The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 14, 2009, 12:55 PM   #26
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 11,342
Quote:
If you were really a biologist you would know that suitable habitat for a wolf is not the same for a coyote.
longranger, if you really knew anything about wolves, you would know that they once roamed over most of N America, the same area that is now being overrun by coyotes. In the future, keep your uneducated comments to yourself, please.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Taylor Machine
Scorch is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 01:05 PM   #27
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
Bearpaw... If a fool and his money "depart", then I say good riddance to both...
But the "old saying" is actually, "A fool and his money are soon *parted*"
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 01:50 PM   #28
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,531
Wolves tend to kill coyotes and other competitors. It would be interesting to see whether this caused a net decrease or increase in predation on domestic animals.
Coyotes are the main cause of livestock loss by a fairly large margin.

http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/i...rspective.html
Quote:
2000 Sheep Losses in Idaho

66% of sheep losses were due to disease, accidents, injuries and weather
34% were due to predator depredations.
Of these depredations, 69% were caused by coyotes, 9% by dogs, 6% by bears, 4% by mountain lions, 2% by foxes, 3% by unknown animals and only 0.4% by wolves.
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture)
iirc the above information is also in the WDFW Wolf plan but I didn't have the patience to read the thing again.
Just to step back a bit. This is a subject that where it is surprisingly difficult to find primary sources. I've tried to link only to government sources or ones that directly link to them. But there's a large static to signal ratio.

For various reasons this is a subject that tends to get emotional. Imho how we treat wolves shouldn't have any more emotional weight than how we talk about moose or grouse. But that's not the way it is.

In other words it's probably a good idea to double check your sources and tone down on the snark.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 03:32 PM   #29
wolfbait
Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2009
Posts: 26
There is a nother old saying that goes like this: You might be able to bullsh$t the fans, but you can't bullsh$t the players. One more time Buszzcook, I can run you into the dirt with facts and links that will turn you around an spit you out.

Wolves are the ultimate killer, there is nothing that beats these wolves that the USFW brought down from Canada when it comes to killing. They kill for fun as much or more as they do for food. They are the biggest waster of game animals and livestock known to mankind. Not being hunted makes them even more dangerous, they have no fear. I know, I have been real close to these wolves and not on purpose, they were not afraid.

Here's what is happening, the wolves are killing the hell out of the game. Other predators such as bears, and cats are running low on grub, that is one reason people are seeing an increase in bear and cat problems. Here in the Methow the coyotes are actually following the wolves and cleaning up after them, its almost as if they are running with the wolves, wolves kill something the coyotes are there howling it up. I have actually seen this. We are having more problems with wolves here than is being reported. Why because the WDWL will not confirm wolf killed livestock, nor are they being honest with the number of wolves that are actually here. The new Methow is a land of pro-wolf people, some have already had their dogs killed by wolves. They will not report it because they do not want to make it hard on the wolves, these same people have sold there livestock because the predators are more important to them. Do you have any idea what the end results will be? I have a darn good idea, and it is not going to be as pretty as these people think. In Arizona and New Mexico they have to build cages for their children to wait for the buss in, thats a fact. The people in the Methow who don't have their heads buried in the sand are packing everywhere they go. The WDWL think they are going to make the Methow into a wolf veiwing area, what about all the people who live here? Nope I don't see things turning out to good for any part of Washington without management where these wolves are concerned, or for the people who will have to deal with them. Maybe they are not in your backyard yet, but they will be. People need to get invloved and have a say in what the wolf plan turns out being, because we will be the ones dealing with the problems and also paying the $1500.00 per wolf, and thats after the WDFW spend thousands Collaring, watching, translocating, watching some more and then they will end up shooting the wolf. When the wolves get done killing all the game and it will happen, let me put it this way they won't get all the game, but they will kill enough that there will not be any hunting. Maybe than people will take an interest in what the hell is going on. But by then it will be to late. Do you know how hard it is to hunt wolves??? Do you know how fast they multiply with a full fridge? Do you know how much surplus killing they do? I have been seeing it for quite some time now. People are starting to question all the dead deer that they are finding, deer with just their butts eaten out, dead deer with not much at all eaten out. The Fawn count now thats a joke, we don't have a fawn count nothing to count. Deer hanging in town and around peoples yards, you can't hardly drive them off. They know where it's safe. If you want me to start pulling up links, not a problem I have a whole mess af them, and these are documented facts from real people, and real stories. Here's just a few. Look them over, tell me what you think.



http://rliv.com/wolf/09NFpred.pdf

http://s84.photobucket.com/albums/k6...byRWalters.flv

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/m...wolf_again.htm

http://wolfcrossing.org/2008/02/25/f...-elk-in-idaho/
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/pr...ellowstone.php

http://www.theoutdoorlodge.com/featu...xperiment.html

http://www.wmicentral.com/site/print...ewsid=17108302

Best Regards
wolfbait
wolfbait is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 03:51 PM   #30
nitetrane98
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Posts: 143
Quote:
But the "old saying" is actually, "A fool and his money are soon *parted*"
And of course the corollary. "A fool and his money are welcome everywhere."
nitetrane98 is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 04:08 PM   #31
bearpaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Posts: 11
Back to the thread.....I will let you guys argue about how you want to word the old saying....

What is important is how many wolves they want to put in Washington, and what wolves are doing to western big game herds. Here are the facts from scientific studies. You can refer to the pages cited in the Washington Wolf Plan to verify these statistics.http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/...eanaug0309.pdf

The Washington Draft Wolf Plan is recommending a minimum of 15 breeding pairs but not limited to that number of breeding pairs, for 3 consecutive years (in appropriate distribution, see page 50) before delisting. Data from Idaho and Montana indicates that 15 breeding pairs translates into as many as 361 actual wolves. A problem with this requirement is that until there are the (appropriate quantity of breeding pairs in 3 or 4 of Washington's Wolf Areas), it doesn't matter how many wolves are living in the other areas, wolves will not be delisted. Another problem, these breeding pairs must exist for three years, in 3 or 4 areas. Data from Idaho indicates a wolf population increases 20% to 24% each year. Perhaps there will be 30 or 40 breeding pairs in central and eastern Washington before there are any breeding pairs in the Olympic Peninsula. Under this plan 40 or more breeding pairs (as many as 1000 or more actual wolves) could live in eastern Washington before the Olympics have any breeding pairs. Even if translocation occurs which is also mentioned in the plan in the event livestock killing wolves need moved to colonize a new area, yes you read correctly, they do not want to kill wolves that kill livestock, they want to move them (see page 52).


Map Showing Estimated Wolf habitat In Washington

Wolves Eat Elk And Deer, or Livestock

Studies indicate that 1 wolf eats 17 elk or 44 deer per year (page 73). At that rate the target of 361 wolves could eat as many as 6137 elk or 15,884 deer. If wolves do not populate all wolf zones at the same time, and overpopulate in some areas of Washington (which is possible under this plan) Washington could end up with 1000+ wolves just like in Idaho. That many wolves could eat as many as 17,000 elk or 44,000 deer per year in Washington before any breeding pairs are established in the Olympic Peninsula so that delisting can occur.

Hunters harvest an average of 8,000 elk and 38,000 deer in all areas of Washington (page 78, page 83). If wolves overpopulate, it is very possible that there would not be enough elk and deer to allow any hunting season.

Wolves also eat livestock (see page 63) and there are reimbursement programs, but the biggest problem is that most livestock predations are currently not being classified as "confirmed wolf kills", so the ranchers lose, they do not get any money for their loss, see the photo in the right column. A problem with the Washington Wolf Plan is that it allows too many wolves to inhabit Washington and when game herds are reduced too far, livestock and even human encounters will likely increase.

Wolf Plan - Minority Position

The Minority Position (hunters and ranchers involved in the wolf plan, see Washington Draft Wolf Plan page 246-247) states:

We are "unable to live with" the proposed numbers in the WWG Draft Plan. We believe the numbers are too high and will result in direct conflict with the Livestock and Sportsman Communities.

Therefore we feel that the WWG’s desired number of BP’s is unrealistic given the lack of suitable habitat and the much higher human population density of this state and that the requirement of 15 BP’s for 3 years (50% Higher that the USFW criteria for recovery in WY, MT, and ID,) defies common sense.

We therefore propose the following numbers of BP’s statewide: 3 BP’s to down list to Threatened, 6 BP’s to down list to State Sensitive, and 8 BP’s to change to a Big Game Animal. And we would eliminate the 3 year period since the state was not considered essential for recovery of wolves in the NRM (p.6119 Federal Register). This total number of 8 BP’s or approximately 80 wolves would fit in the states economic analysis as outlined in Chapter 14, "Economics" which states "Wolf numbers between 50 and 100 animals should pose little detriment to the states livestock industry as a whole…As wolf populations become larger and more widely distributed, financial impacts are likely to accrue to more producers" (p.126). "Populations of 50 to 100 wolves should not have negative effects on big game hunting in Washington" (p.139).

It is obvious that had the Washington Wolf Working Group not been stacked with pro-wolf members, the "Minority Position" would likely be the Draft Wolf Plan.
bearpaw is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 04:42 PM   #32
MrSardonicus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2009
Location: Cody, WY
Posts: 101
here we go again...

Quote:
Wolves are fine and a sign of a healthy ecosystem the problem with the wolves is when they start eating and killing livestock and Susie's little purse dog.
Think about this for a moment,all the great hunting places in North America,that includes Alaska and all of Canada.They have the best hunting for all the species you care to take and they have wolves.So the argument that they will kill all the game is nonsense.We have wolves in the Big Horn Mtns. just outside of town.The elk and deer herds have never been in better shape.A few rogue wolves have taken a liking to sheep near town DFG dispatched the wolves swiftly.Respect for the wolves and the ranchers is the key to having it all.
I live at the East Gate of Yellowstone National Park. I was born in this area and have lived here for the majority of my life. I was here at the ground floor of this debate when "they" re-introduced wolves to Yellowstone and the surrounding areas. The issue has been chewed up, regurgitated, and chewed again. Both sides quote data and provide experts who will spew forth technical and anecdotal stats ad-nausium. No one seems to come out on top.
I just could not stand ideally by while this gentleman form Buffalo Wyoming speak for all of us in Wyoming.
Like I said, I have seen personally the wolf introduced, grow, expand, and kill. I am not a biologist. I am not a trophy hunter. I have no expertise to lend. I hunt to put meat on the table. My comments are offered strictly as personal opinion and a layman's observation.
That being said, not ONE good thing has come of the re-introduction (a sill term if you ask me, the wolf was here before, and in greater numbers than folks were led to believe) of the wolf into Yellowstone and the surrounding area. Unless you count the [I]feelings[I] of longranger and his ilk.
Predation of so-called "sporting" game is through the roof. So much so that the number of licenses being sold for elk and deer etc. are being scaled back considerably. As for a the taking of "a few" sheep and "some" livestock, I direct your attention to the Montana Standard (link provided below, hopefully). 120 sheep slaughtered in one attack.
Much like humans, wolves are indiscriminant killers, and they don't just kill for food, they kill for fun too.
As for the feeding of elk, I assume you mean the feed-lots near Jackson Hole and other such places where groups of farmers and ranchers work with Wyoming Game and Fish to provide a habituated feeding ground to lure the elk away form rancher's hay fields so that the Game and Fish can avoid reimbursing rancher's and farmers for losses. Reintroduction of the wolf has just shifter the reimbursements from feed to animals slain by wolves. Last I checked, it was cheaper to feed a cow than to pay for the animal plus all the animals said animal would produce in years to come...
I feel for those of you in Washington state. If I had my way the wolf would be listed under "predator status". Shoot on sight. Shoot to kill.

http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2...jbhchghbjc.txt
__________________
"I like my town with a little drop of poison. No body knows,...they're all lining up to go insane. I'm all alone. I've smoked my friends down to the filter; but I feel much cleaner after it rains..."
Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.
MrSardonicus is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 09:01 PM   #33
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,531
There is a nother old saying that goes like this: You might be able to bullsh$t the fans, but you can't bullsh$t the players. One more time Buszzcook, I can run you into the dirt with facts and links that will turn you around an spit you out.

There's the spirit.

So how about chewing on my link that indicates wolf predation is 0.4% of total sheep lost to predation.
If it is correct, it indicates that Idaho, with a much larger wolf population, doesn't have an insurmountable wolf problem.
Go ahead and start spitting.

I understand that dry statistics don't cover the entire story. There is also the possibility of serious under reporting, or other errors in the data. But we gots what we got.

http://www.peer.org/docs/doj/06_9_5_nass_report.pdf
According to the Ag. department wolves account for a minor percent of livestock lost to predation. 2.3% of cattle loses nation wide, for 2005. From the same source Idaho lost 105,000 cattle and calves to all sources, 2,500 of those to all predators. Unfortunately this report doesn't give state by state numbers for wolf predation.

Each of those animals lost to predation is statistically small, but it means a lot to the ranchers and herders who lose them. I don't want to denigrate their loss.

Bearpaw gives us this above.
Quote:
The Washington Draft Wolf Plan is recommending a minimum of 15 breeding pairs but not limited to that number of breeding pairs, for 3 consecutive years (in appropriate distribution, see page 50) before delisting. Data from Idaho and Montana indicates that 15 breeding pairs translates into as many as 361 actual wolves.
361 total wolves. Lets round that up to 500. 500 wolves doesn't seem to be a large enough number for us to use aggressive control measures right now.
To put that in perspective
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/cougars.htm
Quote:
Cougars occur throughout Washington where suitable cover and prey are found. The cougar population for the year 2008 was estimated to be 2000 to 2,500 animals. The cougar population in eastern Washington is declining and the westside population is stable. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has nine management zones around the state designated for "maintain" or "decline," and adjusts harvest levels accordingly.
That population is after the state put restrictions on cougar hunting.

My point here is that 500 wolves is not a large enough population to get so excited about.
Should we start allowing wolf hunts? Maybe. But telling me we're hip deep in wolves, when we are plainly not, doesn't make me want to condemn the WDFW.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 09:54 PM   #34
Cult .44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 110
FWIW, here's a Scientific American article on the ecological impact of wolves in Yellowstone since their reintroduction ...

Lessons From the Wolf
Cult .44 is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 10:18 PM   #35
MrSardonicus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2009
Location: Cody, WY
Posts: 101
FWIW, you can not read more than the first two paragraphs of the Scientific American article unless you buy it or subscribe...
__________________
"I like my town with a little drop of poison. No body knows,...they're all lining up to go insane. I'm all alone. I've smoked my friends down to the filter; but I feel much cleaner after it rains..."
Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.
MrSardonicus is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 10:46 PM   #36
Cult .44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 110
I don't subscribe and I'm able to read the whole thing.
Cult .44 is offline  
Old September 14, 2009, 10:53 PM   #37
wolfbait
Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2009
Posts: 26
Buzzcook, You are talking nation wide with the stock kills, when you figure it state by state, the states where the wolves are, are getting hammered. It is not fair to lump them all togeather. Most wolf kills are not even discovered, and when they are who can tell what killed it. The bit that they do get paid for confirmed kills does not even come close to what they have lost. Here in the Methow like other states, WDFW will not confirm kills, even though there is no doubt. One lady here actaully saw the wolf that killed her chickens, WDFW biologist said he didn't believe it was a wolf because it was not afraid of her. So that tells me, in order to get a confirmed wolf kill the wolf/wolves will have to be laying there next to the kill.

Here's a bit of information on what has happened and is still happening.


February 7, 2004: Wolves - Now a Major Problem (American Hunter): from clardon@aboutmontana.net (Clarice Ryan)
From: Gary Marbut/MSSA/TOS [mailto:mssa@mtssa.org]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: American Hunter on Wolves


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear MSSA Friends,

In case you don't get the NRA's publication American Hunter, pasted below is their feature story about wolves from the January edition. They've received some complaints about "crying wolf" over this story. I believe, if anything, they've understated the scope of the problem that wolves bring to Montana.

My view is this:

Sportsmen and sportswomen spent a century fostering huntable wildlife populations in Montana through investment in wildlife management. In doing so we created a type of savings account to pass on to our children and grandchildren - abundant populations of huntable wildlife and a strong hunting culture in Montana..

Along came the advocates for one animal, wolves, and turned their pet predator loose to savage and consume the savings account we had built slowly and patiently over a century, and our hunting culture. Like yeast or any other biological life form, wolves will not slow their population explosion until they've consumed the available food supply.

Within a very few years, if wolves are not controlled aggressively and soon, we will see an end to elk hunting in Montana, eventually of deer hunting too. As wolves take more and more of the newborn and biologically productive animals, wildlife managers will have no choice but to rachet back seasons, quotas and game harvests, and hunter success will fall off dramatically as wildlife inventories dwindle.

Stockgrowers have not yet begun to see the livestock losses that will be common when wolves eat themselves out of deer and elk. For most stockgrowers, the difference between a black and red bottom line is a VERY narrow one indeed. Where wolves exist, many stockgrowers will be driven out of business, accelerating the buy-up of Montana agricultural properties by wealthy people who do not live in Montana, and who have no roots in our culture.

This will also have implications long term for our right to keep and bear arms, as the pool of gun-owning hunters shrinks because of dismal hunter success rates. Remember when Max Baucus said that "You don't need an Uzi to hunt elk." Well, pretty soon you won't need a "sniper rifle" to hunt elk either because there won't be any elk. Amid a shrinking pool of gun owners, it will become increasingly more difficult to muster the political muscle necessary to defend all of the legal and political details essential to full enjoyment of our right to keep and bear arms.

I believe that at least some of those advocating wolf repopulation have foreseen this complete scenario/progression, and, for them, it is part of their long-range plan. One popular misconception is that if we, the hunters and shooters of Montana, are just allowed to shoot wolves, we can curtail the problem.

I have news for you. Forget that notion. If total open season were declared on wolves tomorrow, even if the Governor went on TV to beg Montana citizens to shoot every wolf they could find, not enough wolves would be taken to even slow their rate of population increase, much less check that rate of increase or diminish their populations. Take my word for this, it has been proven in Alaska, Canada and Russia.

The only things proven so far to roll back wolf populations are starvation, disease, or widespread use of poison. Starvation means they've run totally out of game and livestock to eat, and are picking off the last brave few backpackers in the woods. Do we wait that long? How soon do you think the public tolerance will exist for widespread use of poison to legally kill wolves? Some want to wait for canine disease to get among wolves and limit their populations? You should ask how frequently wildlife biologists who catch and collar wolves vaccinate this "endangered wildlife" against a whole range of canine diseases. Don't bother to ask if it's never, sometimes or often done, just ask if it is done EVERY time.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association

===========

American Hunter
January `04 Issue


Here's a link that has a pile of really good info. spit,spit

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1073500/posts
wolfbait is offline  
Old September 15, 2009, 01:36 AM   #38
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,531
wolfbait, I did give state specific information for Idaho. I can give state specific information for other states where sheep are concerned. I'm trying not to make blanket statements.

I read with interest the article by Gary Marbut. It is a well written appeal to emotion.
Quote:
The only things proven so far to roll back wolf populations are starvation, disease, or widespread use of poison. Starvation means they've run totally out of game and livestock to eat, and are picking off the last brave few backpackers in the woods.
wolfbait, The Kaibab Plateau is a popular story about how when wolves were extirpated, the deer population exploded and all the deer got sick and starved in a massive die off of tens of thousands of animals. Kind of tugs at the heart strings to imagine Bambi with his ribs sticking out and coughing his last breath out.
The only problem is that it isn't quite true.
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngc...ab/story1.html
Quote:
In 1970, ecologist Graeme Caughley reviewed the tangled evidence of the lesson and questioned the way two generations of textbook authors had perpetuated Leopold's use of the Kaibab example. The evidence, Caughley suggested, was found wanting and the textbooks were just plain wrong in stating that predator control alone had caused the Kaibab irruption. He concluded that predators had a relatively minor influence on the deer population. More significant were variations in habitat caused by factors including climate, livestock grazing, and changing federal and state wildlife policies (Caughley, 1970).
Extirpating top predators isn't a good idea. But that doesn't mean using an appeal to emotion such as the Kaibab story is a valid argument, even if there is some truth to it.

And I'd also like to point out that just cutting and pasting, does not an argument make.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old September 15, 2009, 01:02 PM   #39
wolfbait
Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2009
Posts: 26
Buzzcook, Where ever the wolves end up being released, eventually livestock ends up getting killed. Defenders of wildlife claim ranchers are paid for their losses, not true,,this is not always true even when the livestock has been proven a confirmed wolf kill. That beng said the pro-wolf people don't care one whit about the ranchers or anyone else for that matter. The wolves were not released in the lower 48 for any benifits for the wolves, they were released so that special agendas could be fullfilled.

If you want to bring emotions into the wolf issue, which is a good point, I am sure that you are aware, that is how the environmentalists sell the wolf program, by false facts and out right lies. That is the one of the differance between the people who have to deal with these wolves and the hunters who see the game herds being desimated. Everyone who has problems with these wolves has to make sure what they are saying is the truth, the environmentalists lie to people day in and day out, its the only way they can sell the wolf.

As far as extirpating the top predator, what the people want is some management. The USFW and the Defenders of wildlife brought the wolves into this country illegaly and have been dishonest from the start, what they have done stinks of lies and disception. We already had a wolf population that if left alone would have expanded in thirty years to a viable wolf population. But then that wouldn't have caused the problems that we have today, the USFW and the Defenders of Wildlife brought a wolf into this country that they knew would cause the most damage, in my opinion these people are the lowest form of life.

I know that WDFW have no plans on being honest with the public on how many wolves they have released or even the amount of wolves they know are in Washington, thats a given. So in respect to that I feel that the wolf plan should come out as the minority plan which would be less wolves. I would also like to see hunting as an alternative to translocting problem and over populated wolves. Maybe when the WDFW translocates our problem wolves into your backyard you will have a differant opinion on how things really work and not what the special interests groups tell you. That was sugjested a while back, let all these people that think a lot of wolves is great have a few hundred in their backyards and then see how they feel about their beloved wolves.

Wolves multiply up to 50%, 34% is average, the USFW and special interests groups down play all the damage the wolves have done and are doing to this country. All the people want is some honest managment. Honesty period would be a big step.

Don't like that cutting and pasting,eh. Kind of puts it right out there where everyone can see it. I wasn't the one that started slapping links on here, remember.

http://washingtonwolf.info/

Best Regards
wolfbait

Last edited by wolfbait; September 15, 2009 at 06:17 PM.
wolfbait is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 01:23 PM   #40
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,531
Quote:
If you want to bring emotions into the wolf issue,
Well actually the point of my post was that we should not bring emotion into the issue.

Quote:
Don't like that cutting and pasting,eh
Again you miss the point. There is a difference between saying "this is what I think and here is a citation that backs me up", and just pasting some guys fact free rant without explanation.

How do you expect to get people to pay attention to you if you can't craft an argument in your own words?

So far I've shown that the wolf population is relatively low, under 1000 in Idaho and well under 500 Washington. That the other apex predator in Washington is managed well by the WSFW. Cougars at 2000 to 2500 steady in the West, declining slightly in the East.
Livestock depredations by wolves are a minor percent of domestic animal predation, less than coyote by a very large margin.
Finally the Idaho elk harvest doesn't show a corollary decline with the growth of the wolf population.
I've back up each with a citation of an authoritative source.

I'm done.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 02:11 PM   #41
Huntergirl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2005
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 907
The only way to make wolves afraid of humans is to hunt them. My recent experience with wolves, and bearpaw's webpage tell me this is a necessary thing to do.

Buzzcook, Byeseeya...

I know the wolves that menaced me were not full grown because they were only the size of a labrador. I saw a wolf 4yrs ago outside of Cokeville Wy on a hillside, about 200yds from my truck, that was much bigger. He was stalking some antelope that were moving through a ravine. When I popped up on the hill along a 2track, he saw me and very slowly moved down the hillside. That was my first glimpse at a wolf. My 60y/o nieghbor, who was with me exclaimed, "oh my god, what is that?!" I have seen the gory results of thrillkillings by wolves on elk above the Green River. Folks in Pinedale have watched the thrillkilling of 3/4 of a herd of wintering elk. Wolves killed those elk, and left em'. There was a newspaper article on the incident.

Last edited by Huntergirl; September 16, 2009 at 03:02 PM.
Huntergirl is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 03:17 PM   #42
wolfbait
Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2009
Posts: 26
What you probably saw were pups Huntergirl, had they been full grown wolves, things could have gotten a bit worse. I have no doubt that things will get worse before changes concerning the wolf come about. To many people believe the lies of the pro-wolf people. If these same people were to see the the things that you have seen and I and several others then perhaps there could be some light of the subject of controling a predator that will kill everything, including you and I. I believe in the end it will come to the point where the people who are dealing with the wolves will be doing the managing, the threat of the endangered joke list is wearing very thin. How long can this lie be shoved down our throats. ... wolfbait


http://washingtonwolf.info/
wolfbait is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 04:58 PM   #43
bearpaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Posts: 11
Buzcook....I am not trying to offend you, but you have been reading too much "Defenders of Wildlife" propaganda....

Statistics and dozens of newspaper stories tell the real story about the wolf in the west.

I agree with wolfbait, if you had wolves in your backyard trying to eat your dogs, cats, livestock, and all the deer and elk in the area, you would likely be singing a much different story about wolves.

Since you live in the urban jungle it's easy to fantasize about wolf pups prolicing through the daisy fields....

Last edited by bearpaw; September 16, 2009 at 05:36 PM. Reason: spelling
bearpaw is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 05:51 PM   #44
bearpaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Posts: 11
One more thing I noticed in the comments about wolves in this thread was the comments about the midwest wolves and deer hunting.

Your facts are mixed, true the deer herds are high in numbers in central and southern areas of those states, but in the "northwoods" there are few deer due to over predation by wolves, and most hunters do not even hunt there anymore. Your comment was inacurate and misleading.........
bearpaw is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 06:04 PM   #45
bearpaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Posts: 11
When a person reads through the Washington Wolf Information page and the Washington Wolf Plan you will notice that The WDFW has links to "Defenders of Wildlife" which is an anti-hunting group.

You will also notice that "hunting" is not included in the language as the eventual management tool.

"Defenders of Wildlife" is one of the lead groups that is sueing the USFWS trying to stop wolf hunting.

Any reasonably intelligent person could draw conclusions from these facts....

http://washingtonwolf.info

WDFW Wolf page: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/index.htm

WDFW Draft Wolf Plan: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/...eanaug0309.pdf
bearpaw is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 07:32 PM   #46
wolfbait
Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2009
Posts: 26
So far I've shown that the wolf population is relatively low, under 1000 in Idaho and well under 500 Washington. That the other apex predator in Washington is managed well by the WSFW. Cougars at 2000 to 2500 steady in the West, declining slightly in the East.
Livestock depredations by wolves are a minor percent of domestic animal predation, less than coyote by a very large margin.
Finally the Idaho elk harvest doesn't show a corollary decline with the growth of the wolf population.
I've back up each with a citation of an authoritative source.

I'm done.



Buzzcook, you have shown what you know, which is zip. number 1, no one knows the population of wolves in either state you mentioned. The USFWS have under estimated the true wolf count from the very beginning. As far as Washington is concerned, unless you are one of those who has been involved with releasing wolves in that state, and monitoring the wolves we already had, then once agin, zip

Your information on livestock kills is flat out laughable, I won't even go there. Coyotes killing more cows than wolves, come on you need to get out of the city more.

Wolves killin elk,, once agin, ZIP.. Take a trip to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, step into their dust and tell the locals what you just tried to pass off on the rest of us. See what the people who live around these wolves have to say, step down to ground level, where the wolves are. If you can't afford the trip and still want to learn about the wolves, then pull up the wolf site below and it will give you plenty of the real thing.

http://washingtonwolf.info/

wolfbait
wolfbait is offline  
Old September 16, 2009, 09:04 PM   #47
bearpaw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Posts: 11
Idaho F&G Youtube Video On Wolf Hunting

Watch this Idaho Fish and Game video to learn the truth about wolves in Idaho and wolf caused elk mortality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWMpM...embedded#t=170


Check out this photo in northern Minnesota to see how wolves are fittting in.



Dog killed by a wolf. Note: The dog is still on its chain.
Northern Minnesota has documented wolves coming into towns to kill dogs.

Network news will not tell you what's going on, but you can get lots of wolf news headlines and info at: http://washingtonwolf.info/
bearpaw is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13907 seconds with 7 queries