfswallace on May 27, 2016, 03:43:33 PM
Post by: idaho guy on May 27, 2016, 04:22:32 PM
I always find it interesting.
If survival of the fittest is supported in nature by liberals (wolves make the prey stronger as a species), how can they turn around and preach support for drug dealers, criminals and lazy bums and not see the connection between the two.
I suppose they could say the same (but inverse) about the typical conservative.
Regardless, the biggest problem with your post is suggesting that you will EVER be able to shoot a wolf in this state (legally). Whether it is good or not, the best way for liberal Seattle to end hunting is to reduce opportunity, increase cost and therefore decrease overall support for the sport. They play the long game and its working. Kids now don't grow up hunting. Eventually their kids will vote for it to be illegal because killing game animals seems sparse. Introducing predators does rebalance the herds... when you use them as a replacement for hunters. The wolves will do nothing to help your hunting opportunity or quality of game animals. They'll run through all of the sick ones and then take out the healthy ones.
I watched a pack of wolves take down a BEAUTIFUL 6x6 in yellowstone. When a kid asked their subaru driving parent with swarovski spotting scope why the wolves did it, the mom said "well that one must have been sick". I said BS, they did it because they're hungry predators and they're out of food.
The thing is, with humans as the predators and developed brains, we can create programs to manage herds to preserve herds for future use. Other predators do not manage their resources that way. They grow in population until they wipe out the food source and then eventually fall into a natural balance. They do not have the mental capacity to manage. That being said... I often think ours are managed by idiots so I don't know if we're really better off.
I hope the wolves get sick and nature picks them off for us.
[/quotes well said Stang I was going to blow a gasket on this but have before and it does no good 15 plus years of wolves in Idaho have discredited all the they only kill the sick and weak not true we have found many a 6 point wolf kill and many not even eaten. Wolf reintroduction is simply a ploy to get rid of surplus game and then hunting I have a full body wolf mount and I hate it everytime I look at it it reminds me of how many elk they are killing
Post by: KFhunter on May 27, 2016, 04:41:44 PM
Otherwise the OP's post is so full of holes it's not really worthy of a reply so I suggest just reading up, there's some pretty good dialog and debate in the wolf forums going back 4+ years. It'll keep you occupied for a while.
Post by: jmscon on May 27, 2016, 08:22:18 PM
Pretty sure this was just a trolling tripNo fishing going on here, the Sound is closed!
It also sounds like they are trophy hunters too!
Post by: jmscon on May 27, 2016, 09:39:55 PM
The herds pre-settlement are not always described as being so bountiful. The lewis and clark journals talk about being near starvation for parts of their journey. The only animals they'd see for days were wolves and bears. They would have to eat their horses and leather.They also thought that salmon were poisonous! They thought the natives were trying to kill the Lewis and Clark party by feeding it to them! And if I was starving a wolf or a bear would be on my table!
If humans took over for wolves we haven't been targeting the same group, sick and old, we look for healthy and strong. What's the average life span of an elk, is a 6x6 considered over the hill or prime of its life?
Post by: HUNTaHOLIC5 on May 27, 2016, 09:47:33 PM
The belief that predators only kill sick and old is wrong. I've found a 360 bull in the prime of his life killed by a cougar and plenty of animals that were healthy. Predators kill what's available at the time.The herds pre-settlement are not always described as being so bountiful. The lewis and clark journals talk about being near starvation for parts of their journey. The only animals they'd see for days were wolves and bears. They would have to eat their horses and leather.They also thought that salmon were poisonous! They thought the natives were trying to kill the Lewis and Clark party by feeding it to them! And if I was starving a wolf or a bear would be on my table!
If humans took over for wolves we haven't been targeting the same group, sick and old, we look for healthy and strong. What's the average life span of an elk, is a 6x6 considered over the hill or prime of its life?
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2016, 09:52:26 PM
Post by: idaho guy on May 28, 2016, 02:44:28 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 28, 2016, 06:58:39 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2016, 07:10:34 PM
Jmscon wrote:"These predators will target both the strong and weak animals but will have more success against the weak and diseased. Slowly but surely making the herds stronger.
I don't like the idea of having fewer animals, less tags, less area to hunt in or the damage to livestock that has and will occur. But I do like the thought of heathier herds!"
When the wolves kill off the weak and diseased and only the healthy stock is left, what will the wolves then eat? Will the wolves figure out that there are only "healthy elk" left, and just take a few here and there to hold them over until calving time rolls around? :rolleyes:
Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2016, 07:18:36 PM
They'll clean up the hoof rot so I guess the OP is correct there.
Otherwise the OP's post is so full of holes it's not really worthy of a reply so I suggest just reading up, there's some pretty good dialog and debate in the wolf forums going back 4+ years. It'll keep you occupied for a while.
Don't run him off KF, he hasn't answered my question yet. :chuckle: This is just like the old days of not enough habitat, even though 1/2 of the ungulates have been slaughtered.
Post by: idaho guy on May 28, 2016, 07:32:37 PM
Wolves are good for antelope
[m. In what way of?from your posts you seem like a great guy that I agree with not sure what you mean on this one, joke i don't get?
Post by: idaho guy on May 28, 2016, 07:34:39 PM
Post by: idaho guy on May 28, 2016, 07:42:45 PM
The herds pre-settlement are not always described as being so bountiful. The lewis and clark journals talk about being near starvation for parts of their journey. The only animals they'd see for days were wolves and bears. They would have to eat their horses and leather.They also thought that salmon were poisonous! They thought the natives were trying to kill the Lewis and Clark party by feeding it to them! And if I was starving a wolf or a bear would be on my table!
If humans took over for wolves we haven't been targeting the same group, sick and old, we look for healthy and strong. What's the average life span of an elk, is a 6x6 considered over the hill or prime of its life?
6 point is in his prime I rarely kill such a bull so apparently I serve the purpose of wolves and normally only kill the sick and weak I never realized I was improving the herd good on me!
Post by: KFhunter on May 28, 2016, 07:49:07 PM
No joke, speed goats do well in wolf country. Wolves don't run down speed goats nor do they spread out and specifically hunt for fawns the way coyotes do.Wolves are good for antelope
[m. In what way of?from your posts you seem like a great guy that I agree with not sure what you mean on this one, joke i don't get?
http://www.wyofile.com/yellowstone-pronghorn-find-sanctuary-in-the-shadow-of-the-wolf/
Post by: idaho guy on May 28, 2016, 08:00:03 PM
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on May 28, 2016, 08:54:02 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 28, 2016, 09:01:08 PM
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on May 28, 2016, 09:06:53 PM
But in the way back past, when the game declined the wolves declined because no alternate food source. So back in the settlement days, game declined and wolves came and ate the livestock. Then humans were to be faced with the food shortage. So they killed the wolves. Now we've got a whole lot more people.Legal to kill them in defense of livestock is it not. I also hope you guys over there will be able to hunt them someday but I know it's an uphill battle in Washington
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: carpsniperg2 on May 28, 2016, 09:13:54 PM
Post by: Movemonger on May 28, 2016, 09:24:53 PM
Most diseases are from livestock and domesticated wild animals.
Man introduces the disease and the wolves move in and thrive on the diseased animals.
What? Really?
Post by: buglebrush on May 28, 2016, 09:36:33 PM
Wolves are a very very bad thing. Come live among them for several years before you run your mouth and make yourself look stupid...
Post by: jmscon on May 28, 2016, 11:05:21 PM
There are a lot of conspiracy theorists who think that the liberals don't want people hunting any more. Fact is more people are accepting the harvest of wild game as a good alternative to factory farms. Free range organic is what people want more and more of. My hunting partner and I joke that to buy the quality of meat that you can get from killing your own elk in the wild would cost $50 a pound in the stores in Seattle! Not that high a price but anyway.
People say that it will take away from their hunting opportunities, I don't want that either! But I'm the type of person who is willing to have hunting shut down in the burn areas for a couple of years so that the animals can have a chance to recover before we start hunting them again. Or shut down salmon fishing for a five year spawning cycle to let the salmon have a chance to recover, instead of pumping hatchery salmon into the streams just to say, "We have salmon there, lets fish!"
I keep hearing of diseases in deer, elk and moose. Some people say its livestock, some think it's the natural progression of things. How many would shoot a deer that is balding? Not me! Take the black death for example, bigger and bigger populations of people living in more and more concentrated areas (cities), living in squalor. Plague broke out and killed millions of people. Should we just let the diseases run their course and let the herds thin that way, maybe.
Do I think that WDFW is doing a good job? Absolutely not! They care more about run-ins with moose than have you seen a wolf! They need to listen to the ranchers, hunters and others who see them and document how many there actually are and keep the numbers in check. Respond when people have problem with wolves, not turn a blind eye.
I originally posted about natural selection because it is a theory, whether it could work...? The way things are now everything, as far as ecosystems go, has been influenced by man so much that we are constantly having to rewrite the book on how to manage the planet. One thing works and then it doesn't; One thing never works; Another stumbles along and then takes off.
So after you have all gotten done calling me names, I'm here to learn and talk about it. So if you're will to talk about it instead of yelling at me, my ears are open.
And the Bullwinkle thread was getting pretty stinking boring so I thought I might spice it up a little. :chuckle: :sry:
Post by: bearpaw on May 28, 2016, 11:19:27 PM
Post by: Reidus on May 28, 2016, 11:45:30 PM
But in the way back past, when the game declined the wolves declined because no alternate food source. So back in the settlement days, game declined and wolves came and ate the livestock. Then humans were to be faced with the food shortage. So they killed the wolves. Now we've got a whole lot more people.
A whole lot more stupid people!
Post by: Buckhunter82 on May 29, 2016, 12:19:33 AM
Post by: buglebrush on May 29, 2016, 07:40:13 AM
You really need to read up a bit. Go back in the wolf topics, you will find more info than you can imagine regarding wolves. :twocents:
Exactly.
Post by: grundy53 on May 29, 2016, 07:51:40 AM
Ok, I know this is a hot topic. I know wolves are killers. All I see is wolf bashing but not a lot of explaining why. (fade to Dana Carvey as George H. W. Bush) Bad, their bad, protecting them... wouldn't be prudent!The diseases you speak of aren't the result of over population.
There are a lot of conspiracy theorists who think that the liberals don't want people hunting any more. Fact is more people are accepting the harvest of wild game as a good alternative to factory farms. Free range organic is what people want more and more of. My hunting partner and I joke that to buy the quality of meat that you can get from killing your own elk in the wild would cost $50 a pound in the stores in Seattle! Not that high a price but anyway.
People say that it will take away from their hunting opportunities, I don't want that either! But I'm the type of person who is willing to have hunting shut down in the burn areas for a couple of years so that the animals can have a chance to recover before we start hunting them again. Or shut down salmon fishing for a five year spawning cycle to let the salmon have a chance to recover, instead of pumping hatchery salmon into the streams just to say, "We have salmon there, lets fish!"
I keep hearing of diseases in deer, elk and moose. Some people say its livestock, some think it's the natural progression of things. How many would shoot a deer that is balding? Not me! Take the black death for example, bigger and bigger populations of people living in more and more concentrated areas (cities), living in squalor. Plague broke out and killed millions of people. Should we just let the diseases run their course and let the herds thin that way, maybe.
Do I think that WDFW is doing a good job? Absolutely not! They care more about run-ins with moose than have you seen a wolf! They need to listen to the ranchers, hunters and others who see them and document how many there actually are and keep the numbers in check. Respond when people have problem with wolves, not turn a blind eye.
I originally posted about natural selection because it is a theory, whether it could work...? The way things are now everything, as far as ecosystems go, has been influenced by man so much that we are constantly having to rewrite the book on how to manage the planet. One thing works and then it doesn't; One thing never works; Another stumbles along and then takes off.
So after you have all gotten done calling me names, I'm here to learn and talk about it. So if you're will to talk about it instead of yelling at me, my ears are open.
And the Bullwinkle thread was getting pretty stinking boring so I thought I might spice it up a little. :chuckle: :sry:
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: idaho guy on May 29, 2016, 05:55:50 PM
Man I could have a ton of fun around camp with that mount. I have a cousin that wont walk outside at night without a flash light. He walked around the corner of his camper and saw that he would be cleaning his shorts :chuckle:
[/quote :tup:ha ha
Post by: Gringo31 on May 29, 2016, 06:40:53 PM
Waste of time.
My favorite so far is that the west is somehow short on predators.
Post by: idaho guy on May 29, 2016, 06:59:21 PM
You really need to read up a bit. Go back in the wolf topics, you will find more info than you can imagine regarding wolves. :twocents:
Exactly.
:yeah:this doesn't need to be discussed anymore it has truly been beat to death if you really want answers read prior threads if you are stirring the pot why?
Post by: jmscon on May 29, 2016, 11:02:52 PM
Gringo-
I'm going to take MT as a example:
I took this from HistoryNet: Between 1883 and 1927 Montana paid bounties on a staggering 111,545 wolves and 886,367 coyotes. Subsidizing both ranchers and wolfers, the state paid bounties on 23,575 wolves in 1899 alone. Under such pressure wolf populations declined so dramatically that in 1920 Montana paid bounties on only 17 gray wolves.
Compared to that the wolf numbers are low, under 550 minimum in 2015 (MFW&P). MT does keep track of Coyote numbers so I can't compare those. 2004 MT Grizzlies numbers in the Great Divide ecosystem were over 700 (MFW&P).
Post by: Gringo31 on May 30, 2016, 08:27:58 AM
False.
True, many states in the west have low populations of wolves and grizzly bears.
It's the same BS as they try to say from Yellowstone. We created a problem to fix something that wasn't broke. IF it needed tweaked, we had the ability to fix it. Creating this massive problem isn't the answer and defending it is foolish IMO.
Post by: grundy53 on May 30, 2016, 08:41:52 AM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: ihunt on May 30, 2016, 09:06:21 AM
Post by: huntnphool on May 30, 2016, 09:49:01 AM
But in the way back past, when the game declined the wolves declined because no alternate food source. So back in the settlement days, game declined and wolves came and ate the livestock. Then humans were to be faced with the food shortage. So they killed the wolves. Now we've got a whole lot more people.I also hope you guys over there will be able to hunt them someday but I know it's an uphill battle in Washington
I don't! :bdid:
Post by: mfswallace on May 30, 2016, 08:00:23 PM
Started reading last night, made it through about the bottom third of page 38 of posts. Most post were SSS, When wolf tags go for sale in MT I'm there! and things like that. There were a couple of members asking the same questions as myself. I'll keep reading!
Gringo-
I'm going to take MT as a example:
I took this from HistoryNet: Between 1883 and 1927 Montana paid bounties on a staggering 111,545 wolves and 886,367 coyotes. Subsidizing both ranchers and wolfers, the state paid bounties on 23,575 wolves in 1899 alone. Under such pressure wolf populations declined so dramatically that in 1920 Montana paid bounties on only 17 gray wolves.
Compared to that the wolf numbers are low, under 550 minimum in 2015 (MFW&P). MT does keep track of Coyote numbers so I can't compare those. 2004 MT Grizzlies numbers in the Great Divide ecosystem were over 700 (MFW&P).
there were 20,000 people in montana in 1880 and 548,889 by 1927.... quit being naive
Post by: jmscon on May 30, 2016, 09:53:35 PM
I'm still reading but dang that wolfbait is long winded!
Post by: jmscon on May 30, 2016, 11:29:16 PM
Dang I love hunting these critters. As I am sure you are aware with your close DOW connections, the lion populations have been greatly reduced in most areas of the west, including Idaho and E. Washington and for verying reasons. For some time Idaho F&G has offered extra lion and bear tags in central Idaho to reduce those populations. There is more lion and bear hunting occuring than ever before in Idaho and harvest data has indicated reduced populations in most areas.
I can't verify where he got his info. So that leaves yotes? I hear them all the time and see them all the time but I don't have any numbers on them. So I might have been mistaken on that statement. Not sure but I don't think the smaller cats affect deer, elk or moose very much.
And yes I live in a big city with a bunch of people who are not familiar with what is happening in the rest of the state. But I have a lot of roots in eastern WA. My grandpa was born in SE Idaho. He started hunting for da it's as a kid by throwing rocks at them (very poor)! He went on to be a very avid hunter of deer, elk, moose, wild boar, and (I was very lucky to inherit) a nice billy. My grandma was born and raised in ferry county and we still have a piece of property in the family. By the time I was at an age to even think about hunting my grandpa was pushing 80 and very sick. My dad and his side of the family were fisherman and, although my dad liked getting out into the woods, was not an avid hunter.
I finally, at the age of 25, went through hunter ed and started hunting. By myself.
I started this thread partly for some entertainment because I knew it would raise some eyebrows and ruffle some feathers but also to learn. Wolves are not a big topic of conversation where I live.
Yes, I made a statement. I don't live in the woods and I don't get out in the woods as much as I want to so I don't see the trends. The last time I was in ferry county was a couple of weeks ago and saw white tail, moose and got pics of yotes. I am nervous about bringing my kids over, when they get a little older, because of the growing wolf populations in the area! But I do feel that a well managed native wolf population might be beneficial. The well managed part I don't see happening.
The smart *** comments I can take all day.
And mfswallace, your signature is from one of the funniest movies I've ever seen!
Post by: bearpaw on May 31, 2016, 12:56:56 AM
Another thing to know is that since wolves are on the landscape we can't have as many cougar and bear or you have too much overall predator impact. One cougar or one wolf has about the same impact, so if we get 1000 wolves in WA which is where we are headed then there needs to be 1000 fewer cougar or we will see reductions in the ungulate herds due to all the large carnivores simply trying to survive.
Idaho has done an excellent job at reducing large predator numbers in several areas where elk and deer were declining and now herds are growing again. There are still some units with too many predators preventing much herd growth but Idaho is gaining each year since they have been allowed to hunt wolves.
The biggest impact I see in NE WA is a decline in localized moose populations. There are several moose units that moose numbers are dropping and are getting tough to hunt. Just like in the other states, the moose herds were hurt first by wolves.
As far as your kids personal safety, there are numerous wolf packs in Ferry County, more than WDFW has confirmed. Additionally there are many more cougar which are potentially more dangerous since there are more of them. It is my advice while in Ferry County that you keep your kids in the yard and do not let them wander widely if they are small. It's dangerous for small children since predators are more frightened by larger humans and more often see small children as an easy meal. There have been numerous cougar attacks on children in NE WA through recent years, the odds are low overall, but if one of your kids pull the unlucky number it may not be good. I also know numerous adult people who have been followed and even one adult who was attacked by wolves in NE WA, that was documented by WDFW. More and more people are packing a gun when they go walking, it's just smart!
Post by: csaaphill on May 31, 2016, 01:02:25 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on May 31, 2016, 09:15:41 AM
Quote
But I do feel that a well managed native wolf population might be beneficial
What is the risk?
At what cost?
What if you are wrong?
How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? What happens if it's not well managed?
Sit back and watch because we are seeing exactly that.
Post by: jmscon on May 31, 2016, 10:12:52 PM
I've gotten tooth paste back in the tube but it takes a lot of time and patients.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 01, 2016, 07:20:52 AM
Quote
Yes, there are a lot of what ifs!!!
I've gotten tooth paste back in the tube but it takes a lot of time and patients.
These are the things to be considered AHEAD OF TIME.
To think they are beneficial.....key word "think", and as a fall back, rely on your experience putting toothpaste back in a tube, sounds like WDFW would love to hire you :chuckle: :sry: couldn't help myself
Post by: idahohuntr on June 01, 2016, 08:45:03 AM
The loudest voices in the room on wolf topics screech over each other - one clamoring that wolves are an evil force that will kill you, your children, all the ungulates in the state and by god if we don't open season tomorrow there will be no hunting in 2 years. This screeching is supported by nut jobs and tinfoil hat theories that require you to stop all logical thought process and reasoning. The other side screeches that man has no place on earth, the wolves are cuddly and would never intentionally harm another critter, and really we can just all get along but if we can't then humans should suffer because it would be a tragedy to every intentionally harm a wolf.
As usual in controversial topics the extremists on both sides are very wrong, and the truth rests somewhere in the middle. Wolves can, and need to be managed, ungulate populations are not static and change for many intertwined and complex reasons, including predation effects. Wolves will never be the end of hunting...in fact a far cry from the real dangers to hunting as we know it in the west - loss of public land access/ownership and habitat.
Post by: Kittman on June 01, 2016, 08:49:01 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2016, 09:38:39 AM
Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 01, 2016, 09:50:26 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 01, 2016, 12:20:04 PM
:chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2016, 12:31:26 PM
Post by: Curly on June 01, 2016, 01:01:04 PM
Maybe it could be argued that wolf numbers that existed here in the early 90's could be okay for the state, but the numbers we have now.........there is no way you can make the case that it is a good thing. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2016, 01:03:07 PM
:chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 01, 2016, 01:26:15 PM
And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on June 01, 2016, 08:52:58 PM
Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.Preach it. It's funny how the sentiments we hear on wolves now in Washington are the same that were coming out of Idaho back around the time I moved here. A little management goes a long way and now you hardly hear anybody but the most die hard, anti wolf idahoans ever even bring up the wolves. The fact is they are here but with proper management of all species comes balance and I hope you guys can achieve that once again in Washington.
The loudest voices in the room on wolf topics screech over each other - one clamoring that wolves are an evil force that will kill you, your children, all the ungulates in the state and by god if we don't open season tomorrow there will be no hunting in 2 years. This screeching is supported by nut jobs and tinfoil hat theories that require you to stop all logical thought process and reasoning. The other side screeches that man has no place on earth, the wolves are cuddly and would never intentionally harm another critter, and really we can just all get along but if we can't then humans should suffer because it would be a tragedy to every intentionally harm a wolf.
As usual in controversial topics the extremists on both sides are very wrong, and the truth rests somewhere in the middle. Wolves can, and need to be managed, ungulate populations are not static and change for many intertwined and complex reasons, including predation effects. Wolves will never be the end of hunting...in fact a far cry from the real dangers to hunting as we know it in the west - loss of public land access/ownership and habitat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: mfswallace on June 01, 2016, 09:53:45 PM
And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
Post by: idahohuntr on June 01, 2016, 10:03:39 PM
Where has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
Post by: MountainWalk on June 01, 2016, 10:12:05 PM
Post by: mfswallace on June 01, 2016, 10:39:57 PM
Where has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....
Slowly but surely it has been happening
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2016, 11:58:33 PM
Where has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....
Slowly but surely it has been happening
Ah, but that's the genius behind his liberal assertion. Hunting has not "ended" per se, even though wolves have clearly been the determining factor behind quota and season declines.
There will always be "hunting", which will allow liberals like Idahohunter to claim "theoretical" victory. However, the rest of us know the truth of the matter, wolves have and will continue to have a huge impact on ungulate numbers and the corelating hunting seasons. :twocents:
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on June 02, 2016, 02:56:53 AM
Yea because st. Joes and lolo herd declines had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the forests have been overgrown now for 2 decades. Old growth timber is not real great elk habitatWhere has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....
Slowly but surely it has been happening
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2016, 03:43:27 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 02, 2016, 05:43:15 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2016, 06:07:15 AM
Where has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....
Slowly but surely it has been happening
Ah, but that's the genius behind his liberal assertion. Hunting has not "ended" per se, even though wolves have clearly been the determining factor behind quota and season declines.
There will always be "hunting", which will allow liberals like Idahohunter to claim "theoretical" victory. However, the rest of us know the truth of the matter, wolves have and will continue to have a huge impact on ungulate numbers and the corelating hunting seasons. :twocents:
I'm not a liberal and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that wolves will not end hunting and that many factors influence game populations. Often wolves get all the blame for any decrease and the impacts they do have are frequently exxaggerated...it's pure political bs. It's why you're resorting to name calling without discussing any factual information...you are behaving no differently than the bunny huggers who are frightened of fact based discussion and prefer to play to peoples emotions.
Predation AND habitat issues have contributed significantly to Lolo herd declines. However, you can still buy otc any bull tags for a month long season. So statements that hunting has ended are absurd, even if harvest is much lower than historic highs and you are limited to bulls only. It's not just a 'theoretical' hunt ...certainly not for all the hunters who killed a bull in that zone last year.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 02, 2016, 06:23:56 AM
Post by: mfswallace on June 02, 2016, 06:48:46 AM
IDFG has said in press releases wolf predation was determining factors in closures before.... same with Minnesota and Alaska but by all means keep denying facts and fall back on that habit loss argument :bash:
Post by: DaveMonti on June 02, 2016, 06:58:59 AM
If someone presents a position which is different than another individual's belief, the presenting person is a liberal, tree hugging anti-hunter who is secretly on this board trying to convince others to believe it's necessary to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Did I miss anything?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 02, 2016, 08:51:37 AM
Old growth is pretty decent/good for elk. What is not usually great for nearly any species other than bugs is the timber between about 15 years to right before old growth. My understanding anyways.Yea because st. Joes and lolo herd declines had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the forests have been overgrown now for 2 decades. Old growth timber is not real great elk habitatWhere has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....
Slowly but surely it has been happening
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 02, 2016, 08:57:52 AM
Post by: mfswallace on June 02, 2016, 09:02:38 AM
I think I figured out how this board works:
If someone presents a position which is different than another individual's belief, the presenting person is a liberal, tree hugging anti-hunter who is secretly on this board trying to convince others to believe it's necessary to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Did I miss anything?
Don't forget about the guys who just like to :stirthepot: :bash:
Post by: Kittman on June 02, 2016, 09:09:49 AM
Post by: mfswallace on June 02, 2016, 09:13:12 AM
FACT: More wolves equals less opportunity for hunters. In many cases significantly less opportunity. In the case of the YNP elk herd it meant closing all the late hunts for elk that used to migrate out of the park before 80% were consumed by wolves!
Another closing of hunting opportunities that idahos will deny or blame on something else or just stick with its not "totally" ended hunting :bash:
Post by: buglebrush on June 02, 2016, 09:27:15 AM
Too many city boys making assumptions regarding country boy concerns.
:chuckle: This is hilarious, and actually quite true. You sure don't find the wolf apologists around here. :sry:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2016, 09:30:31 AM
It is absurd to suggest that wolves will "end hunting" in any state or region. That is entirely inconsistent with the data on elk harvest in recent years in western states that have wolves.
Hunters are being played a pawn in many instances to fear this notion that wolves are the "end of hunting"...probably in hopes they will blindly lobby for other interests.
Supporting wolf management and wolf hunting is not incompatible with calling bs on the gross exaggeration that wolves are the "end of hunting".
Post by: Kittman on June 02, 2016, 10:56:55 AM
If the wolf management policy was adhered to we should have seen them already delisted, and open up our 20xx hunting game regulations pamphlet and see a season for hunting wolves. But we know that is not going to happen...the management strategy currently in play is all about managing the people first and to a lesser extent...the wolves.
I do not support the Wolf management policies that currently exist.
Post by: buglebrush on June 02, 2016, 01:22:12 PM
It is entirely reasonable and supportable to say that wolves have contributed, in some cases significantly, to reduced hunting opportunity and harvest in specific and discrete areas across some western states. Usually in the most extreme cases of reduced hunting opportunity there were multiple other factors which also contributed to declines - predominantly habitat loss or degradation and climatic factors (severe winters).
It is absurd to suggest that wolves will "end hunting" in any state or region. That is entirely inconsistent with the data on elk harvest in recent years in western states that have wolves.
Hunters are being played a pawn in many instances to fear this notion that wolves are the "end of hunting"...probably in hopes they will blindly lobby for other interests.
Supporting wolf management and wolf hunting is not incompatible with calling bs on the gross exaggeration that wolves are the "end of hunting".
Read "Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. I believe we will look back one day when most/all elk hunting is special draw only, and realize wolves were the "tipping point" for our ungulate populations. The area I hunt in Idaho has greatly reduced opportunity, and even fish and game credit Wolves as a major factor.
I'm not sure why I am even discussing this with you. I've seen your comments on pretty much every wolf thread, and it is obvious you have made up your mind on the matter. Sadly I believe history will bear me out that you can have only one of two. A poorly managed/protected wolf population or OTC elk hunting. As Washington has shown absolutely no ability to manage predators effectively we are heading for disaster, so yes wolves are NOT a good thing.
Post by: Special T on June 02, 2016, 01:52:09 PM
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on June 02, 2016, 04:10:27 PM
The old growth forests suddenly sprouted up in 5 years and killed the elk, that's rich.The old growth was already there and the herds were already declining, I'm not saying wolves had nothing to do with it. Adding wolves to the situation was like throwing fuel on the fire, it greatly increased the rate of decline. Since we have had wolf hunting here in Idaho the herds have increased in almost every zone, with the herds in the lolo, st joe, and Selway zones not recovering as quickly due to overgrown and poorly managed habitat. In order to have a thriving elk population you have to manage both predators and habitat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on June 02, 2016, 04:21:46 PM
Old growth is good bedding and security habitat, but the canopy tends to block out the sunlight needed to grow nutrient rich food plants for the elk. You need a healthy mixture of age ranges of forest to provide the good security/bedding cover and more open new growth be it by logging or fire for feeding areasOld growth is pretty decent/good for elk. What is not usually great for nearly any species other than bugs is the timber between about 15 years to right before old growth. My understanding anyways.Yea because st. Joes and lolo herd declines had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the forests have been overgrown now for 2 decades. Old growth timber is not real great elk habitatWhere has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....
Slowly but surely it has been happening
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2016, 05:51:50 PM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: buglebrush on June 02, 2016, 08:56:14 PM
Well stated Andrew.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I agree, but that doesn't negate the impact of wolves. You act like the RAPID decline in elk populations had more to do with the GRADUAL changes in habitat than over predation. Funny how areas where wolf numbers are reduced see a corresponding increase in ungulates. Nobody is saying habitat doesn't matter, but i guarantee you wolves are killing way more elk a lot faster than any gradual habitat change.
The title of this thread is "wolves, a good thing" The answer is unequivocally NO!!!! Why don't you simply grow a pair and admit you think the answer is yes?
Post by: DaveMonti on June 02, 2016, 10:05:56 PM
I think I figured out how this board works:
If someone presents a position which is different than another individual's belief, the presenting person is a liberal, tree hugging anti-hunter who is secretly on this board trying to convince others to believe it's necessary to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Did I miss anything?
Don't forget about the guys who just like to :stirthepot: :bash:
I forgot that they are also Lying City Folk.
Is there anything else "different" about folks with differing opinions? Intentionally unemployed criminal welfare recipient? Mentally unstable? Anything else?
Really, a "city boy" vs. "country boy" thing? Really???
Post by: KFhunter on June 03, 2016, 12:58:01 AM
My favorite hunting areas took a big hit and I've seen numerous cattle carcasses
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 03, 2016, 02:55:10 AM
Old growth is good bedding and security habitat, but the canopy tends to block out the sunlight needed to grow nutrient rich food plants for the elk. You need a healthy mixture of age ranges of forest to provide the good security/bedding cover and more open new growth be it by logging or fire for feeding areas
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree :tup:
It's one thing to read about it, another thing to see a small glimpse of it 1 or 2 weeks a year and another thing to see it every day and something else entirely to see it effecting your livelihood.
My favorite hunting areas took a big hit and I've seen numerous cattle carcasses
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Also agree, I know too many businesses, outfitters, motels, even restaurant owners who have went bankrupt due to wolves decreasing game herds! :bash:
Well stated Andrew.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I agree, but that doesn't negate the impact of wolves. You act like the RAPID decline in elk populations had more to do with the GRADUAL changes in habitat than over predation. Funny how areas where wolf numbers are reduced see a corresponding increase in ungulates. Nobody is saying habitat doesn't matter, but i guarantee you wolves are killing way more elk a lot faster than any gradual habitat change.
The title of this thread is "wolves, a good thing" The answer is unequivocally NO!!!! Why don't you simply grow a pair and admit you think the answer is yes?
Exactly, to put it in perspective I just purchased another outfitting business last year in an area that had decades of history of all weapon seasons having either sex elk hunting, one of the top elk units in Idaho, but wolves over populated and elk in the area suffered great losses in just a few years, IDFG had to eliminate all cow elk opportunity to offset herd reductions mostly due to wolf predation, since the locals started killing wolves, and this is a very concerted effort by the locals, the elk are really coming back even though no changes have occurred with forest management. The game changer was the increase of wolf numbers and the decrease of wolf numbers. I expect cow elk hunting to be allowed again as wolf numbers decrease and elk numbers increase.
For anyone to deny the impacts of wolves given the data that has been documented by F&G agencies simply shows one or a combination of reasons, an unfortunate lack of knowledge, a wolf advocate, or someone simply looking to stir the pot. :twocents:
Post by: Kittman on June 03, 2016, 07:45:11 AM
I think I figured out how this board works:
If someone presents a position which is different than another individual's belief, the presenting person is a liberal, tree hugging anti-hunter who is secretly on this board trying to convince others to believe it's necessary to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Did I miss anything?
Don't forget about the guys who just like to :stirthepot: :bash:
I forgot that they are also Lying City Folk.
Is there anything else "different" about folks with differing opinions? Intentionally unemployed criminal welfare recipient? Mentally unstable? Anything else?
Really, a "city boy" vs. "country boy" thing? Really???
It seems that if the stirring the pot thing comes from someone with a differing opinion than yours that strikes a big nerve and is somehow off limits? This can work both ways. I am coloring the kettle black and stand behind my statement. :chuckle:
I am interested in hearing how anyone who wants the wolves in WA, managed as they are currently, to share how one deals with canine depredation issues, and the experience gained, and also a share one's own real life personal example or two in how wolves have made things better for you personally in a positive way.
A city boy's perspective with his own experience would especially be welcome!
Post by: ribka on June 03, 2016, 08:45:08 AM
I used to return home to WI to bowhunt the past 25 years. I stopped going 5 years ago because I saw very few deer. In fact the last few years I saw more wolves from my treestand than deer. All my hunting buddies, who have been putting up trail camscam the past 15 years, have recorded more wolves in cams than deer
The deer harvest in WI is down about 40 per cent since the reintroduction of wolves if you look at WI dDNR stats
Many WI outfitters have been out out of business just like in Mt Id.WY
Old growth has nothing to do with decline
I rarely grouse hunt in WI anymore because of wolves trying to come and take dogs
So so much for your weak justification for more wolves
So lesser hunting opportunities for sportsmen and we should celebrate this?
Where has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....
Slowly but surely it has been happening
Ah, but that's the genius behind his liberal assertion. Hunting has not "ended" per se, even though wolves have clearly been the determining factor behind quota and season declines.
There will always be "hunting", which will allow liberals like Idahohunter to claim "theoretical" victory. However, the rest of us know the truth of the matter, wolves have and will continue to have a huge impact on ungulate numbers and the corelating hunting seasons. :twocents:
I'm not a liberal and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that wolves will not end hunting and that many factors influence game populations. Often wolves get all the blame for any decrease and the impacts they do have are frequently exxaggerated...it's pure political bs. It's why you're resorting to name calling without discussing any factual information...you are behaving no differently than the bunny huggers who are frightened of fact based discussion and prefer to play to peoples emotions.
Predation AND habitat issues have contributed significantly to Lolo herd declines. However, you can still buy otc any bull tags for a month long season. So statements that hunting has ended are absurd, even if harvest is much lower than historic highs and you are limited to bulls only. It's not just a 'theoretical' hunt ...certainly not for all the hunters who killed a bull in that zone last year.
[/quote]
Post by: huntnphool on June 03, 2016, 10:23:30 AM
Where has hunting ended as a result of wolves?And you've thoroughly supported my opening line in this thread: "Wolves and wolf management are largely symbolic of broader social and political issues in the rural west- which is why there is so much misinformation on both sides.":chuckle: No, I learnt that all on my own.Wolves will never be the end of hunting...
That is a left wing political twist Idaho!
Does our $850,000, Houston resident, wolf consultant Francine Madden teach you these things in those closed door meetings?
Likely just be a inherit liberal trait then. :chuckle:
That misinformation could be the falsehood that wolves will end hunting or the falsehood that wolves have no effect on ungulate populations. One side will denigrate the liberal leftist wolf huggers, and one side will denigrate the right wing extremists. The screeching will continue, I'm quite certain of that :chuckle:
Keep spreading the misinformation! Wolves have already ended or severely limited hunting in different regions/areas which you absolutely can't deny as fact!
There have been a number of closures for cow hunting throughout Idaho over the last 5 years... St Joe's, Lolo...
Moose hunting has been suspended in areas of Minnesota and Alaska in the last 5 years at different times....
Slowly but surely it has been happening
Ah, but that's the genius behind his liberal assertion. Hunting has not "ended" per se, even though wolves have clearly been the determining factor behind quota and season declines.
There will always be "hunting", which will allow liberals like Idahohunter to claim "theoretical" victory. However, the rest of us know the truth of the matter, wolves have and will continue to have a huge impact on ungulate numbers and the corelating hunting seasons. :twocents:
I'm not a liberal and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that wolves will not end hunting
That's just a another political play on words Idaho, nice try though.
Post by: jmscon on June 03, 2016, 10:48:12 AM
I think this needs to be talked about continuously since things change year to year. I think we all need to keep an open mind on this and be willing to look at this from other angles. My view might not be the right one but yours might be either.
What I keep reading over and over again is that, since the wolves are here whether we are ok with it or not, we need them to be managed responsibly.
I'm sure that a lot of people on here have already done this but we might need to do it on a regular basis. Write an email on the state and federal level to your rep. I'm going to start writing this weekend! Tell them how long you've been hunting; How much you spend each year on tags, gas, lodging, supplies, outfitters, etc. (they like numbers); What trends in wildlife you are seeing; If it's affecting your livelihood or it's on the line; How many days a year you spend scouting and hunting and how far you drive to do so; How many generations hunting has been in your family and how much you want to hand that down to your children and or grandchildren.
Don't mouth off, be civil!! More than likely your email will just get dumped if you do! Don't give a bunch of hearsay or links to websites. Facts and your person feelings on the subject.
Email monthly, quarterly at most! Squeaky wheel gets the grease!
I might be preaching to the choir but...
Post by: idahohuntr on June 03, 2016, 10:53:00 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 03, 2016, 11:02:28 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 03, 2016, 12:23:25 PM
:chuckle: Ok phool - I give up. You are right. I was just being evasive with my language. Hillary Clinton hired me to try and trick you into believing wolves are really nice animals that we should all hug every chance we get. I have failed her, and am now forced to admit that for all practical purposes wolves HAVE ENDED Hunting in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and most of Eastern Washington. All you guys should just stick west of the Cascades - and not apply for, or hunt any of the areas above...because if you do - you are just falling for the liberal propaganda I failed to promote effectively. ;)
I figured as much.
You are easy to figure out, purposely vague, and never directly addressing the questions posed at you because it would clearly shed light on which side of the wolf issue you are really on.
If you would like to clear your stance up for everyone and set the record strait, how about explaining your definition of "end hunting"? :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 03, 2016, 12:46:12 PM
What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates. While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.
Lets stop the exaggerated bs. Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should. Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.
Post by: ribka on June 03, 2016, 12:50:56 PM
Problem is that arrogant and self important urban dwellers have no interest in the damage wolves have on game populations and the majority of people in urban areas like King and Pierce Counties control the politics and want to end all hunting and Ban firearms.
Look at web sites of our two senators and Gov and then convince me they are pro Hunter and pro firearms
I spent enough time in Seattle to understand their mindset
Quote from: jmscon
link=topic=196122.msg2604622#msg2604622 date=1464976092
link=topic=196122.msg2604622#msg2604622 date=1464976092
We can call each other names until cows fly but that wont help anything!
I think this needs to be talked about continuously since things change year to year. I think we all need to keep an open mind on this and be willing to look at this from other angles. My view might not be the right one but yours might be either.
What I keep reading over and over again is that, since the wolves are here whether we are ok with it or not, we need them to be managed responsibly.
I'm sure that a lot of people on here have already done this but we might need to do it on a regular basis. Write an email on the state and federal level to your rep. I'm going to start writing this weekend! Tell them how long you've been hunting; How much you spend each year on tags, gas, lodging, supplies, outfitters, etc. (they like numbers); What trends in wildlife you are seeing; If it's affecting your livelihood or it's on the line; How many days a year you spend scouting and hunting and how far you drive to do so; How many generations hunting has been in your family and how much you want to hand that down to your children and or grandchildren.
Don't mouth off, be civil!! More than likely your email will just get dumped if you do! Don't give a bunch of hearsay or links to websites. Facts and your person feelings on the subject.
Email monthly, quarterly at most! Squeaky wheel gets the grease!
I might be preaching to the choir but...
Post by: ribka on June 03, 2016, 01:03:38 PM
Same stuff from him when caught putting out false and misleading info
Less game , less opportunities for sportsmen is a good thing in his mind
It's like a religion to him and despite centuries of proof that wolves tend to decimate game populations he still insists they are wonderful creatures that benefit hunters
Like a broken record,,
:chuckle: Ok phool - I give up. You are right. I was just being evasive with my language. Hillary Clinton hired me to try and trick you into believing wolves are really nice animals that we should all hug every chance we get. I have failed her, and am now forced to admit that for all practical purposes wolves HAVE ENDED Hunting in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and most of Eastern Washington. All you guys should just stick west of the Cascades - and not apply for, or hunt any of the areas above...because if you do - you are just falling for the liberal propaganda I failed to promote effectively. ;)
I figured as much.
You are easy to figure out, purposely vague, and never directly addressing the questions posed at you because it would clearly shed light on which side of the wolf issue you are really on.
If you would like to clear your stance up for everyone and set the record strait, how about explaining your definition of "end hunting"? :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 03, 2016, 01:06:47 PM
My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future. Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.But lower game numbers means lower allowable harvest, then fewer successful hunters, so more people leave hunting which increases the non-hunting voter numbers.
What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates. While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.
Lets stop the exaggerated bs. Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should. Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.
Post by: ribka on June 03, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future. Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.
What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates. While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.
Lets stop the exaggerated bs. Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should. Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.
Post by: huntnphool on June 03, 2016, 01:15:09 PM
My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future. Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.
What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates. While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.
Lets stop the exaggerated bs. Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should. Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.
Perfect, so I don't believe there is anybody on this site that truly believes wolves will "end hunting" :dunno: , however there is no doubt that wolves will result in shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions, reduced harvest numbers and reduce success rates.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 03, 2016, 01:22:43 PM
:tup:My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future. Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.
What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates. While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.
Lets stop the exaggerated bs. Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should. Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.
Perfect, so I don't believe there is anybody on this site that truly believes wolves will "end hunting" :dunno: , however there is no doubt that wolves will result in shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions, reduced harvest numbers and reduce success rates.
Post by: Curly on June 03, 2016, 01:25:24 PM
I don't see how anyone can claim that wolves in this state are a "good thing"? We all should be aware that management of wolves in this state will basically be/is non-existent.
Post by: huntnphool on June 03, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
And, won't most on here agree that wolves are then a bad thing?
I don't see how anyone can claim that wolves in this state are a "good thing"? We all should be aware that management of wolves in this state will basically be/is non-existent.
They are being managed, SSS!
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 03, 2016, 04:00:03 PM
And, won't most on here agree that wolves are then a bad thing?
I don't see how anyone can claim that wolves in this state are a "good thing"? We all should be aware that management of wolves in this state will basically be/is non-existent.
They are being managed, SSS!
I get it, breaking the law is cool if it's not a 400" bull or a 190" buck... Wow
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 03, 2016, 04:10:01 PM
A forty per cent reduction in opportunities for hunters is now " reasonable"? And sportsmen should just shut up?Anyone who thinks a 40% reduction in hunting is acceptable really believes that hunting's not that important. What's the difference between 40% and 50%? Really, what's the difference between 40% or 80%. Most of us who've grown up hunting, do hunting-related activities year round, teach hunter's safety, save large sums of money for tags and trips and use our vacations, wish to someday take out grandkids hunting, don't find 40% acceptable because it isn't. It's 40 today, 80 tomorrow, and done with hunting completely in a very short period of time.My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future. Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.
What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates. While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.
Lets stop the exaggerated bs. Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should. Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.
There will be a chain of events that starts with this 40%. Then a large number of hunters will lose confidence in the WDFW and stop hunting here altogether. Revenues from hunter dollars will fall drastically so the budget for the WDFW will begin to shift to the general fund more and more. As the general fund amount increases and hunter $s decrease, the emphasis on the WDFW's commitment to hunting will decrease and for the wolf watchers, will increase. This is a concerted effort to eliminate hunting and it will eventually succeed in WA.
Post by: Kittman on June 03, 2016, 04:58:07 PM
Wolf management in this state? Now thats wishful thinking.
When Capitalists can't sell you something, they will work hard to improve it. When a Socialist can't sell you something they create a law and force you to buy it anyway!
Clearly road kill is the only method of state wolf management which is already in progress.
Post by: KFhunter on June 03, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
My definition of "End Hunting": There is no longer any reasonable hunting opportunity available and this condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future. Game populations are so sparse that probability of harvest is nearly 0; the state has closed all seasons or no longer sells tags.
What is not "End Hunting": Shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions (like stopping antlerless harvest), reduced harvest numbers from historic highs, reduced success rates. While these are not desirable, they are a far cry from End Hunting.
Lets stop the exaggerated bs. Just because the tree huggers do it doesn't mean we should. Lets keep our credibility with the 80% of non-hunting voters in this country.
Perfect, so I don't believe there is anybody on this site that truly believes wolves will "end hunting" :dunno: , however there is no doubt that wolves will result in shorter seasons, additional harvest restrictions, reduced harvest numbers and reduce success rates.
Wolves could help bring an end to hunting if the already abysmal success rates drop lower, new hunter recruitment will drop even lower, hunters' small voice will grow quiet. Hunting could very will be killed by voters and decrease opportunity.
Hopefully we'll add hunting rights to the states constitution to help combat this.
Post by: WAPatriot on June 03, 2016, 06:45:42 PM
Post by: ribka on June 03, 2016, 06:52:20 PM
Can wolves be managed by hunting? Absolutely not
Can wolves be managed by Ariel shooting? No again
Can wolves be successfully managed by trapping and poisoning? Yes
Are these two methods allowed to manage wolves in most states, no these methods are outlawed by clueless urban voters
So can wolves be successfully managed in WA and OR if numbers increase? Nope
Will sportsmen be adversely impacted? Without a doubt
If one is lucky enough in the future to draw a deer or elk tag everyb8 to 10 years then hunting still exists and we should be grateful we can still hunt
I understand your logic now
Post by: huntnphool on June 03, 2016, 09:33:18 PM
And, won't most on here agree that wolves are then a bad thing?
I don't see how anyone can claim that wolves in this state are a "good thing"? We all should be aware that management of wolves in this state will basically be/is non-existent.
They are being managed, SSS!
I get it, breaking the law is cool if it's not a 400" bull or a 190" buck... Wow
I didn't say I condoned it did I, I simply stated they are being managed..........have another drink.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 03, 2016, 10:50:10 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 03, 2016, 11:07:22 PM
You feverishly run your yap about other poaching
Ah, you've finally admitted the truth of Tods hunting exploits, Makers all around indeed! :brew:
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 03, 2016, 11:32:02 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 03, 2016, 11:33:19 PM
Like always you've got lots of other threads to give your 2 cents on, congrats??
:brew:
Post by: kiticaashunter on June 04, 2016, 07:18:51 AM
I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
Post by: JLS on June 04, 2016, 08:50:36 AM
I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
I see you and 257 have now categorized yourself as liberals. DaveMonti can help you with any questions.
Post by: Kazekurt on June 04, 2016, 08:53:02 AM
I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
Be careful when you try to make comparisons between two different types of laws as you are not necessarily always comparing apples to apples. There have been blatantly wrong laws put on the books in this country. Historically, There has been laws making it legal to kill people of certain religious groups, ethnicities, etc and it is often peaceful protest and civil disobedience that gets these laws changed. The wolf issue is very complex, especially for those in the livestock industry. I believe people have a constitutional right to defend their property And that this supersedes certain regulations . If I were a rancher, and my means of feeding my family was routinely being affected By predators I would probably practice sss and would not feel like a "poacher" for doing so. There have been cases where courts in places like California have blocked people in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming from having the right to do this and personally, I do not feel that people are necessarily obligated to follow corrupt Laws and rulings that are clearly influenced by activist agendas of people who have no skin in the game and not necessarily the will of the people. There are certainly also segments of the population That feel certain predators if left unmanaged adversely affect other species and threaten Their family traditions and means of substanance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for outright anarchy but things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and comparing this issue to the Bullwinkle debacle is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 09:41:42 AM
I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
Be careful when you try to make comparisons between two different types of laws as you are not necessarily always comparing apples to apples. There have been blatantly wrong laws put on the books in this country. Historically, There has been laws making it legal to kill people of certain religious groups, ethnicities, etc and it is often peaceful protest and civil disobedience that gets these laws changed. The wolf issue is very complex, especially for those in the livestock industry. I believe people have a constitutional right to defend their property And that this supersedes certain regulations . If I were a rancher, and my means of feeding my family was routinely being affected By predators I would probably practice sss and would not feel like a "poacher" for doing so. There have been cases where courts in places like California have blocked people in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming from having the right to do this and personally, I do not feel that people are necessarily obligated to follow corrupt Laws and rulings that are clearly influenced by activist agendas of people who have no skin in the game and not necessarily the will of the people. There are certainly also segments of the population That feel certain predators if left unmanaged adversely affect other species and threaten Their family traditions and means of substanance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for outright anarchy but things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and comparing this issue to the Bullwinkle debacle is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Just pointing out the double standard...
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 09:42:46 AM
I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
I see you and 257 have now categorized yourself as liberals. DaveMonti can help you with any questions.
Haha I'm crying!! Been called allota things, but never a liberal!! Lmfao
Post by: buglebrush on June 04, 2016, 10:02:35 AM
I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
Be careful when you try to make comparisons between two different types of laws as you are not necessarily always comparing apples to apples. There have been blatantly wrong laws put on the books in this country. Historically, There has been laws making it legal to kill people of certain religious groups, ethnicities, etc and it is often peaceful protest and civil disobedience that gets these laws changed. The wolf issue is very complex, especially for those in the livestock industry. I believe people have a constitutional right to defend their property And that this supersedes certain regulations . If I were a rancher, and my means of feeding my family was routinely being affected By predators I would probably practice sss and would not feel like a "poacher" for doing so. There have been cases where courts in places like California have blocked people in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming from having the right to do this and personally, I do not feel that people are necessarily obligated to follow corrupt Laws and rulings that are clearly influenced by activist agendas of people who have no skin in the game and not necessarily the will of the people. There are certainly also segments of the population That feel certain predators if left unmanaged adversely affect other species and threaten Their family traditions and means of substanance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for outright anarchy but things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and comparing this issue to the Bullwinkle debacle is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Just pointing out the double standard...
Not a double standard IMO. Sometimes the right thing to do and the legal thing to do are at odds. Not wanting to totally thread jack here, but what if you were in Nazi Germany and were ordered to exterminate the jews and others? From the attitude of many on here I am fearful they would've responded with "Heil Hitler". Everyone must make up their own mind about what to do when the law is clearly in the wrong. That is why your example of 400" bull and 190" buck are not applicable, and supporting SSS on illegally introduced wolves but standing against poaching is not necessarily a double standard. :twocents:
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 10:08:24 AM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 10:10:32 AM
Post by: DaveMonti on June 04, 2016, 10:21:54 AM
I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
I've been labeled as the dreaded liberal, huh? Based on what? My commentary of the interactions of people on this forum? I've not stated anything about wolves, policy, or what I favor. Perfect example, if you state something that others disagree on, whether it be the subject matter of the post, or anything that makes another feel uncomfortable, you are labeled as an evil, 2A hating liberal. Nice job in supporting my argument. You have absolutely nothing on my views on politics, hunting, wildlife, or anything. You only have comments about what is said on this post, and being that you don't like it, you label me as directly opposite of you. Keep it up, build your case! Everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you is a flaming anti liberal!
I see you and 257 have now categorized yourself as liberals. DaveMonti can help you with any questions.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 04, 2016, 10:26:05 AM
I think you were labeled by a liberal in this case.I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
I've been labeled as the dreaded liberal, huh? Based on what? My commentary of the interactions of people on this forum? I've not stated anything about wolves, policy, or what I favor. Perfect example, if you state something that others disagree on, whether it be the subject matter of the post, or anything that makes another feel uncomfortable, you are labeled as an evil, 2A hating liberal. Nice job in supporting my argument. You have absolutely nothing on my views on politics, hunting, wildlife, or anything. You only have comments about what is said on this post, and being that you don't like it, you label me as directly opposite of you. Keep it up, build your case! Everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you is a flaming anti liberal!
I see you and 257 have now categorized yourself as liberals. DaveMonti can help you with any questions.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 10:30:20 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 04, 2016, 10:36:10 AM
lol, he obviously doesn't know you. If we could only be honest on this forum with everything!I wish I had some makers!! You feverishly run your yap about other poaching, yet when it comes to sss and wolf management , you come across like "it's alright"... You're doing great ol wise one...
You nailed it. He continues to pop off about things he has no clue about, then more than implies he supportd this kind of outright poaching. Doesn't suprise me in the least with this type of person.
I see you and 257 have now categorized yourself as liberals. DaveMonti can help you with any questions.
Haha I'm crying!! Been called allota things, but never a liberal!! Lmfao
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 04, 2016, 10:40:12 AM
Just sitting here thinking, I got sent a pic the other day of a giant hound killed bear here in Lewis county, I mean a dandy!! It's on the up and up, timber comp depredation permit. State law prohibits the use of hound hunting for big game , buuuuuut, wdfw has given timber company's PERMISSION to hunt bear with dogs. Is this so much different than the riechert case???? Oh it is, cause one is a 400" bull and the other is a predator ... Flame on boys...The timber companies have an exception written into the actual law. Is there an RCW that gives the elk hunter exception to violate that law? I don't think there's any argument that the law was broken for the elk case (unless it was being tried on intent/conspiracy), the punishment phase is where the consideration of getting bad permission from WDFW would come in. The WDFW employee could end up worse than the hunter.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 10:40:53 AM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 10:42:22 AM
Just sitting here thinking, I got sent a pic the other day of a giant hound killed bear here in Lewis county, I mean a dandy!! It's on the up and up, timber comp depredation permit. State law prohibits the use of hound hunting for big game , buuuuuut, wdfw has given timber company's PERMISSION to hunt bear with dogs. Is this so much different than the riechert case???? Oh it is, cause one is a 400" bull and the other is a predator ... Flame on boys...The timber companies have an exception written into the actual law. Is there an RCW that gives the elk hunter exception to violate that law? I don't think there's any argument that the law was broken for the elk case (unless it was being tried on intent/conspiracy), the punishment phase is where the consideration of getting bad permission from WDFW would come in. The WDFW employee could end up worse than the hunter.
Which is straight bs!!
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on June 04, 2016, 10:47:00 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 04, 2016, 10:55:38 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 04, 2016, 11:00:48 AM
Just the way the law got written. For a while the dept was even selling permits to run cats in a few areas due to some of the wording. I think that ended five years ago.
There were cougar permits issued because the legislature passed a 5 year pilot cougar program due to so many cougar complaints in the state. When the 5 years was over the program was dropped by the legislature. WDFW made attempts to get the legislature to pass the program again but the attempts failed.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2016, 01:04:56 PM
http://canadafreepress.com/article/do-you-realize-now-what-you-have-done
Post by: DaveMonti on June 08, 2016, 09:45:52 PM
Post by: jmscon on June 08, 2016, 09:58:11 PM
I haven't been able to find any info on estimated predator numbers for most of the western states except for wolves, griz and humans.
Still doing my homework.
Post by: DaveMonti on June 08, 2016, 10:07:55 PM
Post by: jmscon on June 08, 2016, 10:10:29 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2016, 09:17:51 AM
Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?
http://canadafreepress.com/article/do-you-realize-now-what-you-have-done
Some of us realized what was coming long before it was done. Those extolling the virtue of returning wolves to the ecosystem are living in a Disney dreamland of denial and anthropomorphism. It's either that or they found and pursued the tool to destroy our hunting heritage, or both.
Post by: konradcountry on June 16, 2016, 07:02:33 PM
1. The wolves don't know they are part of game management. They eat more calves than adults and we don't know if those calves would have become record bulls. They can't be instructed to "do the right thing" and only target injured or weak adults. It's a myth that they always work in the best interest of the herd.
2. Not enough people hunt wolves, and for those that do the success rate isn't very high. It seems to be a similar problem that we have with bears and coyotes in Washington. Even if it is legal that doesn't mean we can depend on hunting to keep the numbers down and state-sponsored hunts will bring out rabid environmentalists. You could argue that the state can always lower the license cost but why hasn't our state done that for black bear? They clearly aren't trying to maximize elk and deer survival rates by controlling current predators. The last thing we want is to add more predators to the mix.
Post by: Bango skank on June 19, 2016, 04:18:12 AM
2. Not enough people hunt wolves, and for those that do the success rate isn't very high. It seems to be a similar problem that we have with bears and coyotes in Washington. Even if it is legal that doesn't mean we can depend on hunting to keep the numbers down and state-sponsored hunts will bring out rabid environmentalists. You could argue that the state can always lower the license cost but why hasn't our state done that for black bear? They clearly aren't trying to maximize elk and deer survival rates by controlling current predators. The last thing we want is to add more predators to the mix.
Wa wont even give us a 2 bear limit on the east side. Not only would it help check the population a little, it would increase their revenue. Id buy a second bear tag.