Post by: predatorpro on January 03, 2012, 11:59:18 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grey_wolf_populations_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grey_wolf_populations_by_country)
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 03, 2012, 12:21:19 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 03, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
Those numbers are suspect. Alberta has announced that they need to cull 6,000 wolves, so the figure or 4,500 doesn't cut the numbers. Wikipedia isn't know for it's accuracy, only for it being open for anyone to contribute.
Just to get the facts straight as far as they've been reported so far. Here's what was given as a ballpark estimate based on another small hunt.
I'm assuming you got your info from this story..... http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,88569.0.html
"Researchers at the Pembina Institute figure that about 6,000 wolves will have to be culled every five years, if a smaller project in the Little Smoky River area is any guide."
Even if this is the case, that's only 1,200 wolves per year. Probably won't affect the total population much as I'd guess that many are born there per year. You kill those, it's just that much more likely the others will survive. More food and less territorial infighting among the wolves. Pretty expensive to carry out too. Alaska has found out that it's a fairly expensive proposition to hunt wolves from the air, especially in low snow years.
Then you have to hope that the culling has an effect on the herd. If it's the habitat in question, you might grow the herd too fast and cause worse problems.
Reading the rest of the article points to that direction. A couple more quotes.
"And while the report does not dwell on using an extended and intensive wolf cull to protect fragile caribou populations, it's clearly one of the few options left for the Alberta herds."
"It would be a key stop-gap measure while the natural habitat is slowly repaired over the coming decades -- likely used in conjunction with other strategies such as allowing increased hunting of deer and moose, who share the caribou habitat."
Sooooo, besides knocking down the wolf herd, they are planning to knock down deer and moose numbers which compete for the habitat. In the long run, the total number of animals available to hunters might not change. It might just change the number of each species available. More caribou, less deer and moose.
And then this
"Much of the habitat in question overlaps with the oilsands region -- although experts and the federal report alike don't hold the oilpatch solely responsible for the destruction of the caribou habitat. Rather, they say it's a culmination of decades, even centuries, of industrial development in the region that has upset the delicate balance caribou need to thrive."
Sooooo, the wolves didn't cause the problem. It's man made. The wolves take the heat, and nothing really changes.
"said Boutin.
"It's a direct trade-off, and society and everybody is going to have to make some real hard decisions there, because you cannot, over extensive areas, have both of those activities going on and preserve caribou unless you go to other drastic conservation efforts like predator control or fencing," he said."
So basically, industry and development has created a problem and the government feels they need to look like they are doing something to save face and take the heat off the real reason the caribou in this area have low numbers. Spend money for a (hopeful) short term fix that might just fix it's self as far as wolf numbers go. And ohhh by the way, after a couple years of we let you whack down the deer and moose too, there may be a few more caribou, but less deer and moose and the wolf population will probably be about the same. (But of course we can then blame the Wolves for the shortage of Deer and Moose and start another wolf control project.)
That about par for the course.
Personally, my point of view would be, if you aren't going to fix the habitat, you might as well go with the staus quo and plan on having a smaller caribou population and leave the deer and moose alone as they seem to compete better in the current environment. (possibly because caribou are more migratory) Save the tax payers' money. And if you want to knock the wolves down a bit, just liberalize the seasons and encourage more trapping.
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2012, 04:30:48 PM
The Truth About Wolves In Alaska
"Testimony By Concerned Alaskans"
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/truth_about_wolves_in_alaska.pdf
Van Ballenberghe (1985) states that wolf population regulation is needed when a caribou herd population declines and becomes trapped in a predator pit, wherein predators are able to prevent caribou populations from increasing.
Because Canada has allowed wolves to multiply there are many caribou herds in trouble and close to extintion, wolves are a great part of the problem.
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_3_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 03, 2012, 04:58:18 PM
Which of the following holds the most truth?
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
Post by: Bigshooter on January 03, 2012, 05:07:42 PM
It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.
Which of the following holds the most truth?
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
There's plenty of great feed in yellowstone and there are no people. So where did the elk go?
Post by: canyelk48 on January 03, 2012, 05:09:09 PM
It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.
Which of the following holds the most truth?
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
.....and the cow elk can't get the nutrition they need to produce healthy calves because of the wolves constantly hunting/chasing them throughout the Winter; thus leading to very low cow to calf ratios. Fewer calves ultimately lead to reduced numbers of elk since there are no "replacements" for the elk that the wolves have killed and eaten. I suppose you'll dispute that too??
Post by: stuckalot on January 03, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.
Which of the following holds the most truth?
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
There's plenty of great feed in yellowstone and there are no people. So where did the elk go?
:yeah: And the answer to todays $10,000 question????....... wait for it......
Post by: seth30 on January 03, 2012, 05:56:54 PM
It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.Oh I cant wait for the BS answer that he is going to post :chuckle:
Which of the following holds the most truth?
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
There's plenty of great feed in yellowstone and there are no people. So where did the elk go?
:yeah: And the answer to todays $10,000 question????....... wait for it......
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 03, 2012, 06:04:37 PM
It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.Well, there is plenty of nutrition where humans are...home developments, clearcuts, gardens, etc. Game populations seem to thrive, both deer and elk. What I don't see too many of near humans are predators. Predators get iced. Out in the wilderness I see plenty of predators, but not so much game. Plenty of nutrition there too.
Which of the following holds the most truth?
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
Post by: SpringerFan on January 03, 2012, 07:46:35 PM
It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.
Which of the following holds the most truth?
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also believe there are people who need to be silenced (as in banned from this website) since all they do is try and cause problems. This post by Sitka is just another example. No facts. Just opinions. Opinions are fine. But just like #$%holes, everyone has one. Some actually make sense......
Like somone else said, let's start posting topics on their websites. This person is just up to no good on this site.
I wonder how much money they have poured in to this state to actually help "manage" the wildlife.......
I just started hunting several years ago, and wish I had started a long time ago. Most every hunter I have met is about the animal. The environment. And maintaining a lifestyle / ecosystem that has balance.
I have failed to see anything that resembles a "balance" from this poster. Just flame wars.
My :twocents: for what it is worth.
Post by: sebek556 on January 03, 2012, 07:56:09 PM
I am also a firm beleaver that if we take the warning labels off of everything, most people like the aboved mentioned would no longer be a problem because they would sort themselves out.. :tup:
Post by: seth30 on January 03, 2012, 07:58:37 PM
:yeah:
I am also a firm beleaver that if we take the warning labels off of everything, most people like the aboved mentioned would no longer be a problem because they would sort themselves out.. :tup:
[/quote] :yeah:
Post by: seth30 on January 03, 2012, 08:00:44 PM
spot on!It's not wolves that cause herds to fluctuate. It's nutrition.
Which of the following holds the most truth?
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also believe there are people who need to be silenced (as in banned from this website) since all they do is try and cause problems. This post by Sitka is just another example. No facts. Just opinions. Opinions are fine. But just like #$%holes, everyone has one. Some actually make sense......
Like somone else said, let's start posting topics on their websites. This person is just up to no good on this site.
I wonder how much money they have poured in to this state to actually help "manage" the wildlife.......
I just started hunting several years ago, and wish I had started a long time ago. Most every hunter I have met is about the animal. The environment. And maintaining a lifestyle / ecosystem that has balance.
I have failed to see anything that resembles a "balance" from this poster. Just flame wars.
My :twocents: for what it is worth.
Post by: boneaddict on January 03, 2012, 08:25:10 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2012, 08:51:45 PM
I think most of our wildernesses that wolves have moved into are great examples of what happens with wolves too. There's no logging or snowmobiling in any wilderness and elk used to thrive. All the feed is still there but now the wolves are there and elk have simply dissapeared by the thousands.
Post by: Kain on January 03, 2012, 09:29:32 PM
Quote
Population
There are an estimated 7,000 to 11,200 wolves in Alaska and more than 5,000 in the lower 48 states.
With an estimated population in Canada between 50,000-60,000.
I find is comical that wolf supporter will tell you how the wolf is NEEDED in order to reduce overpopulated elk and deer herds and then turn around and tell us that the deer and elk are suffering because of humans. Not even smart enough to realize how dumb they sound.
Ask the WDFW how many land owner tags they give out because of problems with deer and elk. Look at units like Battleground 564 where the WDFW is actively trying to reduce deer and elk number because of to many complaints. Deer and elk thrive around humans. Some people really need to get their facts straight before they embarrass themselves in public.
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2012, 09:40:13 PM
Wildlife is thriving in and around human populated areas, it's the wilderness and parks full of wolves where there are now the lowest game numbers. :twocents:
Post by: predatorpro on January 03, 2012, 10:01:38 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 03, 2012, 10:59:12 PM
And apparently some of you didn't like the fact that I pointed out that it was a habitat issue caused by man, also in the article. The article didn't say one word about wolves causing the problem that they were being killed for. At least the Canadians are honest in their science.
If you have a point, I'm willing to listen and discuss it. If all you want to do is pile on because my opinion differs from yours or I notice things you don't pay attention to, I don't have the time or energy to respond. It's boring.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 03, 2012, 11:40:10 PM
I can't speak for eastern WA, but it appears to me (IMO) that western is not even close to max carrying capacity of game.
Post by: predatorpro on January 03, 2012, 11:44:11 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 04, 2012, 03:54:06 AM
Quote
Boy, like i said before, trying to have a conversation with you guys is like squeezing jello to hold onto it. You're all over the place. The OP was commenting about the irony of calling wolves endangered when there are so many in other places in North America. The second poster was basically calling the totals a lie because Alberta which is supposed to have 4,500 wolves is discussing culling 6,000 wolves to protect some caribou herds. So I went to the article which discusses this, right here on this site and I pointed out that this was over 5 years for starters so at 1,200 a year It's realistic in one sense that they will try to remove about 1/4 of the wolves per year. But I was pointing out that because of details, it may not be a realistic goal.
And apparently some of you didn't like the fact that I pointed out that it was a habitat issue caused by man, also in the article. The article didn't say one word about wolves causing the problem that they were being killed for. At least the Canadians are honest in their science.
If you have a point, I'm willing to listen and discuss it. If all you want to do is pile on because my opinion differs from yours or I notice things you don't pay attention to, I don't have the time or energy to respond. It's boring.
Nice try sitka-blacktail at sidestepping the fact that your comments lacked any facts and were only based on your pro-wolf opinion. You are as slick at avoiding your lack of facts as most other wolf lovers. The articles and quote I cited clearly indicate wolves are a significant factor in the fluctuation of big game, specifically caribou. :twocents:
I do not find it any coincidence that wherever wolf numbers increase, big game herds suffer.
The Truth About Wolves In Alaska
"Testimony By Concerned Alaskans"
http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/truth_about_wolves_in_alaska.pdf
Van Ballenberghe (1985) states that wolf population regulation is needed when a caribou herd population declines and becomes trapped in a predator pit, wherein predators are able to prevent caribou populations from increasing.
Because Canada has allowed wolves to multiply there are many caribou herds in trouble and close to extintion, wolves are a great part of the problem.
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_3_caribou_extinction_PNP.pdf
Here's another excerpt regarding caribou:
Quote
Wolf Interactions and Impacts in British Columbia
Dr. Tom Bergerud, University of British Columbia
Dr. Bergerud studied wolf interactions and impacts in a multi-ungulate system in British Columbia. Bergerud published a paper in the Journal of Wildlife Management in 1974, which stated that predation by wolves and bears is recognized as a major limiting factor on caribou and moose. If wolf numbers could be managed, game numbers would not decline. Without management, wolves will regulate the ungulates, with the biggest impact being on recruitment.
Studies in western Alberta and Eastern B.C. indicate the canadians are making an effort to monitor caribou so that decision makers can best manage human development, wolves, caribou, and other wolf prey species. After reading through this it is reinforced that human activity benefits many species including moose, elk, deer, and also wolves because the mentioned prey species populations can increase with human activities such as logging and oil exploration.
The wolf population increases when elk, deer, and moose populations increase, as a result, caribou which are not the primary prey of wolves in this area suffer population losses due to the increased predation caused by the increased wolf population. Looking at the research it seems to me the canadians are doing the right thing to protect the caribou in this region. :twocents:
http://www.cfc.umt.edu/heblab/pdfs/hebblewhite%20and%20musiani%20ptacfinalreport_low_resolution.pdf
Quote
10.2 CARIBOU‐WOLF OVERLAP: MINIMIZING IMPACTS IN RISK AREAS
Identifying areas of overlap between wolves and caribou is a key step to minimizing risks to caribou. In
fact, risks might be higher for caribou when development results in more high quality wolf habitat in
overlap areas (forestry) or it increases wolf travel efficiency in such areas (e.g., by providing wolves with
seismic lines as travel routes).
Identification of high overlap areas could be potentially useful to mitigate effects of development by
avoiding high overlap areas. Recent advances in RSF applications to predator‐prey theory confirms that
RSF models can be used to estimate overlap using the product estimator of two independent RSF models
(Kristan and Boarman 2003, Hebblewhite et al. 2005). Because wolf predation is primarily driven by
species like moose, elk and deer in caribou systems (Hebblewhite et al. 2007), the assumption of
independence seems reasonable for wolves and caribou.
We treated RSF models for caribou and wolves as habitat ranking models, and used them to assess
caribou‐wolf overlap by subtracting inter‐species RSFs. Specifically, we subtracted the binned wolf RSF
model from the binned caribou RSF model. This generated a caribou‐wolf overlap index from ‐10 to +10,
73
73 PTACT Final Report
where high values indicate high quality caribou habitat and low quality wolf habitat, and low values
indicate low quality caribou habitat and high quality wolf habitat. We liken this index to a spatial
prediction of caribou “safe zones” (Figures 10.1, 10.2), wherein high values are those likely to be both
preferred by caribou and avoided by wolves.
Our maps can be used by environmental managers, industry and other stakeholders. Decision makers
will evaluate the risk for caribou posed by human‐induced habitat alterations happening in areas with a
low value for the “safe zones” index.
10.3 FUTURE RESEARCH: SPATIAL POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS
Conservation of woodland caribou will depend on our ability to effectively monitor population trends
and population dynamics (and the mechanisms acting upon them) within and among subpopulations
across the species range. We are using existing monitoring data collected in Alberta to assess the
relationships between vital rates and population growth to provide a case study for using spatiallyexplicit
population viability analyses in guiding conservation efforts. This analysis is ongoing, and
discussion herein preliminary.
We are using spatially‐explicit population viability analysis (PVA) techniques to assess: 1) the relationship
between vital rates (adult survival and recruitment) and population growth, 2) the power in our ability to
monitor trends or changes in population growth rates using estimates of these vital rates from currently
established protocols, 3) the effects of misclassification errors in calf‐cow ratio data, and 4) the longterm
viability of woodland caribou in Alberta as a case‐study in using spatially‐explicit PVAs to predict
changes in meta‐population dynamics. We are also considering threats and population growth rates
specific to each local population.
Preliminary results include a literature review of over 40 woodland caribou populations and studies to
develop a population model to assess the relationship between adult and calf survival rates and
population growth rate (Figure 10.3).
If you read through the entire report, it's obvious that wolf predation is a primary factor in caribou predation in this region and even though human activities can be credited with increasing the wolf prey base and ultimately the wolf population, it's painfully obvious that wolf population control can likely reduce the threat to caribou in this region. Essentually if we shoot, trap, and/or poison wolves, the caribou are going to benefit. Only by doing wolf control will it be proven that such control will or will not mitigate the caribou population decline occurring in specific herds.
Post by: boneaddict on January 04, 2012, 07:10:17 AM
Quote
look at how hard coyotes are on deer? i could look it up and get some straight accurate number but i thought that about of the 70% of fawns that dont make it like 40 to 50% of those deaths are from coyotes, just think of what wolves will do??
and, we hunt them 24/7/365 LITERALLY and look where their population is at. I believe we have already reached a pivitol population density where if we hunted them the same as coyotes, we couldn't control them, yet we are trying to protect them.
Can anyone suggest a reason why deer are in town or on your porch?
Post by: seth30 on January 04, 2012, 07:12:13 AM
Bone come to the island, the hippies here feed them like pets :bash:Quotelook at how hard coyotes are on deer? i could look it up and get some straight accurate number but i thought that about of the 70% of fawns that dont make it like 40 to 50% of those deaths are from coyotes, just think of what wolves will do??
and, we hunt them 24/7/365 LITERALLY and look where their population is at. I believe we have already reached a pivitol population density where if we hunted them the same as coyotes, we couldn't control them, yet we are trying to protect them.
Can anyone suggest a reason why deer are in town or on your porch?
Post by: boneaddict on January 04, 2012, 07:15:43 AM
Post by: canyelk48 on January 04, 2012, 08:54:14 AM
If you have a point, I'm willing to listen and discuss it. If all you want to do is pile on because my opinion differs from yours or I notice things you don't pay attention to, I don't have the time or energy to respond. It's boring.That's probably best that you don't respond or post any more since there's no getting through to someone as close-minded as you appear to be given that other posters have given you plausible facts that you refuse to acknowledge.
Post by: Kain on January 04, 2012, 11:36:34 AM
Can anyone suggest a reason why deer are in town or on your porch?
Thats where I would be since predators are out of control.
Out of 228 fawns
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi406.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp150%2FNaithankain%2Faccessnwifcorg-wildlife-documents-makah-fawn-report-final-201102pdf.png&hash=373bb028710c17ab3ea57620b17224544c332bdd)
http://access.nwifc.org/wildlife/documents/makah-fawn-report-final-201102.pdf
Post by: SpringerFan on January 04, 2012, 07:07:32 PM
I think its good to see both views. Its a great way to learn. It also generally is what makes "us" different. Many and I mean MANY of the hugger kind would NEVER open their minds up to hearing someone elses opinion. Thats the difference between true outdoorsman and radicals. Most outdoorsman are actually conservationists. MANY and again I mean MANY "huggers" are very far from being conservationists although thats what they claim to be. Many have no clue about what really occurs in nature. As long as its not abrasive then I am sure it will be tolerated. In fact the more that you can convey the message, the more hope there is.
Agreed Bone. But what facts is he presenting? You all have been posting nothing but data in all these threads.
At work, we make decisions based on data (facts). In a relationship, decisions are sometimes made with emotion.
If Sitka was dealing with facts, then we all could learn something. But he posts stuff to get people going playing on the emotions. Which you all quickly back up with facts.
I think that is the difference you outlined in this post. "Most outdoorsman are actually conservationists. MANY and again I mean MANY "huggers" are very far from being conservationists although thats what they claim to be. Many have no clue about what really occurs in nature."
So true. That is what I like about the people on this forum. You do know what happens.
And, I am getting educated by both data and how the huggers act.
Thanks all.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 12:10:26 PM
""Much of the habitat in question overlaps with the oilsands region -- although experts and the federal report alike don't hold the oilpatch solely responsible for the destruction of the caribou habitat. Rather, they say it's a culmination of decades, even centuries, of industrial development in the region that has upset the delicate balance caribou need to thrive.""
Well here's what's going on there in the tar sands region.
http://www.grist.org/oil/2011-12-28-satellite-photos-illustrate-dramatic-expansion-of-canadian-tar-s
and http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/1
This is the real reason the caribou in this region are becoming endangered, not wolves.
Another reason that THIS hunter is a tree hugging greenie.
Post by: jackmaster on January 06, 2012, 12:30:17 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 12:33:50 PM
we all knew you would come out of the closet and fess up that you truly are a tree huggn wolf lover, i cant wait to see your comments in a few years when the big bad wolf is in towns and hurtn humans, which will happen, wolves dont fear humans like all other predators do, what are the greenies gonna do when this happens and its directly affecting your tree huggn wolf lovn group????
Your insulting and name calling doesn't address the fact that the tar sands oil recovery is the real culprit in this story. You have an opinion about that?
Post by: Bigshooter on January 06, 2012, 12:40:02 PM
Post by: jackmaster on January 06, 2012, 02:14:13 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 06, 2012, 02:37:57 PM
we all knew you would come out of the closet and fess up that you truly are a tree huggn wolf lover, i cant wait to see your comments in a few years when the big bad wolf is in towns and hurtn humans, which will happen, wolves dont fear humans like all other predators do, what are the greenies gonna do when this happens and its directly affecting your tree huggn wolf lovn group????
Your insulting and name calling doesn't address the fact that the tar sands oil recovery is the real culprit in this story. You have an opinion about that?
Sitka, we have already shown that the problem can mostly be resolved by simply killing wolves. Let hunters, arial gunners, and trappers do their work and the caribou will be fine. You anti-everthing people are undeniably largely what is wrong with America. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 03:08:40 PM
Sitka, we have already shown that the problem can mostly be resolved by simply killing wolves. Let hunters, arial gunners, and trappers do their work and the caribou will be fine. You anti-everthing people are undeniably largely what is wrong with America. :twocents:
Where did you show that? Simply killing wolves is a pretty simplistic solution.
And just what do you think I'm anti? Anti everything is a pretty wide net you're casting.
Post by: seth30 on January 06, 2012, 03:10:15 PM
:yeah:x2we all knew you would come out of the closet and fess up that you truly are a tree huggn wolf lover, i cant wait to see your comments in a few years when the big bad wolf is in towns and hurtn humans, which will happen, wolves dont fear humans like all other predators do, what are the greenies gonna do when this happens and its directly affecting your tree huggn wolf lovn group????
Your insulting and name calling doesn't address the fact that the tar sands oil recovery is the real culprit in this story. You have an opinion about that?
Sitka, we have already shown that the problem can mostly be resolved by simply killing wolves. Let hunters, arial gunners, and trappers do their work and the caribou will be fine. You anti-everthing people are undeniably largely what is wrong with America. :twocents:
Post by: jackmaster on January 06, 2012, 03:48:54 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 07:17:02 PM
SITKA, in all your wisdom what should we do to keep these wolves in check, you know damn good and well that is exactly whats gonna happen? or what do we do to create more habitat, and if logging isnt at the number one spot then you are WRONG, wolves do not belong in the lower 48, and thanks to tree huggn greenies as you call yourself we have lost baiting and hound huntn oh and trappn, can you give us a hint of what you and your pals are gonna try to take from us next......,. dude seriously cant wait for these wolves to take up residence in your backyard...... ASTA LEWAGO.....
Don't blow a gasket Jack. I agree, well managed logging, along with good old fashioned fire, are a hunter's good friend. I've pointed that out many times.
You're making a critical mistake tho, to think that loving the habitat that makes my favorite pursuit possible, is somehow a bad thing.
And I'm as upset about the hound hunting ban as you are. I don't think wildlife management should be subject to popular vote. I think hunters need to trust that management is trying to do the best they know how with the tools they have at their disposal.
And lastly, I've had a cougar wandering around my house, (in the city) for the last couple years. I've also lived in Alaska for over 30 years, so I don't think a couple wolves will bother me.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 06, 2012, 07:35:09 PM
SITKA, in all your wisdom what should we do to keep these wolves in check, you know damn good and well that is exactly whats gonna happen? or what do we do to create more habitat, and if logging isnt at the number one spot then you are WRONG, wolves do not belong in the lower 48, and thanks to tree huggn greenies as you call yourself we have lost baiting and hound huntn oh and trappn, can you give us a hint of what you and your pals are gonna try to take from us next......,. dude seriously cant wait for these wolves to take up residence in your backyard...... ASTA LEWAGO.....
Don't blow a gasket Jack. I agree, well managed logging, along with good old fashioned fire, are a hunter's good friend. I've pointed that out many times.
You're making a critical mistake tho, to think that loving the habitat that makes my favorite pursuit possible, is somehow a bad thing.
And I'm as upset about the hound hunting ban as you are. I don't think wildlife management should be subject to popular vote. I think hunters need to trust that management is trying to do the best they know how with the tools they have at their disposal.
And lastly, I've had a cougar wandering around my house, (in the city) for the last couple years. I've also lived in Alaska for over 30 years, so I don't think a couple wolves will bother me.
Agreed. "A couple" is the key. & there has always been that.
It seems that the past wolf policy with Pro-Wolf advocacy shows that set goal posts change. As DFW says, sure they agree to a number but there is nothing holding them to it. That is when Sportsman turned agaisnt the program. None of this had or has to be. However we were lied to. Once you loose the public trust, once someone no longer trusts you how do you get it back? Even now there is a never ending push to end all predator control measures. If one wishes to keep any resembalence of the management model I speak of, unless they have given up and taken up a resident season they need to stop listening to your side. Your side lies. I'm not saying you. You have been polite and I am not namecalling here. But you said that humans only hunt horns, trophies. That is a lie. It is not true, not of a sportsman. Not of the model I speak of. It simply is not what is. So what do you use to get back trust?
Force?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 09:00:50 PM
You have been polite and I am not namecalling here. But you said that humans only hunt horns, trophies. That is a lie. It is not true, not of a sportsman. Not of the model I speak of. It simply is not what is.
I'm pretty sure I said many humans hunt for trophies. Not all humans. But most of us including me (most of the time) will pick a big one over a small one if they are side by side. The point is, human hunters put different pressures on the prey animals than wolves do. And cervids and wolves have a symbiotic relationship, meaning it is beneficial to both species. it's built into their biology.
Post by: sebek556 on January 06, 2012, 09:28:38 PM
Post by: furbearer365 on January 06, 2012, 09:37:19 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 10:06:00 PM
:liar: How about the elk in LoLo ID giving birth on cliff faces where 90% of the calfs fall of to their death now instead of the elk tradtional birthing grounds.
You and Furbearer are real classy guys. I can tell, warm and fuzzy too. lol
Now where did you get this bs story you're trying to sell us. Provide us a link because this would be very informational.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 06, 2012, 10:20:03 PM
Sitka :pee:. You are to the point on this site that it would be in your best interest not to post anything because you have been labled. You are the anti on a site that is hunter friendly. You are what i would be to a PETA forum.
Oh darn Furbearer, my feelings are really hurt. I've been labeled? GASP! The problem is, I'm not an anti. I'm a hunter through and through and it really doesn't matter what you or anyone else believes. I am what you would be to a PETA forum too except I'm probably not as rude as you are. But I've called PETA out many times. Written letters to the editor calling them out. I even got a letter of Congratulations from an Alaska State Legislator for writing a letter to the Anchorage Daily News to tell Pricilla Feral what an idiot I thought she was over PETA's campaign telling children that their parents who fished were murderers and inhumane. I pointed out to her that in nature, fish are eaten alive. The first thing bears do is pull the skin off of a salmon when they eat them and they are still alive. And while they are dying after spawning, the first thing seagulls go after is their eyes. you see fish all over partially eaten with their eyes pecked out and they are still alive. I told her that I didn't see how bopping one on the head with a club or rock or cutting it's gills to bleed to death was all that cruel compared to what happens to the ones humans don't kill.
Anti my arse.
Post by: GrainfedMuley on January 07, 2012, 04:26:37 AM
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
Beecaauusse.........................Us humans are not running around in packs killing big game for a couple of bites then moving on to the next kill. Big game can live with humans because they are not preasured 24/7, 365. Your comparison holds no warrant. Even a Lion pack will clean the animal to the bone. Nothing left at all. Not wolves........... :bash:
Post by: GrainfedMuley on January 07, 2012, 04:39:53 AM
Remember this quote in the article about Alberta doing a wolf cull?
""Much of the habitat in question overlaps with the oilsands region -- although experts and the federal report alike don't hold the oilpatch solely responsible for the destruction of the caribou habitat. Rather, they say it's a culmination of decades, even centuries, of industrial development in the region that has upset the delicate balance caribou need to thrive.""
Well here's what's going on there in the tar sands region.
http://www.grist.org/oil/2011-12-28-satellite-photos-illustrate-dramatic-expansion-of-canadian-tar-s
and http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/1
This is the real reason the caribou in this region are becoming endangered, not wolves.
Another reason that THIS hunter is a tree hugging greenie.
You find a couple of articles about a specific region and that is the problem ALL accross North America? Are you for real?
Post by: GrainfedMuley on January 07, 2012, 04:52:41 AM
Post by: littlemac on January 07, 2012, 07:52:53 AM
You guys mentioned Yellowstone as an example.... :tup:
I think most of our wildernesses that wolves have moved into are great examples of what happens with wolves too. There's no logging or snowmobiling in any wilderness and elk used to thrive. All the feed is still there but now the wolves are there and elk have simply dissapeared by the thousands.
My guide in Montana this year is part of a 40 year old family outfitter business that hunts the Bob Marshall Wilderness.
His comment to me was that they normally take 30 hunters a year into the Bob with over 50 % success. This year they took the 30 hunters and brought out 2 elk.
He said that in addition to not seeing the elk they normally do, that the elk have taken to not talking to ech other anymore as a defense to the resident wolf pack.
One year doesn't make a study but the results of this years hunt seems to parallel results found in areas where wolves have been introduced.
Time will tell. Hopefully it won't be to late when we find out with certainty for everyone that our years of game preservation efforts have been lost in only a handful of years.
Post by: furbearer365 on January 07, 2012, 09:15:40 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 07, 2012, 09:17:42 AM
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
Beecaauusse.........................Us humans are not running around in packs killing big game for a couple of bites then moving on to the next kill. Big game can live with humans because they are not preasured 24/7, 365. Your comparison holds no warrant. Even a Lion pack will clean the animal to the bone. Nothing left at all. Not wolves........... :bash:
First everyone knows that many big game herds flourish on human ranches and near human activity. I have pointed out in previous discussions on this forum that some of the best elk, deer, cougar, rabbit, coyote, and bobcat hunting in the state of Utah is in the Book Cliffs of Utah. That is also the area of some of the heaviest oil and gas activity in the entire west. The managing agencies have managed wildlife in the area very well in the midst of heavy human activities. I know this is fact as I have outfitted this area since the 90's. The hunting is actually better than it was 20 years ago.
Sitka, your comment is absurd.
This quote from Sitka tells me a lot about his/her inner thoughts. I've seen these types of comments from others who are opposed to pratically everything that has made this great country. I call it anti-everything, call it what you want, but this type of thinking is what is changing this country. People like this want to stop any human progress and do not want this country to remain strong and prosperous. This person does not want the canadians to prove they can manage caribou and oil at the same time.
I presented the study data showing the canadians have identified why wolves have over-populated due to a growth in other big game herds as a result of human activity and the canadians know they need to reduce the wolf numbers for the sake of the caribou. Wolf numbers are on the increase worldwide, these caribou herds are in danger of extinction. It's utter ignorance to try and prevent some of these wolves from being killed to protect the endangered caribou.
You can thank people with this frame of mind for the mismanagement of wildlife, our dependence on foreign oil, and in large part for the extreme environmental policy that's forcing companies to move operations and jobs to other countries. The canadians have found oil and are trying to extract it responsibly while watching over their wildlife and environment, I strongly suggest we support their efforts to kill off the wolves that are depleting the caribou herds.
Post by: bearpaw on January 08, 2012, 12:26:35 AM
LOBO WATCH: Wolves - Shoot On Sight 365-Days A Year!
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,90265.msg1146012/topicseen.html#new
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 08, 2012, 07:35:12 PM
You have been polite and I am not namecalling here. But you said that humans only hunt horns, trophies. That is a lie. It is not true, not of a sportsman. Not of the model I speak of. It simply is not what is.
I'm pretty sure I said many humans hunt for trophies. Not all humans. But most of us including me (most of the time) will pick a big one over a small one if they are side by side. The point is, human hunters put different pressures on the prey animals than wolves do. And cervids and wolves have a symbiotic relationship, meaning it is beneficial to both species. it's built into their biology.
"Many trophy hunters.?." is countered with the countless pictures of Royal Bulls being taken down by wolves. There is little doubt that it happens accept for somehow when discussing it with people like you Sitka. And if all the Royal elk are left because wolves pass on them? Where are they??? Blinders! (It is like holocaust deniers.)
And if you want to only hunt 6 point or better bull elk you should have that right so long as it is in a Management unit that can support it. Some people like me are more concerned with filling their freezer than a rack so I don't mind harvesting a cow. (Where it is supported through management.) That is a balance. But anti-hunting groups deny that any hunter like me exists. We are knuckle dragging criminals run down elk in their 4x4 who's only reason to enter the woods is to kill, kill, kill. (Which discribes wolves pretty darn well.)
Have I taken 5 point Mule deer and branched antler bulls? Yep. Big bears? Yep But I have also taken does in my time. The last few years I wanted a cow and even let a 6 point elk walk because of the distance. I let several cows walk because of the heat last season. I actually think I am more of the norm than not. You can describe yourself as one who would only harvest the trophies, (you imply anywhere?) but you do not speak for me. You do not speak for how I was raised. You do not speak for the people I hunt with, and that is dozens & dozens of people from many States. You are a bigot when it comes to hunters. That, I can't help you with. I can only show you that your ideals do not prove to be true in the face of reality. Yes, you and your ilk may prevail in preventing any sensible management that can support the "North American Model." But, that does not make you right. Everywhere that your plan is in action a wasteland of Big Game we support is the outcome. Not void of life, true. Nobody claims that.
I think it is time to take the masks off. We know the outcome. So do you. This is simply a matter of if we are going to use a more European Model for hunting where 5K or more is spent to High Fence Hunt. Or, will the North American Model will survive this assult and provide Wildland for future generations to experience the style of hunting freedom that American management has to offer the way it has traditionally for 80 years. Our system works, yours will distroy it. Your side wants that. That is what you are not honest about. You want trees and songbirds, beavers and flowers. And of course the tax from Daddy's guns and bullets to pay for it.
Hey Guys! Ever feel like this wolf thing is a sihitty divorce settlement and we keep paying for things we no longer want to F with? That's kinda like Idaho for me.
Post by: jackmaster on January 09, 2012, 07:29:26 AM
Post by: GrainfedMuley on January 09, 2012, 08:27:28 AM
so leave wolves out of the lower 48, eradicate them all.....
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on January 09, 2012, 11:05:07 AM
"I do not find it any coincidence that wherever human numbers increase, big game herds suffer."
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/01/08/1944777/wolf-arrival-sparks-debate-in.html#storylink=cpy
RMEF: David Allen comments about wolves.....
"More wolves will simply mean a need for more management", said David Allen, president and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, a nationwide group with 185,000 members. "To keep wolf populations controlled", he said, "states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens. Ambitions of a natural balance are based on a land devoid of humans", Allen said," but because there are millions of people here it is up to them to manage animals like wolves."
"Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie," he said. "It isn't real."
Post by: seth30 on January 09, 2012, 11:25:05 AM
:tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil:
You have been polite and I am not namecalling here. But you said that humans only hunt horns, trophies. That is a lie. It is not true, not of a sportsman. Not of the model I speak of. It simply is not what is.
I'm pretty sure I said many humans hunt for trophies. Not all humans. But most of us including me (most of the time) will pick a big one over a small one if they are side by side. The point is, human hunters put different pressures on the prey animals than wolves do. And cervids and wolves have a symbiotic relationship, meaning it is beneficial to both species. it's built into their biology.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 09, 2012, 11:48:09 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 11, 2012, 03:42:36 AM
http://alcesjournal.org/alces/article/viewFile/32/31
ABSTRACT: Mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) populations in south-eastern British Columbia are declining over most of their range and are listed as Threatened. Predation has been documented as the major cause of declining caribou numbers. Excessive predation by wolves (Canis lupus) has been related to increased moose (Alces alces) numbers. The increase in moose appears to be the result of a natural colonization process that has been enhanced by human-caused habitat change. Options to reduce the rate of predation include reducing wolves, reducing moose, and reducing the amount of early seral habitat that supports moose. Current management includes population control of moose and wolves. Monitoring and assessment of these approaches will guide the future management strategy used to maintain mountain caribou in south-eastern British Columbia.