Post by: fisheral87 on April 02, 2009, 09:51:25 AM
Also, the chance of maintaining the wolf population as a game animal seems like a great hunting opportunity.
What are your opinions?
Post by: boneaddict on April 02, 2009, 09:54:57 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 02, 2009, 10:03:53 AM
Post by: whacker1 on April 02, 2009, 10:04:04 AM
Why wolves may not focus on bulls - they definitely focus on calves, yearlings, and pregnant cows. This is detrimental to the herd, because it makes calf mortality is far to high. The same herd gets smaller and smaller each year. Hunting opportunities are limited over time by game department, because herd size goes down. Hunting success goes down, because there are less animals and the same amount of hunters.
Idaho has proposed shortening their elk season for 2009 in attempt to make the success rate go down for hunters. They feel if the hunters have less success that will leave more animals remaining, and hopefully winterkill and wolves will have less of an impact. I don't believe that this will work. I believe it to be a stall mode to see if some wolf tags being filled willed stabilize the deer and elk populations. I think they know that the wolves are a larger problem than the winterkill in the long run.
This is all opinion - I am not a wildlife bio
Post by: Intruder on April 02, 2009, 10:08:44 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 02, 2009, 10:19:58 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 02, 2009, 10:24:50 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 02, 2009, 10:27:07 AM
Post by: fisheral87 on April 02, 2009, 10:31:13 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 02, 2009, 10:33:21 AM
Post by: 7mag. on April 02, 2009, 10:54:43 AM
Post by: matlockmike on April 02, 2009, 11:18:10 AM
I'm not worried that they will take out a big bull, I'm don't like the fact that they will kill a future bull or it's mother.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 02, 2009, 11:31:10 AM
If I had my way we would feed :tree1: to the wolves. I would then film it for pay per view. :mor:
Post by: jackelope on April 02, 2009, 11:39:15 AM
Quote
What are your opinions?
my opinion is that i am very happy to see yet another wolf thread. the 43 other ones in the last 2 weeks were not quite enough for the viewing audience.
you asked for opinions.
:)
Post by: fisheral87 on April 02, 2009, 11:40:00 AM
Post by: Machias on April 02, 2009, 11:42:41 AM
The topic of wolves came up in the RMEF thread that I started. There were mixed feelings on the RMEF's policy on wolves. In my opinion, the closer the ecosystem is to the natural mix of critters the healthier the herd animals will be. While the wolves/lions are capable of taking down big bulls, I feel like for the most part they are not the target of most packs. These predators are instinctively looking for weakness in animals they hunt, not for the biggest bull in the herd.
Also, the chance of maintaining the wolf population as a game animal seems like a great hunting opportunity.
What are your opinions?
My opinion? You watch too much Animal Planet. It's complete nonsense that they only target the weak and sick. Also once they bring a herd into "perfect" balance, there is no longer a need for us to harvest the "surplus". If it is in balance then there is no "surplus" or very little "surplus". We have been advocating for decades one of the main benefits of hunters is to harvest the "surplus". Now once they allow the harvest of this currently unchecked major predator, then yes there can be harvest of surplus animals from both prey and predator. :twocents:
Post by: fisheral87 on April 02, 2009, 11:47:05 AM
Post by: Machias on April 02, 2009, 11:52:02 AM
I'll choose my words a little more carefully next time I suppose...
:) Don't change on my account, I was just busting your chops! :) Lots of Hunters have been fed the same lies all of our lives, heck for the longest time I thought that was the truth as well. It's what we've been told by well intentioned folks in the beginning, now when they tell us I think it is all agenda driven.....by both sides sometimes. I don't think they are as bad as some would have us believe and I don't think they are as good as other would have us believe. What I do know is they have to be managed, not allowed to expand unchecked, bad for everyone and everything involved, even the wolves eventually.
Post by: fisheral87 on April 02, 2009, 11:52:49 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 02, 2009, 11:57:21 AM
The topic of wolves came up in the RMEF thread that I started. There were mixed feelings on the RMEF's policy on wolves. In my opinion, the closer the ecosystem is to the natural mix of critters the healthier the herd animals will be. While the wolves/lions are capable of taking down big bulls, I feel like for the most part they are not the target of most packs. These predators are instinctively looking for weakness in animals they hunt, not for the biggest bull in the herd.
Also, the chance of maintaining the wolf population as a game animal seems like a great hunting opportunity.
What are your opinions?
My opinion? You watch too much Animal Planet. It's complete nonsense that they only target the weak and sick. Also once they bring a herd into "perfect" balance, there is no longer a need for us to harvest the "surplus". If it is in balance then there is no "surplus" or very little "surplus". We have been advocating for decades one of the main benefits of hunters is to harvest the "surplus". Now once they allow the harvest of this currently unchecked major predator, then yes there can be harvest of surplus animals from both prey and predator. :twocents:
:yeah:
This is exactly right. If these willfully stupid do gooders who want a "NATURAL BALACE" simply do not understand that their goal is to end human hunting. (Or, more to the point most know exactly what they are doing.)
edited to say I am not directing that statement at you fisheral87...
Post by: boneaddict on April 02, 2009, 12:04:36 PM
Post by: Elkpiss on April 02, 2009, 12:42:53 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
There is a reason that wolves were hunted to near extinction in the lower 48. It is because they are bad news.
Ok then...what was the reason people killed nearly all the elk, deer, turkeys, lions, bobcats, lynx, otter, caribou, passenger pigeons, bison, mink..... they must have been bad news as well.
Post by: whacker1 on April 02, 2009, 01:46:21 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/apr/02/delisting-of-wolves-will-face-legal-fight/
Post by: boneaddict on April 02, 2009, 01:49:14 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2009, 02:00:41 PM
Post by: 7mag. on April 02, 2009, 03:45:19 PM
There is a reason that wolves were hunted to near extinction in the lower 48. It is because they are bad news.
Ok then...what was the reason people killed nearly all the elk, deer, turkeys, lions, bobcats, lynx, otter, caribou, passenger pigeons, bison, mink..... they must have been bad news as well.
No, if you read your history, wolves were hunted because they couldn't peacfully co-exist with humans once we started infringing on their habitat. As people started hunting other game animals to near extinction, wolves turned to livestock and pets, even children. Wolves are very intelligent, and when they hunt in packs, they are an exremely successful predator. Wolves also kill for sport. They are not afraid of people, only wary. Wolves had a large negative impact on livestock, that is why a bounty was offered. Wolves were nearly exterminated on purpose, the other game animals were nearly exterminated because a lack of ethics and game management. There didn't use to be such things as; bag limits, hunting licenses, and hunting seasons. Nobody thought to practice conservation until it was almost too late. Even after these laws came to exist, wolves were shown no mercy until they were no longer a problem.
Post by: Slider on April 02, 2009, 03:57:27 PM
Post by: 7mag. on April 02, 2009, 04:00:41 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 02, 2009, 04:16:26 PM
There is a reason that wolves were hunted to near extinction in the lower 48. It is because they are bad news.
Ok then...what was the reason people killed nearly all the elk, deer, turkeys, lions, bobcats, lynx, otter, caribou, passenger pigeons, bison, mink..... they must have been bad news as well.
:liar:
People in the 19th Century had for the first time the ability to exterminate wildlife with technology. Once this became apparent, the idea of "preservation" took hold. This was in the late 19th/early 20th century. It was soon discovered that it does not work. Hunters and wildlife advocates discovered that conservation was the key to game and wildlife flourishing. A controlled number of animals for an environment. This is the job of Fish and Game departments. This is why people agreed to limit the number of animals they will harvest and set laws that people must abide by in order to have sustainable numbers. (This is why poaching and unchecked taking of game gets people so riled up.)
Wolves are not compatible with humans. There is only room for one Apex predator in the chain.
Game is at an all time high now. Why is that?
This is what the pro-wolf people are pretending not to understand. With wolves overpopulating the Rocky Mountains and the Cascades there is really no need for human hunting. That is the point, that is the goal. That is the reality. I believe there is a bloodless revolution going on in this country that is hell bent on changing America into something that I do not recognize. I have been ignoring those who call out like Paul Revere but I am beginning to understand that if we do not do something with in the next few years it will be to late and it will take generations to set things right.
Post by: Slider on April 02, 2009, 04:24:35 PM
+1
Stop Hunting 101
First Ban Hound Hunting and Baiting Bears.
Introduce and purchase land for Wolves.
When there are 2 many Black Bears bring in Grizzles. Yes Grizzleys do eat Black Bears!!!
When there are not eneough Deer,Elk and Moose from the Wolves and Grizzlies there will be no need to hunt!!! :bdid:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 02, 2009, 04:28:39 PM
Oh yeah- that's why there are no humans left in Canada or Alaska; we are all screwed. ;)There is a reason that wolves were hunted to near extinction in the lower 48. It is because they are bad news.
Ok then...what was the reason people killed nearly all the elk, deer, turkeys, lions, bobcats, lynx, otter, caribou, passenger pigeons, bison, mink..... they must have been bad news as well.
:liar:
Wolves are not compatible with humans. There is only room for one Apex predator in the chain.
Game is at an all time high now. Why is that?
I agree that wolf populations need managed. They should be maintained at a level that allows enough surplus for hunters. Game being at an all time high is not exactly indicitive of a healthy environment. Wolves coming into WA is not the end of the world, or of our hunting. As long as we can have a plan in place to control the population when it reaches the recovery goals we are OK. I'll be interested to see the outcome of the anti's lawsuits on the recent delisting in MT and ID. Hopefully the work they are doing is laying the way for WA to eventually move in that direction, but IMO it will be a long time before we get the #'s to delist.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 02, 2009, 04:40:38 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on April 02, 2009, 04:47:37 PM
If wolves are introduced they will eventually start to reduce their own numbers through wolf on wolf violence, but not before going through the deer population (easier to catch than elk). Washington can sustain a wolf population, but not until we go through some pain. And the politics of wolf hunting is going to cause a $hitstorm when DFW starts to try to manage them.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 02, 2009, 04:52:54 PM
I will send the pic to someone if they will post it but need the email posted can't check the pm's from the phone
SSS
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 02, 2009, 06:33:14 PM
Post by: Slider on April 02, 2009, 06:33:55 PM
Post by: Slider on April 02, 2009, 06:36:06 PM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on April 02, 2009, 06:38:35 PM
Quote
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 02, 2009, 06:38:41 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on April 03, 2009, 09:27:39 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 03, 2009, 09:33:26 AM
Me too the really scary think is that this. wolf is the same kind that is running around the west and in washingtonThe wolves moving in from canada are not that big. Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.
Post by: MichaelJ on April 03, 2009, 10:33:38 AM
Me too the really scary think is that this. wolf is the same kind that is running around the west and in washingtonThe wolves moving in from canada are not that big. Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.
I've read they get around 110-120 lbs for a big mature wolf... 75 sounds a little on the LOW side. Hell my pitbull is 65 lbs and she's not very big...
Michael
Post by: fisheral87 on April 03, 2009, 10:38:40 AM
Post by: whacker1 on April 03, 2009, 10:43:31 AM
Quote
The wolves moving in from Canada are not that big. Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.
I disagree - The Canadian Grey wolf is what was transplanted to these various release sites in Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming. They are the same genetic animal as the ones naturally crossing the BC/WA-ID borders. The Idaho Game regs - state that the wolves are between 75-120 lbs in comparison to Coyotes being smaller. But I believe they have recorded in Wyoming as well as Canada to being near 200 lbs on occasion.
A few items that were not factored in when they transplanted the grey wolf from Canada further south to the US: First off, our winters are more mild than they are in BC & Alberta, purely based on geography. So, the wolves don't have as difficult of winters to deal with from a survival standpoint, which makes their genetic power to evolve into large animals purely based on nutrition.
Second, there were few big game predators of significance at the same level in the US as there were in Canada - Specifically the Grizzly or Brown Bear. The populations of large predators in the US were so small in comparison to BC & Alberta and population of game animals quite high, which allowed the wolf to flourish with very little effort - again allowing their nutrition level to be at far higher levels than what they could achieve in BC & Alberta.
I am not a wildlife bio - but it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the nutritional value in our children today is far greater than they were 100 years ago, and that is why we are seeing generations of taller people achieved. The same is true for the Canadian Grey wolf transplanted to a game rich and predator low environment.
One other factor that I don't felt was looked at carefully enough is the fact that our human population density per square mile is much greater in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming. We don't have a large enough geographical area to maintain a carrying capacity of wolves with out human / wolf contact taking place.
Lot of opinion on my part and some common sense - don't take it to the bank, but it should be plausible to most of you.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 03, 2009, 11:20:13 AM
The collared wolves in the methow pack were the alpha male and female. They tipped the scales at 85 and 75 lbs. So, wolves coming down from Coastal BC (the ones in the methow and so far in PO county) are not all that big. The whole native wolf argument is not going to hold water in WA, becasue these are native animals.Me too the really scary think is that this. wolf is the same kind that is running around the west and in washingtonThe wolves moving in from canada are not that big. Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.
I've read they get around 110-120 lbs for a big mature wolf... 75 sounds a little on the LOW side. Hell my pitbull is 65 lbs and she's not very big...
Michael
Post by: MichaelJ on April 03, 2009, 12:51:03 PM
I never said anything about wolves not being native so I'm not sure if that comment is directed to me or not... I agree with you there though, elk aren't native either and we're all in support of them...
Michael
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 03, 2009, 02:54:18 PM
Post by: jackelope on April 03, 2009, 02:56:50 PM
hows the great white north country?
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 03, 2009, 04:22:01 PM
Below zero this am in carcross.
Ill be back shooting the sporting stuff in afew weeks hopefully.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 03, 2009, 04:23:53 PM
Post by: Elkpiss on April 03, 2009, 04:41:11 PM
Me too the really scary think is that this. wolf is the same kind that is running around the west and in washingtonThe wolves moving in from canada are not that big. Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.
The wolf my brother shot in the above picture went 180, i dont look that big skinned out, but their huge it was actually the Alfa Male of the Pack.. The Canadians want those things shot up.. They say if you here wolfs or see wolfs get a new hunting spot or start wolf hunting cause the moose are leaving the area.
Post by: Archery King on April 03, 2009, 05:20:59 PM
Its my opinion we need to fight like hell to get these wolves out of here if we as hunters are not united we will never succeed in anything. :bash:
Sorry didnt mean to be so harsh but this is a sensetive subject for me.
Post by: Slider on April 03, 2009, 05:40:04 PM
Wolf predation on elk has been a department concern. Liberal hunting seasons are planned for two units in the Clearwater area, where wolves have decimated an elk herd that was once world famous, Compton said. The cow elk population in the Clearwater was estimated at 10,000 in 1995, but has fallen to less than 3,200. Compton said wolves are responsible for nearly 80 percent of the mortality on radio-collared elk in the area.
“The elk are dying faster than they can replace themselves,” he said.
Stop them before it's to late in WASHINGTON!!!
Post by: Slider on April 03, 2009, 05:41:30 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 03, 2009, 06:17:02 PM
SSS
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 04, 2009, 07:54:16 AM
Went looking for goats on there winter range last night just about froze lol
Post by: boneaddict on April 04, 2009, 08:16:43 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 04, 2009, 08:20:03 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 04, 2009, 08:58:47 AM
I saw that they are having great luck with furon 5 in kenya with there lion issues :)
Post by: Pat/Rick on May 15, 2009, 10:23:37 PM
Post by: TheHunt on May 16, 2009, 06:22:30 AM
This is what the pro-wolf people are pretending not to understand. With wolves overpopulating the Rocky Mountains and the Cascades there is really no need for human hunting. That is the point, that is the goal. That is the reality. I believe there is a bloodless revolution going on in this country that is hell bent on changing America into something that I do not recognize. I have been ignoring those who call out like Paul Revere but I am beginning to understand that if we do not do something with in the next few years it will be to late and it will take generations to set things right.
+1
Stop Hunting 101
First Ban Hound Hunting and Baiting Bears.
Introduce and purchase land for Wolves.
When there are 2 many Black Bears bring in Grizzles. Yes Grizzleys do eat Black Bears!!!
When there are not eneough Deer,Elk and Moose from the Wolves and Grizzlies there will be no need to hunt!!! :bdid:
This guy has their strategy... They do not call themselves naturalist for nothing. They are looking for a balance without human intervention. Nice post
Post by: TheHunt on May 16, 2009, 06:27:13 AM
>:( I am disappointed that any one on this site would remotely support wolves in washington wake the F@$( up have you seen what happened to the Idaho elk herd? Sure they start with the sick and weak but there are only so many of them and next the hole herd is going down. My God its gonna be people like you that we have to thank when elk hunting and moose's huntting gets shut down state wide. >:(
Its my opinion we need to fight like hell to get these wolves out of here if we as hunters are not united we will never succeed in anything. :bash:
Sorry didnt mean to be so harsh but this is a sensetive subject for me.
If that upsets you... THen why don't you get pissed off that soo many of the folks who work for the Washington Fish and Game department who do not HUNT. Most consider it just an 8 to 5 job. Some just fish a month out of the year. That is why it has sooo many non hunters working for it. There are a ton of fish and game people on here but you never have them step up and say they are fish and game and they neve post any animal they have killed. Think about that!
Post by: ing on May 18, 2009, 06:53:09 AM
The wolf tracks we saw in Idaho were bigger than any dog tracks Ive ever seen. Whats the average dog weigh, 65, 70lbs? Maybe smaller? I'd say the wolves in Idaho are double that.Me too the really scary think is that this. wolf is the same kind that is running around the west and in washingtonThe wolves moving in from canada are not that big. Around 75-85 lbs. for a mature animal.
Post by: whacker1 on May 18, 2009, 08:21:56 AM
Post by: denali on May 18, 2009, 07:24:38 PM
a state that does not allow cougar hunting w/ dogs or baiting bears... does anyone think we will seriously attempt to control wolves ???
Post by: skybusterbo on May 18, 2009, 07:50:02 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2009, 08:17:18 PM
Without having a management plan in place wolves could not be delisted by the Feds, which is why they are delisted in ID/MT but not in WY. WY did not comply with an acceptable plan so they were not delisted in WY.
To sum it up, the only chance we have of having an opportunity to manage wolves is to have an acceptable plan in place and keep good records. If I understand it correctly, Wolves have been delisted in much of eastern WA so once our state decides the numbers are there they could authorize hunting. Once wolves reach the goal in the rest of WA, then they could be delisted by the feds and managed in the rest of WA too.
Best advice I have is to report any sightings of wolves or their sign, take photos if you get a chance. We want every wolf documented so that it puts us closer to the possibility of management.
Post by: BK Dave on May 18, 2009, 09:54:24 PM
Post by: 7mag. on May 18, 2009, 10:21:34 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 18, 2009, 10:33:46 PM
a guy i knew in upstate new york had 2 wolf/dog crosses as pets. that doesn't mean there's wolves where i lived in ny....
Post by: 7mag. on May 18, 2009, 10:59:40 PM
there's a thread on here about wolf hybrids somewhere. the fact that they may or may not be crossbred or hybrids is pointless.
a guy i knew in upstate new york had 2 wolf/dog crosses as pets. that doesn't mean there's wolves where i lived in ny....
You're right. I had a wolf/German Shepard cross when I was a kid, didn't mean that there were wolves in my neighborhood. But, if this story is true, this animal was shot in the Kapowison Tree Farm, 20+ miles(one the road) from town. Appearantly, the gamie said it was a wolf/coyote cross. If this is true, I would hazard to guess, that a wolf has been close enough to breed a coyote, and the offspring to travel to that location. That would leave me to believe that there is or was, recently, at least one wolf in the central Cascades of Whashington. Again, this story could be completely false. I just wanted to share it with you guys. I wouldn't have believed any of it, if my brother had not seen the pics.
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2009, 11:58:13 AM
feature=related
Honestly, I think a few wolves would be fine, there is plenty of game to hunt in Alaska, BC, and Alberta, but they also manage the wolves there.
Wolves just need to be hunted and their numbers kept in check and we wouldn't all be so wound up. The anti's would be farther ahead to back off of the wolves now and move onto another cause, but they are not that smart, too much emotion....
Post by: jackelope on May 19, 2009, 12:08:24 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,26601.msg304812.html#msg304812
Post by: trophyhunt on May 19, 2009, 02:14:42 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 19, 2009, 02:20:58 PM
Don't be fooled that we need those damn things in our state, we don't have vast wilderness like Alaska, wyoming or even idaho and montana. SHOOT, SHOVEL AND SHUT UP!!!! That is the motto in Idaho and Montana it is their motto for a reason, they've lived with them long enough to see what happens to there deer, elk and moose populations. SSS
do you approve of poaching?
Post by: Archery King on May 19, 2009, 09:01:51 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 19, 2009, 09:06:49 PM
if so, i didn't ever say i approve of wolves. i asked the guy if he approved of poaching because if you are shooting protected species, then you are a poacher. plain and simple.
Post by: 7mag. on May 19, 2009, 10:48:17 PM
7mag...here's the thread i was talking about.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,26601.msg304812.html#msg304812
I read that thread, and it sounded like a bunch of people that cried wolf. I was just relaying a story that may or may not be true. If it is true, it could directly affect me, because that is where I do most of my hunting. I am curious, why do you feel that wolf crosses aren't a concern? Maybe I took you wrong, but it seems that's what you are getting at. Maybe you have more knowledge on the subject, but to me, more crosses would mean a growing and expanding wolf population.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 20, 2009, 10:01:39 AM
are you talking to me?
if so, i didn't ever say i approve of wolves. i asked the guy if he approved of poaching because if you are shooting protected species, then you are a poacher. plain and simple.
Thanks Jackalope- These threads are like a big bass plug floating on the surface...sooner or later I just can't resist!! :)
Archery king- Idaho is moving towards management of their wolves as we speak. WA is working on a management plan that is available to the public. Take a look.
I'll keep saying this- if we would take care of our land (i.e spray weeds, log properly, let fires work, block access where necessary...) we could have more than enough elk to feed the states goal # of wolves and allow for better hunting than we currently experience. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on May 20, 2009, 10:46:21 AM
Quote
I am curious, why do you feel that wolf crosses aren't a concern?
the biggest concern the wolfdogs create is for the PEOPLE that breed them. stupid people that think that because they look like a dog and smell like a dog, they must be a dog. wolves eat domestic dogs...just ask dozens of houndhunters in idaho who's dogs have been killed and/or eaten by wolves.
Quote
Though estimates vary, the current population of hybrids in the United States has been reported to be around 300,000. Growing interest in them has led to a proliferation in the number of wolf hybrid breeders, with many profiting from the breed's increasing popularity.
In addition, a small but energetic industry has sprung up around the animal. A number of publications, periodicals, and at least two registries are devoted to the breed. Several regional and national wolf hybrid organizations catering to breeders, owners, and enthusiasts have also become established.
As their numbers continue to increase, wolf hybrids have become the center of a growing controversy. A number of attacks on people--mostly children--have resulted in severe injuries and several deaths. Consequently, many people have begun to question whether such animals belong in their communities, or whether they should exist at all.
Despite growing attention, wolf hybrids remain largely misunderstood. Their poorly defined nature and lack of a stable identity have helped fuel the controversy surrounding them.
with a population of +/- 300k hybrids in this country, i would presume there to be more than just a couple running around western washington, whether as pets or as what used to be a pet that some dummy couldn't handle and cut him loose way out in the woods somewhere.
Post by: 7mag. on May 20, 2009, 07:27:32 PM
Post by: TheHunt on May 20, 2009, 09:27:35 PM
How could you be so stupid to think that wolf's are ok in this state say good by to all elk and moose. Look at idaho elk populations dropping bad aren't they and are they managing the wolf population? No all the wolf is going to do is phase out the hunter (aka) us because there will be no game to hunt FU@& some people are dumb!!! >:( >:(
I do agree with you on the plan to phase out the hunter. I think that is the plan. I do think there are many F&G people on this site who do not want to admit it on here. On an off topic... I wonder how many of the Fish and Game employee's actually hunt verses how many are naturalist?
Post by: trophyhunt on May 21, 2009, 02:36:18 PM
I approve of using common sense, they are transplanting wolves where we don't need them....in WA. I believe this is part of a bigger plan, less animals to hunt because of the kills made by the wolves in the future means less reason to have us hunting. I wouldn't regard it as poaching, just taking care of our hunting rights for our kids in the future. SSSDon't be fooled that we need those damn things in our state, we don't have vast wilderness like Alaska, wyoming or even idaho and montana. SHOOT, SHOVEL AND SHUT UP!!!! That is the motto in Idaho and Montana it is their motto for a reason, they've lived with them long enough to see what happens to there deer, elk and moose populations. SSS
do you approve of poaching?
Post by: furbearer365 on May 21, 2009, 04:54:34 PM
Post by: furbearer365 on May 21, 2009, 09:23:35 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 22, 2009, 08:31:55 AM
Doesn't the word "TRANSPLANT" open any of you wolf lovers eyes a bit. Anything that has to be transplanted to an area will not generate well with the local environment. If they need to be brought here, nothing about that will boast well for Washingtons game. They will completely effect every animal such as elk, deer, moose, coyotes, varmints, and even game birds. These animals don't just "BLEND IN" and become part of nature, they control it and everthing involved. The natural way of life for all animals will be forced to change and adapt to these "TRANSPLANTED" killers. We are not talking about a small bird or and tiny fish, we are talking about the most productive killers that North America has to offer and they don't travel alone like lions, how will others compete with a pack of ten wolves. What would happen if lions traveled in these numbers, people see ONE lion near a city and the world is coming to an end and something needs to happen to protect our precious hippies in Portland. If you want wolves then you personally should be the one to manage the numbers, but if all you are going to do is fight to get them here and then sit on your ass and let everyone else in this state fight the battle then just try your best to keep your opinion to yourself.They have never transplanted wolves into WA. IMO the transplant of wolves into ID and yellowstone was a mistake. But, washington is not transplanting or importing wolves. So far, Washington wolves are migrant animals from British Columbia and are a native animal to the area.
Are there any deer left in WI or MI, or did the wolves eat all of them already?
BTW- I hope to manage the numbers (at least by one) in ID this season. I'm not a 'wolf lover'; I'm a realist. And wolves are going to be a part of the landscape in WA. We should do what we can to make tghe best of it.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 22, 2009, 02:00:29 PM
You and I won't really know if they planted wolves or not, they don't tell us everything and sometimes that's for the better. I know a bio and personally know a game warden who has been on the job many years, all I'm gonna say is don't be naive.Doesn't the word "TRANSPLANT" open any of you wolf lovers eyes a bit. Anything that has to be transplanted to an area will not generate well with the local environment. If they need to be brought here, nothing about that will boast well for Washingtons game. They will completely effect every animal such as elk, deer, moose, coyotes, varmints, and even game birds. These animals don't just "BLEND IN" and become part of nature, they control it and everthing involved. The natural way of life for all animals will be forced to change and adapt to these "TRANSPLANTED" killers. We are not talking about a small bird or and tiny fish, we are talking about the most productive killers that North America has to offer and they don't travel alone like lions, how will others compete with a pack of ten wolves. What would happen if lions traveled in these numbers, people see ONE lion near a city and the world is coming to an end and something needs to happen to protect our precious hippies in Portland. If you want wolves then you personally should be the one to manage the numbers, but if all you are going to do is fight to get them here and then sit on your ass and let everyone else in this state fight the battle then just try your best to keep your opinion to yourself.They have never transplanted wolves into WA. IMO the transplant of wolves into ID and yellowstone was a mistake. But, washington is not transplanting or importing wolves. So far, Washington wolves are migrant animals from British Columbia and are a native animal to the area.
Are there any deer left in WI or MI, or did the wolves eat all of them already?
BTW- I hope to manage the numbers (at least by one) in ID this season. I'm not a 'wolf lover'; I'm a realist. And wolves are going to be a part of the landscape in WA. We should do what we can to make the best of it.
Post by: jackelope on May 22, 2009, 02:07:28 PM
Post by: Caseyd on May 22, 2009, 02:09:14 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 22, 2009, 04:51:02 PM
feel free to pm me if you'd like, I'd love to hear some specifics about the transplants you seem to know about.You and I will never agree on this subject and I'm not about to put anybody's name on the line. You probably haven't spent much time in a bar talking to locals in Idaho or Montana, let's agree to disagree. SSS
Post by: furbearer365 on May 22, 2009, 08:50:03 PM
Post by: Slider on May 22, 2009, 09:22:38 PM
Post by: bow4elk on May 22, 2009, 09:35:48 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on May 23, 2009, 08:24:27 AM
They are here, we are going to have to learn to deal with them. I say the sooner we stop arguing and start managing (hunting), the better...
Post by: sparksbr on May 23, 2009, 06:17:40 PM
I did not read a single, pro-wolf post that possessed any real facts. They were all purely driven by emotion and "hot air." It was especially amusing when a rancher/hunter would counter with a legitamate point based on personal experiances and the pro-wolfer's would respond with the typical "oh yer just a dumb redneck, wut the fuk do u know?!" type argument or threaten bodily harm. Very irrational and ignorant in my opinion. Just a snapshot of who we are dealing with on this issue.
Brady
Post by: woodswalker on May 23, 2009, 06:26:40 PM
After scrolling through some of the comment boards on youtube regarding some of pro-wolf propaganda, I have concluded that many of the wolf-supporters are impossible to debate with, as well as illiterate! :chuckle:
I did not read a single, pro-wolf post that possessed any real facts. They were all purely driven by emotion and "hot air." It was especially amusing when a rancher/hunter would counter with a legitamate point based on personal experiances and the pro-wolfer's would respond with the typical "oh yer just a dumb redneck, wut the fuk do u know?!" type argument or threaten bodily harm. Very irrational and ignorant in my opinion. Just a snapshot of who we are dealing with on this issue.
Brady
All the more reason to SSS...with either type.
Post by: Bob33 on May 23, 2009, 06:39:23 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on May 23, 2009, 10:41:55 PM
Personally I'd also like to see dinosaurs brought here. Then we can have a real Jurassic Park in Washington.
NO! NO DINOSAURS!! THEY'LL EAT THE WOLVES!!!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 24, 2009, 09:11:05 AM
.
[/quote]
They have never transplanted wolves into WA. IMO the transplant of wolves into ID and yellowstone was a mistake. But, washington is not transplanting or importing wolves. So far, Washington wolves are migrant animals from British Columbia and are a native animal to the area.
Are there any deer left in WI or MI, or did the wolves eat all of them already?
BTW- I hope to manage the numbers (at least by one) in ID this season. I'm not a 'wolf lover'; I'm a realist. And wolves are going to be a part of the landscape in WA. We should do what we can to make tghe best of it.
[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're right about the BC migration ...great. My worry is that instead these are the expansion of the Transplanted Yellowstone Canadian Greys Which are much bigger and will take care of any smaller native species by elimination. Not a wolf lover-but I could live with the native timberwolf, but NOT the transplanted killing machines.
Post by: teal101 on May 26, 2009, 03:43:31 PM
If they're the native wolves its only a matter of time for the non native ones from Idaho to migrate in and wipe em out and cause an even bigger hell storm.
SSS
Post by: Pathfinder101 on May 26, 2009, 07:22:23 PM
Post by: Pat/Rick on May 26, 2009, 11:44:13 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 31, 2009, 02:27:24 PM
BTW- I hope to manage the numbers (at least by one) in ID this season. I'm not a 'wolf lover'; I'm a realist. And wolves are going to be a part of the landscape in WA. We should do what we can to make tghe best of it.
[/quote]
I think you are right on with your comment, we need to make the most of our situation as quickly as possible by reporting sightings and verifying the growing wolf population in any way possible. The sooner we do this the sooner we may get some management of wolves if they get to be a big problem. I don't think it's the end of the world as long as management occurs once their population grows.