WA the new front in Wolf Wars

Dave Workman

Messages
3,360
Reactions
2,902
You guys need to know this

Evergreen State hunting activists are sounding the alarm in the wake of Saturday’s Fish & Wildlife Commission discussion in Olympia on the revised wolf management plan.


<broken link removed>
 

ZigZagZeke

Messages
5,078
Reactions
11,779
<broken link removed> is what we are up against. Wolves that have no fear and the insane idiots who worship them.

I had a friend who lived in Darby. He was a long time houndsman who gave up hunting because he could not run his hounds without risking their lives and his own due to the wolves. Hunting dogs are killed there by wolves routinely these days. He gave up a line of hounds he'd been breeding for 40 years. He has since moved to the east coast.
 
Last edited:
OP
Dave Workman

Dave Workman

Messages
3,360
Reactions
2,902
Washington’s wolf war heating up fast


The “Wolf War” in Washington State is heating up faster than the temperature over the weekend, with comments from a leading wolf advocate and veteran liberal Seattle P-I.com columnist Joel Connelly adding fuel to the political fire.

<broken link removed>
 
OP
Dave Workman

Dave Workman

Messages
3,360
Reactions
2,902
Controversial wildlife biologist calls WA wolf plan ‘disgusting’

A retired wildlife biologist who spent 30 years with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and whose career was ended when he blew the whistle on misallocation of federal wildlife funds by the Clinton administration, has called Washington State’s draft wolf management plan “disgusting.”

<broken link removed>
 

ZigZagZeke

Messages
5,078
Reactions
11,779
You'll find that many wildlife biologists find predator control unnessesary and disgusting, atleast those not on a private ranches payroll. Have wolves begun to prey on humans now or something?
You ought to check that out with the families of Alaska school teacher Candice Berner, who was killed by wolves last year, and University of Waterloo student Kenton Joel Carnegie, who was killed by wolves in northern Saskatchewan in November 2005.
 
Messages
12
Reactions
2
You ought to check that out with the families of Alaska school teacher Candice Berner, who was killed by wolves last year, and University of Waterloo student Kenton Joel Carnegie, who was killed by wolves in northern Saskatchewan in November 2005.
So one person in recent history? Thats less than poodles. Actually, that would make them a complete non-threat.
 
OP
Dave Workman

Dave Workman

Messages
3,360
Reactions
2,902
Zeke:

If you are going to plagiarize me, be a bit more clever, eh? ;)

from my column:

Perhaps Connelly and author Lopez ought to check that out with the families of Alaska school teacher Candice Berner, who was killed by wolves last year, and University of Waterloo student Kenton Joel Carnegie, who was killed by wolves in northern Saskatchewan in November 2005.
 
Messages
12
Reactions
2
What we're discussing here, SD, is not frequency, but that it has happened at all when the wolf advocates insist that their canine buddies don't attack humans.
I would have to agree. ONE occurance doesnt mean "wolves attack humans". It means a wolf attacked somebody. The fact is that they should have killed thousands of us by now since we live in close proximity to eachother. Its almost unnatural that they dont.
The real question here is...Why only once? Wolves are capable of taking down human prey, why would they avoid us like we're made of turds?
 
OP
Dave Workman

Dave Workman

Messages
3,360
Reactions
2,902
I would have to agree. ONE occurance doesnt mean "wolves attack humans". It means a wolf attacked somebody. The fact is that they should have killed thousands of us by now since we live in close proximity to eachother. Its almost unnatural that they dont.
The real question here is...Why only once? Wolves are capable of taking down human prey, why would they avoid us like we're made of turds?

Knock it off.

We're NOT talking about ONE wolf fatality and you know it. Why you keep up this "one" thing is a mystery, unless you are deliberately attempting to foment a myth.
The column mentions two fatalities in North America in recent history, something that the Never-Cry-Wolf types insist has "never" happened.
There are anecdotal reports of other wolf attacks here: WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS

and there are reports of attacks in Asia and Eastern Europe.
 

Spitpatch

Messages
2,505
Reactions
2,460
I wouldn't suggest we all join hands for Kumbaya, but I think everyone can agree that wolf attacks on humans are very unusual. I also don't think that wolf attacks on humans (even if they were slightly more frequent) are a very good argument for why wolves need to be carefully and strictly controlled. The reason wolves need to be carefully and strictly controlled is the same reason the early settlers found it absolutely necessary: Human activity (including agriculture---read livestock) simply cannot be conducted sucessfully if wolf populations are not carefully and strictly controlled. Wolves allowed to populate without careful and strict control would prohibit cattle and sheep ranching, chicken and turkey farms (of the free-range type of course), horse ownership, pet ownership, and as has already happened in some areas recently, completely destroy an economic base and jobs centered on the hunting industry. And, yes, finally, but in truth a statistical minority, such uncontrolled wolf populations would prohibit allowing children alone and unarmed in such areas, and even adults. The wolves were eradicated for some of the same reasons the beaver were (and beaver attacks on humans are REALLY not an issue): Vigorous and constructive human activity is completely incompatible with having these critters populate and occupy as they will: they destroy things humans need. For the wolf, on rare occasions it is a human.
 
OP
Dave Workman

Dave Workman

Messages
3,360
Reactions
2,902
I wouldn't suggest we all join hands for Kumbaya, but I think everyone can agree that wolf attacks on humans are very unusual. I also don't think that wolf attacks on humans (even if they were slightly more frequent) are a very good argument for why wolves need to be carefully and strictly controlled. The reason wolves need to be carefully and strictly controlled is the same reason the early settlers found it absolutely necessary: Human activity (including agriculture---read livestock) simply cannot be conducted sucessfully if wolf populations are not carefully and strictly controlled. Wolves allowed to populate without careful and strict control would prohibit cattle and sheep ranching, chicken and turkey farms (of the free-range type of course), horse ownership, pet ownership, and as has already happened in some areas recently, completely destroy an economic base and jobs centered on the hunting industry. And, yes, finally, but in truth a statistical minority, such uncontrolled wolf populations would prohibit allowing children alone and unarmed in such areas, and even adults. The wolves were eradicated for some of the same reasons the beaver were (and beaver attacks on humans are REALLY not an issue): Vigorous and constructive human activity is completely incompatible with having these critters populate and occupy as they will: they destroy things humans need. For the wolf, on rare occasions it is a human.

Finally, someone gets it. Nicely done.
I've never maintained or even suggested killing wolves because of the potential for human attack. It would be too much like poushing a ban on semi-auto firearms because somebody might use one on people at some future date. Same mentality.

The problem many have with extremist wolf advocates is that they tend to absolutely deny any wolf attacks, much less fatalities, until confronted with the facts. One cannot live in such denial and retain one's credibility.
 
Messages
135
Reactions
4
Oh how short some individuals memory is. Just because the wolf/bear/elk/buffalo is pretty its not a good idea to pet it.

Once I went to Yellowstone WY, and the grandparents suddenly stopped. A couple elk were by the road and as we sat inside the car watching more cars pulled over and a crowd of japanese men gathered. One japanese man braver than the rest (of course this is a relitive statement for the 10 or so men had walked up to the elk) walked the last 30 feet and put his hand on the elk (with trophy rack and a nice bull). I remember he took about 2-3 shakes before he was thrown off the antlers.

We started the car and took off horrified. Never talked about that until now. Not jsut wolves are worriesome.

Recently as in last year wolves in my home reservation Ft Hall ID had a prize bag for a rampant wolf tearing through the ranches and farms. New truck, Scoped rifle, and 15,000 were all assembled by the community. My family took a couple shots but missed. One member of the tribe is sporting a great truck with a new rifle in the gun rack and paid off the credit cards.

We are also having issues with cougar, bear, deer, elk, moose, and coyotes. Why must some furrie lovers insist on idolizing a dangerous encounter?...

Take bear idiot. Had the movie about him?... hid from Fish and Game presonell and made videos of him totally unarmed with bears. Filmed his consumer. His EXgirlfriend (she was scared to death and was going to leave him upon return for being stupid) fought for 20 mins for his body. WITH A FRYING PAN!!!!

Real hero?.... THE EX GF! Even unarmed she attacked with a frying pan. What a girl she should have been a marine! The only thing in my mind the human race lost was her genes! RIP bear idiots exgf. Great battle you wont be forgotten easily.
 

Spitpatch

Messages
2,505
Reactions
2,460
Thanks Dave. Guess I did that better than I initially thought. I would also add that the argument (concerning wolf attacks on humans) is not entirely worthless toward our goal: The chance that while playing Pokemon in the yard, Jeremy and Melissa's cherubic faces might be on their way to becoming a less tame version of what you and I scoop up before we mow the lawn on Saturday morning is exactly the only argument a Soccer Mom might listen to. It is a statistical remote, even if wolves ran rampant, but emotions and propaganda very often drive the decisions (and votes) of certain segments of our society. The facts, truths, and realities are on our side, but occasionally "that don't cut it", and ya gotta pull an ace.
 
Messages
12
Reactions
2
This blows my mind. Do you guys actually look at the numbers of wolf attacks/ livestock take and compare them to other MUCH more common causes? How about this, give me a reason why wolves should be killed, and I will show you your fears are unsupported. I mean, WHite Tail deer kill people WAY more often than wolves do (yes, from attacks) and nobofy is suggesting they be removed from certian areas. But yes, voice yoru concerns, lets find out if its BS.
 

Spitpatch

Messages
2,505
Reactions
2,460
The stipulation has already been made, and agreed with from those who want wolves controlled, that wolf attacks on humans is not the reason for control (and a VERY rare occurrence). Re-read the posts, and you will see all agree on this. Your concentration on this remote item distracts you from the opportunity to make a good argument. Again: the reason wolves need to be strictly controlled is because they destroy things humans need. A beef rancher's fears that his livelihood can be destroyed by unchecked wolf populations are far from unsupported (but you may try if you like). The citizens of Gardiner and Lincoln, Montana fears that their entire economy can (and in fact have been) destroyed by wolves is also far from unsupported, but you can try if you like. I would suggest you go to these communities and make note of the storefronts boarded up, and when you are done, apply for a job. For best effect, apply for a job in the formerly burgeoning wilderness and hunting guide business. Hub of the economies in these communities, and now it is devastated. Report back here with your result, and show that the fears are unsupported.
 
Messages
12
Reactions
2
The stipulation has already been made, and agreed with from those who want wolves controlled, that wolf attacks on humans is not the reason for control (and a VERY rare occurrence). Re-read the posts, and you will see all agree on this. Your concentration on this remote item distracts you from the opportunity to make a good argument. Again: the reason wolves need to be strictly controlled is because they destroy things humans need. A beef rancher's fears that his livelihood can be destroyed by unchecked wolf populations are far from unsupported (but you may try if you like). The citizens of Gardiner and Lincoln, Montana fears that their entire economy can (and in fact have been) destroyed by wolves is also far from unsupported, but you can try if you like. I would suggest you go to these communities and make note of the storefronts boarded up, and when you are done, apply for a job. For best effect, apply for a job in the formerly burgeoning wilderness and hunting guide business. Hub of the economies in these communities, and now it is devastated. Report back here with your result, and show that the fears are unsupported.
All from wolves huh? Destroying entire towns...wow. Sounds like BS. Some reason you didnt post a link to an unbiased source? Cattle dont seem like a likely prey for wolves, much less one they would exploit to the point of putting ranchers out of buisiness. That would take a LOT of wolves. Oh wait, heres the info- Some interesting facts like:

# Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005.
# Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle than wolves killed that year.
# Domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005.

So yes, I find that the reasons are unsupported by reality. People just want to shoot wolves for some reason and jump at the prospect of being able to justify the activity. I dont know why, perhaps you can explain it to me. Predator control should really be done away with completely. healthy predators mean a healthy ecosystem, and if they were capable of destroying game populations it would have happened long long ago.
Sources:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2006. Cattle Death Loss.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2006. Sheep and Goats Death Loss.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Wyoming Field Office.Cattle Losses to All Causes. 2006.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Wyoming Field Office.2006.Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 2006.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Montana Field Office.2006.Montana Agricultural Statistics 2006
 

UPCOMING EVENTS

Free Firearms Safety Course (I-1639 Compliant)
Virtual Webinar (Zoom). Registration Link in the course description.
Seattle, WA, USA
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Gun Show
Battleground Community Center
912 E Main St, Battle Ground, WA 98604, USA
Rimfire Challenge Dec 12th @ DRRC
Douglas Ridge Rifle Club
27787 OR-224, Eagle Creek, OR 97022, USA

LATEST RESOURCE REVIEWS

  • Sportsman's Warehouse - Albany
    5.00 star(s)
    Good products at good prices with friendly and knowledgeable staff!
    We like to visit the Albany location as it's closer but have been to several others and they have all been great!:D
  • Umpqua Survival
    4.00 star(s)
    Easy NFA transfer
    I had a silencer transferred through their shop. The paperwork was quick and the staff helpful and friendly. Whilst waiting, I did see a nice...
  • MK Tactical
    5.00 star(s)
    Awesome staff
    Being new to the area and having just made an online purchase of an AR lower, I opted to use MK Tactical as my FFL, without knowing anything about...
  • J&B Firearm Sales
    5.00 star(s)
    Good local shop
    Picked up a rifle yesterday from J&B. This was the second or third gun purchase over the last few years from them. I always enjoy stopping by...
  • H&K Gun Shop
    5.00 star(s)
    The only place I have found 9mm in stock
    I’ll admit I didn’t even know this place existed, as I don’t tend to go into Forest Grove often. But it’s a giant (looks bigger from the...
Top Bottom