Wolves.... 2.4 miles from my house in E. WA.

[Rent Outdoor Gear]

Tater - I totally understand what you're saying but...

Explain the situation intelligently to the average outdoors person that doesn't hunt and they quickly see that introducing a new predator in mother nature's sandbox should never have happened.

Now that we have them, I'm OK with it IF and ONLY IF the states can manage them as needed to maintain healthy populations of all game animals (including wolves). We have yet to meet the wolf harvest quotas in Idaho so the population may still be expanding.

Typically states do control all wildlife management - except in the case of "endgangered species". The wolf was listed as such until just recently. The anti hunters have filed millions upon millions of dollars of lawsuits to try and re-protect the wolf, but for now they remain unlisted so states can once again manage them. I have already seen a positive impact on elk/deer in Idaho as a result of the wolf hunt.

Coop

 

[Snyd]

Hello? The managment plans were up to the states. What held it up were lawsuits and Wyoming's BS management plan.....

Not true. Wolves were listed as endangered species when they were introduced to ID, MT and WY in the 90's. The management plan was "HANDS OFF!! until they kill your cattle" It was just a few years ago they were delisted and were able to be "managed" by states being able to kill "x" number per year by hunting. At first they could not even trap them, at least in ID. Now they can.

Also, this was not a "reintroduction" of a native species. It was an INTRODUCTION of a new species. Different wolves with different habits.

 

[tater]

'm OK with it IF and ONLY IF the states can manage them as needed to maintain healthy populations of all game animals (including wolves).

Coop, that's exactly it. It's when the 'kill 'em all' rhetoric begins that things break down quickly. I think the politics around any of these issues needs to be what we strive to see in nature-balance.

On a side note, how did ID set the harvest quota? Did they they least take into account geography and fawning/calving territories? Does your FG Dept. have solid Bio's with boots on the ground?

 

[HellsCanyon]

Idaho has gone back to the ORIGINAL recovery goals set for the state. Something like 500 wolves and 15 breeding pairs.

One thing that people need to realize is environmental groups have been suing using if "EAJA" act. This act allows groups to sue on behalf of a species or natural resource concern, and if they WIN, their law services are paid for by Fed tax dollars. Don't be fooled, environmental groups have a lot to gain by suing! Many times they will file as many law suits as they can, then pick the top few they have a chance at winning and go after them.

Have you seem the newest Yellowstone is Dying film? Think that's what it is called...

Mike

 

[littlebuf]

If you're seriously concerned regarding being hurt/killed/raped by a wolf that is hilarious. i'd be more worried about the teenager texing and driving.....

I don't think you fully comprehend the wolf issue. it has zero to do with game management or ecological health, its strictly political and if your interest are in any way related to what is represented on this web site you are currently on the losing end. maybe do a little research on the subject

 

[Darren Best]

Also, this was not a "reintroduction" of a native species. It was an INTRODUCTION of a new species. Different wolves with different habits.

This is EXACTLY the problem, they broke their own law by doing this. Imagine if you will the fines and penalties if one of us introduced a non native species into the wild.

As another poster pointed out, environmentalism is a huge business, you really believe they are in it for the trees or the wolves, bullshit, it's all about the money, always has been. Yes you have the believers in the middle, but the dogs at the top only care about the green.

"Saving the earth" is big business, nothing more. They don't give one whack about the impact of what they are doing and in fact by having the wolves wipe out game animals it accomplishes their other goal of getting rid of hunting and anyone helping or supporting them is accomplishing that same exact goal even if they don't think they are.

I couldn't understand 15 years ago and I still can't now, how any "hunter" would want a non native predator species brought into the U.S. that would and is wiping out 100 years of conservation work. Oh what I would give to go back to 1978 and tell all those crusty old timers what is happening now.

I hunted the late 70's, 80's and 90's, little did I know then it was the good ole days, sadly they are gone forever.

 

[fillthefreezer]

my stance is if they want wolves in this state, lets make it happen, put some in thurston, king and pierce county

 

[mtnwrunner]

2.4 miles from the house?? That is almost within range!
Mike, good luck, they are a pain and all that goes with them is a pain. Here is what we have to put up with in central Idaho. As she so eloquently puts it, "Idaho is a third world country." And if you are a wolf hunter here, you are harassed and made to feel guilty if you are out hunting them.
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/...f_slaughter_continues_in_the_rocky_mountains/

Randy

 

[Snyd]

This is EXACTLY the problem, they broke their own law by doing this. Imagine if you will the fines and penalties if one of us introduced a non native species into the wild.

As another poster pointed out, environmentalism is a huge business, you really believe they are in it for the trees or the wolves, bullshit, it's all about the money, always has been. Yes you have the believers in the middle, but the dogs at the top only care about the green.

"Saving the earth" is big business, nothing more. They don't give one whack about the impact of what they are doing and in fact by having the wolves wipe out game animals it accomplishes their other goal of getting rid of hunting and anyone helping or supporting them is accomplishing that same exact goal even if they don't think they are.

I couldn't understand 15 years ago and I still can't now, how any "hunter" would want a non native predator species brought into the U.S. that would and is wiping out 100 years of conservation work. Oh what I would give to go back to 1978 and tell all those crusty old timers what is happening now.

I hunted the late 70's, 80's and 90's, little did I know then it was the good ole days, sadly they are gone forever.

Yup. I was born in Whitefish MT in 1960, grew up between there and Missoula. Not too far from your home it sounds like. Left MT in 91 and came to Alaska. My Grampa was a lumberjack/hunter/fisherman in Whitefish and logged all over the place in western MT. He taught me to hunt and fish and used to tell me about the "Timber Wolves" as he called them. They were different than the Canadian wolves they introduced. They were smaller and tended to stick to a certain area/range. They were more territorial than these Canadian wolves. They didn't survive for centuries by following caribou herds over large areas like the Candaian wolves. I remember reading about how these wolves have roamed much much farther than they thought they would. Thus surprising "experts". It's in these wolves dna to cover some ground and follow the herds. Thats what they've been doing and we are seeing the results. I have friends in MT and ID that have lived there for years and they are seeing the results first hand. Truth is, the bios don't know how many wolves are in MT, ID and WY other than there are more than they think. They are at the top of the food chain and have been turned loose into a target rich environment.

 

[Snyd]

2.4 miles from the house?? That is almost within range!
Mike, good luck, they are a pain and all that goes with them is a pain. Here is what we have to put up with in central Idaho. As she so eloquently puts it, "Idaho is a third world country." And if you are a wolf hunter here, you are harassed and made to feel guilty if you are out hunting them.
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/...f_slaughter_continues_in_the_rocky_mountains/

Randy

Here's about the only part of that article worth reading.....Of course they are against it.

" Idaho Fish and Game will now pay the expenses of trappers. A bill in the Idaho house proposes that wolf traps can be baited with wolf carcasses and those of other big game animals so that a hunter could kill a deer or wolf and then stake out traps. The IDG has reallocated $50,000 from the state’s coyote eradication campaign to the federal government’s Wildlife Services, a branch of the Department of Agriculture that kills wildlife. Wildlife Service shooters in helicopters will be deployed against wolves, not because the wolves are thought to have killed livestock, but simply to reduce their numbers down to the legal minimum on the grounds that fewer wolves means more elk for hunters."

...and this...which they are against also...

"However, Big Game Forever, a hunting organization, filed suit to reopen hunting and won its case in early January on the grounds that the commission had not conducted adequate public hearings before closure. The Montana House subsequently voted 100-0 on a bill recommended by the Department of Fish, Game, and Parks to make the commission’s prohibition of wolf hunting in areas adjacent to national parks illegal unless an area’s quota has been met. If the Montana Senate passes the bill and it is signed into law, wolves in Yellowstone will more likely remain confined, unable to disperse west of the park and breed with other wolves"

 

[Steve in nm]

All the Lieing and smoke screens the feds and tree huggers have put out there is what bothers me. Here in one of areras that i spend time in supposedly all the wolves are collared well i have seen a big male and a female that arent collared and so has most everyone else, One of them is the supervisor of a Nat.Park. But the feds,wolf watch and NM G&F tell us all we are seeing coyotes. I normally take between 25 and 50 coyotes a year between calling and trapping so i have a pretty good idea what a coyote looks like. And i know when im being pissed on and told its raining.
I dident want the wolves in the first place but the facts are that they are here and there not goin away anytime soon. But im sick of the lies and being treated like we are idiots. We need to be able to manage them like we do any other predator. The coyote has had ten times the puressure put on them in the last 100 years and they are still around stronger and in as many or more numbers as ever. The facts are the wolf couldent adapte to civalization or the pressure that was put on them. So if they want to reinterdouce them fine but its time to let them stand on there own if they are able to.
Steve

 

[tater]

They were more territorial than these Canadian wolves. They didn't survive for centuries by following caribou herds over large areas like the Candaian wolves. I remember reading about how these wolves have roamed much much farther than they thought they would.

That's because they have followed the exploding moose populations here, not the caribou. There are huge areas in western Canada with no caribou, but moose with wolves are there.

 

[HellsCanyon]

One thing I'd like to stand on a soap box and say is that wolves have effectively changed the behavior of our elk and deer herds. Their predation and stress induced abortion effects have been devastating no doubt in some areas, but in other areas they are still elk to be hunted. Times used to be in the winter you'd find HUGE herds in areas of the panhandle, and in the spring time it was the same. We've been seeing a lot more scattered small groups of elk however. Elk have had to adapt their behavior to survive and that has effectively changed our hunting success rates as a whole. Numbers have been SEVERELY effected by wolves, but I also think that the average hunter out there isn't willing to work to find out how to find and kill elk now that their behavior has started to change. I'd like to hear Paul's (ElkNut's) opinion on the matter, as he hunts one of the areas of Idaho that has crazy high wolf populations and has done so for a lot of years...

I'm pretty proud of Idaho, they've taken out 675 wolves to date in the last 2 years from hunters alone. Doesn't count the bonus one's the feds have gunned down from helos either. 675 wolves eat a LOT of elk and deer... I think ID is starting to get a handle on the problem. Haven't any experience in Montana but I hope it's the same.

Keypoints:
We didn't ask as sportsman for wolves to be here, they were forced upon us. I believe they would've came back gradually on their own but the reintroduction of them was devastating... Wyoming's plan of treating them like predators is a scientifically SOUND management strategy. Only reason they got their hands tied is because people didn't want to see wolves killed, plain and simple.

ORIGINAL recovery goals when met within just a few years were effectively disregarded from the anti-hunters and environmentalists. They kept moving the goal line and it pissed off a lot of people. It was plainly wrong... They don't care about having a healthy ecosystem, they want to end hunting and they don't want to see a single wolf killed even if it is in the name of sound management. It's an emotional attachment and "feel good" thing with the environmentalists (aside from making millions from suing), and that has no place in the world of wildlife management.

Mike

 

[HellsCanyon]

I fully understand the wolf issue.

That's your opinion... Carry On

Mike

 

[Shrek]

I will certainly "carry on" . I will work in any way I can to exterminate the pest. Winds of political fortune change and all it takes is a decision to revisit the lalidity of the imported wolve qualifying as native wolves and they instantly become unprotected. An exeption to use effective poison and they are gone within months. I will work to that end at every opportunity.

 

[Shrek]

Another way to remove the wolf protections is to repeal the endangered species act. A it would only take a majority in one house to get it repealed or wolves exempted. One ally on the budget reconciliation conference to insert a repeal and one house of congress willing to shut down the government and wolves are history. There are ways to get it done politically. If they were to kill just one or two children then you could make enough of it for wolves to loose their pretty , wild , harmless dog image and show them to be the ruthless killing machines they are. Not that I hope children are killed. I would hope it can be done before tragedy strikes. I will do everthing I can do to make sure that if tragedy strikes it's not swept under the rug.

 

[Bighorse]

There are very few people that really appreciate the nature of wolves. Thats because we shouldn't appreciate them! They are killers in competition with us hunters.
I think of em as poachers. They are out there killing game at will. I've interacted with wolves five different times now. I'm talking about whole packs in the wilderness. They are ruthless highly skilled killers. In high numbers they are a threat to our lifestyle.

All available tools for their management should be available, including hunting, trapping, ect.....

I'd happily cut the head, legs, and tail off a half dozen or so and sew em together for a throw over my couch or childs bed. Heck I'd throw it on the ground and use it as a sleeping mat. Thats what they are good for.

 

[Mike7]

Regardless of how you feel politically about the situation, I just wish more environmentalists were more educated about ecology, actually left their ivory tower apartments sometimes, and could have some sense of honesty when talking about wolf numbers and effects. It's just like they can only repeat one mantra no matter how incongruent the logic they use to 'scientifically' support their position, "All wolves good, logging bad, yuppie homes good, and fire bad."

There are a couple of environmental groups here in Washington (from the west side of course), that are all about stopping all logging to get rid of the checkerboard logging pattern which is apparently preventing wolves from migrating more freely throughout the Cascades & Western Washington. Really, get rid of prime elk habitat to save wolves, that makes sense? One of these organization reps asked me for money claiming that wolves were endangered in WA and needed my help. So, I asked him some tough questions and also told him about the moose I had seen just outside of Spokane killed by wolves on checkerboard private timber land...and he basically gave a coined public relations type response devoid of any real information, and that's all he had.

At least a lot of hunters here are pretty clear. They want to kill a lot, if not all wolves in order to have more/any hunting oppportunities for big game. I sure wish environmentalists could just have some balls like that and say, "we don't want any wolf hunting or any logging, because we just don't believe in it regardless of the facts...or we don't like it because it means more revenue for us".

 

[Ryan Avery]

Debate is great.... We don't need any name calling or belittling!

 

[Mike7]

Some liberal/political wildlife news outlets are less than honest in their coverage. Wolves can not kill elk on ranches, where not many wolves exist.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Wyoming, but here in Idaho where wolf numbers have been very high (higher than reported in news outlets when you actually talk to local biologists and people who actually venture outdoors) up until wolf control efforts started, calf survival ratios for elk and moose were abysmal in these areas. As you know, these ratios might not affect hunter success on adult big game animals immediately however. A quick search on Wyoming reveals a different viewpoint. --Mike



Wolves Reducing Cow-Calf Rations In Wyoming

"The Wyoming Game and Fish Department released a report that says that wolves are having an effect on elk numbers. Media will try to cover up this fact by saying that elk numbers in Wyoming remain relatively unchanged. What they are not telling us is what it means when cow-calf ratios drop.

Cow-calf ratio is the number of calves that survive spring birth to become adult elk. This is also referred to as recruitment. Ideally, the higher the ratio the higher the number of elk overall. A good indication of the overall health of the herd. There are many things that contribute to the changing cow-calf ratio – weather, habitat, including food, disease, stress, predation, etc.

Officials state that the cut-off point, meaning a point when officials consider ending any hunting opportunities, for cow-calf ratios is 25 calves per 100 cows. Generally a number less than that will result in a reduction of overall elk numbers without hunting. What should also be pointed out is that a reduction in cow-calf ratio this year will not be reflected in the overall population until at least the following year.

In an article in the Jackson Hole News and Guide, officials state very clearly that in four out of eight elk herds in Wyoming, cow-calf ratios have dropped significantly where wolves are present.


“We have seen a downward trend [in cow-calf ratios] in many of Wyoming’s elk herds over this 26-year period,” Jay Lawson of the Game and Fish Department’s Wildlife Division said in a news release. “That trend is likely due to long-term drought and other habitat-related factors. But in half of the herds occupied by wolves, we saw a significantly greater rate of decline after wolves were established compared to herds without wolves. We can’t attribute that increased rate of decline to any factor other than wolves.”

In that same article it states that cow-calf ratios have dropped below 20 – 100 in some areas. This is very bad news for hunters.


Game and Fish biologists have set a minimum ratio of 25 calves per 100 cows in order to maintain hunting opportunities and have said there is “little opportunity for hunting” when the ratio falls below 20 calves per 100 cows.

The four elk herds in Wyoming that have wolves present and are experiencing declines have dropped below 25 calves per 100 cows, and two of those herds have fewer than 20 calves per 100 cows.

If wolves continue to be managed in a way that allows them to grow unchecked, claims by many groups who have said wolves are decimating the elk herd, can no longer be denied. This report clearly states that wolves are reducing elk numbers in areas where wolves are present. That reduction appears to be at a rate that may force fish and game officials to seriously reduce or eliminate elk hunting opportunities.

The function of the fish and game department is to manage wild game in order to provide hunting opportunities for licensed hunters. The state of Wyoming is now in a position where that ability is being severely handicapped by the feds’ refusal to delist the wolf and let the state manage the wolf in reasonable numbers."

Tom Remington