WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

[BroodBuster]

No. I wouldn't support that just like I don't support re introducing wolves. But they are repopulating and expanding their range. That's why it is important that each state has a plan in place to reduce conflicts with ranchers and farmers and, of course, that includes hunting as the preferred management tool.

Here in the state of Wa the state hired a sharpshooter and a helicopter to take out the triangle pack. They also have collared most packs and handed out radio receivers to the ranchers so their wranglers can move their cattle out of the way of any approaching pack prior to conflicts. All of this is per the states wolf management plan. It also includes at what time hunting seasons will be opened. Every time we get close a pack will get poached setting us back which is too bad and counter productive as I'd like to shoot one some day.

 

[DaveC]

Would you please explain yourself and give concrete data/logic/reason/experience instead of a mind and tongue twisting narrative (that isn't supported by what you write) and then try to make other feel badly about some negative conceptions? It 'sounds good' but there's really nothing there until you give you reasoning.

Not entirely sure what you're asking, and it isn't my intention to make anyone feel badly about anything.

If you're seeking clarification on just how the things expressed in this thread might make non-hunters view hunters in a negative light, I'd point to the following. First, the continued portrayal of reintroduced wolves as somehow categorically/significantly different in behavior from the wolves which were extirpated, an opinion which has not a shred of scientific credibility. Second, the view that predator reintroduction across the west is part of an intentional conspiracy to alter the makeup of western economies, rather than a natural consequence of population growth, demographic changes, and land use policies grounded in 19th century fallacies. Third, the notion that humans can and should take over all or at least the majority of the role of predators within western landscapes, for the purpose of maintaining dynamic equilibrium within the ecosystem.

I've not done a multi-thousand response survey and demographic analysis on this subject, so anyone is free to dismiss my anecdotal opinion that the majority of the country, and especially folks under 40, regard the above three views as simply nuts. And yes, that includes plenty of people who live and hunt in wolf country. It's not my intention to belittle anyone, but if you believe that hunting is under cultural siege it might be worth thinking about aggravating factors.

 

[jmden]

~750,000 elk. ~2000 wolves.

Sorry to bring bad news but arguing that we need kill all wolves so we can fill our freezers with elk easier is not a politically winning argument. But it does make hunters look like dumbass's.

Info from yellowstonepark.com, and these are very well known numbers. I've seen 22-24 per year:

"Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.
Since 2000, wolves have caused 45 percent of known deaths and 75 percent of predation deaths (not including human harvests) of radio-collared female elk on the northern range. By comparison, human harvest and winter-kill accounted for 30 percent and 8 percent respectively of the known deaths."

So, 2000 (and I wonder about that number) multiplied by 22 obviously equals an absolute minimum of 44,000 ungulates. Personally, I don't think that begins to scratch the surface in terms of the real impact.

 

[jmden]

Not entirely sure what you're asking, and it isn't my intention to make anyone feel badly about anything.

If you're seeking clarification on just how the things expressed in this thread might make non-hunters view hunters in a negative light, I'd point to the following. First, the continued portrayal of reintroduced wolves as somehow categorically/significantly different in behavior from the wolves which were extirpated, an opinion which has not a shred of scientific credibility. Second, the view that predator reintroduction across the west is part of an intentional conspiracy to alter the makeup of western economies, rather than a natural consequence of population growth, demographic changes, and land use policies grounded in 19th century fallacies. Third, the notion that humans can and should take over all or at least the majority of the role of predators within western landscapes, for the purpose of maintaining dynamic equilibrium within the ecosystem.

I've not done a multi-thousand response survey and demographic analysis on this subject, so anyone is free to dismiss my anecdotal opinion that the majority of the country, and especially folks under 40, regard the above three views as simply nuts. And yes, that includes plenty of people who live and hunt in wolf country. It's not my intention to belittle anyone, but if you believe that hunting is under cultural siege it might be worth thinking about aggravating factors.

Thank you for that clarification. I don't agree with much of it, but thank you. That adds something to the conversation.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone in this thread bring up your #1. There's been anecdotal information regarding that but there sure wasn't in 1994 and can't be any now, can there? And that's really too bad. The effort wasn't put out in the first place to study well enough what we already had and now they're gone forever, so we'll never know what we had, will we?

Could you elaborate on #2 more?:

"Second, the view that predator reintroduction across the west is part of an intentional conspiracy to alter the makeup of western economies, rather than a natural consequence of population growth, demographic changes, and land use policies grounded in 19th century fallacies."

Regarding number 3, why shouldn't humans have a large part in managing the ecosystem in the role of predator if need be? Aren't we part of the ecosystem and clearly have a responsibility do manage it? Do you feel guilty for being a human and using resources? Clearly, I'm trying to get at your motivators and you seem reluctant to 'put it on the table', so to speak.

 

[BroodBuster]

Info from yellowstonepark.com, and these are very well known numbers. I've seen 22-24 per year:

"Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.
Since 2000, wolves have caused 45 percent of known deaths and 75 percent of predation deaths (not including human harvests) of radio-collared female elk on the northern range. By comparison, human harvest and winter-kill accounted for 30 percent and 8 percent respectively of the known deaths."

So, 2000 (and I wonder about that number) multiplied by 22 obviously equals an absolute minimum of 44,000 ungulates. Personally, I don't think that begins to scratch the surface in terms of the real impact.

I find when making an argument to convince simple facts is much more effective than burying folks in hand picked emotional opinion pieces that are designed to raise money while obfuscating the facts .

More fun facts.

~30,000 Mt Lions. At one ungulate a week that's 1.5 million ungulates a year. That's just a wee bit greater than the 44k the wolves are eating. Where's the outrage for that?

 

[jmden]

I find when making an argument to convince simple facts is much more effective than burying folks in hand picked emotional opinion pieces that are designed to raise money while obfuscating the facts .

More fun facts.

~30,000 Mt Lions. At one ungulate a week that's 1.5 million ungulates a year. That's just a wee bit greater than the 44k the wolves are eating. Where's the outrage for that?

Brood,

Remember the wolves have only been here a bit over 20 years. When were lions eradicated and restored from near zero? Been here awhile, they have. The wolves will travel long distances, hunt/kill incredibly efficiently and reproduce like rabbits and may become more dominant in the west than they are now.

The point is, we don't need more predators, lions included. FWS and state game agencies, and the politics they all deal with daily, seem more concerned about predators, often times, that about the ungulates that are more helpful for the average hunter who provides the lion (no pun intended) share of their funding...

 

[Mike7]

Wolves are here to stay it seems regardless of what anyone does, unless poisoned. And they have proven that they can disperse long distances unlike some ungulates, in order to deal with habitat changes and to exploit new areas...and all without the help of humans. There has always been climate change, but never before in North American history has there been fire suppression by man and massive development on wintering areas and travel routes...or a wish for such stable game popullations by some (i.e. many of us) along with a real way of maintaining stable populations.

I got on the mailing list several years ago of a couple of liberal environmental policy organizations that masquerage as conservation groups. Their websites and news letters are full of disinformation. In fact far more disinformation than I have seen promoted by any hunters, yet these organizations seem to thrive because of their presentation of issues seemingly. Wolves are just another potential crisis for many of them (not unlike the wolverine, salmon, pine marten, spotted owl, grizzly bear, some bats, sandhill crane, pileated woodpecker, etc.) which allows them to solicit funds and and close down logging, shut down roads, and limit hunting. I don't think there is a higher motive than that at their level, but I could be wrong. The government on the other hand is full of many bureacrats who must justify their own existence and seek control.

Nature is indeed a dynamic process, and man is involved whether some like it or not. The extent to which man is involved is more of a political issue than a biological one in my opinion in most circumstances. Much of the "best available science" with respect to wildlife is based upon studies which nearly all have flaws due to the dynamic processes being studied, but some with more flaws than others simply due to the initial goals of what the studies set out to proove.

I find the 2,000 wolf estimate intesting anecdotally, considering the large number of wolf sign I see in the woods in Washington and Idaho compared to lion sign. I also find the potential interaction between the predators intesting and suspect that predator effects are not simply linear or additive, but sometimes rather may be multiplied in many ways when another predator/scavenger is added to the mix (for instance, wolves kicking lions off kills, and lions possibly being able to more easily kill ungulates which have been weakened from prolonged pressure by wolves, etc.).

I like the idea someone mentioned above of classifying the caribou as a genetically different endangered population which requires special management...maybe such as predator hunting, logging, prescribed burns, etc.

 

[Violent Hippie]

DaveC, I dismiss your "anecedotal opinion". Thank you.

 

[mtluckydan]

The wolf counts published in Montana are categorized as the minimum number of animals and packs. There are considerably more wolves than are being reported. I've seen the wolf pack map for Montana and it looks like somebody blasted the map with a shotgun there are so many icons on the map. The rules the agencies have to go by to classify a pack as legitimate limits what they report. A friend of a friend knows one of the men who kills wolves for the government - they kill considerably more than hunters and trappers. The wolf population is still growing or at least stable with all these being killed. Wolves have evolved to reproduce at a high rate to contend with parvo which wipes out large percentages of the population without any long term ill effects on the overall population.

We all are very aware that wolves are here to stay. That doesn't mean we have to accept it or be happy about it. It would also be nice if both state and federal agencies had to answer for the lies they have put out there and the money they stole from the Pittman Robertson monies. They tried to cover up the fact they did this. Typical government relations.

What hasn't been said is the loss of hunting opportunity. I know most people have focused on deer/elk populations and the impact wolves have had on hunting opportunity. In Montana and Idaho - I don't know about Wyoming - the number of tags for moose hunting have been reduced drastically and in some cases stopped altogether. The wolves that were introduced into the area were used to killing and eating moose. They were good at killing them and continued to do so in the western states. These moose populations may never recover from this problem. Montana is very interested in how many moose are being seen by hunters in the field.

Attending a meeting with local lion hunters and the fish & game department, wolves will kill lions if given the opportunity. Adult toms are about the only ones that might be safe. They will also kill some bears. My experience with predators is that wolves were the straw that broke the camels back. Big game populations were being worked over by all the existing predators and humans, but holding there own. The wolves have seemed to take them to the point where it takes forever for a population to recover if we have a bad winter.

With respect to the Yellowstone herd, it was interesting to see the perspective from someone who lives in the area and has personal input. I am not in love with some of the decisions that MTFWP makes. We as hunters are limited to the seasons and tag numbers set by FWP. As a hunter, I do not always shoot antlerless animals if I think the population is too low regardless of what FWP says. As one biologist I know said, wolves aren't eating salad and when is the last time you found a wolf that starved to death. Say what you will, but most of the elk in the Yellowstone herd were killed by wolves and grizzly bears. I have seen documentaries that left little doubt as to what happened to the elk.

As with any politically motivated ultimatum, we all won't agree with the outcome. However, I have spent many days in the field before and after wolves. My opinion is they have changed the face of hunting negatively and that is not likely to change in may lifetime. It is unfortunate given the time, money and effort put forth by previous generations to restore game populations across the west.

 

[5MilesBack]

Third, the notion that humans can and should take over all or at least the majority of the role of predators within western landscapes, for the purpose of maintaining dynamic equilibrium within the ecosystem.

anyone is free to dismiss my anecdotal opinion that the majority of the country, and especially folks under 40, regard the above three views as simply nuts.

Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

I would ponder to say that I'm quite sure the same group would also think that God is simply nuts as well.

 

[tipsntails7]

Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

I would ponder to say that I'm quite sure the same group would also think that God is simply nuts as well.

Make sure you never eat bear, pig, or any type of shellfish then if your going to go by that "logic"

 

[jmden]

Make sure you never eat bear, pig, or any type of shellfish then if your going to go by that "logic"

tips,

You are revealing your ignorance of the Bible, unfortunately. Pretty typical anymore.

 

[tipsntails7]

WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

tips,

You are revealing your ignorance of the Bible, unfortunately. Pretty typical anymore.

I highly doubt that, I grew up "in the church" , just because it was "reversed" in the New Testament does not mean it did not appear... It's also debatable if that is what the vision Peter received meant, there are also other passages that are argued for the abolishment of the original word. If you are going to use LITERAL translations then hopefully you follow all things that have been written literally as well.. Unfortunately most dont... Pretty typical anymore.

I don't like when scripture is lifted without context to the words around it, and I don't like when people perceive the bible as a literal translation yet pick and choose what should and should not be followed.

Either way this is not a convo for this thread.

 

[LJ Buck]

Sss!!!!

 

[jmden]

I highly doubt that, I grew up "in the church" , just because it was "reversed" in the New Testament does not mean it did not appear... It's also debatable if that is what the vision Peter received meant, there are also other passages that are argued for the abolishment of the original word. If you are going to use LITERAL translations then hopefully you follow all things that have been written literally as well.. Unfortunately most dont... Pretty typical anymore.

I don't like when scripture is lifted without context to the words around it, and I don't like when people perceive the bible as a literal translation yet pick and choose what should and should not be followed.

Either way this is not a convo for this thread.

Growing up "in the church" means nothing. And, much of the rest of that paragraph is nearly impossible to follow. What I said stands.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Leviticus 11:9-12:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

#godhatesshrimp

 

[5MilesBack]

Leviticus 11:9-12:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

#godhatesshrimp

See post #152.

 

[tipsntails7]

WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

Growing up "in the church" means nothing. And, much of the rest of that paragraph is nearly impossible to follow. What I said stands.

Edit to cut the BS

 

[jmden]

Apparently it is you who is the ignorant one then??

Good hunting, God bless

Pretty hard not to be when you won't or can't explain yourself adequately, unfortunately. Funny, this is not the first time I've ran into this issue on this thread with someone who has the opposite viewpoint and essentially refuses to explain themselves but instead wants us to decode their narrative.

Good grief, airlock. Thanks for the contribution again...!

 

[tipsntails7]

Pretty hard not to be when you won't or can't explain yourself adequately, unfortunately. Funny, this is not the first time I've ran into this issue on this thread with someone who has the opposite viewpoint and essentially refuses to explain themselves but instead wants us to decode their narrative.

Good grief, airlock. Thanks for the contribution again...!

This is the last post on this, you comment on my ignorance, I assumed you didn't need me to spell everything out like airlock did, apparently I was incorrect.

At this point I don't know where to go, I assumed you called me ignorant because of what I said based on not eating shellfish, bear and pigs, because people have the belief that in the New Testament unclean animals are made clean. There are numerous passages people site. Including a passage in Acts that Peter has a vision that God tells him to kill and eat, yet there are unclean animals presented.

So at this point explain how I am ignorant about the bible when I'm the one explaining it?

Either way I'm done, this conversation is about as useful as tits on a boar....