Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Wolves only kill what they can eat?

I use info from all sources that I can.. MOst of the things I've learned about western wolves has come from the governments of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Canada, and US. I've gathered a pretty good library. I think info from all sources can be useful.

In your post, you first write: "He uses that information and relates it to all other ecosystems. Not a great way to manage resources."

You then write: "We can gain perspective and information from other sources,.."

They see like conflicting statements.

From working in the US Fish and Wildlife, I wouldn't put alot of credence in just a library or from the govenment.

A little real life work amongst the Western Wolves may go along way in changing your perspective.

Sorry DPole

ddj

Well, you seemed to do well once. Back to not answering questions and trying to discredit. I didn't write "just a library." You made that up. I get much of my info from "real-life" workers like game managers who work with wolves and other game animals in the western states. One doesn't have to be there. You are implying that I have no access to that info; making crap up again. Oh well, another guy with no argument.

I know more about trout than you do too.

[quote=walkingman]Suzanne Stone with Defenders of Wildlife added that in the 20 years she's been working toward ensuring healthy wolf populations, this is the first time she's heard of such a mass killing.

"I've heard of bears or mountain lions doing that, but what usually happens is the sheep panic and jump on top of one another or fall into a ditch and suffocate," Stone said. "I've never heard of any situation where wolves killed so much livestock in such a short period of time.

Well, with her head stuck where it evidently is, it's probably kind of hard to hear. Dpole must be in there with her.

Here's the admission folks he's all part of the whole dam thing. LOL you sux Dmouth.

Dang it Dpole, you get more and more non-credible with every post. You and I have had our talks back and forth granted, but you continue to recklessly lose value in your comments on the post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but any of us could sing about "I've done this and I've done that so that means I know what I'm talking about" crap. Come on man, you have no factual information that backs what you claim...let alone the position that you take on working in the field you've claimed for all those years...which quite frankly means nothing to the majority of posters on this site. Heck, any of us could use Google or Wikipedia to research anti-wolf hunting propaganda.

Hopefully I speak for the audience on this post, but how about you post in general terms on your beliefs and not try to get wolf hunters converted to your side with all the scientific BS that means absolutely JACK [bleep] to wolf hunters here. Try bringing honey instead of vinegar. Should you not heed my words, you will find a lot of members putting your A$$ on ignore. You will only then be talking to yourself. But then again, maybe that's the audience you prefer.

My question to the "wolf hugger" camp is why should wolves receive treatment any different from coyotes. Both are master predators with the main difference being that wolves are much larger and probably a little smarter. Both should be shot on sight.

Hollywood propaganda, them wolves are kinda special, magical donchano, and gezzzz the public/idiots buy it.

I think the public in general seem to have a lot more common sense back in the day.
To much "save the Planet", greenie, tolerance BS floating around. After Pet Rock's I am convinced if marketed right, the public will buy anything. Look what we have in the White House now. He was "sold/marketed" and the fools that they are, they bought.
"Save the Wolf" mentality is exactly the same, in many ways

What claim is that? Pick something I've written and argue against it. Prove its wrong. What "anti-wolf hunting propaganda" have I posted. You are a liar.



It would be much easier if you just didn't make up "my beliefs."



Yeah, thats alway really scary. I think its time that you actually ponied up and argued a point validly. You should actually pick something I've written and argue against it, not make up sht that you think I believe. Science is all BS to you. Its not like I'm surprised.

Stop acting like a prick and actually argue a point, instead of posting dribble, trying to discredit me with false accusations. State YOUR positions; don't make up mine. You new guys try so hard. Its pretty funny.

Guys, you will never win with D;Pole. He some how is, was, or thinks he is a politician. I feel as if he is a professional debater.....


But good luck if you so try...

Just remember, what ever you are for, he is against, and vise versa�

Later..

Just my two cents�

Easy to win.
***YOU are ignoring this user***
Works great!

Wrong again! If you guys would just stick to the subject, and stay off the personal attacks, false accusations, and false claims of my positions, you might just have a good point once in a while. Almost all of the argument from me is simply to dismiss false accusations about me. A woman one told me: "I know more about you than you do about yourself!" It was pretty funny. She was as full of crap as some of you fellers.

I'm not and never have been a politician. I don't "think" I'm a politician. I am a horse-sht debator, but its easy when one sticks to the facts and politely explains differences. I am a biologist and am very familiar with the science behind wildlife management. I don't try to "win." My posts are not to "win" anything. I simply want to discuss wolf behavior, management, etc. That's why I answer questions honestly that are posed to me. That's why I deny false accusations. I see no reason to allow guys like Bringit... (an admitted criminal, threatener of violence, vandal, new guy, ignorant, and now from his own mouth speaker for the forum and speaker for western peoples) to define me. He has no clue. My detractors won't answer a question that might prove my position correct because they "are trying to win"; apparently against the hated "greenies" of the world. So they ignore what they don't want to hear. The dirtbag criminals, especially, are so predicatable! After they become befuddled, with no argument other than name-calling and lying, they put me on "ignore." That is so weak. They were ignoring what I wrote anyway, so I don't see the difference. Hide and "see no evil." Who the hell needs a button to ignore others anyway? I've never used that "ignore list" function. I'm able to simply not read a post that I know will be useless. I've ignored several on this thread. Some of you should try that. If you have nothing useful to add, just don't respond.

I'm not against everything "you are for." Here's proof: I am for hunting wolves. I've stated it many times but it is ignored. I've killed two wolves in Canadania by calling them in. I've even shot three wolves in my back yard with a Daisy Red Ryder! How many of you hotshot wolf-haters can claim that?
I didn't have the Daisy, but I hollered at and "kicked" a wolf out of my yard just last week. Some of you just hate the fact that I have lots of wolf experience and knowledge of wolves from around the world. So you invent something else. I'd love to have serious discussions about wolves, how to hunt them, how to locate packs, etc.. But its probably for the best that I don't teach any wolf-haters how to hunt wolves.

Here is more proof you are wrong: You see, Walkingman brought up a good point that there is so much turnover of members and other pack disruptions already that the notion may have little additional affect on depredation. I tend to agree with that, and found his assertion valuable, although I still see my notion as valid, although perhaps not a major factor of the depredation equation. So you see, in that case and in the way you think, he "won." I prefer to think of it in another way: I "won." I won because I'm learning as a result of his comment. I think the reason some got so worked up about the notion is that the "evil DOW woman" mentioned it too; and of course, she could never be right about anything; not the hated DOW woman! Anyway, he started me thinking more about it and I've been researching the subject more; learning about things like how long the average alpha pair "controls" a pack in the west, what the "turnover is", how disruptions affect behavior, etc. There is a lot of info about it. But you guys would prefer to imagine that I'm a greenie trying to find reasons not to hunt, and whatever other BS you are dreaming up. And of course, some of you believe that science is BS, anyone from out of state is uninformed, state and federal agency studies and reports are all lies, etc.

No wonder some are hiding behind the "ignore list."

Gotta get back to shingling the house. I figure it to be almost 15,000 nails, a lot of nails. That should give the low-life types time to think up some more lies. Have at it.

DPole -

I appreciate your honesty about your knowledge when it comes to wolves and wolf behavior. You can't compare the wolves of the Northern Boreal Forests to the wolves of the Northern Rockies. That was one of the major flaw in the inital studies in favor of reintrodction. The two habitats are different. In Northern Minnesota and Canada, you have huge blocks of contiguous forest. In the Rockies, it is a patchwork of mixed habitat which aloow higher predation. It is also what makes the western states great of grazing and ranching as compared to Minnesota. This allows more compensation to ranches for depredation.

Sorry Again DPole,

ddj

Dpole, if you had not just said "I am for hunting wolves. I've stated it many times but it is ignored. "
I would have still believed you to be anti hunt...
Your posts are long winded, and have no commitment to them. Way to much information, leading your reader back and forth over the fence, till you lose them. At times you even seem to be an old school marm, standing over your student with a yard stick ready to strike.
You may be a very intelligent individual, but you need to shorten you posts and get to the point.
Stop calling every one a criminal. Let their actions, and the law decide.

There may be an apology in there some were in this post, but like your posts, I will let you try and find it.

I know I am not arguing against any of DPole's points and I apologize to him for that, but I just want everyone to understand a good piece of advice an old professor told me.

"Those who can't do teach".

Get a piece of paper saying that you read some books about animals in college and you are a global expert.


I think everyone on here is agreeing that the wolves need to be managed. I think everyone also agrees that every area needs to be managed to a different level and with a different approach. I don't think even "biologists" can concretely say the perfect formula....especially throwing in emotions, politics, etc which will always be part of the discussion.

So obviously "kill them all" approach won't work and neither will "wolf hugging". So to DPole's just request, if anything we should try to have a respectful discussion about some ideas on how to improve the situation. Who knows? Maybe someone will read it that can actually "Do" something about it rather than "Teach".

Mauserkid,
D'Pole is not a professional debater, he is a Masterbater!

You can always count on a genius to come up with his best answer. Just Brilliant! Now if he could learn to spell.

Yeah..Wolves only kill what they eat...Graphic but the facts of life with wolves and there little killing spree's..What's not to like about a predator like this.So many examples exist of Wolves massacring livestock and game just for fun I guess, but now it is payback time in Idaho and Montana.

From Wyoming...







Jayco

On sheep suffocating ina ditch: The term "dumb as a sheep" is not without foudation so I guess it's possible!
I've noticed that many large predators, and indeed, scavengers, don't seem to like cattle. Even the turkey buzzards will choose a nice elk carcass evry time while a domestic cows rots away. Most bears will eat anything yet I've seen dead cows lay there all summer in an area full of bears. Strange.
In the North Thompson, black bears accounted for most cattle deaths. I don't recall a wolf kill but do recall a couple of cougar attempts. One rancher claimed to have lost 43 head to wolves but it turned out he had not gotten them in off the range and they got snowbound and died. Wolves did eat on them but there was no evidence they killed any. If they did, it made no difference in the tally since none would have survived the winter anyway.
I have seen cattle killed by coyotes when the condidtions were right (or wrong, if you're the cow!) but they never got the press that possible wolf kills did.
With hunting seasons in place, Montana and Idaho should be able to keep things well in hand. GD

This whole thread doesn't revolve around wolves any more than it revolves around DPole the troll, having a wonderful, fulfilling time with you guys who don't have him on ignore. I put him on ignore last year, and I'm much better off for having done it. He's a troll, and apparently a very good one, because you guys keep feeding him what he needs--attention.
This wolf controversy isn't important to him...it's a game he's playing with you...and you're letting him win.