Post by: elkontherun on July 29, 2011, 03:17:04 PM
Post by: GoldTip on July 29, 2011, 03:25:19 PM
Post by: dirty24d on July 29, 2011, 04:23:52 PM
Translated: It probably wont kill us but the long term damage will be substancial, and we'll be worse off in the long run for sure.
Post by: rtspring on July 29, 2011, 04:30:27 PM
Washington State can't get much right as it is, and I bet ya they F*** up the wolf programs too..
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 29, 2011, 06:00:37 PM
Post by: twistiron on July 29, 2011, 08:58:45 PM
Post by: sebek556 on July 29, 2011, 09:34:48 PM
I truly believe that the Wolf plans and lawsuits are the animal lovers way of ending all hunting, if there is no population of game animals we cannot hunt them can we?
Post by: Rhinoron247 on July 29, 2011, 09:58:23 PM
Idaho 2008, I watched pregnant cow elk give birth to calves on rocky ledges that goats only tread because it was the only place the wolves would not follow. Then once the calves tried to stand they fell to their deaths.
If you think that wolves only kill the weak and sickly animals you are a bigger part of the problem than the cure. I wish all the Jack wagons that continue to bitch but are to scared or lazy to deal the situation, be it by a bullet or a pen should have their man cards and hunting licenses revolked. Just my opinion!
Post by: Alan K on July 29, 2011, 10:15:16 PM
There are plenty of hunters around who don't fill their tags each year who would be more than willing to go kill an elk. They just need to give them the time and place and they'll be taken care of. No need for an unmanageable, uncontrollable predator when we can get the job done ourselves and feed thousands of Washington state residents!
Post by: dscubame on July 29, 2011, 10:17:46 PM
Post by: Machias on July 29, 2011, 10:54:35 PM
This is my :twocents: , I think a properly managed wolf population could be good for washington hunting. You dont see wolf packs going into herds and killing the biggest trophy bulls, they will cull the weak sick ones from the herd, leaving it stronger future reprodution. i am sure none of us want to wast our hard erned bull tag on a sickly small one, i want a trophy. well unfortunatly that sickly boy is going to be around next year to knock a cow up and just like with humans weak parents make weak kids, and the cycle continues.
Amazing that this line of thought still persist. This could NOT be further from the truth. Turn off the Animal Plant channel and check out what wolves do in the real world. :dunno:
Post by: Alan K on July 29, 2011, 11:29:43 PM
This is my :twocents: , I think a properly managed wolf population could be good for washington hunting. You dont see wolf packs going into herds and killing the biggest trophy bulls, they will cull the weak sick ones from the herd, leaving it stronger future reprodution. i am sure none of us want to wast our hard erned bull tag on a sickly small one, i want a trophy. well unfortunatly that sickly boy is going to be around next year to knock a cow up and just like with humans weak parents make weak kids, and the cycle continues.
Amazing that this line of thought still persist. This could NOT be further from the truth. Turn off the Animal Plant channel and check out what wolves do in the real world. :dunno:
:yeah:
That Lolo elk herd was just full of weak and sickly elk. . . :rolleyes:
Post by: wsucowboy on July 29, 2011, 11:38:22 PM
Post by: Alan K on July 29, 2011, 11:41:44 PM
There was a reason we resorted to poison to eradicate them back in the day - because we couldn't get it done without it. The consequences of that are far more reaching than just wolves though, and it will never happen.
Post by: sebek556 on July 29, 2011, 11:48:37 PM
I doubt the department of fish and wildlife could manage a lemonade stand correctly let alone wolves in this state :twocents::yeah:
Post by: Curly on July 30, 2011, 12:17:30 AM
I doubt the department of fish and wildlife could manage a lemonade stand correctly let alone wolves in this state :twocents::yeah:
:yeah:
They can't even manage cougar and bear populations now........what will happen when 15 BP's of wolves get added to the mix? :o
They are starting to really have a lot of elk permits for the St Helens herd, so maybe they are starting to get a clue that they need to thin that herd, but why the hell didn't they increase the elk permits for St Helens several years ago? ???
Post by: twistiron on July 30, 2011, 02:06:25 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on July 30, 2011, 03:48:01 AM
Post by: rasbo on July 30, 2011, 05:43:52 AM
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on July 30, 2011, 07:19:12 AM
This is my :twocents: , I think a properly managed wolf population could be good for washington hunting. You dont see wolf packs going into herds and killing the biggest trophy bulls, they will cull the weak sick ones from the herd, leaving it stronger future reprodution. i am sure none of us want to wast our hard erned bull tag on a sickly small one, i want a trophy. well unfortunatly that sickly boy is going to be around next year to knock a cow up and just like with humans weak parents make weak kids, and the cycle continues.
Amazing that this line of thought still persist. This could NOT be further from the truth. Turn off the Animal Plant channel and check out what wolves do in the real world. :dunno:
:yeah:
That Lolo elk herd was just full of weak and sickly elk. . . :rolleyes:
Actually, Animal Planet got that line of thought from our great leader Charles Darwin. Kids have been force fed a lot of nonsense from the time they were able to tie their shoes and now we are ALL forced to deal with many of them as grown "adults". They bought it hook, line and sinker... and no one wants to believe they were so easily tricked... and so on and on it goes....
Post by: bearpaw on July 30, 2011, 08:20:24 AM
I met a biologist today who was working with weyco to allow access on there land for the early cow hunts for youth and disabled. I made a smart ass comment to him about not having to worry about the herds being to big because in ten years we won't have any elk because of the wolfs. Now he said "we need the wolfs to help balance out the system. We just have to work together and manage the packs" I asked him how the hell he plans on doing that and he said " we are learning from Idahos mistakes and it will really help with all the elk starving to death every winter and that they were here before and it isn't right to exterminate a entire species from a region." This guy is off he's rocker he's nuts. With people like him working for the wdfg we are all screwed. My parting comment to him was " its to bad my kids won't get to hunt elk like I have." All he said is "washington has a good wolf plan and it won't effect the numbers like I think". I don't think I made a friend with him today damn!
The only reason there could possibly be too many elk anywhere is because hunters have not been allowed to shoot enough animals. There are thousands of hunters in this state who will shoot as many elk as WDFW allows them to shoot. Herd management is not a valid reason for needing wolves, that notion is the product of scewed science created by corrupt biologists to support non-hunting agendas.
Hunting is the best tool because managers can control how many elk are harvested each season via season length. Wolves have already been proven to be an uncontrollable factor. Simply look at the recent history of what used to be some of the greatest elk herds, northern yellowstone elk herd, bitterroot elk herd, payette elk herd, and the lolo elk herd. Most of these herds are now at 10% to 50% of their previous numbers. Agencies like pointing out that only certain elk herds are in decline, lets take another look in 10 more years. If Idaho successfully brings down their wolf population they might save their herds, but if wolves continue to grow in numbers in these other units, that will impact those elk numbers too.
To the north of us is Banff National Park, no hunting, and a once thriving elk population continues in decline due to growing wolf numbers. Woodland Caribou herds are in danger of extinction due to growing wolf numbers. The yellowstone herd is another case in point, when a study was done in 2009 elk numbers had dropped to 6000ish, now they are below 5000.
Read about this 2009 MSU Yellowstone Elk Study: http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=7324 (http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=7324)
Read: The role of wolf predation in the Extirpation of Woodland Caribou in Pukaskwa National Park
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_1_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf (http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_1_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf)
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_2_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf (http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_2_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf)
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_3_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf (http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/part_3_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf)
It's not hard to see what will happen to Washington's best elk herds, moose, and last caribou herd. Recent history has already shown us the future. :twocents:
Post by: Killmore on July 30, 2011, 08:23:11 AM
Post by: Recurve-Elk on July 30, 2011, 08:39:03 AM
Before you rip me apart from my above statements read further. :hello: Now here is where my frame of mind changes. Do wolfs reproduce as crazy as coyotes? Would they be unmanageable? If yes, then I agree with the most of you, don't bring them back we are just creating problems. They may simply just not fit in todays environmental statistics.
I am studying environmental studies/biology ecology, so I naturally look at things from a non biased view.
SO PLEASE, if you wish to discuss this topic please don't go too hard on me I am a hunter too and I look at all thoughts reasonably. I've seen these threads get blown way out of proportion, either in the wolves defense or against the wolves. :tup: If you read my whole post you would see that I am basically undecided. Both proposals have their positives and negatives. For me to come to a certain conclusion would have to study the wolves and our ecosystem extensively. I will restate, from my knowledge I believe the wolves being introduced to the states is a non native species and I agree they have no business here. Timber wolves on the other hand are the ones I thought were native. Again I am just speaking from prior posts and such I have no personal research on this topic.
Post by: shorthair15 on July 30, 2011, 08:56:48 AM
Post by: mtman on July 30, 2011, 08:57:14 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on July 30, 2011, 09:11:52 AM
I doubt the department of fish and wildlife could manage a lemonade stand correctly let alone wolves in this state :twocents:
Lemonade stands are illegal without the proper city permits and lawful handwashing facilities. All OSHA & DOH regulations must be followed. The cops will be called. You could go to jail.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on July 30, 2011, 09:29:24 AM
This is my :twocents: , I think a properly managed wolf population could be good for washington hunting. You dont see wolf packs going into herds and killing the biggest trophy bulls, they will cull the weak sick ones from the herd, leaving it stronger future reprodution. i am sure none of us want to wast our hard erned bull tag on a sickly small one, i want a trophy. well unfortunatly that sickly boy is going to be around next year to knock a cow up and just like with humans weak parents make weak kids, and the cycle continues.
Amazing that this line of thought still persist. This could NOT be further from the truth. Turn off the Animal Plant channel and check out what wolves do in the real world. :dunno:
:twocents: Troll, Plant, liar, not worth feeding the :bs: Machias. Interesting, the hatred of the human race in the end there isn't it?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on July 30, 2011, 09:38:37 AM
This is my :twocents: , I think a properly managed wolf population could be good for washington hunting. You dont see wolf packs going into herds and killing the biggest trophy bulls, they will cull the weak sick ones from the herd, leaving it stronger future reprodution. i am sure none of us want to wast our hard erned bull tag on a sickly small one, i want a trophy. well unfortunatly that sickly boy is going to be around next year to knock a cow up and just like with humans weak parents make weak kids, and the cycle continues.
Amazing that this line of thought still persist. This could NOT be further from the truth. Turn off the Animal Plant channel and check out what wolves do in the real world. :dunno:
:twocents: Troll, Plant, liar, not worth feeding the :bs: Machias. Interesting, the hatred of the human race in the end there isn't it?
Was thinking that Myself. Spike only? trophy?
Post by: Little Dave on July 30, 2011, 10:01:07 AM
I am studying environmental studies/biology ecology, so I naturally look at things from a non biased view.
I like the thought you are giving the matter. It is important to move from the position of being undecided. Many, including me, believe that if this is executed the wrong way there will be serious and long lasting consequences to wildlife management in our area.
You may be pouring into the science side of the matter, but don't negect the finance part. The two go hand in hand. Somebody needs to pay for wildlife management. Is it the theoretical wolf tourism? Is it an increase in sales tax? Money from Congress that puts the nation further in debt? Wolf tags? Whatever your conclusion on this might be, don't forget to ask if your plan is sustainable. How is it going to be funded?
Wolves are not endangered, they are extirpated.
Just like bees, also beneficial to the environment, when they come into your house, you don't need to wait for the whole hive to enter before you start controlling the population. There are enough bees elsewhere to keep the number that you would like to have in your house without endangering the species. You can put your plan into action right away.
Please test your plan against the state's plan and send them a note.
Post by: ribka on July 30, 2011, 10:14:40 AM
fair enough, i could not agree more that the optimal solution would be eradication but lets face it since non profits get all their court fees waivered its a never ending battle. i take it some of you dont see eye to eye with me fine, but honestly we need to find common ground, with that being said there is none but you get my point. if wolves have to go its vigilante justice that is needed, there is no way that the govenment can be convinced they should not be here. that is the reason that i pointed out that the hunting a tapping season needs to quota based and not time limit to effectively control the population, they are sneaky little critters. it may be the case wolves kill for fun, i have not seen it but will look into it more. either way there is no way that fact alone will win the battle to get rid of them. all i am trying to say is there are tons of people on here that want a solution yet when i mention that we should work toward a solution that may actually be possible, its lambasted :dunno:. any one on the forum actually work for the WDFG, so we can get an inside update? the other option is we sit back and watch as the hippies get all the wolves they want.
Flawed logic to compromise with them. These pro-wolf groups have an agenda and the agenda is they want to end all hunting. The wolves targeting the weak and sick is another big myth. They wipe out all of the moose and elk calves every year. Wolves also have a tendency to kill eat a small portion of animal and leave it rot.
The compromise with the would be something like 20 wolf tags issued a year at most and that would not even begin to control population. Look at ID and what they are doing this year. Increasing tags, allowing trapping and reducing non res tag fees. Might be too late for states like MT, ID and parts of WY.
I used to think like you moving out here from the E coast re wolves and game management. I then started spending time hiking and hunting areas in ID, MT and WY where the wolves were re-introduced. Really destroyed the elk, moose, deer populations. Now the wolves are targeting livestock more and more.
Instead of being indoctrinated studying books take some time and go out and hike and see the wolf damage first hand in the neighboring states. Don't bother carrying a weapon because we all know wolves would never ever attack a human being :'(
Wolf tourism? Most people I know who luv wolves have never hiked more than 200 yds from a parking lot
Post by: Alan K on July 30, 2011, 10:31:49 AM
Wolf tourism? Most people I know who luv wolves have never hiked more than 200 yds from a parking lot
Ain't that the truth! :bash:
Post by: Alan K on July 30, 2011, 10:49:59 AM
The exact same thing will happen of wolves. Wolves are every bit as capable of being one hell of an elusive animal if they want to be. The reason everyone had been seeing wolves through the years in Idaho was the fact that they had no reason to fear humans. They didn't have to be elusive. I'd bet that overall there will be fewer and fewer sightings despite the still increasing number of animals. The growth in their numbers there won't begin to slow until their food sources (our deer, elk, and moose) dwindle, not because of a handful of trapping permits and boot hunters. There are just too many in too rugged of country.
And do you really think Washington will allow trapping or any method other than dumb luck encounters while boot hunting to ever kill one? I certainly don't, not with the way they've axed hound hunting for cougar and bear, and baiting for bear. If Idaho doesn't have the voting and lobbying power to effectively manage their population until it's too late and essentially in dire need of it, do you really think we'll ever be able to with the demographics of Washington? If so, you're very naive, I'm sorry.
Post by: elkboy on July 30, 2011, 01:44:22 PM
I do agree with many, in that I have little trust in the urban voting bloc in this state to actually permit the beginning of a controlled wolf hunt.
And finally, we cannot lay all problems at the feet of wolves, or any other predator. Urban development, fire suppression, intensification of forest management practices affecting browse- we have a lot of fights to fight as conservationist/sportsmen. I suggest that to fight them effectively, we need to pull back from radical positions (especially the shoot-em-all mentality) that buy us precious little ground with the common voter.
Post by: rtspring on July 30, 2011, 02:15:31 PM
We certainly would need management at a regional scale for a predator that has demonstrated 30% annual population growth rates. Look what we do with elk- hit them hard in agricultural GMUs where the constituency does not want more elk in the fields, and restrict take in various ways in GMUs without agriculture. The same could be done with wolves- and by using them as a recreational resource. Look at how they have been hunted recently in Idaho and Montana- using predator calls and other methods. There is a serious predator hunting contingency developing that enjoys hunting them for their own sake.
I do agree with many, in that I have little trust in the urban voting bloc in this state to actually permit the beginning of a controlled wolf hunt.
And finally, we cannot lay all problems at the feet of wolves, or any other predator. Urban development, fire suppression, intensification of forest management practices affecting browse- we have a lot of fights to fight as conservationist/sportsmen. I suggest that to fight them effectively, we need to pull back from radical positions (especially the shoot-em-all mentality) that buy us precious little ground with the common voter.
You are correct we cannot lay all problems to wolves, thats why we don't want them to be on top or among the problems we already have. There is not one good thing you can tell me and many others that will come from bring these wolves back to this state.
many have tried and so far I have not heard one yet... Wanna see wolves go to Idaho, I hear they have wolf watching now instead of elk hunting..
Post by: 3nails on July 30, 2011, 02:43:29 PM
Sick of all the chatter BS. Washington 100% does not need another breed of predators. Weather they were here before or not. If in fact our state government had a positive track of management ever, I might have a touch of faith in their ability to manage this.:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Idaho 2008, I watched pregnant cow elk give birth to calves on rocky ledges that goats only tread because it was the only place the wolves would not follow. Then once the calves tried to stand they fell to their deaths.
If you think that wolves only kill the weak and sickly animals you are a bigger part of the problem than the cure. I wish all the Jack wagons that continue to bitch but are to scared or lazy to deal the situation, be it by a bullet or a pen should have their man cards and hunting licenses revolked. Just my opinion!
Post by: twistiron on July 30, 2011, 07:57:37 PM
Post by: sebek556 on July 30, 2011, 08:11:37 PM
Post by: mulehunter on July 30, 2011, 08:39:20 PM
thank you for taking to time to do some research :tup:
:yeah:
Mulehunter
Post by: norsepeak on July 30, 2011, 09:38:30 PM
Post by: mazama on July 31, 2011, 08:49:26 AM
Post by: runamuk on July 31, 2011, 09:50:31 AM
If I read one more time how they only take the sick and the weak I will :puke:
Wolves are canines they are opportunistic and will kill what is easy if given the opportunity. They target vulnerable animals. Vulnerable means unprotected and easier to target. Lets look at elk herd dynamics for one minute, cows and calves usually comprise the largest herds and also the most protected group. Singular bulls or small satellite groups of bulls are more vulnerable than a group of cows even sick weak ones. Canines divide and conquer and it is far easier to cut one animal out of a herd of 5 than a herd of 50 so anyone who thinks big strong bulls wont be targeted is dreaming. These are all animals they all have a sort of standard operating procedure it isnt rocket science to watch and learn... We have predator problems in this state they need to be managed or the only thing that will being viewed in the wild will be crows and skirrels...
And if this state truly felt unrestricted predators was a good thing they would have no regulation of hunting humans are also predators as much a s some of them try to deny it... this state simply follows the money whoever is paying them or costing them wins...maybe the hunting public needs to start suing :dunno: works for the anti's....
Post by: Huntbear on July 31, 2011, 09:55:19 AM
What burns my ass is that the wolves coming in are gonna destroy the existing NATIVE packs we had slowly making a comeback. I still am ok with native wolves and support management.
If I read one more time how they only take the sick and the weak I will :puke:
Wolves are canines they are opportunistic and will kill what is easy if given the opportunity. They target vulnerable animals. Vulnerable means unprotected and easier to target. Lets look at elk herd dynamics for one minute, cows and calves usually comprise the largest herds and also the most protected group. Singular bulls or small satellite groups of bulls are more vulnerable than a group of cows even sick weak ones. Canines divide and conquer and it is far easier to cut one animal out of a herd of 5 than a herd of 50 so anyone who thinks big strong bulls wont be targeted is dreaming. These are all animals they all have a sort of standard operating procedure it isnt rocket science to watch and learn... We have predator problems in this state they need to be managed or the only thing that will being viewed in the wild will be crows and skirrels...
And if this state truly felt unrestricted predators was a good thing they would have no regulation of hunting humans are also predators as much a s some of them try to deny it... this state simply follows the money whoever is paying them or costing them wins...maybe the hunting public needs to start suing :dunno: works for the anti's....
:yeah:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on July 31, 2011, 10:01:43 AM
:yeah:What burns my ass is that the wolves coming in are gonna destroy the existing NATIVE packs we had slowly making a comeback. I still am ok with native wolves and support management.
If I read one more time how they only take the sick and the weak I will :puke:
Wolves are canines they are opportunistic and will kill what is easy if given the opportunity. They target vulnerable animals. Vulnerable means unprotected and easier to target. Lets look at elk herd dynamics for one minute, cows and calves usually comprise the largest herds and also the most protected group. Singular bulls or small satellite groups of bulls are more vulnerable than a group of cows even sick weak ones. Canines divide and conquer and it is far easier to cut one animal out of a herd of 5 than a herd of 50 so anyone who thinks big strong bulls wont be targeted is dreaming. These are all animals they all have a sort of standard operating procedure it isnt rocket science to watch and learn... We have predator problems in this state they need to be managed or the only thing that will being viewed in the wild will be crows and skirrels...
And if this state truly felt unrestricted predators was a good thing they would have no regulation of hunting humans are also predators as much a s some of them try to deny it... this state simply follows the money whoever is paying them or costing them wins...maybe the hunting public needs to start suing :dunno: works for the anti's....
:yeah:
:yeah: x2
Post by: twistiron on July 31, 2011, 05:48:00 PM
Post by: GoldTip on August 02, 2011, 08:16:13 AM
Nice bull for your Dad... to bad he broke that one eyeguard ....as far as the bio ..he needs to go back to school and study some more :chuckle: :yeah:
Yeah, it would be too bad, if the eye guard was actually broke. :rolleyes:
Post by: Sporting_Man on August 02, 2011, 08:54:53 PM
I hate conspiracy theories, but this look like really well thought one... Wolves are the best possible agent to destroy herds of any kind. And he said that we will not allow the same to happen here (like Idaho). Well, three years waiting period after the quota of desired breeding pairs is met, that is exactly what happened in Idaho... Good bye elk and muleys. :'(
Post by: Wacenturion on August 10, 2011, 04:17:21 PM
This is my :twocents: , I think a properly managed wolf population could be good for washington hunting. You dont see wolf packs going into herds and killing the biggest trophy bulls, they will cull the weak sick ones from the herd, leaving it stronger future reprodution. i am sure none of us want to wast our hard erned bull tag on a sickly small one, i want a trophy. well unfortunatly that sickly boy is going to be around next year to knock a cow up and just like with humans weak parents make weak kids, and the cycle continues.
Amazing that this line of thought still persist. This could NOT be further from the truth. Turn off the Animal Plant channel and check out what wolves do in the real world. :dunno:
Got that right! Animal planet mentality for sure on the opposing side. All emotional drivel, nothing of sustenance. What's next...Al Gore for wolves. :chuckle:
Post by: huntinguy on August 10, 2011, 08:24:38 PM
now, not to pick on anyone... if ones job depends on something... what is the chance they will make sure that something stays around....
:twocents: after inflation. :bash:
Post by: luvtohnt on August 10, 2011, 08:46:32 PM
Boot hunting just won't get it done, the success percentage will never catch up to the kitten survival rate.
So out of curiosity what is the kitten survival rate in WA? (Provide documentation as well please, I would like to read it for myself)
As far as wolves, and what they target, Run was spot on. It is hard though because the sick and dying will always be the first to go, and that is were the broad statement comes from I assume. I will get to experience first hand this October how much damage the wolves have done in Wyoming, I don' t think it will be near what it has in Idaho or Montana. I just hope in the end we can see some positive to the decision to let them reestablish in this state.
Brandon
Post by: 3nails on August 11, 2011, 05:49:25 AM
That's just a big fat negative there. Wolves have actually been witnessed AVOIDING sickly animals and going for the healthier. They are smart animals. A pack that is in a game rich area and well fed will kill even when not hungry just to lap blood. Kind of like when a bear first starts fishing he eats the whole fish. But as the season progressess and he's had his fill, he switches to eating just the skin or roe.Boot hunting just won't get it done, the success percentage will never catch up to the kitten survival rate.
So out of curiosity what is the kitten survival rate in WA? (Provide documentation as well please, I would like to read it for myself)
As far as wolves, and what they target, Run was spot on. It is hard though because the sick and dying will always be the first to go, and that is were the broad statement comes from I assume. I will get to experience first hand this October how much damage the wolves have done in Wyoming, I don' t think it will be near what it has in Idaho or Montana. I just hope in the end we can see some positive to the decision to let them reestablish in this state.
Brandon
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 11, 2011, 06:05:39 AM
I agree with 3 nails ...the theory of them just killing the sickest and weakest animals in total BS.. and I am not totally against the wolf thing BUT IT NEEDS SERIOUS POPULATION MANAGEMENT ..That's just a big fat negative there. Wolves have actually been witnessed AVOIDING sickly animals and going for the healthier. They are smart animals. A pack that is in a game rich area and well fed will kill even when not hungry just to lap blood. Kind of like when a bear first starts fishing he eats the whole fish. But as the season progressess and he's had his fill, he switches to eating just the skin or roe.Boot hunting just won't get it done, the success percentage will never catch up to the kitten survival rate.
So out of curiosity what is the kitten survival rate in WA? (Provide documentation as well please, I would like to read it for myself)
As far as wolves, and what they target, Run was spot on. It is hard though because the sick and dying will always be the first to go, and that is were the broad statement comes from I assume. I will get to experience first hand this October how much damage the wolves have done in Wyoming, I don' t think it will be near what it has in Idaho or Montana. I just hope in the end we can see some positive to the decision to let them reestablish in this state.
Brandon
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on August 11, 2011, 06:35:49 AM
a little talk with a biologist and I learned that wolves make elk pack in larger herds. My immediate question was what about a disease that breaks out... say like hoof rot that is in Montana...
This is another total bs assumption that many hunters have made. Elk and other deer (whitetail) have herded/yarded up for as long as they have been around. There again we end up with someone saying some that sounds "plausable" and before long it becomes "science". There is no real science that shows an increase in disease.... And yes, I know about the so called "studies" in some of the Universities... to call them "studies" is a stretch to say the least.
I agree with the rest of your statement however. And, when it comes to farmers, ranchers, hunters and biologist, I'll take the knowledge/expertise/credentials of the later three over the "biologist" all day long. :twocents:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 11, 2011, 06:45:36 AM
yeah this type sheet pi$$$ me off too ... they act like hunters no nothing and all we care about is killing ...hunters are in the field more than any of them so that being said they need to rethink there way of thinking...that make sense? :chuckle:a little talk with a biologist and I learned that wolves make elk pack in larger herds. My immediate question was what about a disease that breaks out... say like hoof rot that is in Montana...
This is another total bs assumption that many hunters have made. Elk and other deer (whitetail) have herded/yarded up for as long as they have been around. There again we end up with someone saying some that sounds "plausable" and before long it becomes "science". There is no real science that shows an increase in disease.... And yes, I know about the so called "studies" in some of the Universities... to call them "studies" is a stretch to say the least.
I agree with the rest of your statement however. And, when it comes to farmers, ranchers, hunters and biologist, I'll take the knowledge/expertise/credentials of the later three over the "biologist" all day long. :twocents:
Post by: runamuk on August 11, 2011, 05:09:40 PM
That's just a big fat negative there. Wolves have actually been witnessed AVOIDING sickly animals and going for the healthier. They are smart animals. A pack that is in a game rich area and well fed will kill even when not hungry just to lap blood. Kind of like when a bear first starts fishing he eats the whole fish. But as the season progressess and he's had his fill, he switches to eating just the skin or roe.Boot hunting just won't get it done, the success percentage will never catch up to the kitten survival rate.
So out of curiosity what is the kitten survival rate in WA? (Provide documentation as well please, I would like to read it for myself)
As far as wolves, and what they target, Run was spot on. It is hard though because the sick and dying will always be the first to go, and that is were the broad statement comes from I assume. I will get to experience first hand this October how much damage the wolves have done in Wyoming, I don' t think it will be near what it has in Idaho or Montana. I just hope in the end we can see some positive to the decision to let them reestablish in this state.
Brandon
Brandon actually was agreeing with what you are saying :dunno: he was not supporting the sick and weak theory he said it is used to support the agenda....wolves target easy prey which is often healthy prey but also often disadvantaged prey that is singled out or alone so realistically wolves are much more likely to target small bull herds than massive cow herds....making the whole only kill sick and weak a fallacy...the sick and weak will be killed because they are easy targets but they arent the only ones killed. the killing to lap blood alone is on the other end of the exaggeration spectrum real wolf behavior falls in the middle.
Post by: huntinguy on August 11, 2011, 05:42:05 PM
a little talk with a biologist and I learned that wolves make elk pack in larger herds. My immediate question was what about a disease that breaks out... say like hoof rot that is in Montana...
This is another total bs assumption that many hunters have made. Elk and other deer (whitetail) have herded/yarded up for as long as they have been around. There again we end up with someone saying some that sounds "plausable" and before long it becomes "science". There is no real science that shows an increase in disease.... And yes, I know about the so called "studies" in some of the Universities... to call them "studies" is a stretch to say the least.
I agree with the rest of your statement however. And, when it comes to farmers, ranchers, hunters and biologist, I'll take the knowledge/expertise/credentials of the later three over the "biologist" all day long. :twocents:
the key phrase was "Larger", what he said they saw in the study, it was several years long, was the smaller groups of less than 15 (or something close to that number) animals move into larger groups.
As some diseases animals get are contagious, the question was, what does that do to the overall health of the herd. They don't know yet....
The other thing he said, that seemed odd to me, was the elk moved in to more remote areas when the wolves showed up... I don't understand that one....
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 11, 2011, 05:49:30 PM
Seriously ....Man I best go back to school ...a little talk with a biologist and I learned that wolves make elk pack in larger herds. My immediate question was what about a disease that breaks out... say like hoof rot that is in Montana...
This is another total bs assumption that many hunters have made. Elk and other deer (whitetail) have herded/yarded up for as long as they have been around. There again we end up with someone saying some that sounds "plausable" and before long it becomes "science". There is no real science that shows an increase in disease.... And yes, I know about the so called "studies" in some of the Universities... to call them "studies" is a stretch to say the least.
I agree with the rest of your statement however. And, when it comes to farmers, ranchers, hunters and biologist, I'll take the knowledge/expertise/credentials of the later three over the "biologist" all day long. :twocents:
the key phrase was "Larger", what he said they saw in the study, it was several years long, was the smaller groups of less than 15 (or something close to that number) animals move into larger groups.
As some diseases animals get are contagious, the question was, what does that do to the overall health of the herd. They don't know yet....
The other thing he said, that seemed odd to me, was the elk moved in to more remote areas when the wolves showed up... I don't understand that one....
Post by: Greyson on August 12, 2011, 11:53:41 AM
So I am not misunderstood, I look forward to hunting wolves when their numbers are stable. Wolves are neither good nor are they bad, they are predators, like coyotes, cougars and us. Don't let doom and gloom scenarios carry the day.
Post by: windygorge on August 12, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
We need to let the game biologists manage the animals scientifically. Cattlemen, timber companies, P.E.T.A., H.S.U.S., A.L.F. and all the other special interest groups have their agendas and get in the way of proper wildlife management. Predator/prey numbers will find equilibrium.:yeah: amen brotha. could not have said it better, nor can most on here.
So I am not misunderstood, I look forward to hunting wolves when their numbers are stable. Wolves are neither good nor are they bad, they are predators, like coyotes, cougars and us. Don't let doom and gloom scenarios carry the day.
Post by: CedarPants on August 12, 2011, 11:57:34 AM
We need to let the game biologists manage the animals scientifically. Cattlemen, timber companies, P.E.T.A., H.S.U.S., A.L.F. and all the other special interest groups have their agendas and get in the way of proper wildlife management. Predator/prey numbers will find equilibrium.
So I am not misunderstood, I look forward to hunting wolves when their numbers are stable. Wolves are neither good nor are they bad, they are predators, like coyotes, cougars and us. Don't let doom and gloom scenarios carry the day.
I'm not sure how you can slap cattlemen in the face like that and lump them in with likes of P.E.T.A.. They don't have an agenda, they have a livelihood. Big difference partner
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on August 12, 2011, 12:01:49 PM
We need to let the game biologists manage the animals scientifically. Cattlemen, timber companies, P.E.T.A., H.S.U.S., A.L.F. and all the other special interest groups have their agendas and get in the way of proper wildlife management. Predator/prey numbers will find equilibrium.
So I am not misunderstood, I look forward to hunting wolves when their numbers are stable. Wolves are neither good nor are they bad, they are predators, like coyotes, cougars and us. Don't let doom and gloom scenarios carry the day.
Gloom and Doom, just look next door at Idaho and see what has happened there.
Post by: Curly on August 12, 2011, 12:02:27 PM
We need to let the game biologists manage the animals scientifically. Cattlemen, timber companies, P.E.T.A., H.S.U.S., A.L.F. and all the other special interest groups have their agendas and get in the way of proper wildlife management. Predator/prey numbers will find equilibrium.
So I am not misunderstood, I look forward to hunting wolves when their numbers are stable. Wolves are neither good nor are they bad, they are predators, like coyotes, cougars and us. Don't let doom and gloom scenarios carry the day.
Problem is that a lot of the biologists have an agenda too. A lot of them flat out lie.........that, or they were told lies by their college professors and are simply repeating what they believe to be correct. That is what I believe based on reading a variety of sources anyway.
Post by: runamuk on August 12, 2011, 12:18:36 PM
cattlemen can be as self serving as any other group :dunno:....I wouldnt toss them in with peta but the cattlemens association does fall into that realm as a special interest group.We need to let the game biologists manage the animals scientifically. Cattlemen, timber companies, P.E.T.A., H.S.U.S., A.L.F. and all the other special interest groups have their agendas and get in the way of proper wildlife management. Predator/prey numbers will find equilibrium.
So I am not misunderstood, I look forward to hunting wolves when their numbers are stable. Wolves are neither good nor are they bad, they are predators, like coyotes, cougars and us. Don't let doom and gloom scenarios carry the day.
I'm not sure how you can slap cattlemen in the face like that and lump them in with likes of P.E.T.A.. They don't have an agenda, they have a livelihood. Big difference partner
Again its somewhere in the middle that the answers lie unfortunately in this world only the loud, rich, special interests get listened to and when they wont be heard then they sue and tie up all parties abilities to do much of anything in any direction.
Wolves need to be managed cattlemen and sheepherders and small farms need to be allowed to protect themselves from ALL predators in the act of doing harm. Hunters should be utilized to help manage wolves otherwise the wolves will have nothing keeping them in check... if we are gonna have wolves we need sound science and management goals that are realistic not based on some disney ideal OR based on some abolitionist ideal.
I do find it funny how often schools and education are blamed for all our problems and on this same sight people promote getting an education to get ahead in life...so wghich is it schools are evil or school is the answer or again could it be somewhere in the middle? :dunno:
Post by: CedarPants on August 12, 2011, 12:30:24 PM
You raise an intereting point as well on the education side of things. My personal opinion - witnessed first hand by yours truly while attending E.W.U ..... school and education in general are of course a good thing and are not to blame. However, you are going to find professors here and there with a big time agenda that push it on all of their students.
When I was at Eastern the bear baiting issue was on the ballot. A certain professor I had based almost an entire quarter of a literature classed focused on wildlife and environmental topics and saw to it that every one of his students voted on the issue. The majority of them had never even given it a second thought, but 2 weeks later approximately 500 of them voted against it.
Post by: spookgus on August 12, 2011, 12:36:49 PM
[/quote]
The elk in Idaho have just moved to such a remote area that nobody can find them.
Post by: mulehunter on August 12, 2011, 06:11:00 PM
I wonder what's like when its out of control over here.
Mulehunter.
Post by: denali on August 12, 2011, 06:18:02 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on August 12, 2011, 07:41:52 PM
Post by: brackens on August 12, 2011, 08:10:17 PM
a little talk with a biologist and I learned that wolves make elk pack in larger herds. My immediate question was what about a disease that breaks out... say like hoof rot that is in Montana... his answer... We don't know yet... I asked what happens when wolves decide people are fat, slow and tasty. His answer, wolves don't eat people, those a hybrid animals that do that.... but on further questioning... I found out that he is a "wolf" biologist....
now, not to pick on anyone... if ones job depends on something... what is the chance they will make sure that something stays around....
:twocents: after inflation. :bash:
Post by: woodswalker on August 15, 2011, 11:19:51 AM
We need to let the game biologists manage the animals scientifically. Cattlemen, timber companies, P.E.T.A., H.S.U.S., A.L.F. and all the other special interest groups have their agendas and get in the way of proper wildlife management. Predator/prey numbers will find equilibrium.Greyson, the problem is when you get activist biologists who take sides. Its less damaging when they take the game's side and much more so when they take the wolve's side but its biased in either case. The bio has to be neutral and take all sides concerns in a scientific and documentable manner (some sides have more documentable data than others - nuff said) and balance the WHOLE of the picture...including who has been PAYING for things and what they have been paying for...otherwise it gets into an illegal TAKING under color of law (IMNSHO).
So I am not misunderstood, I look forward to hunting wolves when their numbers are stable. Wolves are neither good nor are they bad, they are predators, like coyotes, cougars and us. Don't let doom and gloom scenarios carry the day.
We DO NOT HAVE NEUTRAL BIOS.
Post by: twistiron on August 15, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
Post by: huntinguy on August 15, 2011, 04:33:23 PM
The other thing he said, that seemed odd to me, was the elk moved in to more remote areas when the wolves showed up... I don't understand that one....
The elk in Idaho have just moved to such a remote area that nobody can find them.
[/quote]
I have a friend in Idaho, he did get his elk last year, nice one too. Year before he didn't see one at all, and believe me this guy is an elk magnet.... He said the one he got last year was the only one he saw after a week busting brush.
He did tell me though that a camp up from him had their elk taken right out of camp by wolves. Came right in and tore the meat up and drug it off.
Me thinks there are too many bold wolves around.... :yike:
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 15, 2011, 05:17:43 PM
Where they are managed between the extremes is social, not biological. Political and economic factors influence the social tolerance. At carrying capacity, there are too many vehicle collisions, too much agricultural damage, nuisance animals in urban environments, etc. The upper limit then becomes the social tolerance capacity, which varies widely between different social and economic interests.
Most hunters want herds as high as possible, unless their livelihood is also impacted (a forester or farmer may love to hunt, but has limited tolerance for depredation). People who have lost loved ones, or suffered great economic hardship (destroyed vehicle, disability, trashed landscaping, lost pets/livestock, etc.) are much less tolerant.
Scientific wildlife management is easy. It's the social management that is tough.
Post by: elkontherun on August 16, 2011, 10:22:45 AM
Post by: Curly on August 16, 2011, 11:13:33 AM
The kid did get his elk opening day at 535 the first clearcut we came to. 25 yards off the road one shot to the head and his elk season was over.
Congrats.
Too bad the season was so short and the pack out was so long....... ;) :)
Post by: twistiron on August 16, 2011, 02:36:33 PM
The game biologists do manage the game herds scientifically. Science dictates that at a minimum, we need a genetically viable population (generally, 100-500 animals is all). Science dictates at a maximum, biological carrying capacity is the upper limit, the most animals the habitat can physically support.
Where they are managed between the extremes is social, not biological. Political and economic factors influence the social tolerance. At carrying capacity, there are too many vehicle collisions, too much agricultural damage, nuisance animals in urban environments, etc. The upper limit then becomes the social tolerance capacity, which varies widely between different social and economic interests.
Most hunters want herds as high as possible, unless their livelihood is also impacted (a forester or farmer may love to hunt, but has limited tolerance for depredation). People who have lost loved ones, or suffered great economic hardship (destroyed vehicle, disability, trashed landscaping, lost pets/livestock, etc.) are much less tolerant.
Scientific wildlife management is easy. It's the social management that is tough.
well put, with that being said there is alot of room for social management when your suggested pop. runs from 100-500 animals( just using throwing out numbers) if we know hunter harvest and general prey pops., size of available range, range required per pack, estimated pack growth ect. then it should not be hard based on data being collected in other states and currently in ours to narrow the suggested pop. down to 200-300. leaving much less room for social managment options. i think we should also get a hunting season started, to maintain a stable slowly exspanding (to sustainable level) wolf pop. vice an exploding one like idaho. this will also slow the pressure of wolves on elk giving them a chance to adapt there habits to having another predator.
Post by: Greyson on August 16, 2011, 03:52:36 PM
We need to let the game biologists manage the animals scientifically. Cattlemen, timber companies, P.E.T.A., H.S.U.S., A.L.F. and all the other special interest groups have their agendas and get in the way of proper wildlife management. Predator/prey numbers will find equilibrium.
So I am not misunderstood, I look forward to hunting wolves when their numbers are stable. Wolves are neither good nor are they bad, they are predators, like coyotes, cougars and us. Don't let doom and gloom scenarios carry the day.
I'm not sure how you can slap cattlemen in the face like that and lump them in with likes of P.E.T.A.. They don't have an agenda, they have a livelihood. Big difference partner
I wasn't trying to disparage cattlemen. They simply have their interests, like any other special interest group. You and me included.
Post by: buck man on August 23, 2011, 09:11:40 PM
Sick of all the chatter BS. Washington 100% does not need another breed of predators. Weather they were here before or not. If in fact our state government had a positive track of management ever, I might have a touch of faith in their ability to manage this.
Idaho 2008, I watched pregnant cow elk give birth to calves on rocky ledges that goats only tread because it was the only place the wolves would not follow. Then once the calves tried to stand they fell to their deaths.
If you think that wolves only kill the weak and sickly animals you are a bigger part of the problem than the cure. I wish all the Jack wagons that continue to bitch but are to scared or lazy to deal the situation, be it by a bullet or a pen should have their man cards and hunting licenses revolked. Just my opinion!
:yeah:
Post by: 7.62Warbird on August 25, 2011, 09:39:35 AM
Wolves have 5-6 pups a year.
Wolves eat 15-20 deer/elk per year.
Wolf lifespan 10-20 years.
2011: 30 wolves eat 450 deer/elk
2012: 105 wolves eat 1575 deer/elk
2013: 367 wolves eat 5,505 deer/elk
2014: 1,284 wolves eat 19,260 deer/elk
2015: 4,494 wolves eat 67,410 deer/elk
2016: 15,729 wolves eat 235,935 deer/elk
2017: 55,051 wolves eat 825,772 deer/elk
2018: 192,678 wolves eat 2,890,177 deer/elk
2019: 674,373 wolves eat 10,115,595 deer/elk
2020: 2,360,305 wolves eat 35,404,582 deer/elk
I used the low average numbers for calculations.
Within the 10 year life span of the original 15 pairs of wolves anyone with a 6th grade education can see that wolves will decimate deer/elk populations statewide.
You would truly have to be a ratard to think we need wolves in Washington or any other state for that matter.
Post by: runamuk on August 25, 2011, 10:19:15 AM
Wolf facts:
Wolves have 5-6 pups a year.
Wolves eat 15-20 deer/elk per year.
Wolf lifespan 10-20 years.
2011: 30 wolves eat 450 deer/elk
2012: 105 wolves eat 1575 deer/elk
2013: 367 wolves eat 5,505 deer/elk
2014: 1,284 wolves eat 19,260 deer/elk
2015: 4,494 wolves eat 67,410 deer/elk
2016: 15,729 wolves eat 235,935 deer/elk
2017: 55,051 wolves eat 825,772 deer/elk
2018: 192,678 wolves eat 2,890,177 deer/elk
2019: 674,373 wolves eat 10,115,595 deer/elk
2020: 2,360,305 wolves eat 35,404,582 deer/elk
I used the low average numbers for calculations.
Within the 10 year life span of the original 15 pairs of wolves anyone with a 6th grade education can see that wolves will decimate deer/elk populations statewide.
You would truly have to be a ratard to think we need wolves in Washington or any other state for that matter.
there is a flaw here that any animal manager can see...the anti's use this same sort of doubling to push their cat and dog "facts" with relation to mandatory spay and neuter. The 5-6 in a litter is average births but that is not a survivability number.... that would likely average closer to 3 pups making it to a year on average
... I will throw this out there if these are truly wild wolves a epidemic of distemper like has been seen in some raccoon populations recently would put a hurt on the population....however if the first generation wolves are planted they also likely are vaccinated...and that will provide probably lifelong immunity ;) after all they are dogs so can be vaccinated using the same shots we give our dogs....
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 25, 2011, 10:38:58 AM
And I would guess that the surviving litter population is probably even lower, on the order of two after about three years.
Post by: 7.62Warbird on August 25, 2011, 07:18:27 PM
Post by: twistiron on August 27, 2011, 01:06:57 AM
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2011, 01:43:55 AM
There is no doubt that without heavy management of wolves there will not be large enough herds to allow human hunting of prey, the wolf lovers and pro-wolf biologists all know this and that is why they want wolves back so badly. The wolf results in their goal of halting hunting. :twocents:
Post by: 3nails on August 27, 2011, 12:41:47 PM
If you consider the rare sightings of wild game in Lewis and Clarks journals I think it would be more accurate to say that wolves were self-limiting, they had eaten prey in many areas to the point that the remaining prey only supported so many wolves.Bingo! Oh yeah, and since you don't need those guns for hunting, why don't you just hand them over now. Thanks. Would you now like to see the new constitution we wrote for you?
There is no doubt that without heavy management of wolves there will not be large enough herds to allow human hunting of prey, the wolf lovers and pro-wolf biologists all know this and that is why they want wolves back so badly. The wolf results in their goal of halting hunting. :twocents:
Post by: Maverick on August 28, 2011, 03:33:07 PM
Post by: cuzsis on August 28, 2011, 03:46:01 PM
Wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, they're all fine to have in an area. And good for it. We don't need people trapping beavers (and paying them to do so) because the cougars have a taste for beaver and do it for us. The wolves will take the weak and sick giving us some absolutely kickbutt trophy deer and elk in the long run. All around good stuff. :tup:
It's when the management fails that populations can skew. Especially having predators reintroduced to an area where the prey doesn't remember them. It'll take them a few iterations to dredge up those old instincts. In the meantime, the numbers do the funky chicken like lynx and snowshoe hares. Good management prevents this and allows both to grow well and properly.
So let's stop being mad at the wolves. They're just animals doing what they're supposed to do. Let's get mad at the elected leaders who are actually responsible for this (and whole lot of other stuff outside of hunting that they have screwed up lately...) :twocents:
Post by: high country on August 28, 2011, 03:54:36 PM
Hey guys, let's blame the wolves (or any animal) for poor management by Washington state.
Wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, they're all fine to have in an area. And good for it. We don't need people trapping beavers (and paying them to do so) because the cougars have a taste for beaver and do it for us. The wolves will take the weak and sick giving us some absolutely kickbutt trophy deer and elk in the long run. All around good stuff. :tup:
It's when the management fails that populations can skew. Especially having predators reintroduced to an area where the prey doesn't remember them. It'll take them a few iterations to dredge up those old instincts. In the meantime, the numbers do the funky chicken like lynx and snowshoe hares. Good management prevents this and allows both to grow well and properly.
So let's stop being mad at the wolves. They're just animals doing what they're supposed to do. Let's get mad at the elected leaders who are actually responsible for this (and whole lot of other stuff outside of hunting that they have screwed up lately...) :twocents:
Perhaps you should let Idaho, Montana and Wyoming know that wolves are giving them great gene pools and that they have misinterpretation of the devastating effects wolves have had on their herds and economy.
Post by: ribka on August 28, 2011, 04:24:40 PM
Hey guys, let's blame the wolves (or any animal) for poor management by Washington state.
Wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, they're all fine to have in an area. And good for it. We don't need people trapping beavers (and paying them to do so) because the cougars have a taste for beaver and do it for us. The wolves will take the weak and sick giving us some absolutely kickbutt trophy deer and elk in the long run. All around good stuff. :tup:
It's when the management fails that populations can skew. Especially having predators reintroduced to an area where the prey doesn't remember them. It'll take them a few iterations to dredge up those old instincts. In the meantime, the numbers do the funky chicken like lynx and snowshoe hares. Good management prevents this and allows both to grow well and properly.
So let's stop being mad at the wolves. They're just animals doing what they're supposed to do. Let's get mad at the elected leaders who are actually responsible for this (and whole lot of other stuff outside of hunting that they have screwed up lately...) :twocents:
Perhaps you should let Idaho, Montana and Wyoming know that wolves are giving them great gene pools and that they have misinterpretation of the devastating effects wolves have had on their herds and economy.
Wolves only target the weak and the sick?? :bash: :bash: Where do people get this nonsense?
I guess 70% of the Yellowstone elk herd had some some of sickness and were therefore almost wiped out by the wolves.
Interesting you should mention lynx. Remember a few years ago when Federal F&W employees were placing lynx fir in certain areas in order that the area be declared a critical habitat area and shut down all hunting and recreational use in that area.
Just my :twocents: Many in the government game management business want to re intro wolves in order to "manage" game numbers using "natural" means. As a result there will be no hunting in the future. Look to parts of ID, WY, MT.
Now if they wanted to first intro a few hundred wolves to King county and parks in Seattle and Portland that might be a place to start.
Post by: twistiron on August 28, 2011, 04:41:56 PM
Post by: greenhead_killer on August 28, 2011, 05:09:50 PM
yeah, we should def drop these bad boys right in the backyards of the buttf*&%S that are so in love with them. let them deal with the consequences of their actions instead of putting it on the rest of us. perfect examples going on in our bordering states and these f-tards want to do the same here regardless of the info they have, scientific evidence, from id, mt, wy...add us to the list. maybe do a few live captures and drop a few off in greenlake, theyd like to see one from their windows down there.Hey guys, let's blame the wolves (or any animal) for poor management by Washington state.
Wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, they're all fine to have in an area. And good for it. We don't need people trapping beavers (and paying them to do so) because the cougars have a taste for beaver and do it for us. The wolves will take the weak and sick giving us some absolutely kickbutt trophy deer and elk in the long run. All around good stuff. :tup:
It's when the management fails that populations can skew. Especially having predators reintroduced to an area where the prey doesn't remember them. It'll take them a few iterations to dredge up those old instincts. In the meantime, the numbers do the funky chicken like lynx and snowshoe hares. Good management prevents this and allows both to grow well and properly.
So let's stop being mad at the wolves. They're just animals doing what they're supposed to do. Let's get mad at the elected leaders who are actually responsible for this (and whole lot of other stuff outside of hunting that they have screwed up lately...) :twocents:
Perhaps you should let Idaho, Montana and Wyoming know that wolves are giving them great gene pools and that they have misinterpretation of the devastating effects wolves have had on their herds and economy.
Wolves only target the weak and the sick?? :bash: :bash: Where do people get this nonsense?
I guess 70% of the Yellowstone elk herd had some some of sickness and were therefore almost wiped out by the wolves.
Interesting you should mention lynx. Remember a few years ago when Federal F&W employees were placing lynx fir in certain areas in order that the area be declared a critical habitat area and shut down all hunting and recreational use in that area.
Just my :twocents: Many in the government game management business want to re intro wolves in order to "manage" game numbers using "natural" means. As a result there will be no hunting in the future. Look to parts of ID, WY, MT.
Now if they wanted to first intro a few hundred wolves to King county and parks in Seattle and Portland that might be a place to start.
and to twistiron, kudos to you for doing your homework. amazing what information is out there and available on this subject
Post by: GlennGTR on August 28, 2011, 05:21:35 PM
Post by: high country on August 28, 2011, 05:54:52 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 28, 2011, 06:15:32 PM
If weak and sick refers to pregnant cows and calves, then maybe. One of the standout observations of the former large herds of ID, WY and MT is how few calves are seen with the herds. The cows will sometimes leave the herd for a few days to give birth and get the calf oriented. When they do join the herd, the calves are usually slower/weaker than adults so they are still the easiest prey.
Post by: ribka on August 28, 2011, 06:23:34 PM
Really po's me with all of the wolf hugging misinformation/propaganda that the general non-hunting public buys into.
These anti-hunting groups are really savvy and are well-finaced to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. They understand the importance of misleading propaganda and its affect on the public's perception ( emotions) of hunting and wildlife management.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on August 28, 2011, 09:23:13 PM
There is a solution to WDFW mismanagement, vote in a hard hunting Independent to the State House of Representatives.....someone in the 35th district, running for position 2............someone that cares about hunting and fishing, has it in his blood real bad like an incurable disease and doesnt want a cure....someone like...that Glenn Gaither in Mason county..... 8)
Agreed,
People need to financially support such people and endeavors.
Post by: Maverick on August 28, 2011, 09:46:35 PM
Post by: twistiron on August 31, 2011, 08:49:54 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 31, 2011, 09:11:32 AM
what wolves are doing to our ungulate herds are much like what rebels in south africa are doing to the locals, massicaring a defensless prey.
What rebels in South Africa?
there are examples to prove this, mongoose in hawaii (there are several birds that are gone because of them) once the rats where gone they ate everything they could find.
As point of argument, mongoose were introduced into Hawaii. It is contended that Cascadian wolves were reintroduced by natural migration from Canada. Using the mongoose as an example is probably not the best choice because of their extreme dissimilarities in mechanism of introduction.
Post by: BIGINNER on August 31, 2011, 09:24:14 AM
what wolves are doing to our ungulate herds are much like what rebels in south africa are doing to the locals, massicaring a defensless prey.
What rebels in South Africa?there are examples to prove this, mongoose in hawaii (there are several birds that are gone because of them) once the rats where gone they ate everything they could find.
As point of argument, mongoose were introduced into Hawaii. It is contended that Cascadian wolves were reintroduced by natural migration from Canada. Using the mongoose as an example is probably not the best choice because of their extreme dissimilarities in mechanism of introduction.
actually, the mckinsee valley wolves (spelling) that were introduced in adaho and yellowstone are alot bigger than the native wolves that lived there before. 40- 60 lbs difference.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 31, 2011, 09:31:38 AM
actually, the mckinsee valley wolves (spelling) that were introduced in adaho and yellowstone are alot bigger than the native wolves that lived there before. 40- 60 lbs difference.
Where's adaho?
Post by: BIGINNER on August 31, 2011, 09:36:24 AM
actually, the mckinsee valley wolves (spelling) that were introduced in adaho and yellowstone are alot bigger than the native wolves that lived there before. 40- 60 lbs difference.
Where's adaho?
i'm pretty sure if you had any common sence you would figure out what i ment,.. also by looking at me screen name you can easily figure out that my spelling sucks :tup:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 31, 2011, 09:44:22 AM
Post by: high country on August 31, 2011, 09:54:56 AM
back to wolves and bullchit now.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 31, 2011, 10:04:37 AM
actually, the mckinsee valley wolves (spelling) that were introduced in adaho and yellowstone are alot bigger than the native wolves that lived there before. 40- 60 lbs difference.
:yeah: MacKenzie?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 31, 2011, 10:15:00 AM
back to wolves and bullchit now.
:sry: :hello:
actually, the mckinsee valley wolves (spelling) that were introduced in adaho and yellowstone are alot bigger than the native wolves that lived there before. 40- 60 lbs difference.
This is interesting, if factual. Anybody have a source for this?
Post by: BIGINNER on August 31, 2011, 10:39:05 AM
I have plenty of common sense. And I realize that taking the effort to spell correctly and attempting to use proper punctuation is not a waste of time. Criticizing others for pointing out your ludicrous spelling mistakes is a waste of effort. Your mistakes reflect poorly on you and show a lack of effort. This is something you will hopefully realize as you mature
:chuckle: :chuckle: stop hurting my feelings man. LOL :chuckle: I MOSTLY PUT MY EFFORT INTO GETTING MY POINT ACROSS, AND EVERYBODY ELSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH UUNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING. BUT JUST FOR YOUR SAKE,... THE WOLVES WERE INTRODUCED IN IDAHO THE STATE JUST TO THE EAST OF US (WASHINGTON).
Post by: BIGINNER on August 31, 2011, 10:52:57 AM
i over estimated the weight difference a little bit, but there still is quite a difference in size.
also notice the part where it says that the rocky mountain wolves have recover quite a bit do to the wolf recovery plan (putting in a whole different subspecies of wolf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf)
Quote
Mackenzie Valley WolfFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Alaskan Wolf.
Mackenzie Wolf
Conservation status
Least Concern
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. occidentalis
Trinomial name
Canis lupus occidentalis
Richardson, 1829
Mackenzie Valley wolf range (green)
Synonyms
sticte (Richardson, 1829)
ater (Richardson, 1829)[1]
The Mackenzie Valley Wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) also known as the Canadian Timber Wolf is perhaps the largest subspecies of Gray Wolf in North America. Its range includes parts of the western United States, much of western Canada, and Alaska, including Unimak Island in the Aleutians, and was introduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.[2] The subspecies has since spread into other states, such as Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Northern California, Colorado, & Utah. [3]
Contents [hide]
1 Anatomy
2 Social behaviour
3 Diet
4 Hunting
5 Current status and history
6 References
7 External links
8 Gallery
[edit] Anatomy
A Mackenzie Valley Wolf in Yellowstone.Mackenzie Valley Wolves typically stand about 32–36 inches (81–95 cm) at the shoulder and males weigh between 100 and 145 pounds (45–65 kg).[4] The record is held by a wild wolf caught in Alaska in 1939 which weighed 175 pounds.[5]
The Mackenzie Valley Wolf's thick, long limbs are proportionally built for traversing through rough terrain such as deep snow or the cliffy edges of the Rocky Mountains. Its deep chest hosts large lungs, letting the wolf breathe more efficiently at higher altitudes, and allowing it to exert huge amounts of stamina traveling up to 115 km (~70 miles) in one day. Its powerful neck is a very important adaptation; it has to be strong to support the wolf's large head and is crucial for bringing down prey. The Mackenzie Valley Wolf maximizes heat retention through such methods as using its bushy tail to cover its exposed nose during the winter. It sheds its undercoat during the summer months due to the hotter conditions.
The skull is 31 cm (12 inches) long and is armed with an impressive array of large canines and carnassial teeth which, when coupled with huge jaw muscles that are evident from the large sagittal crest and wide zygomatic arches, give it an incredible biteforce that is strong enough to break the bones of prey and even crack the femur of moose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_irremotus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_irremotus)
Quote
Northern Rocky Mountains WolfFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Canis lupus irremotus)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Southern Rocky Mountains Wolf.
Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. irremotus
Trinomial name
Canis lupus irremotus
Goldman, 1937
The Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus[1][2][3]), also known as the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf,[4] is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, that is primarily found in the northern portion of the Rocky Mountains and the states and provinces surrounding the region.[5] The subspecies was initially listed as Endangered on March 9, 1978, but had the classification removed in the year 2000 due to the effects of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan.[6][7] On August 6, 2010, the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf was ordered to be returned under Endangered Species Act protections by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in a decision overturning a previous ruling by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.[8]
Contents [hide]
1 Physiology
1.1 Description
1.2 Dietary habits
2 History
2.1 The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan
2.2 Policy Changes for the ESA
3 References
4 External links
[edit] Physiology[edit] DescriptionThis subspecies generally weighs 70–135 pounds (32–61 kg), making it one of the largest subspecies of the gray wolf in existence.[9] It is a lighter colored animal than its southern brethren, the Southern Rocky Mountains Wolf, with a coat that includes far more white and less black. In general, the subspecies favors lighter colors, with black mixing in among them
The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery PlanThe Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan was first approved in 1980, though it was then revised later on in 1987. The plan required a certain population of Northern Rocky Mountains wolves to reside in the area inside and around Yellowstone, which included at least ten breeding pairs, and for the population to remain stable for at least three consecutive years.[11][12] However, the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf was not, at the time of the initial drafting, recognized as a legitimate subspecies, so the wolves involved in the plan were instead the Great Plains Wolf and the Mackenzie Valley Wolf.[13] The overall reason for this was because the stated two subspecies of wolf roamed in the same general area as the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf and because the plan covered the reintroduction of wolves into the area in general. For this reason, the more plentiful subspecies' were chosen to be trans-located, so as to not upset the balance in the areas they would be taken from.[14]
In response to concerns about wolves being allowed to run free in the area, killing livestock without any allowed repercussions, the final draft of the plan, completed on November 22, 1994, outlined that ranchers were allowed to kill wolves if they were "caught in the act of killing livestock on private property."[6]
In three lawsuits combined as Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, opponents of re-introduction argued that the re-introduced wolves threatened wolves that might already inhabit the area, while supporters argued against the experimental desigination and for fully protected status. District Court Judge William F. Downes ruled that the re-introduction violated section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, however, this ruling was overturned by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.[6][7][15
Post by: twistiron on August 31, 2011, 11:34:25 AM
:'(
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 31, 2011, 02:51:37 PM
here's some links to wiki. i know its not a reliable source, but i don't have time right now to search for more reliable sources, maybe later i will.
i over estimated the weight difference a little bit, but there still is quite a difference in size.
also notice the part where it says that the rocky mountain wolves have recover quite a bit do to the wolf recovery plan (putting in a whole different subspecies of wolf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf)QuoteMackenzie Valley WolfFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Alaskan Wolf.
Mackenzie Wolf
Conservation status
Least Concern
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. occidentalis
Trinomial name
Canis lupus occidentalis
Richardson, 1829
Mackenzie Valley wolf range (green)
Synonyms
sticte (Richardson, 1829)
ater (Richardson, 1829)[1]
The Mackenzie Valley Wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) also known as the Canadian Timber Wolf is perhaps the largest subspecies of Gray Wolf in North America. Its range includes parts of the western United States, much of western Canada, and Alaska, including Unimak Island in the Aleutians, and was introduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.[2] The subspecies has since spread into other states, such as Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Northern California, Colorado, & Utah. [3]
Contents [hide]
1 Anatomy
2 Social behaviour
3 Diet
4 Hunting
5 Current status and history
6 References
7 External links
8 Gallery
[edit] Anatomy
A Mackenzie Valley Wolf in Yellowstone.Mackenzie Valley Wolves typically stand about 32–36 inches (81–95 cm) at the shoulder and males weigh between 100 and 145 pounds (45–65 kg).[4] The record is held by a wild wolf caught in Alaska in 1939 which weighed 175 pounds.[5]
The Mackenzie Valley Wolf's thick, long limbs are proportionally built for traversing through rough terrain such as deep snow or the cliffy edges of the Rocky Mountains. Its deep chest hosts large lungs, letting the wolf breathe more efficiently at higher altitudes, and allowing it to exert huge amounts of stamina traveling up to 115 km (~70 miles) in one day. Its powerful neck is a very important adaptation; it has to be strong to support the wolf's large head and is crucial for bringing down prey. The Mackenzie Valley Wolf maximizes heat retention through such methods as using its bushy tail to cover its exposed nose during the winter. It sheds its undercoat during the summer months due to the hotter conditions.
The skull is 31 cm (12 inches) long and is armed with an impressive array of large canines and carnassial teeth which, when coupled with huge jaw muscles that are evident from the large sagittal crest and wide zygomatic arches, give it an incredible biteforce that is strong enough to break the bones of prey and even crack the femur of moose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_irremotus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_irremotus)QuoteNorthern Rocky Mountains WolfFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Canis lupus irremotus)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Southern Rocky Mountains Wolf.
Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. irremotus
Trinomial name
Canis lupus irremotus
Goldman, 1937
The Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus[1][2][3]), also known as the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf,[4] is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, that is primarily found in the northern portion of the Rocky Mountains and the states and provinces surrounding the region.[5] The subspecies was initially listed as Endangered on March 9, 1978, but had the classification removed in the year 2000 due to the effects of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan.[6][7] On August 6, 2010, the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf was ordered to be returned under Endangered Species Act protections by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in a decision overturning a previous ruling by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.[8]
Contents [hide]
1 Physiology
1.1 Description
1.2 Dietary habits
2 History
2.1 The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan
2.2 Policy Changes for the ESA
3 References
4 External links
[edit] Physiology[edit] DescriptionThis subspecies generally weighs 70–135 pounds (32–61 kg), making it one of the largest subspecies of the gray wolf in existence.[9] It is a lighter colored animal than its southern brethren, the Southern Rocky Mountains Wolf, with a coat that includes far more white and less black. In general, the subspecies favors lighter colors, with black mixing in among them
The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery PlanThe Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan was first approved in 1980, though it was then revised later on in 1987. The plan required a certain population of Northern Rocky Mountains wolves to reside in the area inside and around Yellowstone, which included at least ten breeding pairs, and for the population to remain stable for at least three consecutive years.[11][12] However, the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf was not, at the time of the initial drafting, recognized as a legitimate subspecies, so the wolves involved in the plan were instead the Great Plains Wolf and the Mackenzie Valley Wolf.[13] The overall reason for this was because the stated two subspecies of wolf roamed in the same general area as the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf and because the plan covered the reintroduction of wolves into the area in general. For this reason, the more plentiful subspecies' were chosen to be trans-located, so as to not upset the balance in the areas they would be taken from.[14]
In response to concerns about wolves being allowed to run free in the area, killing livestock without any allowed repercussions, the final draft of the plan, completed on November 22, 1994, outlined that ranchers were allowed to kill wolves if they were "caught in the act of killing livestock on private property."[6]
In three lawsuits combined as Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, opponents of re-introduction argued that the re-introduced wolves threatened wolves that might already inhabit the area, while supporters argued against the experimental desigination and for fully protected status. District Court Judge William F. Downes ruled that the re-introduction violated section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, however, this ruling was overturned by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.[6][7][15
Thanks
Post by: 3nails on August 31, 2011, 06:06:18 PM
I have plenty of common sense. And I realize that taking the effort to spell correctly and attempting to use proper punctuation is not a waste of time. Criticizing others for pointing out your ludicrous spelling mistakes is a waste of effort. Your mistakes reflect poorly on you and show a lack of effort. This is something you will hopefully realize as you matureHey, uh, you forgot a period at your last sentence. :sas:
Post by: Curly on August 31, 2011, 06:34:29 PM
Post by: ribka on August 31, 2011, 07:12:35 PM
The wolves taking the weak and sick is a generalization about as truthful as forest fire burning the weak and sick trees. The way an increased wolf population will probably work is that the wolves will exhaust the prey species in one area then move on to another. That pattern would fit better with the Lewis & Clark record.
This pattern should be acceptable to anyone that does not mind vast swaths of our region barren of wildlife. I suppose I'm a bit selfish in this regard, but I like having the wildlife around all the time. Rather than overloading the area with wolves and play the "let's see what happens" game. Why not manage them from the start?
We can have a few wolves here and there for people that like wolves that they see on TV. For the people thinking of trained wolves that eat pieces of bacon or howl on queue for the director, wolves with cute doggie names like Two Socks, other wolf lore. I notice the packs are getting cutsie names ("Druid Pack" is outright corny) a stark contrast to the more scientifically-mature yet functional names given to orca pods like J, K, and L. Apart from the fantasy, I'd like the wildlife to be managed with a serious mind and attention to sustainability both scientific and financial.
Our state is nowhere near reaching a goal like that.
It is always the women wearing Birkenstocks, a crystal "channeling" necklace and hairy armpits that come up with these ridiculous names for these non-native wolf packs :chuckle:
knocker of rocks do you own a pair of Birkenstocks? :tung:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 31, 2011, 07:14:56 PM
Post by: twistiron on August 31, 2011, 08:29:51 PM
Rock knocker i think there is a rule that says you have to have five stars to correct grammar :IBCOOL:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 04, 2011, 09:56:21 AM
Ask the Idaho fish and game what happened to the states remaining timber wolves after the apperance of canadian wolves.
:'(
And what will happen to ours when the bigger ones get here. Then we will have true extinction, due to "the man" playing GOD.