Post by: rasbo on September 14, 2010, 06:42:31 AM
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 07:20:31 AM
The more involved I get in this wolf debate, the more painfully obvious it becomes that we need to oppose wolves all together, just in hopes of getting any reasonable management. It is going to take a lot of opposition to get any reasonable answer and then it's still doubtful. The Defenders of Wildlife have infiltrated our WDFW and the legal establishment, so the odds are stacked against any reasonable management.
It is absolutely imperative that people be very vocal on this wolf issue. We are at the same crossroads as Idaho was in the late 90's. In 5 to 10 years some areas in Washington will be a repeat of Idaho's Lolo zone. (90% loss of elk from pre-wolf population levels)
Thanks rasbo for your post keeping this issue in people's minds.
Post by: runamuk on September 14, 2010, 07:23:23 AM
Rasbo true sound management would include hunting ;) this would be my choice.
Post by: rasbo on September 14, 2010, 07:32:32 AM
rasbo, I tried to vote for all options that involved taking wolves but it wouldn't let me... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuck:Its not in my opinion that they should be introduced here but they were,no changing that now.I believe no ground will be taken with the SSS or eradication of them mind set,not gonna happen and I believe it hurts the battle,same as peta,s whackos hurt their agenda...My voice will always be heard and was even at the Puyallup fair,sound management and management now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I really hear where you are coming from but its just not gonna fly that way..MHO
The more involved I get in this wolf debate, the more painfully obvious it becomes that we need to oppose wolves all together, just in hopes of getting any reasonable management. It is going to take a lot of opposition to get any reasonable answer and then it's still doubtful. The Defenders of Wildlife have infiltrated our WDFW and the legal establishment, so the odds are stacked against any reasonable management.
It is absolutely imperative that people be very vocal on this wolf issue. We are at the same crossroads as Idaho was in the late 90's. In 5 to 10 years some areas in Washington will be a repeat of Idaho's Lolo zone. (90% loss of elk from pre-wolf population levels)
Thanks rasbo for your post keeping this issue in people's minds.
Post by: Special T on September 14, 2010, 07:42:09 AM
Post by: rasbo on September 14, 2010, 07:45:57 AM
I voted sound MGT... However that means eradication of the Gray wolf... You could convince me that the indigenous timber wolf of the region Could/Should make a come back and deserves protection... That would be a honest debate.... The gray wolf is and invasive non native species like the Ferrel hogs in the south... They should be left no quarter just like the hogs... Gun em all down. I'm with BP i think we need to tow a hard line to get what is reasonable.. :twocents:same battle would be heard with the timber wolf...Just couldn't use the indigenous approach
Post by: Special T on September 14, 2010, 08:12:22 AM
Post by: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 08:50:45 AM
If there were no gray wolves around before wolves in the lower 48 were eradicated 100 yrs ago and the timber wolf is nowhere near a threat as the gray then why were they wiped out in the first place? I see that argument all the time. The timber wolves don't form large packs and they don't prey on as large of animals, they are the only native wolf... If that is the case and gray wolves were not here in the lower 48 and it was just timber wolves then why were they trapped and hunted to near extinction in the lower 48?
Post by: jackelope on September 14, 2010, 08:58:56 AM
Post by: ivarhusa on September 14, 2010, 09:09:29 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/sep/13/wildlife-officials-suspect-third-wolf-pack/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/sep/13/wildlife-officials-suspect-third-wolf-pack/)
Post by: BlackRidge on September 14, 2010, 09:12:02 AM
Rasbo true sound management would include hunting ;) this would be my choice.
Mine as well, seem to be one in the same
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 09:55:07 AM
Wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 because they caused too much damage to livestock growers. In the process we found that our other wildlife flourished without wolves eating them all the time. That wolf removal has worked pretty darn well for nearly 100 years and our lower 48 has evolved into a modern environment. I do not think you can ever take the lower 48 back to a pre-1800's type of environment, let's be real here... :chuckle:
My Opinion
I have hunted Idaho since the 80's and I must say the Idaho of the 80's was far better than the Idaho of today. Whether you like it or not, the northern wolves are a larger sub-specie and they seem to run in larger packs. There is documentation breaking wolves into numerous sub-species just as there is for whitetail deer or moose or any other widely distributed specie. It is common knowledge that sub-species adapt to their environment in many ways. This could include their ability to compete for prey. When you bring a more competitive sub-specie into another sub-species area that evolved around the carrying capcity of that area, you risk upsetting the balance. That is the beef about canadian wolves.
I have said at least a dozen times on this forum that we have had wolves in NE WA for years. They were a much different critter. We never saw packs of 10 to 20 wolves, they were smaller and seemed to run in singles and doubles. This is the difference, these bigger northern wolvs are more successful. Now you may not like my next comment, but if you still can't understand the differences, you probably need to do a little studying about wolves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)
Now please consider, if you took Alberta whitetails to Arizona and Florida, would that not screw up those native sub-species and affect other species in those areas?
Let's take Alaskan Moose and put them in Idaho and Washington, what will happen to the Shiras Moose?
Doesn't seem to complicated to me. By trying to replace one sub-specie with another, they are screwing up wolves natural evolution and submitting the other animals in the new environment to non-natural predation. There are stories about this too, if you take the time to research and read them.
http://graywolfnews.com/ (http://graywolfnews.com/)
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 10:02:23 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jun/06/lethal-week-for-montana-wolves/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jun/06/lethal-week-for-montana-wolves/)
StoryComments June 6, 2010 in Outdoors
Lethal week for Montana wolves
15 killed, 18 more targeted from five packs to protect stock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen gray wolves from five different packs were killed in Montana for preying on livestock between May 17 and May 21, making it one of the deadliest five-day stretches in 2010 for Canis lupus.
So far this year, 64 wolves have died, with the majority – 44 – being shot by federal agents for preying on livestock. The others were killed by cars or property owners or died from unknown causes.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials also have authorized the shooting of at least 18 more wolves from five packs. If successful, that will bring the total to 82 dead wolves in Montana so far this year.
“It seems a little heavy-handed, when at last count there were only 524 wolves in Montana and a lot more cows,” said Jesse Timberlake, with the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.
Liz Bradley, a Missoula-based wolf management specialist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, readily acknowledges that the state is acting more aggressively this year on control actions because more wolves are on the landscape than have been here in the past decade. It’s part of an ongoing upward trend; in 1999, when about 80 wolves were spotted on Montana’s landscape, 19 were killed for wildlife depredation. Ten years later, with more than 500 wolves in the Treasure State, that number rose to 145 wolves.
“More wolves in more places equals more conflicts,” Bradley said. “We’ve seen that trend over the years. We’re still trying to use preventive methods to reduce conflicts, but there are places that hasn’t worked.”
Limited wolf hunting was opened in Montana last year. Another season is scheduled to open in September.
Post by: sisu on September 14, 2010, 10:14:35 AM
Oh, I want hunting seasons on them. Great pelt, good looking hats, vests, coats etc. Plus I can irritate the hell out of a greenie with wolf skin clothing! :)
Post by: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 10:22:26 AM
Yes, wolves were wiped out because they were competition to cattle men but also because they were competition to hunters and because historically man has always had a fear of wolves.
There were areas that after predators were wiped that the game animals flourished and became the holy grail of hunting like the Kaibab. Guess what happened there though, the animals overgrazed and almost wiped themselves out and if not for intervention of man rehabilitating the landscape it would have become a wasteland.
I ask again, if wolves that were native to the lower 48 were the smaller sub species that we call timber wolves that are so much smaller and hunted in singles and doubles and not in large packs why were they eradicated? How could those animals have been such a threat to cattle men and hunters that they felt they had to wipe out every last one of them?
Post by: rasbo on September 14, 2010, 10:39:41 AM
Post by: grundy53 on September 14, 2010, 10:41:58 AM
Post by: grundy53 on September 14, 2010, 10:43:48 AM
Not to sound vicious but,you and many others make a living on the killing of game animals for sport,and you bring in many outta state hunters to kill the game at a high price.Much like bringing the wolves from somewhere else that kills the states animals...Is that not what the other side has for fodder to the argument.I cant make it work in my mind where you have a dog in the fight other than for monetary pourposes..isn't it how the masses that we need to sway might see it.
His out of state hunters are not killing livestock.... or nearly as many game animals. :twocents:
Post by: rasbo on September 14, 2010, 10:53:04 AM
grundy your missing the point,look at the battle outside our scope and how its viewed by those we are trying to sway towards a better management program..Not to sound vicious but,you and many others make a living on the killing of game animals for sport,and you bring in many outta state hunters to kill the game at a high price.Much like bringing the wolves from somewhere else that kills the states animals...Is that not what the other side has for fodder to the argument.I cant make it work in my mind where you have a dog in the fight other than for monetary pourposes..isn't it how the masses that we need to sway might see it.
His out of state hunters are not killing livestock.... or nearly as many game animals. :twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on September 14, 2010, 10:59:23 AM
grundy your missing the point,look at the battle outside our scope and how its viewed by those we are trying to sway towards a better management program..Not to sound vicious but,you and many others make a living on the killing of game animals for sport,and you bring in many outta state hunters to kill the game at a high price.Much like bringing the wolves from somewhere else that kills the states animals...Is that not what the other side has for fodder to the argument.I cant make it work in my mind where you have a dog in the fight other than for monetary pourposes..isn't it how the masses that we need to sway might see it.
His out of state hunters are not killing livestock.... or nearly as many game animals. :twocents:
Actually I thought we were trying to sway the wdfw :dunno:
Post by: woodswalker on September 14, 2010, 11:06:54 AM
Post by: rasbo on September 14, 2010, 11:07:15 AM
well them also,Im playing devils advocate sorta..its gonna take a national level on this topic I believe we are really battling city folk far and wide Im thinkinggrundy your missing the point,look at the battle outside our scope and how its viewed by those we are trying to sway towards a better management program..Not to sound vicious but,you and many others make a living on the killing of game animals for sport,and you bring in many outta state hunters to kill the game at a high price.Much like bringing the wolves from somewhere else that kills the states animals...Is that not what the other side has for fodder to the argument.I cant make it work in my mind where you have a dog in the fight other than for monetary pourposes..isn't it how the masses that we need to sway might see it.
His out of state hunters are not killing livestock.... or nearly as many game animals. :twocents:
Actually I thought we were trying to sway the wdfw :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 11:21:40 AM
Again, where is the proof that the wolves in WA are anything other than wolves who have moved here from north of the border and that wolves that were here before eradication were any different. Were not talking thousands of miles here, we are not FL or AR, you and I could walk from where we live to where "Canadian" wolves are supposedly native.
Yes, wolves were wiped out because they were competition to cattle men but also because they were competition to hunters and because historically man has always had a fear of wolves.
There were areas that after predators were wiped that the game animals flourished and became the holy grail of hunting like the Kaibab. Guess what happened there though, the animals overgrazed and almost wiped themselves out and if not for intervention of man rehabilitating the landscape it would have become a wasteland.
I ask again, if wolves that were native to the lower 48 were the smaller sub species that we call timber wolves that are so much smaller and hunted in singles and doubles and not in large packs why were they eradicated? How could those animals have been such a threat to cattle men and hunters that they felt they had to wipe out every last one of them?
OK I will repeat again...
Bottom Line whether you like it or not.
Wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 because they caused too much damage to livestock growers. In the process we found that our other wildlife flourished without wolves eating them all the time. That wolf removal has worked pretty darn well for nearly 100 years and our lower 48 has evolved into a modern environment. I do not think you can ever take the lower 48 back to a pre-1800's type of environment, let's be real here...
I will also point you to the links that explain that wolves from varying areas are double the size of others. Proof is in print.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)
Post by: sisu on September 14, 2010, 11:21:59 AM
Hell you know the butcher just gets those roasts, steaks & burger from the bovine or lamb tree.
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 11:54:03 AM
If you consider where Washington is at right now in the wolf process, Washington is about to make some of the same mistakes as Idaho, and I have to wonder if funding for the wolf program is being done legally in Washington.
IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID
Date: September 3, 2010
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700
F&G Commission: Open Letter to Hunters and Idahoans
Wildlife managers and biologists agree that the wolf population in Idaho recovered years ago, and that wolf numbers now need to be controlled to reduce conflicts with people and wildlife.
The recent court decision bypassed science and put Idaho wolves back under the protection of the Endangered Species Act based on a legal technicality. Now we must deal with a difficult situation.
The Endangered Species Act severely limits Idaho's abilities to manage wolves, and it is tempting to turn wolf management over to the federal government until wolves can be delisted again. But U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have told us they wouldn't manage wolves to protect Idaho elk herds, and they don't share our motivation to protect the interests of our ranchers, pet owners, hunters and rural communities.
We looked carefully at our options and potential consequences. We decided that as long as we are making a difference, we must stay engaged in wolf management to protect Idaho's interests and rights. Only as a last resort will we leave the fate of Idaho residents and wildlife entirely in the hands of the federal government.
Part of the reason we feel that way is because of how we got to where we are.
With the court decision to relist wolves for the second time, the federal system has failed us. Defenders of Wildlife and other special interest groups are using a parade of lawsuits to tie the federal government in knots, and the result is against common sense, responsible wildlife management, and the stated intent of the Endangered Species Act. While we will work within the rule of law; we will use all of our influence and authority to make this right and put wolf management back in Idaho's hands where it belongs.
Idaho's lawyers will ask a court of appeals to overturn U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy's ruling, but we believe the best solution is to change the law directly. We will work with Idaho's congressional delegation, Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and other states to resolve this problem through federal legislation. Solutions will probably not be easy or quick. We will need all of the support we can get to make this happen, and we will keep you posted as to how you can best help these efforts.
While we are pursuing change in the courts and in Congress, we will make the most of the authorities available to us. We support Gov. Otter's efforts to reach a new agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife to ensure as much flexibility as possible in managing wolves. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission recommended that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be in charge of Endangered Species Act enforcement while Idaho focuses on protecting its elk herds and reducing wolf conflicts. It should also be the federal government's role to fund wolf management, and we support restricting the use of hunters' license dollars for wolf management as long as wolves are federally protected.
We will continue to insist on population control, particularly in areas where wolf predation is hurting our wildlife. The processes for getting federal agency approvals involve considerable paperwork and time and impose requirements that are an additional source of frustration. For example, because of federal legal requirements, Idaho Fish and Game managers have to use wolf population estimates that are "minimum," so we know we are underestimating the number of wolves in Idaho.
Likewise, to control wolves to protect elk herds under the "10(j)" provision of the Endangered Species Act, Idaho must demonstrate wolf predation impacts based on data that takes time to collect. We must also have our proposals reviewed by at least five scientists outside our agencies. That means we end up a year or more behind the times, using data that often doesn't match up with what you see in the woods today. We have gotten to the point where we will soon submit a "10(j)" proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wolf control actions in the Lolo Zone, and other proposals are being developed. When delisting occurred previously, we were poised with a proposal then, too.
As you can tell, we are in a tough struggle to regain state management, with scientific and legal battles on many fronts. We are concerned that some matters are dividing our community when we need to be united. For example, there are some who want to argue about what happened in Idaho politics when wolves were introduced in 1994. While we commit to learning from history, we do not want to waste our energy trying to attack, defend, or change the past.
We are fighting a national battle of perception. It is easy to paint an ideal world of nature from a desk far away from rural Idaho. We need your help to explain why it is important to manage Idaho's wolf population, just like we manage other wildlife. Someone who wouldn't think twice about calling animal control to pick up stray dogs in the city may not think about how wolves are affecting the lives of Idahoans in similar ways - unless we tell them.
National activist groups try to portray the average Idahoan as a wolf exterminator, lazy hunter or crazy extremist. We need your help to prove them wrong, just as Idahoans did when we participated responsibly in the first wolf hunting season in the lower 48 states. We need your help to support change through social networks across the country.
If state authorities are further undermined by court decisions or inaction at the federal level, there may come a time where we decide the best thing to do is to surrender and leave wolf management up to the federal government until wolves are delisted. But for now we believe the best place to fix the system and protect Idaho's interests is by staying involved in management. We appreciate your support.
Idaho Fish and Game Commission
Post by: rasbo on September 14, 2010, 12:08:42 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 12:30:56 PM
Not to sound vicious but,you and many others make a living on the killing of game animals for sport,and you bring in many outta state hunters to kill the game at a high price.Much like bringing the wolves from somewhere else that kills the states animals...Is that not what the other side has for fodder to the argument.I cant make it work in my mind where you have a dog in the fight other than for monetary pourposes..isn't it how the masses that we need to sway might see it.
WHAT - This is the kind of comment that really does a lot to unite hunters. :bash: :bash: :bash:
I spend a good deal of my time trying to do what is best for wildllife, that comment is just dispicable and disgusting. I will refrain from really speaking my mind, but maybe you will get the idea anyway. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Quite frankly I get tired of this cheap shot idiotic stupid mentality. I donate more hunts to good causes to support wildlife than you even know, in addition to the deals and hunts I have offered to this forum. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Yes you hit a nerve.....
FYI - Most of my clients are resident hunters who work average jobs here in Washington. They save up all year so they can go on a good hunt. Probably 1/3 of my hunters go on meat hunts with no trophies involved. What really pi$$es me off is half the people with this attitude pay guides to hunt out of state or they hire fishing guides right here in Washington or buy books to get info on where to hunt. Talk about a bunch of double standard hypocrits. If you have never paid a guide for hunting or fishing help or bought books on how to improve your hunting in Washington or elsewhere, then I guess you can complain about me fairly, but if you ever have, you are just a hypocrit. So the next time someone is thinking this, I suggest you look in the mirror before you open your mouth. Furthermore, WDFW empolyees are all making a living off wildlife too. I don't sell wildlife, WDFW sells wildlife, I sell my experience and professional help to hunters who want a good experience and a better chance of success. It is a choice to purchase my services, it's not required. I felt like saying a bit more but I hope I got my point across so I will leave it at this.
Yes, it did sound very vicous....
Post by: Special T on September 14, 2010, 01:00:24 PM
Costs....
lower # of deer & elk
Small number of moose in this state will be at risk
Small # of mountain caribou at risk
Higher cost to land owners due to stock issues
Eventually less revenue due to less hunters/less game
Less income revenue generated in rural areas from lack of lease, guide, gas, food, lodging etc Dollars generated.
Less safety in the woods, as we have experienced from lack of pressure on Cougars,bears and coyotes
Possible diseases being spread to pets, live stock, and people
I think we could all come up with many more if we wanted these are just the high lights.
Benefits....
See another species that we don't currently see... Debateably the "indigenous" one...
Possible hunting season
These are the only 2 benefits i can think of... pleas share if you think there are more...
I cannot think the increase of hunting tag rev or tourism for Wolves can over come the drop in rev from Main game animals Deer/Elk
So Indigenous or not, what are the real benefits of having wolves?
Post by: sisu on September 14, 2010, 01:09:46 PM
There are none. This entire wolf deal is a bunny hugger, green beanie program done by college "wildlife" professors and researchers. I remember when the big shot at NMU started his wolf program in Yooperland. You'd of thought that JC was reborn and introduced in the biology department there. I can't remember his name now but he sure thought of a lot of himself. Walked around the dept. like he was a king. Had all the city folks from below the bridge kowtowing to him. It's about that time period I got disgusted and got a general science degree in biology to get the hell out of Dodge.
So Indigenous or not, what are the real benefits of having wolves?
Dr. Robinson that was his name. I guess he keeps a real low profile in the outdoor community now, but there are those who hunt back in the UP that don't begrudge the wolf. All I know is the areas I used to stomp around in as a kid are nearly devoid of deer.
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 01:30:05 PM
Destruction to Game Herds
Destruction to Livestock
Destruction to Local Economies
Destruction to the health of other animals and potentially man.
Post by: wolfbait on September 14, 2010, 01:45:13 PM
Bottom Line whether you like it or not.
Wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 because they caused too much damage to livestock growers. In the process we found that our other wildlife flourished without wolves eating them all the time. That wolf removal has worked pretty darn well for nearly 100 years and our lower 48 has evolved into a modern environment. I do not think you can ever take the lower 48 back to a pre-1800's type of environment, let's be real here... :chuckle:
My Opinion
I have hunted Idaho since the 80's and I must say the Idaho of the 80's was far better than the Idaho of today. Whether you like it or not, the northern wolves are a larger sub-specie and they seem to run in larger packs. There is documentation breaking wolves into numerous sub-species just as there is for whitetail deer or moose or any other widely distributed specie. It is common knowledge that sub-species adapt to their environment in many ways. This could include their ability to compete for prey. When you bring a more competitive sub-specie into another sub-species area that evolved around the carrying capcity of that area, you risk upsetting the balance. That is the beef about canadian wolves.
I have said at least a dozen times on this forum that we have had wolves in NE WA for years. They were a much different critter. We never saw packs of 10 to 20 wolves, they were smaller and seemed to run in singles and doubles. This is the difference, these bigger northern wolvs are more successful. Now you may not like my next comment, but if you still can't understand the differences, you probably need to do a little studying about wolves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)
Now please consider, if you took Alberta whitetails to Arizona and Florida, would that not screw up those native sub-species and affect other species in those areas?
Let's take Alaskan Moose and put them in Idaho and Washington, what will happen to the Shiras Moose?
Doesn't seem to complicated to me. By trying to replace one sub-specie with another, they are screwing up wolves natural evolution and submitting the other animals in the new environment to non-natural predation. There are stories about this too, if you take the time to research and read them.
http://graywolfnews.com/ (http://graywolfnews.com/)
You are dead on BPaw, anyone who cannot understand this needs to go back to school! ;)
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 02:14:30 PM
Post by: wolfbait on September 14, 2010, 02:16:10 PM
What these wolves are doing to this country is disgusting, but what is more disgusting is watching people who can make a difference sit around with thumb up ass trying to fugure out what is staring them right in the face. You think this is to big of an issue and you know that there is nothing that YOU can do? *censored*! What the FK has happened to this country that we have people who no longer give a *censored*? These wolves will never be killed off even if you gave everyone a gun and said go kill wolves, hell the USFWS have trouble running down wolves by air, how is it you think hunting these wolves as a predator will hurt the population? IDFG played the defenders of BS game and now they are being forced to admit it, they are getting drug through the mud big time and they don't have a leg to stand on, and they know it. WDFW are going the same route that IDFG took, anyone who can't see that needs to get some new glasses. Hunting these wolves as a big game animal will NOT control wolf numbers, I doubt that hunting them as a predator will. There will be a need for special hunts just like Alaska does in order to keep the game herds from going into the predator pit and below. The USFWS don't want anything to do with the wolves they brought in, they have one hell of a mess going and it is their fault. In my opinion the USFWS should be held accountable in getting rid of these wolves, the wolf they introduced does not belong down here period.
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 02:28:17 PM
All of Idaho has not been ruined yet, but it's just a matter of time unless enough SSS happens by the locals. That is happening and even the governor told the USFWS that Idaho is going to let it happen unless USFWS get off their butts and manage wolves. Why would the governor write that letter if it was an imaginary problem... :bash: :bash: :bash:
Speaking of which...
Crying Wolf (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brk0mas6bUM#ws)
Post by: jackelope on September 14, 2010, 02:30:18 PM
We need more management than just hunters if we end up with management on a state level. Hunters can't do it alone. That was proven in Idaho this last year with the relatively very small number of wolves that were killed by hunters. It would also be proved by another survey asking who has actually seen a wolf in the woods here that they could have shot. My guess would be very very few. You'd need state assistance in the form of trappers or shooters or helicopters or something more than just us hunters.
The other thing I agree with Dale on is that if we as outdoorsmen go after complete eradication, we are more likely to get sound management as a result than if we were to go initially after sound management. Then we'd end up with nothing but what we have now.
Post by: grundy53 on September 14, 2010, 02:34:03 PM
One thing is for sure IMO.
We need more management than just hunters if we end up with management on a state level. Hunters can't do it alone. That was proven in Idaho this last year with the relatively very small number of wolves that were killed by hunters. It would also be proved by another survey asking who has actually seen a wolf in the woods here that they could have shot. My guess would be very very few. You'd need state assistance in the form of trappers or shooters or helicopters or something more than just us hunters.
The other thing I agree with Dale on is that if we as outdoorsmen go after complete eradication, we are more likely to get sound management as a result than if we were to go initially after sound management. Then we'd end up with nothing but what we have now.
I agree 100%
Post by: buglebrush on September 14, 2010, 02:37:34 PM
One thing is for sure IMO.me too. Let's face it if no action is taken my kids will never hunt the Rocky Mountain Elk. >:( >:( >:(
We need more management than just hunters if we end up with management on a state level. Hunters can't do it alone. That was proven in Idaho this last year with the relatively very small number of wolves that were killed by hunters. It would also be proved by another survey asking who has actually seen a wolf in the woods here that they could have shot. My guess would be very very few. You'd need state assistance in the form of trappers or shooters or helicopters or something more than just us hunters.
The other thing I agree with Dale on is that if we as outdoorsmen go after complete eradication, we are more likely to get sound management as a result than if we were to go initially after sound management. Then we'd end up with nothing but what we have now.
I agree 100%
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 03:03:57 PM
Jim Beers (former USFWS employee turned whistleblower on illegal use of Pitman-Robertson funds)
Wolves, Guns, Gorillas & Grouse - Part II
Yesterday morning I wrote the following 2 letters to the 2 Twin Cities
newspapers about their Sunday Sports Page articles crediting the decade-long
decline in grouse hunter numbers despite high grouse numbers to everything
from ATV's and obesity to the love of young people to text message and watch
The Vikings. I tried to point out that they had avoided the subject of wolf
impacts like the mention of the bird-eating habits of avian predators at an
Audubon Society Banquet.
I just hung up on a friend from Iowa who called to ask if I knew about the
publicized wolf-information phone number in Wisconsin FOR ANYONE PLANNING TO
HUNT WITH A DOG OR DOGS? While he said he had expected it to be some
private wolf group, he was surprised to find it was two Wisconsin DNR ladies
(Dawn and Stacey). The service they offer is to advise anyone hunting with
dogs (like grouse?, bears, pheasants, raccoons, rabbits, ducks, geese, etc.)
WHERE THE WOLVES ARE MOST ACTIVE SO THAT THEY AVOID THOSE AREAS (3/4 of the
state?) or keep their dogs so close that they are of little use. DUH! This
from the state that recently announced it is live trapping their elk herd
and moving it to another part of the SAME National Forest where there is
less wolf activity. That is like deciding that all the neighborhood kids
are too fat so you will move the Ice Cream stand and pie shop over one
block.
So there you have it! Minnesotans are propagandized by government and the
media that wolves are in no way involved in the decline of woodland grouse
hunters while just across the River in Wisconsin the bureaucrats have a wolf
hot line to further restrict and eventually eliminate hunting dogs as well
as hunters and hunting and 2nd Amendment supporters as they all morph into
obese football fans texting each other on fall afternoons. Man, you couldn't
make this stuff up if you sat up all night trying.
As an aside, my Iowa friend has no computer and was unaware of these 2
letters. He is a dog hunter that runs rabbits with his hounds. He came
across this Wisconsin phone number in a Fur, Fish, & Game magazine. He and
I have shared his concern about how the USFWS and its subcontractors (with
IA DNR support) have been and continue to burn all upland game bird and
rabbit nesting habitat and winter habitat on both public and private (IA has
lots of absentee landowners) land. His area is now devoid of pheasants - an
Invasive Species that went unprotected by "Pheasants Forever" - as the
government "only intended to restore the 'native ecosystem'" (among
wind-swept Iowa fields?) Sure. Just like the wolves in Minnesota and
Wisconsin are "good" for the state, burning all the pheasant, rabbit, and
turkey habitat in Iowa will one day make Iowa go "Poof!" and there will once
again be buffalo in prairie flowers up to their belly and wolf pups playing
with Indian children on the edge of a bucolic village.
In just 24 hours the corrupt nature and hidden agendas of three adjoining
states has been exposed yet again. These DNR's and the media are under the
thumb of federal bureaucracies that are forcing wolves where they are not
wanted, burning hunting and wintering habitat to eradicate highly-prized
game animals, and simultaneously making state DNR employees into Quislings
administering Vichy state fish and wildlife programs. The DNR's, outdoor
writers, and the "conservation media" are simply self-serving cowards
ingratiating themselves to what they see as the agendas of powerful
interlopers that they mistakenly believe will always be here.
A concerned and informed citizenry is our only hope. If you read
yesterday's Part I you can just skip the following. Please consider sharing
this with friends and others that might join us in bringing our state
agencies back under state control and placing wildlife back under state
authority where the US Constitution wisely put it. When that happens,
reforming state agencies back into State Agencies becomes a mere
administrative matter and the media will follow along as they sense the way
the wind will have changed.
-What Gun?
Rural America is being mugged and hijacked everywhere by wolves and like the
anti-gun advocate in a bad neighborhood or the pacifist on a Midwestern
farm; ignoring the true situation and not allowing it to be mentioned at the
table is like the storied ostrich reaction to danger while standing on a
sand dune.
It is Sunday morning here in Minnesota and I have just finished the
following two letters to the St. Paul and the Minneapolis papers. Each has
published a "grouse hunters are disappearing in spite of high grouse
populations and woe is hunting" "outdoor article" (it IS September, you
know). If you are interested in the insidious nature of disinformation from
state agencies and outdoor writers and newspapers you might find these
letters worth reading. The chances of seeing them elsewhere or hearing them
answered is on par with the "transparency" of the past two years of Federal
legislating in Washington.
1. THE 800 LB. GORILLA
Your "Grouse Booster" article about DNR plans to arrest the 10-year decline
in the numbers of grouse hunters despite abundant grouse numbers makes one
thing abundantly clear, like your front-page article many months ago blaming
global warming for the steady decline in moose: increasing wolf populations
are invisible and are only mentioned much like sightings of the extinct
Ivory-billed Woodpecker or Sasquatch.
Since returning to Minnesota 2 years ago, I have talked grouse hunting with
three former grouse hunters. One lost a dog to wolves and the other two had
close calls with wolves trying to kill their dogs. They want to be out in
the woods shooting grouse more than anything - except seeing their dog
killed or maimed right before their eyes. As one put it, "hunting those
woods with dogs is like trolling for muskies with a big spoon".
Like reversing the moose decline (wolves killing cows and calves each year
plus a few adults in winter snow is all it takes) or the declining deer
numbers for northern hunters, each of which has occurred as wolves have
increased; ignoring the safety of hunters and their dogs due to abundant
wolf populations cannot be disregarded
While wolf advocates either deny this or call it an "unintended
consequence", I for one know it is a very "intended consequence" and when
the DNR and newspapers either purposely or ignorantly avoid this fact, not
only grouse hunters, grouse hunting, and grouse dogs are put in jeopardy.
Jim Beers
2. INTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Your Sunday "hunting" article "Ruffed grouse hunting crowd is thinning" is
way off the mark in two ways: what it says and what it doesn't say. The ten
year decline in grouse hunter numbers is not due to "ATV's", "the woodcock
limit", hunters "wallets", baby boomer "aging", "obesity", young hunters
preferring to send "text messages", or the "Vikings" "success or lack of
success". Your writer redeems himself somewhat by ending with an admission
that it is "likely" "other factors as well". There is another "factor",
wolves.
Since returning to Minnesota 2 years ago after 30 plus years as a federal
biologist and 55 plus years as a hunter, I have spoken to lots of guys about
hunting and places to hunt. Three of those guys were "former" grouse
hunters that were sad that they no longer hunted the woods. Why? Because
one had lost a dog to wolves and the other two had confrontations with
wolves interested in killing their dogs. Those three out of my little
sample were concerned about not only their dogs but their own safety where
wolves were present.
It is disgraceful that the DNR and hunting organizations and newspapers act
as if wolves are extinct in the state or that hearing or seeing them is akin
to sighting a Great Auk or glimpsing and Ivory-billed Woodpecker, each of
which are extinct. Minnesota's robust and widely spread wolf population is
responsible for the moose decline and the paucity of northern deer as well
as the death of many rural dogs from watchdogs to hunting dogs as well as
human behavior modifications from solitary outdoor childhood behavior
(disappearing) to certain hunting safety participation in woodlands with
family dogs while carrying light-load shotguns with open chokes (declining).
While you may believe that such things are not occurring or that they are an
"unintended consequence" of some sort of semi-religious movement to "restore
native species", take my word that the wolf advocates and their cohorts in
the DNR and nationally are all too aware of these "intended consequences".
Jim Beers
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 03:10:55 PM
Posted: Saturday, September 4, 2010 5:00 am | Updated: 12:52 am, Sat Sep 4, 2010.
Karen Warnick - The Independent | 0 comments
APACHE COUNTY - The Board of Commissioners of Catron and Otero counties, the Gila National Forest Livestock Permittees' Association, the group Americans for Preservation of the Western Environment (APWE), and several ranches filed a lawsuit in New Mexico federal district court against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and its Director Benjamin Tuggle and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF) and its Director Tod Stevenson over their handling of the reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf program.
The 40-page lawsuit was filed, Aug. 27 Daniel Bryant attorney for the law firm Bryant, Schneider-Cook. The case alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. "The defendants have through actions and omissions violated the enabling rules and altered the program without completing the environmental review or other environmental documentation required by NEPA and its implementing regulations, and these actions are therefore arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law..." according to the brief.
In a phone interview, Bryant said he has spent 32 years battling the federal government over land issues. "I'm the one waving my hands at the federal land managers telling them they have to give us a voice and pay attention to how their decisions affect the people."
The wolf reintroduction program has cost taxpayers at least $20 million since 1998 according to an article in the Arizona Daily Star in June.
The following statements were made and quoted from the program's April 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Final Rule:
The FEIS and the Final Rule both were designed with "considerable management flexibility to reduce the potential conflicts between wolves and the activities of governmental agencies, livestock operators, hunters and others."
The FEIS also states that the initial release of stock of wolves will be "surplus" Mexican wolves from the captive population. "A surplus wolf is one whose loss or removal will not significantly adversely affect the genetic or demographic make-up of the population." Under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS classified the wolves as a nonessential experimental population.
The Final Rule states, "Nonessential experimental designation enables the Service to develop measures for management of the population that are less restrictive than the mandatory prohibitions that protect species with ‘endangered' status."
The Final Rule states, "The Service finds that even if the entire experimental population died this would not appreciably reduce the prospects for future survival of the subspecies in the wild. That is, the captive population could produce more surplus wolves and future reintroductions still would be feasible..."
Catron County commission Chairman Ed Wehrheim has been battling the wolf issue in his county for years. At issue is the USFWS not following its own rules, especially concerning the removal of wolves that have preyed upon livestock three times. "They haven't removed any wolves since 2007 and they've been changing their policies without going through the proper channels," he said.
Wehrheim went on the say that private property owners are not being compensated for the loss of livestock and the USFWS admitted that for every confirmed kill, there are seven more not confirmed.
Other issues stated in the lawsuit are the lack of funding available for the program and how it's adversely affecting the monitoring. This includes how the lack of funding and personnel has resulted in reduced wolf monitoring in the areas of radio-collaring, year-end population counts and response to wolf sightings.
Further charges in the lawsuit include, "The USFWS and the NMDGF (New Mexico Game and Fish) have ignored the scientific data contained in their own files regarding hybridization between wolves and coyotes, and have withheld such information from Plaintiffs and the general public, continuing to assert that there is no evidence of this type of hybridization."
The lawsuit asks that the judge, Robert Brack, issue a preliminary injunction preventing the Defendants from proceeding with any management decisions which are in violation of the law, to fully fund the required actions on wolf removals and population counts, declaring the Defendants' deviation from the rules as unlawful, and asking for reasonable attorney fees, interest and costs.
The next step in the case is the 20 to 60 days the defendants have to answer the charges. Bryant estimates that it will take eight months to a year before all the preliminary issues are handled and a court date is set.
•Reach the reporter at kwarnick@wmicentral.com.
Post by: Tman on September 14, 2010, 03:17:29 PM
Post by: rasbo on September 14, 2010, 03:19:36 PM
well you seem to think, or maybe I didnt write it well enough,those are my thoughts at what the other side is thinking...all my posts on here have been diredcted at what is used for fodder...as I have stated,if Im wrong please show me where...If you dont make a living on the wildlife then my post was wrong...Also I think you have the backing on everyone on this site,just how its done is the only debate I see hereNot to sound vicious but,you and many others make a living on the killing of game animals for sport,and you bring in many outta state hunters to kill the game at a high price.Much like bringing the wolves from somewhere else that kills the states animals...Is that not what the other side has for fodder to the argument.I cant make it work in my mind where you have a dog in the fight other than for monetary pourposes..isn't it how the masses that we need to sway might see it.
WHAT - This is the kind of comment that really does a lot to unite hunters. :bash: :bash: :bash:
I spend a good deal of my time trying to do what is best for wildllife, that comment is just dispicable and disgusting. I will refrain from really speaking my mind, but maybe you will get the idea anyway. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Quite frankly I get tired of this cheap shot idiotic stupid mentality. I donate more hunts to good causes to support wildlife than you even know, in addition to the deals and hunts I have offered to this forum. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Yes you hit a nerve.....
FYI - Most of my clients are resident hunters who work average jobs here in Washington. They save up all year so they can go on a good hunt. Probably 1/3 of my hunters go on meat hunts with no trophies involved. What really pi$$es me off is half the people with this attitude pay guides to hunt out of state or they hire fishing guides right here in Washington or buy books to get info on where to hunt. Talk about a bunch of double standard hypocrits. If you have never paid a guide for hunting or fishing help or bought books on how to improve your hunting in Washington or elsewhere, then I guess you can complain about me fairly, but if you ever have, you are just a hypocrit. So the next time someone is thinking this, I suggest you look in the mirror before you open your mouth. Furthermore, WDFW empolyees are all making a living off wildlife too. I don't sell wildlife, WDFW sells wildlife, I sell my experience and professional help to hunters who want a good experience and a better chance of success. It is a choice to purchase my services, it's not required. I felt like saying a bit more but I hope I got my point across so I will leave it at this.
Yes, it did sound very vicous....
Post by: runamuk on September 14, 2010, 03:22:37 PM
and there will never be sound management of jack until the treaties are eradicated .....I will continue to pour my emotions into that battle...
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 03:28:16 PM
1 week, 98 members, trying to make it 100 today.
http://www.causes.com/causes/523546?recruiter_id=132141072 (http://www.causes.com/causes/523546?recruiter_id=132141072)
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2010, 03:30:45 PM
I am not sure what this latest round of wolf banter was intended to create but it has essentially left a nasty taste in my mouth ....I have other things in my immediate life that are far more important than who wins the wolf wars....and honestly I think wolves are the least of this states problems right now.....
and there will never be sound management of jack until the treaties are eradicated .....I will continue to pour my emotions into that battle...
I agree there's lots of problems, but wolves are important too, I am a hunter and I can see we are where Idaho was only a few short years ago.
Post by: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 03:34:33 PM
Again, where is the proof that the wolves in WA are anything other than wolves who have moved here from north of the border and that wolves that were here before eradication were any different. Were not talking thousands of miles here, we are not FL or AR, you and I could walk from where we live to where "Canadian" wolves are supposedly native.
Yes, wolves were wiped out because they were competition to cattle men but also because they were competition to hunters and because historically man has always had a fear of wolves.
There were areas that after predators were wiped that the game animals flourished and became the holy grail of hunting like the Kaibab. Guess what happened there though, the animals overgrazed and almost wiped themselves out and if not for intervention of man rehabilitating the landscape it would have become a wasteland.
I ask again, if wolves that were native to the lower 48 were the smaller sub species that we call timber wolves that are so much smaller and hunted in singles and doubles and not in large packs why were they eradicated? How could those animals have been such a threat to cattle men and hunters that they felt they had to wipe out every last one of them?
OK I will repeat again...
Bottom Line whether you like it or not.
Wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 because they caused too much damage to livestock growers. In the process we found that our other wildlife flourished without wolves eating them all the time. That wolf removal has worked pretty darn well for nearly 100 years and our lower 48 has evolved into a modern environment. I do not think you can ever take the lower 48 back to a pre-1800's type of environment, let's be real here...
I will also point you to the links that explain that wolves from varying areas are double the size of others. Proof is in print.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)
OK, I will repeat again...where is the proof that wolves in the lower 48 were anything different than what are here now? You throw out the argument that the wolves you used to see were a different sub species which was much less threatening than what are here now. You also argue that the wolves currently in the lower 48 now are a non native invasive species. What I'm failing to understand here is why, if the wolves that you say were native to the lower 48 are so much less of a threatening sub species, they were seen as such a great threat and eradicated. Could it be because they were the same wolves that are here now?
I'm not pro wolf and by no means do I think that things can go back to what it was before settlers came west. I also think this country has evolved past the days when American pioneers had to compete with wolves for survival. In my opinion wolves have a place in our wild country and they should be dealt with when they are a burden.
You and WB can post up all the anti wolf propaganda you want. I will read it and form my own opinion which will probably be different than yours. If I really wanted to make you guys mad I could post up just as much pro wolf propaganda as you do anti. Then you could tell me how my head is buried in the sand and I better wake up before its too late and all that pro wolf stuff is just lies spewed out by those who are trying to ruin our country with wolves.
Post by: buglebrush on September 14, 2010, 04:17:12 PM
I was just wondering if you have ever been in the Lolo Zone and similar areas of Idaho? I suspect from your comments that you have not spent a-lot of time in the back country there. The most important issue to me is that I want to see The elk, deer, moose, etc... continue to thrive. If you go in those area's you will see what I mean. Or we could just sit and watch any chance our children and grandchildren have of hunting Elk on public land *censored* right out a wolf arse.Again, where is the proof that the wolves in WA are anything other than wolves who have moved here from north of the border and that wolves that were here before eradication were any different. Were not talking thousands of miles here, we are not FL or AR, you and I could walk from where we live to where "Canadian" wolves are supposedly native.
Yes, wolves were wiped out because they were competition to cattle men but also because they were competition to hunters and because historically man has always had a fear of wolves.
There were areas that after predators were wiped that the game animals flourished and became the holy grail of hunting like the Kaibab. Guess what happened there though, the animals overgrazed and almost wiped themselves out and if not for intervention of man rehabilitating the landscape it would have become a wasteland.
I ask again, if wolves that were native to the lower 48 were the smaller sub species that we call timber wolves that are so much smaller and hunted in singles and doubles and not in large packs why were they eradicated? How could those animals have been such a threat to cattle men and hunters that they felt they had to wipe out every last one of them?
OK I will repeat again...
Bottom Line whether you like it or not.
Wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 because they caused too much damage to livestock growers. In the process we found that our other wildlife flourished without wolves eating them all the time. That wolf removal has worked pretty darn well for nearly 100 years and our lower 48 has evolved into a modern environment. I do not think you can ever take the lower 48 back to a pre-1800's type of environment, let's be real here...
I will also point you to the links that explain that wolves from varying areas are double the size of others. Proof is in print.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)
OK, I will repeat again...where is the proof that wolves in the lower 48 were anything different than what are here now? You throw out the argument that the wolves you used to see were a different sub species which was much less threatening than what are here now. You also argue that the wolves currently in the lower 48 now are a non native invasive species. What I'm failing to understand here is why, if the wolves that you say were native to the lower 48 are so much less of a threatening sub species, they were seen as such a great threat and eradicated. Could it be because they were the same wolves that are here now?
I'm not pro wolf and by no means do I think that things can go back to what it was before settlers came west. I also think this country has evolved past the days when American pioneers had to compete with wolves for survival. In my opinion wolves have a place in our wild country and they should be dealt with when they are a burden.
You and WB can post up all the anti wolf propaganda you want. I will read it and form my own opinion which will probably be different than yours. If I really wanted to make you guys mad I could post up just as much pro wolf propaganda as you do anti. Then you could tell me how my head is buried in the sand and I better wake up before its too late and all that pro wolf stuff is just lies spewed out by those who are trying to ruin our country with wolves.
Post by: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 04:36:22 PM
Post by: Special T on September 14, 2010, 04:36:54 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 04:47:48 PM
Please refer me to where I said I didn't have time to to devote to your insanity. If it is the same topic I am thinking of I supplied more than enough info that was counter to what was being posted. And please show me where I have ignored, obscured and redirected pointed questions with classic outcries of "your closed minded".
And while your at it maybe you can tell me what I have said here for you to form the opinion that I am ignorant.
Post by: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 05:38:54 PM
I think they should be treated like connotes. Year round hunting and no bag limit. And lowedog the west is absolutely different then it was back when the original wolves were here. You are comparing apples to oranges. BTW do you work for DOW?
I have a confession to make everyone. Back in July of 2007 I received an assignment from my employer. The assignment was to join the newly founded website hunting-washington.com and infiltrate the ranks of membership under the cover of being an avid hunter and outdoors man. I was to try and convert all members into Defenders of Wildlife. Over the last 3 years I have been living a lie. I have actually even had to perform the disgusting act of killing animals and even catching a few fish in order to not blow my cover.
In the end though it was not meant to be. grundy53 has blown my cover. And to think that grundy was one of the last few left to convert! How will I ever face my friends at DOW again?
Post by: jackelope on September 14, 2010, 05:44:45 PM
Quote
Quote from: grundy53 on Today at 10:41:58 AM
I think they should be treated like connotes.
What's a connote?
Post by: Special T on September 14, 2010, 05:46:47 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 14, 2010, 05:50:00 PM
QuoteQuote from: grundy53 on Today at 10:41:58 AM
I think they should be treated like connotes.
What's a connote?
Lol. I have no clue..... Damn phone and its preemptive text. :chuckle: its supposed to be coyotes
Post by: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 05:52:23 PM
Post by: sisu on September 14, 2010, 06:07:23 PM
QuoteQuote from: grundy53 on Today at 10:41:58 AM
I think they should be treated like connotes.
What's a connote?
It's a French ex-con coyote'
Post by: wolfbait on September 14, 2010, 06:11:00 PM
Again, where is the proof that the wolves in WA are anything other than wolves who have moved here from north of the border and that wolves that were here before eradication were any different. Were not talking thousands of miles here, we are not FL or AR, you and I could walk from where we live to where "Canadian" wolves are supposedly native.
Yes, wolves were wiped out because they were competition to cattle men but also because they were competition to hunters and because historically man has always had a fear of wolves.
There were areas that after predators were wiped that the game animals flourished and became the holy grail of hunting like the Kaibab. Guess what happened there though, the animals overgrazed and almost wiped themselves out and if not for intervention of man rehabilitating the landscape it would have become a wasteland.
I ask again, if wolves that were native to the lower 48 were the smaller sub species that we call timber wolves that are so much smaller and hunted in singles and doubles and not in large packs why were they eradicated? How could those animals have been such a threat to cattle men and hunters that they felt they had to wipe out every last one of them?
OK I will repeat again...
Bottom Line whether you like it or not.
Wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 because they caused too much damage to livestock growers. In the process we found that our other wildlife flourished without wolves eating them all the time. That wolf removal has worked pretty darn well for nearly 100 years and our lower 48 has evolved into a modern environment. I do not think you can ever take the lower 48 back to a pre-1800's type of environment, let's be real here...
I will also point you to the links that explain that wolves from varying areas are double the size of others. Proof is in print.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)
OK, I will repeat again...where is the proof that wolves in the lower 48 were anything different than what are here now? You throw out the argument that the wolves you used to see were a different sub species which was much less threatening than what are here now. You also argue that the wolves currently in the lower 48 now are a non native invasive species. What I'm failing to understand here is why, if the wolves that you say were native to the lower 48 are so much less of a threatening sub species, they were seen as such a great threat and eradicated. Could it be because they were the same wolves that are here now?
I'm not pro wolf and by no means do I think that things can go back to what it was before settlers came west. I also think this country has evolved past the days when American pioneers had to compete with wolves for survival. In my opinion wolves have a place in our wild country and they should be dealt with when they are a burden.
You and WB can post up all the anti wolf propaganda you want. I will read it and form my own opinion which will probably be different than yours. If I really wanted to make you guys mad I could post up just as much pro wolf propaganda as you do anti. Then you could tell me how my head is buried in the sand and I better wake up before its too late and all that pro wolf stuff is just lies spewed out by those who are trying to ruin our country with wolves.
Lowedog I would have to disagree with you on the pro-wolf propaganda, anyone who visits WDFW wolf web site can get that. There is even a defenders of BS site on the WDFW site.
As far as the wolves we had before the Canadian wolves and since we did not have DNA testing back in them days here is what many of us seen. A wolf that was smaller, wolves that ran in packs up to four, a wolf that was educated to man and caused very little trouble. Wolves that people only seen fleetingly. What we have today is a wolf that runs in packs up to 40, they kill for fun as much as they do to eat maybe more and they are not afraid of people. Look at what has happened where these wolves are released, look at Montana, and Idaho. How is it so hard to understand that if these were the same wolves we had before, why did it take so long for what is happening today to happen? WDFW have been releasing these wolves all over the state for a long time now. What many people don't understand is WA already has many of these Canadian wolves. WDFW have lied to the public in much the same way as IDFG, and now we are on what maybe our third wolf pack in WA. WDFW are going to have some explaining to do one of these days soon and they will look exactly like IDFG, they won't have a leg to stand on. But what about the over population of wolves that we already have, what do we do about them?
Post by: sisu on September 14, 2010, 07:07:42 PM
I believe that shooting wolves for sport & collecting the hide is a great benefit for any sports man or woman, but there needs to be a big enough harvest to have cause and affect. I have a very good friend that is a avid hunter and fisher who vehemently disagrees with me. He says that winters and habitat is the selector of the species numbers. I tell him sure those do to but wolves have a bigger impact when they are transplanted and protected than the occasional one that wanders in from Isle Royal or across the border from Canada.
You have to face the facts that we have them and we need to get the gov't to have special harvests. If not there is going to be carnage of game, cattle, sheep and wolves.
What we need to do though is right here we need to stop and look at ourselves and the arguing we are doing among our own "kind". There has to be a consensus that we, as sportsmen and women, can agree to. Without that we are divided and a kingdom divided is easily conquered.
Post by: Lowedog on September 14, 2010, 07:46:52 PM
WB, I guess I am just not asking the question clearly enough. I am looking for proof that the "Canadian" wolf is not the same wolf that was eradicated from the lower 48 almost 100yrs ago. The argument is made over and over that the introduced wolves are an invasive non-native species and that the native species is more like what you described in your post.
As for WDFW releasing wolves I would love to see proof of that.
Post by: KillerMiller on September 14, 2010, 08:13:03 PM
[/quote]
:yeah:
Sound mgmt. to include hunting/trapping is my vote. :)
Post by: jackelope on September 14, 2010, 08:33:24 PM
Agreed Sisu, and I think that is the basis that started the whole current discussion. I think to a certain degree most of us hunters are on the same line of thinking when it comes to wolves. Problem is when you have people who are very outspoken and on the extreme end of the wolf management issue insulting those that are for the most part on the same side of the issue you will have a very hard time having everyone coming to the same consensus.
WB, I guess I am just not asking the question clearly enough. I am looking for proof that the "Canadian" wolf is not the same wolf that was eradicated from the lower 48 almost 100yrs ago. The argument is made over and over that the introduced wolves are an invasive non-native species and that the native species is more like what you described in your post.
As for WDFW releasing wolves I would love to see proof of that.
great post Lowedog. Very logical....all of it.
Post by: grundy53 on September 14, 2010, 08:35:13 PM
Here you go lowedog
Post by: wolfbait on September 14, 2010, 08:38:20 PM
Agreed Sisu, and I think that is the basis that started the whole current discussion. I think to a certain degree most of us hunters are on the same line of thinking when it comes to wolves. Problem is when you have people who are very outspoken and on the extreme end of the wolf management issue insulting those that are for the most part on the same side of the issue you will have a very hard time having everyone coming to the same consensus.
WB, I guess I am just not asking the question clearly enough. I am looking for proof that the "Canadian" wolf is not the same wolf that was eradicated from the lower 48 almost 100yrs ago. The argument is made over and over that the introduced wolves are an invasive non-native species and that the native species is more like what you described in your post.
As for WDFW releasing wolves I would love to see proof of that.
First off I respect everyone on W-H, at times things have gotten hot n heavy, and we all have our own opinions, but thats what makes things interesting. I have learnd many things from all of you and enjoyed your stories.
I came on this site with wolves on my mind, to inform all of you of what was happening in my little part of WA. Since then I have met many great people, some of them have come to my home, where we discussed the modern day attire and such. I wished that I could have been a part of this site without the wolves, I honestly believe this is the best hunting web site that has been ever started.
I don't plan on arguing anymore on W-H about wolves, I have given you as much info as there is, if you still have doubts then you will always have them. Not makeing a decission is the same as doing nothing, and that is totally up to everyone of you.
Lowedog, I don't think you are pro-wolf and it would not matter if you were, the bottom line, this is not the 100 years ago, and why would wolves come clear down from Alberta to the lower 48 where the wolves already had killed the hell out of everything. WHY!!! I won't be answering you but think about it. OK , Todd
Post by: Special T on September 14, 2010, 08:58:09 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on September 14, 2010, 09:56:41 PM
Attempted eradication is the best option in my opinion.
Gringo
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2010, 04:04:55 AM
well you seem to think, or maybe I didnt write it well enough,those are my thoughts at what the other side is thinking...all my posts on here have been diredcted at what is used for fodder...as I have stated,if Im wrong please show me where...If you dont make a living on the wildlife then my post was wrong...Also I think you have the backing on everyone on this site,just how its done is the only debate I see hereNot to sound vicious but,you and many others make a living on the killing of game animals for sport,and you bring in many outta state hunters to kill the game at a high price.Much like bringing the wolves from somewhere else that kills the states animals...Is that not what the other side has for fodder to the argument.I cant make it work in my mind where you have a dog in the fight other than for monetary pourposes..isn't it how the masses that we need to sway might see it.
WHAT - This is the kind of comment that really does a lot to unite hunters. :bash: :bash: :bash:
I spend a good deal of my time trying to do what is best for wildllife, that comment is just dispicable and disgusting. I will refrain from really speaking my mind, but maybe you will get the idea anyway. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Quite frankly I get tired of this cheap shot idiotic stupid mentality. I donate more hunts to good causes to support wildlife than you even know, in addition to the deals and hunts I have offered to this forum. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Yes you hit a nerve.....
FYI - Most of my clients are resident hunters who work average jobs here in Washington. They save up all year so they can go on a good hunt. Probably 1/3 of my hunters go on meat hunts with no trophies involved. What really pi$$es me off is half the people with this attitude pay guides to hunt out of state or they hire fishing guides right here in Washington or buy books to get info on where to hunt. Talk about a bunch of double standard hypocrits. If you have never paid a guide for hunting or fishing help or bought books on how to improve your hunting in Washington or elsewhere, then I guess you can complain about me fairly, but if you ever have, you are just a hypocrit. So the next time someone is thinking this, I suggest you look in the mirror before you open your mouth. Furthermore, WDFW empolyees are all making a living off wildlife too. I don't sell wildlife, WDFW sells wildlife, I sell my experience and professional help to hunters who want a good experience and a better chance of success. It is a choice to purchase my services, it's not required. I felt like saying a bit more but I hope I got my point across so I will leave it at this.
Yes, it did sound very vicous....
rasbo I did misunderstand you and thought those were your feelings. My apologies for the misunderstanding on your thoughts, but those are my comments to those who do think that way. People who think that way are just messed up. That is like saying because I am a hunting guide my opinion should not count. That's very narrow minded.
I do put a lot of effort into trying to find what is best for wildlife. Unfortunately unregulated wolf numbers simply do not benefit wildlife.
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2010, 04:28:05 AM
If you choose to ignore the facts that is your choice to act just like the pro-wolfers, not my doing. But the proof has been supplied if you are man enough to read it. Let your own concious guide you on that, I guess you can simply reply back again "show me the proof"....LOL
I also supplied you the address to my wolf website which has all the links to actual news stories and studies proving everything I have claimed. Where is your proof?
I am pretty busy right now and do not have time to get all the quotes for you, but they are all there. If you wanted to find them you could, but you obviously are closed minded on this, and find it easier to simply say "show me the proof" while ignoring the facts that have been supplied.
Since I have gotten involved and studied wolves I have become more opposed to them because the proof makes it obvious that wolves do not fit into the lower 48. Sorry but the facts speak for themself. Does that mean I want to see wolves extirminated from earth, heck no, but you will most likely try to twist my words into that.
At any rate, you are welcome to ignore the facts, but there are far more people who are learning from all the data that has been provided.
WDFW has blocked much info from Washingtonians, but the efforts of wolfbait and others is making a difference. I for one thank wolfbait for bringing so much info to light.
If you want to see the proof, it is all in the news and studies posted here: http://graywolfnews.com/ (http://graywolfnews.com/)
But don't tell me I have not supplied the proof...LOL
Post by: Gutpile on September 15, 2010, 05:16:26 AM
Support Responsible Wolf Management in Washington
1 week, 98 members, trying to make it 100 today.
http://www.causes.com/causes/523546?recruiter_id=132141072 (http://www.causes.com/causes/523546?recruiter_id=132141072)
Wow, membership doubled in one day after your post. Hopefully we'll get more folks on board.
Unfortunately on Facebook a lot of people just "liked" it instead of joining. Oh well.
Post by: Lowedog on September 15, 2010, 08:28:25 AM
I am not trying to change your mind and I am not trying to twist your words. There is nothing to suggest that the wolves in WA were introduced. The packs in the NE and Methow more than likely originated in British Columbia and did not travel here over thousands of miles.
My mind just wonders why, if the native wolves to the lower 48 (especially WA) was so much less threatening to live stock and game herds, they were wiped out. In my opinion they weren't any less threatening and were basically the same wolf. That or the lower 48 had both the larger sub species and the several other regional smaller sub species which at the time there was no distinction and all wolves were considered the same.
I am trying to be as open minded as possible about wolves. I read info from both sides and try to sort through the extremist views coming from both sides.
I voted for sound management in this poll because to me that means using what ever means possible to deal with wolves. I like others don't feel that hunting alone is an effective management tool for wolves. Like I have said several times I do believe there is room in our wild lands for wolves. By no stretch of the imagination does that mean I think we need wolf numbers like they are in other states.
You ask me where my proof is. I am not trying to prove anything. I am not the one on here telling people they need to pull there heads out and insulting them when they don't share my views. I have said I could post just as much pro wolf propaganda as you do anti. That doesn't mean I believe everything I read on the pro wolf side either but it is out there.
Post by: grundy53 on September 15, 2010, 08:31:57 AM
Bearpaw, I read the info on the links you provided. There is nothing there that answers the question I have asked. I am not asking about the wolves that were introduced into Yellowstone which came from the Mackenzie Valley of Alberta. They are also known as the Canadian Timber Wolf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf)
I am not trying to change your mind and I am not trying to twist your words. There is nothing to suggest that the wolves in WA were introduced. The packs in the NE and Methow more than likely originated in British Columbia and did not travel here over thousands of miles.
My mind just wonders why, if the native wolves to the lower 48 (especially WA) was so much less threatening to live stock and game herds, they were wiped out. In my opinion they weren't any less threatening and were basically the same wolf. That or the lower 48 had both the larger sub species and the several other regional smaller sub species which at the time there was no distinction and all wolves were considered the same.
I am trying to be as open minded as possible about wolves. I read info from both sides and try to sort through the extremist views coming from both sides.
I voted for sound management in this poll because to me that means using what ever means possible to deal with wolves. I like others don't feel that hunting alone is an effective management tool for wolves. Like I have said several times I do believe there is room in our wild lands for wolves. By no stretch of the imagination does that mean I think we need wolf numbers like they are in other states.
You ask me where my proof is. I am not trying to prove anything. I am not the one on here telling people they need to pull there heads out and insulting them when they don't share my views. I have said I could post just as much pro wolf propaganda as you do anti. That doesn't mean I believe everything I read on the pro wolf side either but it is out there.
Did you go to the website I provided the link too?
Post by: Lowedog on September 15, 2010, 08:47:27 AM
It is interesting though when you compare that information with the info found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf) . You can see in the link I posted that the Mackenzie Valley wolf (or Canadian Timber wolf) has a range extending to the US border with the acknowledgement that they are also the wolf that was introduced into Yellowstone and Idaho.
My thought is that these larger wolves did not recognize the border pre-eradication and occupied much of the Rocky Mtn Range and other ares of the west.
I do understand though that the sub species of wolf introduced into those areas is a predator that is unlike anything that was there for close to 100 years and needs to be aggressively managed.
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2010, 09:29:12 AM
FYI- The link I gave you specified which wolves were native to WA and what their size was. The native wolves killed livestock too. That's why they wiped them out too. :)
But the native wolves were more adapted to this environment and possibly less impact on wildlife, that's my beef, also the wolves they brought in had Hydatid Disease, very stupid the way USFWS ignored warnings from qualified professionals.
Lewis and Clark nearly starved to death in the Rocky Mountains because game numbers were so low.
But wolves were wiped out because they all killed livestock, you know that so why do you argue?
FYI- I used to think that some wolves would be compatible, now I know it's not possible, mostly because wolf lovers will not let F&G keep numbers at managable levels in the areas with the least impact. They want them everywhere and in unlimited numbers. WDFW wolf plan is prime example.
Post by: Lowedog on September 15, 2010, 10:01:25 AM
I don't really follow your statement about Lewis and Clark...
Lewis and Clark nearly starved to death in the Rocky Mountains because game numbers were so low.
But wolves were wiped out because they all killed livestock, you know that so why do you argue?
I'm not sure what you are getting at there? :dunno:
Post by: grundy53 on September 15, 2010, 10:06:37 AM
BP, we will just have to disagree on the issue. I read the info you provided and saw nothing that suggested that the larger sub species known as the Canadian Timber wolf was not inhabiting the lower 48. If you read my last post you see what my opinion is on this particular part of the conversation is. In reality it has nothing to do with what is going on now. Wolves are here and they need to be dealt with. Just how they are dealt with is where our opinions differ.
I don't really follow your statement about Lewis and Clark...Lewis and Clark nearly starved to death in the Rocky Mountains because game numbers were so low.
But wolves were wiped out because they all killed livestock, you know that so why do you argue?
I'm not sure what you are getting at there? :dunno:
He's saying there was no game for Lewis and Clark expedition to eat cause the wolves had hunted them to such a low population numbers
Post by: Lowedog on September 15, 2010, 06:03:50 PM
They hardly almost starved to death either. They went hungry at times but they were not starving. They crossed that trail in 11 days in late Sept. They encountered snow storms and rough terrain. They weren't exploring the mountain sides for game they were trudging their way to the west across those mountains as fast as they could travel.
Post by: rasbo on September 16, 2010, 04:37:08 AM
Post by: bearpaw on September 16, 2010, 08:14:34 AM
The following story shows the impact of wolves today in the Lolo and explains how F&G is planning to lower the wolf population: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2010/aug/13/fish-game-plans-clearwater-wolf-kill/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2010/aug/13/fish-game-plans-clearwater-wolf-kill/)
I believe it is safe to assume there is a correlation that predators have had an impact on game in the mountains (especially wolves) because after the L&C expedition and after wolves were eradicated, the Lolo became one of Idaho's greatest Elk Zones, now after the introduction and increase of wolves, the Lolo is Idaho's most endangered elk herd. As pointed out in the proof I have provided, IDFG have documented that wolves are the primary limiting factor of the lolo elk herd.
You may think I am being unfair, but I am simply presenting the facts.
I have yet to see any facts from you which refute this data.
Yes, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree, I have seen no proof to change my opinion that wolves do cause all the problems that myself, wolfbait, and others have presented to this forum with much supporting data.
Post by: bearpaw on September 16, 2010, 08:16:23 AM
There are roughly 250 to 300 news stories on this website from across the world, but mostly from the lower 48 states, showing the negative affects of wolves and illustrating the negative impacts wolves have had on modern society. Most of these impacts are a direct result and caused by the failure of game managers to properly manage wolves in human inhabited areas. In my opinion for anyone to continue to assert that wolves need to be allowed to multiply without proper management in highly inhabited areas is not a display of good reasoning, sensibility, or compassion.
How well do wolves fit into the southern 48 states today? Watch This....
Crying Wolf (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brk0mas6bUM#ws)
one of the latest wolf attacks on liestock.....
Wolves in the Big Horns
kpomeroy posted on September 02, 2010 15:06
Wolves kill 24 sheep
http://basinrepublican-rustler.com/CurrentNews/tabid/941/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3819/Wolves-in-the-Big-Horns.aspx (http://basinrepublican-rustler.com/CurrentNews/tabid/941/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3819/Wolves-in-the-Big-Horns.aspx)
By NATHAN OSTER
For Keith Hamilton, it wasn’t a question of if wolves would make their presence felt in the Big Horns. It was a question of when.
“We knew that when they introduced wolves to Yellowstone that it was only going to be a matter of time before we started to suffer livestock losses,” said Hamilton, who has been grazing approximately 2,500 head of sheep in the Big Horn Mountains this summer.
In July, it finally happened.
The Hamilton Ranch, which has had permits to graze sheep in the Hyattville area since 1928, lost 24 head in what has since been confirmed by officials from multiple agencies as wolf kills. The 24 included one ewe and 23 lambs. All were killed in the same manner. None were eaten.
The killings are the first ones reported in the Big Horns this year, but follow closely on the heels of the 113 sheep that were killed by wolves on the south end of the mountain range in 2009. Three wolves were identified as the suspects in those killings, and each of them was lethally removed, according to Mike Jimenez, Wyoming Wolf Coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
After this year’s killings, the FWS asked the USDA Wildlife Services to remove the predators. To date, those efforts, which have included an aerial search and time spent on the ground, have been unsuccessful.
Hamilton said his sheep were moved into the area, which he described as 10 miles north of Burgess Junction, on July 11. The killing started the next day. Between July 12 and 13, wolves killed 18 lambs and one ewe. On July 25, five more lambs were killed.
“After the first kills, we moved the sheep a couple of miles, but it didn’t help,” Hamilton told the Wyoming Livestock Roundup, in a story published Saturday. “We’ve got guard dogs and one of the best sheep herders in the Big Horns. Our guard dogs work real well, and fortunately we didn’t lose any dogs.”
The Hamiltons own both sheep and cattle, and although wolves have been sighted near Hyattville, the ranch has not suffered previous wolf losses.
“There may be more losses that we don’t know about,” Hamilton told the magazine. “We won’t know that until we bring them in later this month.”
In an interview Tuesday, Hamilton said it was naïve for people to think that the wolves were going to remain in the park.
He reiterated what he told the magazine, saying it’s important that Wyoming and its governor defend the “predator” status of wolves in most of the state, as written in the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan.
“We have to be able to control (wolves), or we’ll have more problems. The fact that we haven’t been able to get wolves delisted is proof the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is broken. Wyoming has repeatedly met the FWS standards for delisting, and still they won’t delist the wolf in Wyoming. The ESA has only successfully delisted a handful of plants or animals. Often listing has nothing to do with the protection of a species,” he said.
Hamilton said the Defenders of Wildlife organization has paid ranchers in the past to compensate for animals lost to wolves, and that he will be submitting a claim to the organization for the 24 head that he lost, which he valued at between $4,000 and $5,000.
“They don’t have to pay the claims,” he said. “But we’re hopeful that they will pay ours.
As for this sheep that remain on the Big Horns, Hamilton said they will be moved this week to an area further south on the range. “The wolves have been spotted around here, too, so that doesn’t alleviate our concerns,” he said. “We could just as easily have that problem here, too.”
Jimenez said there have been no reported incidents since the July killings, and that he does not believe there are any wolf packs operating in the Big Horns. “None of them confirmed, anyway,” he said.
To report wolf sightings, contact Jimenez at 307-330-5631.
Post by: Lowedog on September 16, 2010, 04:29:52 PM
I can't find it at the moment but read an article the other day where IDFG did a 3 yr study on I think all the zones where elk are in a decline and only I think 3 had wolves as the main cause of mortality. That doesn't mean much about wolves to me because maybe wolves aren't in all those areass but it does say that elk are declining in a lot of areas for more reasons than just wolves. I will try to find that link again and post it when I have more time.
The only thing I have argued is that the introduced species of wolf being non-native to the lower 48. If you are going to use Lewis and Clark for example then how do you explain the huge packs of wolves they saw following the bison and elk herds on the plains?
Post by: Special T on September 16, 2010, 10:54:26 PM
As state law reads now, if i introduced a non native invasive species I would be liable for the monetary consequences for it... Take mil-foil for example... or in the great lakes some of the muscles or snails that have come in though ballast tanks of ships... Who should have the burden of proof if the wolves are indigenous or not? the general public? or whom ever trans planted them into the YNP?
I think that the burden of proof is on those who reintroduced to the YNP. Unfortunately we are having one sided conversations with our-self so we cannot get any meaning full answers...
Why would they not want to educate us and bring us out of ignorance?
1 They don't know themselves if the wolves are indigenous
2 They know they are not
3 They don't care
Their silence on this issue and many others tells us everything we need to know... yes, no, and silence are ALL answers Especially SILENCE
Post by: Lowedog on September 17, 2010, 12:10:40 AM
Anyway, this is a long read but I found it very interesting.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/27_3/03_TXT.htm (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/27_3/03_TXT.htm)
Post by: Special T on September 17, 2010, 07:15:59 AM
Post by: Lowedog on September 17, 2010, 07:53:00 AM
Reading through some of the court rulings it doesn't really matter if they were non native. The ESA allowed them to use the reintroduced wolves reasoning that there were no native wolf populations in those areas. The reason they didn't introduce wolves in Montana is because there was proof that wolves had already established themselves there naturally.
I would think a stronger argument could be made that there were already wolves in the areas where wolves were released and by reintroducing wolves to those areas they violated the ESA. This has already been ruled on in court cases so better proof of existing wolf packs would need to be shown. This far down the road that would be tough as all the original reintroduced and I am sure wolves already there have long since died.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 09:12:02 AM
Pro-Management groups are trying to rekindle this issue because prior to the re-classification this would have been an illegal introduction.
The info about the redesignation by some scietists is also posted on my wolf site: http://graywolfnews.com/ (http://graywolfnews.com/)
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 09:18:24 AM
Quote
If you are going to use Lewis and Clark for example then how do you explain the huge packs of wolves they saw following the bison and elk herds on the plains?
Wolves like to eat bison too, but bison are larger animals, were in larger groups, and were harder for wolves to impact the population. I'm not sure what you mean here?
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 09:21:08 AM
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/17/idaho-county-idaho-declares-wolf-disaster-fear-for-their-lives/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/17/idaho-county-idaho-declares-wolf-disaster-fear-for-their-lives/)
Idaho County, Idaho Declares Wolf Disaster, Fear For Their Lives
September 17, 2010
As I predicted several months ago, the wolf wars have now turned a corner and have become serious. Many of the uninformed believed that a few angry hunters and landowners might take it upon themselves to poach wolves in an attempt to save their properties and lessen the impact of wolves. Little did most suspect, including the greedy, maligned environmentalists, who even to this day are clamoring to have wolves in every state in this country.
The introduction of gray wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem, in what was described as and is still labeled as a Nonessential Experimental Population, is an unmitigated disaster. It has reached a level now where one county in Idaho has declared their county a disaster because of uncontrolled wolves. Idaho County, Idaho citizens now fear for their lives, as is stated in the Disaster Declaration.
WHEREAS, the presence and boldness of wolves have caused citizens grave concern for their safety and the safety of their families….
The Idaho County Board of Commissioners take nearly 2 and a half pages to lay out the disaster as it has unfolded in their county. This includes not only the physical losses of properties, the stresses and strains of everyday life, fear, destruction of ungulates and a radical and abrupt change of lifestyle, but the politics and seeming agenda-driven decisions of the Courts.
The Declaration of Disaster defends its decision on State and County laws to do so and declares that Canadian Gray Wolves are, “causing vast devastation of the social culture, economy and natural resources of Idaho County.” And that as a result of the gray wolf, “Public safety is compromised, economic activity is disrupted and private and public property continues to be imperiled.”
Therefore the Idaho County Board of Commissioners, believing to be acting through legal State and County approved codes, is requesting that Idaho Governor Butch Otter immediately issue an “Executive Order or Disaster Proclamation” that would label the Canadian gray wolf a “managed predator”, as allowed under the 2002 Legislatively approved wolf management plan. This plan calls for wolves to be controlled at a level of about 150 wolves statewide. The Board of Commissioners is asking the Governor to use whatever means necessary to accomplish this.
The County is also requesting that Governor Otter continue this Disaster Proclamation until the wolves have been reduced to 2002 Wolf Management Plan levels and that policies be adopted to create “no-wolf tolerance zones” – near homes, ranches, schools and public recreation areas.
Idaho has now officially moved beyond the tit for tat debate about whether wolves are or are not good for Idaho or anybody else. I repeat! This experiment is an oppressive, relentless and unmitigated disaster at all levels. The envelope is far beyond being pushed as the result of lack of leadership and the state of Idaho being controlled by environmentalists instead of the people, with no support from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I would declare this to be a line drawn in the sand. One that apparently Governor Otter was unwilling to draw in dealing with the Feds about wolves.
On a related note: It was brought to my attention that during last nights television broadcast on Idaho Public TV program “Dialogue”, IDFG Director Cal Groen and State Wildlife Manager Jon Rachael were asked about the Idaho County Disaster Declaration and both stated they were unaware of it.
Tom Remington
Post by: Lowedog on September 17, 2010, 03:06:54 PM
QuoteIf you are going to use Lewis and Clark for example then how do you explain the huge packs of wolves they saw following the bison and elk herds on the plains?
Wolves like to eat bison too, but bison are larger animals, were in larger groups, and were harder for wolves to impact the population. I'm not sure what you mean here?
What I mean is that the wolves that preyed on bison and elk on the great plains 200 years ago were more than likely the larger subspecies of gray wolf since they were described as following the herds in “vast assemblages”.
Post by: Lowedog on September 17, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Check out this headline news, Idaho county, the largest county in Idaho has declared a disaster and is requesting the Governor to take action now:
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/17/idaho-county-idaho-declares-wolf-disaster-fear-for-their-lives/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/17/idaho-county-idaho-declares-wolf-disaster-fear-for-their-lives/)
Idaho County, Idaho Declares Wolf Disaster, Fear For Their Lives
September 17, 2010
As I predicted several months ago, the wolf wars have now turned a corner and have become serious. Many of the uninformed believed that a few angry hunters and landowners might take it upon themselves to poach wolves in an attempt to save their properties and lessen the impact of wolves. Little did most suspect, including the greedy, maligned environmentalists, who even to this day are clamoring to have wolves in every state in this country.
The introduction of gray wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem, in what was described as and is still labeled as a Nonessential Experimental Population, is an unmitigated disaster. It has reached a level now where one county in Idaho has declared their county a disaster because of uncontrolled wolves. Idaho County, Idaho citizens now fear for their lives, as is stated in the Disaster Declaration.
WHEREAS, the presence and boldness of wolves have caused citizens grave concern for their safety and the safety of their families….
The Idaho County Board of Commissioners take nearly 2 and a half pages to lay out the disaster as it has unfolded in their county. This includes not only the physical losses of properties, the stresses and strains of everyday life, fear, destruction of ungulates and a radical and abrupt change of lifestyle, but the politics and seeming agenda-driven decisions of the Courts.
The Declaration of Disaster defends its decision on State and County laws to do so and declares that Canadian Gray Wolves are, “causing vast devastation of the social culture, economy and natural resources of Idaho County.” And that as a result of the gray wolf, “Public safety is compromised, economic activity is disrupted and private and public property continues to be imperiled.”
Therefore the Idaho County Board of Commissioners, believing to be acting through legal State and County approved codes, is requesting that Idaho Governor Butch Otter immediately issue an “Executive Order or Disaster Proclamation” that would label the Canadian gray wolf a “managed predator”, as allowed under the 2002 Legislatively approved wolf management plan. This plan calls for wolves to be controlled at a level of about 150 wolves statewide. The Board of Commissioners is asking the Governor to use whatever means necessary to accomplish this.
The County is also requesting that Governor Otter continue this Disaster Proclamation until the wolves have been reduced to 2002 Wolf Management Plan levels and that policies be adopted to create “no-wolf tolerance zones” – near homes, ranches, schools and public recreation areas.
Idaho has now officially moved beyond the tit for tat debate about whether wolves are or are not good for Idaho or anybody else. I repeat! This experiment is an oppressive, relentless and unmitigated disaster at all levels. The envelope is far beyond being pushed as the result of lack of leadership and the state of Idaho being controlled by environmentalists instead of the people, with no support from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I would declare this to be a line drawn in the sand. One that apparently Governor Otter was unwilling to draw in dealing with the Feds about wolves.
On a related note: It was brought to my attention that during last nights television broadcast on Idaho Public TV program “Dialogue”, IDFG Director Cal Groen and State Wildlife Manager Jon Rachael were asked about the Idaho County Disaster Declaration and both stated they were unaware of it.
Tom Remington
There is a bold step! It will be interesting to see what comes from this. I would like to see some more main stream national media do some coverage on this.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 03:32:10 PM
QuoteIf you are going to use Lewis and Clark for example then how do you explain the huge packs of wolves they saw following the bison and elk herds on the plains?
Wolves like to eat bison too, but bison are larger animals, were in larger groups, and were harder for wolves to impact the population. I'm not sure what you mean here?
What I mean is that the wolves that preyed on bison and elk on the great plains 200 years ago were more than likely the larger subspecies of gray wolf since they were described as following the herds in “vast assemblages”.
I can understand your assumption, but I think the largest wolves were the McKenzie wolves in northern Canada. The plains wolves were a different variety.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 03:33:38 PM
Check out this headline news, Idaho county, the largest county in Idaho has declared a disaster and is requesting the Governor to take action now:
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/17/idaho-county-idaho-declares-wolf-disaster-fear-for-their-lives/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/17/idaho-county-idaho-declares-wolf-disaster-fear-for-their-lives/)
Idaho County, Idaho Declares Wolf Disaster, Fear For Their Lives
September 17, 2010
As I predicted several months ago, the wolf wars have now turned a corner and have become serious. Many of the uninformed believed that a few angry hunters and landowners might take it upon themselves to poach wolves in an attempt to save their properties and lessen the impact of wolves. Little did most suspect, including the greedy, maligned environmentalists, who even to this day are clamoring to have wolves in every state in this country.
The introduction of gray wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem, in what was described as and is still labeled as a Nonessential Experimental Population, is an unmitigated disaster. It has reached a level now where one county in Idaho has declared their county a disaster because of uncontrolled wolves. Idaho County, Idaho citizens now fear for their lives, as is stated in the Disaster Declaration.
WHEREAS, the presence and boldness of wolves have caused citizens grave concern for their safety and the safety of their families….
The Idaho County Board of Commissioners take nearly 2 and a half pages to lay out the disaster as it has unfolded in their county. This includes not only the physical losses of properties, the stresses and strains of everyday life, fear, destruction of ungulates and a radical and abrupt change of lifestyle, but the politics and seeming agenda-driven decisions of the Courts.
The Declaration of Disaster defends its decision on State and County laws to do so and declares that Canadian Gray Wolves are, “causing vast devastation of the social culture, economy and natural resources of Idaho County.” And that as a result of the gray wolf, “Public safety is compromised, economic activity is disrupted and private and public property continues to be imperiled.”
Therefore the Idaho County Board of Commissioners, believing to be acting through legal State and County approved codes, is requesting that Idaho Governor Butch Otter immediately issue an “Executive Order or Disaster Proclamation” that would label the Canadian gray wolf a “managed predator”, as allowed under the 2002 Legislatively approved wolf management plan. This plan calls for wolves to be controlled at a level of about 150 wolves statewide. The Board of Commissioners is asking the Governor to use whatever means necessary to accomplish this.
The County is also requesting that Governor Otter continue this Disaster Proclamation until the wolves have been reduced to 2002 Wolf Management Plan levels and that policies be adopted to create “no-wolf tolerance zones” – near homes, ranches, schools and public recreation areas.
Idaho has now officially moved beyond the tit for tat debate about whether wolves are or are not good for Idaho or anybody else. I repeat! This experiment is an oppressive, relentless and unmitigated disaster at all levels. The envelope is far beyond being pushed as the result of lack of leadership and the state of Idaho being controlled by environmentalists instead of the people, with no support from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I would declare this to be a line drawn in the sand. One that apparently Governor Otter was unwilling to draw in dealing with the Feds about wolves.
On a related note: It was brought to my attention that during last nights television broadcast on Idaho Public TV program “Dialogue”, IDFG Director Cal Groen and State Wildlife Manager Jon Rachael were asked about the Idaho County Disaster Declaration and both stated they were unaware of it.
Tom Remington
There is a bold step! It will be interesting to see what comes from this. I would like to see some more main stream national media do some coverage on this.
The word amounst pro-management circles is that more counties will be doing the same thing very soon. People are fed up, they are taking action. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 03:37:14 PM
Check out this headline news, Idaho county, the largest county in Idaho has declared a disaster and is requesting the Governor to take action now:
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/17/idaho-county-idaho-declares-wolf-disaster-fear-for-their-lives/ (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/17/idaho-county-idaho-declares-wolf-disaster-fear-for-their-lives/)
Idaho County, Idaho Declares Wolf Disaster, Fear For Their Lives
September 17, 2010
As I predicted several months ago, the wolf wars have now turned a corner and have become serious. Many of the uninformed believed that a few angry hunters and landowners might take it upon themselves to poach wolves in an attempt to save their properties and lessen the impact of wolves. Little did most suspect, including the greedy, maligned environmentalists, who even to this day are clamoring to have wolves in every state in this country.
The introduction of gray wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem, in what was described as and is still labeled as a Nonessential Experimental Population, is an unmitigated disaster. It has reached a level now where one county in Idaho has declared their county a disaster because of uncontrolled wolves. Idaho County, Idaho citizens now fear for their lives, as is stated in the Disaster Declaration.
WHEREAS, the presence and boldness of wolves have caused citizens grave concern for their safety and the safety of their families….
The Idaho County Board of Commissioners take nearly 2 and a half pages to lay out the disaster as it has unfolded in their county. This includes not only the physical losses of properties, the stresses and strains of everyday life, fear, destruction of ungulates and a radical and abrupt change of lifestyle, but the politics and seeming agenda-driven decisions of the Courts.
The Declaration of Disaster defends its decision on State and County laws to do so and declares that Canadian Gray Wolves are, “causing vast devastation of the social culture, economy and natural resources of Idaho County.” And that as a result of the gray wolf, “Public safety is compromised, economic activity is disrupted and private and public property continues to be imperiled.”
Therefore the Idaho County Board of Commissioners, believing to be acting through legal State and County approved codes, is requesting that Idaho Governor Butch Otter immediately issue an “Executive Order or Disaster Proclamation” that would label the Canadian gray wolf a “managed predator”, as allowed under the 2002 Legislatively approved wolf management plan. This plan calls for wolves to be controlled at a level of about 150 wolves statewide. The Board of Commissioners is asking the Governor to use whatever means necessary to accomplish this.
The County is also requesting that Governor Otter continue this Disaster Proclamation until the wolves have been reduced to 2002 Wolf Management Plan levels and that policies be adopted to create “no-wolf tolerance zones” – near homes, ranches, schools and public recreation areas.
Idaho has now officially moved beyond the tit for tat debate about whether wolves are or are not good for Idaho or anybody else. I repeat! This experiment is an oppressive, relentless and unmitigated disaster at all levels. The envelope is far beyond being pushed as the result of lack of leadership and the state of Idaho being controlled by environmentalists instead of the people, with no support from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I would declare this to be a line drawn in the sand. One that apparently Governor Otter was unwilling to draw in dealing with the Feds about wolves.
On a related note: It was brought to my attention that during last nights television broadcast on Idaho Public TV program “Dialogue”, IDFG Director Cal Groen and State Wildlife Manager Jon Rachael were asked about the Idaho County Disaster Declaration and both stated they were unaware of it.
Tom Remington
There is a bold step! It will be interesting to see what comes from this. I would like to see some more main stream national media do some coverage on this.
The word amounst pro-management circles is that more counties will be doing the same thing very soon. People are fed up, they are taking action. :twocents:
I should add, Governor Otter was elected because he said he wanted to buy the first wolf tag in Idaho. If Otter does not take action, he will likely be replaced. That was his motivation to send the letter to the feds last week giving them until Oct 7. I know for a fact there has been a steady stream of letters from concerned citizens to the governors office after Malloy ruled.
Post by: Lowedog on September 17, 2010, 03:46:30 PM
QuoteIf you are going to use Lewis and Clark for example then how do you explain the huge packs of wolves they saw following the bison and elk herds on the plains?
Wolves like to eat bison too, but bison are larger animals, were in larger groups, and were harder for wolves to impact the population. I'm not sure what you mean here?
What I mean is that the wolves that preyed on bison and elk on the great plains 200 years ago were more than likely the larger subspecies of gray wolf since they were described as following the herds in “vast assemblages”.
I can understand your assumption, but I think the largest wolves were the McKenzie wolves in northern Canada. The plains wolves were a different variety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf)
I think these are good measures for Idaho to take in trying to get the wolf de-listed again but for me it makes me wonder if Malloy would have ruled the other way would these measures like declaring disaster be happening.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
QuoteIf you are going to use Lewis and Clark for example then how do you explain the huge packs of wolves they saw following the bison and elk herds on the plains?
Wolves like to eat bison too, but bison are larger animals, were in larger groups, and were harder for wolves to impact the population. I'm not sure what you mean here?
What I mean is that the wolves that preyed on bison and elk on the great plains 200 years ago were more than likely the larger subspecies of gray wolf since they were described as following the herds in “vast assemblages”.
I can understand your assumption, but I think the largest wolves were the McKenzie wolves in northern Canada. The plains wolves were a different variety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf)
I think these are good measures for Idaho to take in trying to get the wolf de-listed again but for me it makes me wonder if Malloy would have ruled the other way would these measures like declaring disaster be happening.
Well it certainly wouldn't be as bad if they could plan on hunting wolves, but Malloy has forced Idaho into a corner. The state simply can not allow some of these higher wolf infested areas to worsen, it is suicide to do so.
Give wolves 5 to 10 years in WA under their silly proposed plan and I can tell you, the same thing will happen here. Maybe Seattle is in love with wolves, but people who have to live with them quickly lose their love.
I think what makes me most upset is the arrogance displayed by WDFW in their proposal, they ignore facts and rely on disney-science.
Post by: Special T on September 17, 2010, 05:03:37 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2010, 07:24:40 PM
I'm just sorry it took a state like ID so long to tell the feds to pound sand... If it were me I'd be like Wyoming and say that if the feds want to force the issue they can enforce the law... My thought is ID is maneuvering for cover for when they tell the feds off... Finally.. :twocents:
You are correct, Idaho F&G is in big trouble with their residents as their former director illegally agreed with USFWS to import wolves against the mandate of the state legislature. I think before it's over in Montana, some one will be replaced in F&G.
Wyoming has it right and they are sticking by their guns. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on September 18, 2010, 06:27:42 AM
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2010, 06:37:57 AM
Post by: Special T on September 18, 2010, 06:46:56 AM
Post by: summit creek on March 18, 2012, 05:13:34 PM
Post by: HORSEPOWER on March 18, 2012, 09:33:42 PM
Post by: Huntbear on March 18, 2012, 11:14:47 PM
I was at CWU this week and listened to Carter Niemeyer and Jay Kehne. The message is simple. Wolves are here to stay. Get over it and get used to it. We as sportsmen have no say! Period!
There will be hunting of wolves allowed as soon as they can verify the 15 breeding pairs for 3 years. So the best thing anyone can do is ALWAYS have at least a Point & Shoot digital camera in hand at all times when in the woods. If you see wolves or wolf sign, document it, and photograph it. That way the Dept. of Watchable Wildlife can send in people to dart and collar and monitor the packs. Without this being done.. it could be years and years and years before they "VERIFY" those 15 breeding pairs.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 20, 2012, 11:23:37 AM
Post by: Huntbear on March 20, 2012, 09:18:35 PM
So 15 bp's is completely a decision by the state? As in, even if the feds took zero interest in wolf recovery?
You got it.. this was a decision made by the state Biologists figuring out how to make a viable sustainable population in this state.
Post by: Recurve-Elk on March 22, 2012, 10:12:51 PM
I put eradicate. (disclaimer, I haven't done much research on this topic at all) To the best of my understanding, the wolves at issue are non-native. Therefore I say eradicate the things because they aren't supposed to be here. If we were talking about a native species of wolves that once did roam these woods, then I would vote for management by hunting like any other animal. :hello:
Post by: Kowsrule30 on March 28, 2012, 04:56:31 PM
Post by: Special T on April 03, 2012, 12:43:35 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 03, 2012, 12:53:54 PM
I think the main problem is my definition of "Sound MGT" and the states do not resemble each other. De listing in the NE and keeping them on the run for the rest of the state sounds good to me. If the feds say delist then i say we should. AND the feds should not really have a say in what we do in this state. really we should be more like WY.
Unfortunately, our governor nor our WDFW have any inclination to resist wolves, as they've tried in WY. They love them here. They want them here more than the USFWS wants them here. I'd much rather have them listening to the feds on this one than what they're attempting with the approved plan.
Post by: Dan-o on April 03, 2012, 01:51:24 PM
Post by: rasbo on April 03, 2012, 01:54:58 PM
Cannot trust it to sound mgmt. the wolf lovers have sued their way right past sound mgmt in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. How do you think a nice liberal state like Washington will do? :'( :'( :'(in my disussions with some of the pro wolf fanatics,the suits here are promised also..they hate hunting,hunters and really hate this site,and use all the statements they can on their platform sites
Post by: rasbo on April 03, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
below is one commentCannot trust it to sound mgmt. the wolf lovers have sued their way right past sound mgmt in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. How do you think a nice liberal state like Washington will do? :'( :'( :'(in my disussions with some of the pro wolf fanatics,the suits here are promised also..they hate hunting,hunters and really hate this site,and use all the statements they can on their platform sites
You thanked a man because he broke the law? This "sss" attitude is the reason why many people despise you hunters and ranchers. You people are anti-wildlife. Hunters are supposed to be these law abiding citizens or so they claim, yet you people advocate breaking the law when you don't get your way. Look at hunting-washington.com. A bunch of anti-wolf radical extremists on there who advocate the illegal killing of wolves. Let's kill the cougars, the bears, the wolves, etc so us hunters can have more deer and elk to kill. You people are so selfish. The wilderness isn't a elk or deer farm like you hunters want it to be.