The Firing Line Forums

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

View Poll Results: Should WA State Control their wolf population
Yes, this is an invasive and destructive subspecies. 37 66.07%
No, let nature take it's course. 19 33.93%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 7, 2012, 09:18 PM   #1
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population

I am sitting here watching a pro-wolf propaganda show following wolves in WA state Cascade mountains. They also have one of these eco folks going out on a wolf hunt in Idaho.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedule...137313.40772.0

Nothing wrong with promoting the health and welfare of nature, but what irks me is that they are not telling the true story of the "wolf disaster" here in Idaho and why hunting has to be done to keep them from decimating the other large game animals. Oh well, you can't promote your version of events by telling the truth!!

I suspect WA state which is dominated politically by ultra liberal politicians will never take the steps to protect nature from this invasive species. Maybe we can send a few packs down to Sacramento so that they can enjoy these destructive critters as well.

The question will remain in the future whether this ultraliberal, environmental dominated state will control the wolf population as other states such as Idaho and Montana do through hunting?

Last edited by Alaska444; July 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 7, 2012, 10:00 PM   #2
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
You only have two "yes" options. "Nature" is already taking its course. Personal friend has family from WA. Lots of SSS going on there already. Got to go on a "Please put the camera away" off-road road trip to see the countryside. Never saw any carcases myself, though there apparently was enough of the possibility.

There needs to be management and if people are so insistent then let them start taking up a collection to compensate people for damage caused by wolves.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old July 7, 2012, 10:34 PM   #3
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 1,984
So what would you have us comment on. Read your statement but no question asked of us to reply to. Perhaps if your were to tweak your thread a bit. We could then comment on it. Unless you prefer not to.
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old July 7, 2012, 10:52 PM   #4
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Fair enough, I added a question at the end which is really reflected in the poll. I believe it will be very hard for WA state to reconcile their political and environmental beliefs against the reality of the Mackenzie Valley wolves decimation of other game animals.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 03:10 AM   #5
mete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 5,287
Reality ??
The was a recent case in Sweden where a zookeepr was killed by the wolves. The head of the zoo was confused he said that wolves weren't dangerous ! Whether they are in a zoo or in the wild they're not dangerous .He couldn't understand how this happened.
They are ,of course , predators and very efficient ones .Those zoo visiters were sometimes brought into the wolf enclosure where they could feed and pet them.
That's the problem , there are the tree huggers with Disney mentality and they often get into positions of authority.I don't know how to deal with them ,their ideas are so bizzare.
I didn't add a link becasue the zookeeper's comments are in Swedish and I had to get someone to translate.You could find the story on Swedish papers in English.
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver !
mete is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 06:04 AM   #6
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,651
Washington state includes some of the wolves' historic habitat. Calling them an invasive species is incorrect.

And...
Quote:
Nothing wrong with promoting the health and welfare of nature, but what irks me is that they are not telling the true story of the "wolf disaster" here in Idaho and why hunting has to be done to keep them from decimating the other large game animals. Oh well, you can't promote your version of events by telling the truth!!
The proper term would be "human disaster". The only reason the big game animals are having such a hard time, is because humans have taken over all of their prime habitat and pushed them into the mountains. Elk and Deer are plains game, not mountain dwellers. They barely scrape by with that kind of existence. So, adding such a fantastic pack-hunting predator to the mix upsets the already unnatural and precarious "balance". Your blame is ill-placed.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 08:22 AM   #7
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,346
I note that there is one thing for which there is an iron-clad guarantee about people: They won't go away. They also have this bad habit of agribusiness, and, as well, enjoy hunting. In order to do either, they control whatever forms of predation which have negative impacts.

Re-introduction of a predator creates conflict. Unfortunately, those supporting re-introduction are rarely either farmer/rancher types nor do they hunt. Their lives and incomes don't see negative impact.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 09:21 AM   #8
cornbush
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: The retarded place below Idaho
Posts: 1,377
I think wolves are great, they are beautiful, adapt very well and extremely efficient.
I also think that they should never have been reintroduced.
When I lived in Idaho I regularly saw wolves where there "were no wolves".
There was a lot of shoot, shovel, and shut up that happened, radio collars went on a truck at the local truck stop.
If the US Fish and Wildlife wants wolves back how about we release them in DC, thats where the majority of the people who make the decisions are, they wanted them...........

If Washington doesn't manage their wolves they are headed for a disaster just like Idaho.
__________________
The best shot I ever made was an accident
cornbush is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 03:34 PM   #9
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 07:21 AM #8
cornbush
Senior Member

Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: The retarded place below Idaho
Posts: 1,258
I think wolves are great, they are beautiful, adapt very well and extremely efficient.
I also think that they should never have been reintroduced.
When I lived in Idaho I regularly saw wolves where there "were no wolves".
There was a lot of shoot, shovel, and shut up that happened, radio collars went on a truck at the local truck stop.
If the US Fish and Wildlife wants wolves back how about we release them in DC, thats where the majority of the people who make the decisions are, they wanted them...........

If Washington doesn't manage their wolves they are headed for a disaster just like Idaho.
__________________
The best shot I ever made was an accident
Wolves are incredible creatures, but they are also one of natures most efficient killing machines. The Discovery channel show promotes a very unrealistic view of them as simple cute little dogs and who doesn't like their dog.

However, in reality, they are some of the most aggressive killing machines known. Even grizzly bears at times fall victim to wolves which has been well documented.

The reality further is that the Feds didn't reintroduce the native wolf, they introduced and invasive, massive wolf that is the most aggressive of all the wolf subspecies. Caribou in larger numbers and more open terrain have a significant advantage over the slower moving elk in the Rockies.

The elk populations are dramatically dropping and yes, it is indeed an Idaho wolf disaster. Idaho, WY, MT all have the political and reality based policies that they must control this apex predator which also harbors and spreads deadly parasites that is a public health issue to people as well. When the wolf population in WA state becomes an issue, I have serious doubts that they will be able to muster the political will to control this creature.

In the future, we will hear of the Washington wolf disaster and they will do nothing to prevent it. Just my hunch but if shows like the one above are not met by the reality of the true story, WA state will be toast as far as all of the other game animals.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 03:38 PM   #10
Hansam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 763
I like wolves. In fact I LOVE wolves! They're gorgeous animals that were at the top of the food chain till humans arrived. I've camped many times where I've heard the howls of wolves and loved hearing it.

That said I've also known people who have suffered loss because of wolves in northern WI. I know the kind of damage that they can cause and how much of an aggravation they can be to farmers and land owners where there are wolves.

So I support management of the wolf population. I'm not a part of the crowd that believes all wolves should be wiped out but I do believe that wolves should be managed. To allow them to just breed uncontrolled is irresponsible. A managed hunting program (much like what is in place for deer) would be wise and responsible.
__________________
This is who we are, what we do.
Hansam is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 04:13 PM   #11
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 04:04 AM #6
FrankenMauser
Senior Member

Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Mormonville
Posts: 4,407
Washington state includes some of the wolves' historic habitat. Calling them an invasive species is incorrect.

And...
Quote:
Nothing wrong with promoting the health and welfare of nature, but what irks me is that they are not telling the true story of the "wolf disaster" here in Idaho and why hunting has to be done to keep them from decimating the other large game animals. Oh well, you can't promote your version of events by telling the truth!!
The proper term would be "human disaster". The only reason the big game animals are having such a hard time, is because humans have taken over all of their prime habitat and pushed them into the mountains. Elk and Deer are plains game, not mountain dwellers. They barely scrape by with that kind of existence. So, adding such a fantastic pack-hunting predator to the mix upsets the already unnatural and precarious "balance". Your blame is ill-placed.
__________________
-Long Winded Voice of Reason..... or something...
Dear Frankenmauser, interestingly, Idaho is nearly 1/3 plains and according to your theory, that is where the elk should be flourishing the most. However, the plains counties in Idaho are the ones that have the worst elk depredation from wolves with severely restricted elk hunting due solely to the wolf populations in those areas. In the past, they were the areas with the greatest elk populations prior to the wolf "reintroduction program."

In addition, elk have thrived in the mountain regions of Idaho, so not sure where you are getting your speculations about elk and where they do and don't thrive.

We don't need to look only at the wolf experiment in the US, most of the literature and research on the effects of wolves has come from Finland, Russia and Sweden where native human populations suffered high levels of hydatid disease that was only controlled by a wolf eradication program in the 1970's.

I first learned about hydatid disease in medical school. In Alaska, most cases occurred from dogs as the native host for this parasite. Today, hydatid disease is endemic in the wolf population with over 2/3rds of wolves tested in Idaho infected with this same disease that causes human misery as well.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010...ase-tapeworms/

Please take some time to learn of all of the issues involved in these invasive wolf subspecies that belongs on the tundra, not in the Rockies. Your statement simply reflect the prevailing propaganda I mentioned in the above TV show. If we are going to discuss the wolf as US population, lets deal in facts, not fiction.

Last edited by Alaska444; July 8, 2012 at 04:19 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 04:18 PM   #12
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 07:21 AM #8
cornbush
Senior Member

Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: The retarded place below Idaho
Posts: 1,258
I think wolves are great, they are beautiful, adapt very well and extremely efficient.
I also think that they should never have been reintroduced.
When I lived in Idaho I regularly saw wolves where there "were no wolves".
There was a lot of shoot, shovel, and shut up that happened, radio collars went on a truck at the local truck stop.
If the US Fish and Wildlife wants wolves back how about we release them in DC, thats where the majority of the people who make the decisions are, they wanted them...........

If Washington doesn't manage their wolves they are headed for a disaster just like Idaho.
__________________
The best shot I ever made was an accident
Dear cornbush, that is exactly the issue. The native Idaho wolf is now extinct. Not from human encroachment, man and wolf in Idaho do have a storied past, but when kept in check, the wolves hunted mainly small game and were not aggressive like the Mackenzie Valley wolf.

Since the Feds introduced this invasive subspecies, the native Idaho wolf is now completely extinct despite making a recovery prior to this as you note seeing them yourself. Many of my friends here in Idaho also saw the native wolf from time to time. Not any longer.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 8, 2012, 07:16 PM   #13
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,651
Quote:
Dear Frankenmauser, interestingly, Idaho is nearly 1/3 plains and according to your theory, that is where the elk should be flourishing the most. However, the plains counties in Idaho are the ones that have the worst elk depredation from wolves with severely restricted elk hunting due solely to the wolf populations in those areas. In the past, they were the areas with the greatest elk populations prior to the wolf "reintroduction program."
The Elk should be flourishing there, but they can't. The land has been taken over by farmers. Places where they have lost the most habitat are the places they suffer the most depredation. These are the places where the natural balance has been upset the most.

I'm not saying we should all start hugging trees and protecting the wolves. As long as humans think they can control everything around them, "natural balance" will continue to be an imaginary concept.

Two of my favorite quotes comes to mind, both from the same book...
"An artificial condition had created the surplus {of predators} ... and it could only be corrected by artificial means."
And
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."

Humans caused this problem. Now, we're stuck in a position where we must decide if attempting to create an artificial balance with the predators will work, or if extirpating the species will create an artificial balance that is easier to maintain. As long as humans attempt to control it, it remains an artificial condition. Nature will not be balanced until the population of two-legged predators is brought down to a natural level. (Not good, since we're an invasive species...)
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 01:20 AM   #14
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Dear Frankenmauser,

Not what I stated. I said that an area of Idaho in the plains has historically had high levels of elk UNTIL the wolves took over. I was speaking to one of my friends tonight who noted studies by an elk foundation finding the government numbers completely wrong. Instead of 700 Idaho wolves, they found over 3000.

I will try to find the link to the study. Your argument further defies what we know from the Bible that God created the earth and then put man in charge giving us dominion over all creatures. The eco argument fails because they remove man from the "natural" world, when in fact, God made the earth for man to inhabit and have dominion over it. The wolves in Idaho don't belong here and we created that mess.

Predation of wolves is our only way to manage the entire ecosystem at this time.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 01:37 AM   #15
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,651
Quote:
I will try to find the link to the study. Your argument further defies what we know from the Bible that God created the earth and then put man in charge giving us dominion over all creatures. The eco argument fails because they remove man from the "natural" world, when in fact, God made the earth for man to inhabit and have dominion over it. The wolves in Idaho don't belong here and we created that mess.
Not everyone shares the same religious beliefs. I don't hold your belief in God against you. So, don't hold my agnostic beliefs against me.

Plus... scientific evidence shows us that humans migrated to this continent at the same time as the wolves. I think a peaceful co-existence agreement might be more appropriate than extirpation or citing a single religious doctrine* for "dominion" over everything.


*(There are more than 20 major religions on the Earth with at least 1 million members, each; and more than 3,500 distinctly recognized religions, total. The great majority of those religions, including most Native Americans, believe that they were placed here as care-takers or even at a lower hierarchy than the animals. In addition, there are more than 1 BILLION people on the Earth, that do not claim religious affiliation, and/or a belief in a God or Gods. Who are you to decide that only your religious beliefs should be followed to facilitate the handling of this matter?)
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 01:54 AM   #16
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Man is part of the "natural" world even though the eco folks deny that simple fact. We also have dominion whether folks want to deny that reality as well.

The Mackenzie Valley wolves belong in the Mackenzie valley and are in balance with the caribou and other critters in that area. They do not obtain the same balance in the Rocky Mountain regions. They are too big, too aggressive and carry too much disease.

Perhaps you don't live an affected area, but I do. The debate in our neck of the woods is not theoretical at all.

http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Wol...161435005.html
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 07:49 AM   #17
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,346
Doesn't matter whether one is religious or atheistic: We are but a part of nature (Biology applies to all life of whatever sort) and the key fact is quite simple: Nature bats last.

As tool users, we dominate all other life on the planet. Simple as that. And, having accomplished that, we create some form of government so that some few can dominate the rest of us. It's what we do, and is merely a different form of predation. Congress and Wall Street come to mind.

Okay, so then we start arguing and squabbling about right and wrong as such moral issues pertain to animals. It's more of what we do.

Which is an around the shrubs and brush way of going back to wolves.

I guess one of my questions has to do with how do we know about comparative behavior of re-introduced wolves versus the original wolves. And, why is it that way?

From my reading, it seems that the 1800s saw more commentary about wolves in forested areas of the west, moreso than in the plains. The coyote was first called the "prairie wolf", as he was far more common there than the wolf. Wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin apparently are more woodland creatures than open-country creatures.

I dunno.

What I do know as a moderator who has read umpteen and a half threads about wolves is that there are many sincere and honest folks in conflict about what wolves are, how they behave, and what we should do to deal with both the wolf problem and the people problem.

Looks like we need a few dozen Farley Mowats who are more objective in their assessments but who are willing to spend the time in study.

So y'all offer a few more comments and then we'll close this go-round on the subject.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 09:37 AM   #18
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,472
Human hunters are right in the thick of the ecological battle and have been for a couple of million years. Human farmers have been in the ecological battle for the last few thousand years. I have a degree in biology and am aware of enviornmentalist's feelings about these issues and can't say that I disagree with some of them. But, you are not going to change the human equation so I don't know that there is much point in dreaming about it.

If the elk/deer were overpopulated in an area causing disease and starvation then reintroduction of wolves would make sense.

But, I have not read nor have I witnessed in the areas that I hunt any evidence of overpopulation with the elk being quite fat and healthy.

So were the wolves reintroduced for some purpose or just romantic nostalgia for the way some enviornmentalists think things ought to be.

Bottom line, I am an elk hunter. The wolves are in competition with me hunting a herd that is declining because of the wolves according to anybody who is in the business of hunting them.

Does that effect my judgement on the issue ? Sure.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 10:05 AM   #19
Husqvarna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 533
Re Mete, I am Swedish I think he said that those wolves weren't dangerous, they where as semi domesticated as wolves can get, a friend of the family has been in with the same pack and given them massages (she is a human and horse/dog massuese). i think it is wrong to judge the fate of wolves based on the behaviour of captured animals, I mean there are thousands of predators in private captivity in the Us with several incidents we don't kill tigers, lions and chimps because of that.

After the initial reports which just stated the basics it has come forth that there was a recent incident a short while back where a teenager in a group got jumped but the zookeepers warded the wolves of so I dunno, one escaped a couple of years ago and when they found it an old lady was sitting on a parkbench feeding it cookies

the last person before that zookeeper that was killed was killed over a 100 years ago by a pet wolf. Bears have killed several people and maimed others regularly but bears aren't hated nor loved, wolfes get more love and hate for some reason


Wolves are a very hot topic in Sweden right now, the population started to grow recently after being on the brink of destruction, there are loads of conspiracy theories that animal rights activists planted wolfs to give them a boom, we get the occasional russian wanderer but Sweden is practically landlocked so that can't be the whole truth. in recent months 3 ranges close to me has been vandalized/burned down by those frekkin lunatics and i am not a wolf hater, i accept them growing in numbers but over the whole of Sweden, I live in one of the two states that has got several packs. i got to see a small pack a few years ago and it was majestic. my brother in law sprinted like Ussain Bolt to get his dog that was running towards them

we got to hunt them a couple of years ago but it was stopped again, we now have a couple of hundred but only on a small part of the country, that is the main problem, the saami people (our "natives) have special rules and wolves near them and their reindeerherding business ( which is also heavily reliant on gov subs) are killed or moved)

the few we got has started to become a nuisance, plenty of hunting dogs and sheep killed, a friend who has got cows, sheep and goats now have a lama and a donkey for protection.

hunting has gone down somewhat, people are afraid to let their dogs go and the moose population has had a dip
Husqvarna is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 10:13 AM   #20
Husqvarna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 533
Art I think you could even narrow it down more, wolves (atleast here) seems to be pine/fir forest animals. maybe just anecdotal but roedeers are still like rats even thou we got more and more lynx and the wild boar is still here
Husqvarna is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 12:38 PM   #21
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Art, the two subspecies are quite different. The Mackenzie Valley wolf is the largest wolf subspecies and the native Idaho wolf was much smaller, more solitary and much less aggressive. Not understanding that there are significant differences in the wolf subspecies is tantamount to ignoring the differences in the dog subspecies.

If folks think an Irish wolf hound is the same as a chiwawa, then I have a swamp to sell them in Arizona. Here is an excellent comparison of the two subspecies. The Feds gave us the Great Dane of wolves to replace what had been here. We have been duped. That makes the Federally implanted "reintroduced" wolf an invasive subspecies. It just doesn't belong in this ecosystem. Folks that claim to be so understanding of ecology show themselves ignorant of this detail. That is the entire debate. The Mackenzie Valley wolf belongs in the Mackenzie Valley, not the Rocky Mountains.

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/...n-gray-wolves/
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 12:54 PM   #22
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 1,972
The facts are....wolves are here to stay. All those "Little Red Riding Hoods" need to get over it. While I feel wolves have a place in our ecosystem, I also believe they need to be controlled to within practical numbers and need to be hunted enough to regain their fear of man. There can be a balance, even tho we humans have put it askew. Those wanting to kill them all are just selfish and greedy. Statements such as "they're killing all of OUR elk!", is a prime example. As for the bible telling us to rule over all the animals of the earth, one needs to remember, God didn't write the bible, man did.....and greedy men edited it's text. There are many other things the bible tells us, that now, as modern educated men, we know are not to be taken literally. Besides, the last definition I saw of ruling said nuttin' at all about killin'. If you really believe in God and the bible, you should realize that God created wolves for a purpose and when they kill wild game or even domestic livestock, they are only doing what evolution and the good Lord intended for them to do. Man is not God, nor is he nature..........nor does nature need to take a backseat to man. Without nature there will be no man.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 01:11 PM   #23
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 10:54 AM #22
buck460XVR
Senior Member

Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 549
The facts are....wolves are here to stay. All those "Little Red Riding Hoods" need to get over it. While I feel wolves have a place in our ecosystem, I also believe they need to be controlled to within practical numbers and need to be hunted enough to regain their fear of man. There can be a balance, even tho we humans have put it askew. Those wanting to kill them all are just selfish and greedy. Statements such as "they're killing all of OUR elk!", is a prime example. As for the bible telling us to rule over all the animals of the earth, one needs to remember, God didn't write the bible, man did.....and greedy men edited it's text. There are many other things the bible tells us, that now, as modern educated men, we know are not to be taken literally. Besides, the last definition I saw of ruling said nuttin' at all about killin'. If you really believe in God and the bible, you should realize that God created wolves for a purpose and when they kill wild game or even domestic livestock, they are only doing what evolution and the good Lord intended for them to do. Man is not God, nor is he nature..........nor does nature need to take a backseat to man. Without nature there will be no man.
Now, back to the topic, man has placed many invasive species in new environments for alleged benefit that has turned into ecological disasters. Despite the deep rooted propaganda surrounding wolves, they are reeking an ecological disaster across the northern Rocky Mountains. Not even the 9th circuit court or Obama could stay in that propaganda driven denial any longer.

The public health consequences of placing wolves here where they don't belong as an invasive subspecies designed to run down ill caribou instead of slower deer and elk is ending in the decimation of elk and deer in these infected areas. In addition, all of the wild game in these areas are now becoming infected with hydatid cysts which also infect people.

Look up the history of Finland's war against wolves where they hunted them down with AK47's from helicopters in the 1970's. The mindset that man is the invading species is a bunch of baloney to say it mildly. We have the responsibility to keep in check this terrible experiment with this large, aggressive and dangerous beast that has gone terribly wrong from the beginning. Instead of spouting propaganda, go dig into the history of the wolf in Finland and juxtapose that experience with what we shall have in the future here if we do not aggressively control this creature's population density.

Last edited by Alaska444; July 9, 2012 at 02:27 PM.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 05:32 PM   #24
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 1,972
Quote:
they are reeking an ecological disaster across the northern Rocky Mountains. Not even the 9th circuit court or Obama could stay in that propaganda driven denial any longer.

The public health consequences of placing wolves here where they don't belong as an invasive subspecies designed to run down ill caribou instead of slower deer and elk is ending in the decimation of elk and deer in these infected areas. In addition, all of the wild game in these areas are now becoming infected with hydatid cysts which also infect people.

The mindset that man is the invading species is a bunch of baloney to say it mildly. We have the responsibility to keep in check this terrible experiment with this large, aggressive and dangerous beast that has gone terribly wrong from the beginning.
.....all I can say is wow. No emotion affecting judgement there. Sounds more like a sci-fi horror film than a discussion about wolves.

I have read and reserached all of the links you have posted in this thread. They are the same ones you post everytime you get into your rant about wolves and the risk they impose on little girls in red jackets. You ask us to get real, while you yourself preach fire and brimestone about how we are all gonna die from the mere presence of the big bad wolf. I doubt if any knowledgeable person that posts in a hunting forum will want wolf populations to go unchecked. Read my post, I have no problem with a legitimate hunting season on them. But I also believe there is a legitimate reason to have them in our ecosystem. Guess you musta missed that.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old July 9, 2012, 05:46 PM   #25
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Dear Buck,

Sorry you are taking an emotional view of this thread. Simple question, should WA state control the growing wolf population. Looks like the majority of folks answer in the affirmative. Shouldn't be a surprise that the Feds no longer consider the native Rocky Mountain wolf endangered any longer (canus lupus irremotus) when in reality the Mackenzie Valley wolf (canus lupus occidentalis) that they implanted here has put it into extinction. I guess if you are extinct, you are no longer endangered.

I guess that means we will simply agree to disagree. By the way, do you live in any of the infected areas? For me, this is not theoretical or emotional but the cold hard facts that wolves in large numbers are now the reality of the places I go such as the Bull River in MT, the St. Joe in Idaho and all the places in the northern Idaho panhandle.

Here, you need to understand the risk of hydatid disease and take precautions. In addition, several dogs have been killed in the last couple of years. Yeah, yeah, yeah, emotional response all right my friend. Glad I live in a state that recognizes the dangers of this invasive subspecies and is doing something to counteract the out of control Feds. If you don't have any of these beasts in your backyard yet, maybe you can ask Uncle Sam to send you some.

Have a nice day and just agree to disagree.
Alaska444 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15486 seconds with 10 queries