OR 7

[tvguy]

OK. I get it. We have a 20% reduction in the herd size. I'm wondering how this matters. If left alone will it balance itself out naturally? Or is it because it affects the hunters and ranchers and their bottom line that matters more? If we banned hunting, what would the herd size change to? We are talking about the Elk herd and it's sustainability. Correct?

Ah Tia. You have achieved something here I would have thought unthinkable. You have made me (almost) believe in “Prophecy”. But I think prophecy is usually “a reasonably assumed outcome, arrived at by intelligence combined with experience”.

Twenty years ago, when the cougar ban (use of hounds to hunt them) came into being, my Father prophesized that eventually, when an increased predator population had reduced the deer and elk herds to pathetically low levels, it would be the HUNTER who would be blamed, and the call to ban hunting would be the solution. And you have, with this one post, begun the Prophecy. LOL, my Dad, the Prophet.

It amazes me, how some of you “self-described” intellectuals, can make such a convoluted statement, and make it sound so innocently reasonable. Seriously, kudos to you for that ability.

My dad never even thought about the re-introduction of Wolves, at that time, but I had a conversation with him today about this very subject. He reiterated his 20 year old belief, and proclaimed that the wolves would certainly accelerate that timetable. He also “prophesized” the next step in the game. Once “hunting” is turned in the new “cigarettes”, and despised and derided as an evil pox upon the earth, it would only follow that the need for the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed. I mean, because of course, that's why the Founders put it in there, right? To guarantee hunting rights..... Right? I think I will listen to this Prophet. He has been spot on for most of my life.

So to sum up, (in MY opinion) you have inserted the idea into this public venue, that when an environmental decision is made, and it has catastrophic 'unintended' consequences, the solution is NOT to correct the decision (or admit it was a bad idea), but instead to punish (and blame) others to correct the balance in nature.

You would crack me up, if I didn't find your perspective so dangerous.

You are wrong. I'm not assigning blame anywhere. I'm just asking questions to further my scope of the situation. I appreciate intelligent replies.

Wrong? I don't think so. Oh, I don't think you are part of some conspiracy and intentionally planting that seed. No. I realize that you are just a pawn.

The above shows my point exactly. You can't debate without fingerpointing and stereotyping. You have no idea what my views are.

Sorry but from where I sit your post to Tia was very condescending.

And finger pointing? That all you too Hugo what about this gem... It amazes me, how some of you “self-described” intellectuals, can make such a convoluted statement

I don't think Tia is a "self-described” intellectual" by any stretch of the imagination.
But that is EXACTLY what YOU are or who you come off.

[tvguy]

OK. I get it. We have a 20% reduction in the herd size. I'm wondering how this matters. If left alone will it balance itself out naturally? Or is it because it affects the hunters and ranchers and their bottom line that matters more? If we banned hunting, what would the herd size change to? We are talking about the Elk herd and it's sustainability. Correct?

I don't think it will balance out. It's at 20 % NOW. As far as I can see the wolf pacs are increasing and not leveling out to a sustainable number.

Now before you talk about "if we ban hunting" Maybe you need to remember where all the CASH comes from that we use to manage wildlife and it's habitat.
You might also think about the hunting industry as many jobs for human beings in areas that don't have much industrialization.

[tvguy]

Speaking of balance, I have read that Lewis and Clark took great notice of the abundance of wildlife, both game and non-game, in their exploratory mission to the Pacific Northwest. I have in fact read that said abundance of wildlife, particularly game animals, was a significant element in the desire and abilty to settle the west.
At that time, there were several apex, or near apex predators in the mix including native Americans, cougar, wolves, black bear and grizzly bear.
Given this balance was evidently quite satisfactory at the time, what has changed? What has created this imbalance?

Pretty sure you know the answer is human beings. LOTS of us.

Well I would say first it was trapping. And then followed by hunting. and then followed by an increased human population. And then followed by logging. and then ranching and farming and highways....

There is no way to change this and IMO for the most part Fish and Wildlife has done a good job.
Except for when their expertise is trumped by misguided hippie animal lovers. Who think there is something wrong with on of the most basic and natural things predators do.
Hunt and kill.

[Hugo]

What's ironic here, is that just because I come from a liberal standpoint in most things, doesn't mean my opinion can't be swayed by facts, or argument. Apparently true with TV in this case also. But pin holing people only sets people against each other. My guess is that because I raised the outlawing hunter question, it is then assumed that that must be my argument, and my point, when really it was just a question.

But I have already tried to give you facts, back on page one.

http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/inf...olves.html

[tvguy]

Wolf Pups For Sale - $300 (Wimer)
craigslist - Map data OpenStreetMap

(google map) (yahoo map)
Wolf pups, ready to go by the end of June, males and females available, first come first serve

[tvguy]

What's ironic here, is that just because I come from a liberal standpoint in most things, doesn't mean my opinion can't be swayed by facts, or argument. Apparently true with TV in this case also. But pin holing people only sets people against each other. My guess is that because I raised the outlawing hunter question, it is then assumed that that must be my argument, and my point, when really it was just a question.

But I have already tried to give you facts, back on page one.

http://rmefblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/inf...olves.html

Thanks. Tia THIS is why I have changed my opinion about introducing wolves is some places.

Statewide elk populations are irrelevant to impacts by wolves. When you talk about wolves, you must address areas where they live — not where they don’t. Elk numbers in the Missouri River Breaks of eastern Montana are unaffected by wolves as there are no wolves in that area; it is an apples to oranges comparison.

Since the reintroduction of wolves in the mid-1990s, the population of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd is down 80 percent from nearly 20,000 to less than 4,000 today.

[gapper]

Pretty sure you know the answer is human beings. LOTS of us.

Well I would say first it was trapping. And then followed by hunting. and then followed by an increased human population. And then followed by logging. and then ranching and farming and highways....

There is no way to change this and IMO for the most part Fish and Wildlife has done a good job.
Except for when their expertise is trumped by misguided hippie animal lovers. Who think there is something wrong with on of the most basic and natural things predators do.
Hunt and kill.

Well, now I'm confused. I thought it was those that you refer to as "by misguided hippie animal lovers." that are pushing for continued wolf protection and who lobbied for the reintroduction of wolves in the first place. It is the misguided redneck hunters that are pitching a fit about the wolves being here, because they fear the loss of opportunity to kill.

And yes, I knew the answer to my question. We have over populated ourselves, crapped in our nests over and over, and yet you and others seem to believe it the four legged animal predators that need to go away, to pacify the wants of the two legged predators.

That seems arrogant and selfish to me, but that is what the collective "we" in this country seem to represent time and again.

And BTW, the wolf population in Oregon is still quite low.

We need to let firmly reestablish and then manage them to try to recreate the balance we have fouled up so badly. Wolves, and all apex predators were put here for a reason, either through creation or evolution You decide which you want to believe, but the bottom line is they have a necessary function and we should embrace that, in my opinion.

[tvguy]

='gapper' pid='341289' dateline='1402349581']
. It is the misguided redneck hunters that are pitching a fit about the wolves being here, because they fear the loss of opportunity to kill.

"Kill" ? The way you reduce hunting to simply killing puts you in the same boat with your old buddy Ponder.
But it's something you try and hide but it slips out quite often..

And yes, I knew the answer to my question. We have over populated ourselves, crapped in our nests over and over, and yet you and others seem to believe it the four legged animal predators that need to go away, to pacify the wants of the two legged predators.

Over populated look around dude. This is OREGON

It's not so much the number of humans as it is the impact humans have with roads, logging and populating the valleys.

That seems arrogant and selfish to me, but that is what the collective "we" in this country seem to represent time and again.

Yeah it would be arrogant if what you said was actually true.

And BTW, the wolf population in Oregon is still quite low.

Well of course it is Oregon has maybe 30, Idaho has aprox 800 and in some places they are so out of control and killing so many game animals that wildlife officials have had to resort to shooting them from helicoptors.

Yeah I said wildlife officials, you know fish and game? Or in your opinion are they also redneck hunters that are pitching a fit about the wolves being here, because they fear the loss of opportunity to kill

We need to let firmly reestablish and then manage them to try to recreate the balance we have fouled up so badly. Wolves, and all apex predators were put here for a reason, either through creation or evolution You decide which you want to believe, but the bottom line is they have a necessary function and we should embrace that, in my opinion.

Every thing on earth has a necessary function. With the exact same logic you used above we should reintroduce grizzly bears.

I just can't get behind wolf reintroduction in Oregon when it's such a failure in Idaho.


Even with a hunting season designed to help control their numbers, Idaho wildlife officials are being forced to shoot wolves in an effort to protect the state's struggling elk herd.

From this story on spokesman.com:

Federal wildlife agents shot and killed 14 wolves from helicopters in Idaho’s remote Lolo Zone earlier this month. The three-day operation, aimed at reducing the number of wolves roaming the backcountry area where elk herds are struggling, was carried out in a partnership between the federal Wildlife Services agency and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Wildlife managers hope a sustained reduction in wolf numbers will allow the Lolo elk herd, which has been severely depressed since the mid 1990s, to rebound. “We’d like to see one of Idaho’s premier elk populations recover as much as possible,” said Jim Unsworth, deputy director of the department at Boise.

The department has long had a goal of reducing the number of wolves in the area along the upper Lochsa and North Fork Clearwater rivers, once renowned for its elk hunting.

The agency first sought permission in 2006 from federal wildlife managers to kill 40 to 50 wolves that at the time were still under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. The state failed to win permission then and eventually gave up in favor of seeking the overall delisting of wolves. Delisting occurred in 2009 and a wolf hunting season was authorized.

Hunters killed 13 wolves in the zone that year, far fewer than wildlife managers hoped for. Following the hunting season, wolves were briefly returned to federal management. They were delisted for a second time in the spring of 2011 and the department quickly approved a control action that resulted in six wolves being shot using helicopters. Hunting resumed in the fall and trapping started in November. Through Wednesday, hunters and trappers had taken 22 wolves from the Lolo, bringing the total known wolf kills there to 42 and in line with the department’s plan for the area.

[Valuesize]

[bbqboy]

Why do the elk herds deserve saving, other than giving you the pleasure of killing them?

[tvguy]

Why do the elk herds deserve saving, other than giving you the pleasure of killing them?

Number one you don't deserve an answer because you can't quote whomever you are trying to address.

Number two the question is so freaking stupid it doesn't deserve an answer.

Number three the words you choose the pleasure of killing Clearly shows you don't have a clue about hunting or what all it means to people.

[tvguy]

Gapper...We need to let firmly reestablish and then manage them to try to recreate the balance we have fouled up so badly. Wolves, and all apex predators were put here for a reason, either through creation or evolution You decide which you want to believe, but the bottom line is they have a necessary function and we should embrace that, in my opinion.

Has it occurred to you that not having wolves especially too many can actually HELP manage wildlife?
Of course apex predators were here for a reason. Is it too hard to imagine that in today's world that they are no longer needed?
WE don't have Grizzlies anymore. Is what wildlife we have suffering because of that?
What I mean is that we don't have a Natural self sustaining ecology like there was before man. And we never will.
So IMO it's quite possible that reintroducing wolves today just might not have any beneficial impact on the wildlife we are forced to manage and control.

[bbqboy]

Why do the elk herds deserve saving, other than giving you the pleasure of killing them?

Number one you don't deserve an answer because you can't quote whomever you are trying to address.

Number two the question is so freaking stupid it doesn't deserve an answer.

Number three the words you choose the pleasure of killing Clearly shows you don't have a clue about hunting or what all it means to people.

you don't run the forum, thank God.
In other words, hunting is something besides killing? Verifcation of your manhood?

[cletus1]

Why do the elk herds deserve saving, other than giving you the pleasure of killing them?

Number one you don't deserve an answer because you can't quote whomever you are trying to address.

Number two the question is so freaking stupid it doesn't deserve an answer.

Number three the words you choose the pleasure of killing Clearly shows you don't have a clue about hunting or what all it means to people.

I have a similars question to bbqboy's; are the wolves eating all of animals meant for humans?

I agree with you TVguy in that wildlife management is necessary now that humans have impacted everything. Still, is there no place wild animals can do what wild animals have always done. It's their wilderness more than it is ours. Why not eat steak and save some elk and deer for the wolves. You know what I mean dude? Share the planet.

[Hugo]

Why not eat steak and save some elk and deer for the wolves. You know what I mean dude? Share the planet.

I am certain you meant to say "beef" or "pork" instead of "steak".....?

[tvguy]

Why do the elk herds deserve saving, other than giving you the pleasure of killing them?

Number one you don't deserve an answer because you can't quote whomever you are trying to address.

Number two the question is so freaking stupid it doesn't deserve an answer.

Number three the words you choose the pleasure of killing Clearly shows you don't have a clue about hunting or what all it means to people.

you don't run the forum, thank God.
In other words, hunting is something besides killing? Verifcation of your manhood?

Now there's a verification that you can't spell


killing is part of hunting genius but that's not what you said.
Only someone totally ignorant would imply the killing part was a pleasure. And the "Verifcation of your manhood" is proof positive or your total dipshit ignorance on the subject.
No wonder Larry split.

[bbqboy]

So you don't get pleasure from killing? Why do it then? And I imagine Larry's headed to Las Vegas to support his patriot buddies. At their funerals.

[tvguy]

'cletus1'
I have a similars question to bbqboy's; are the wolves eating all of animals meant for humans?

Excellent point. WE too are animals and we are the top predator.. usually.

Cletus ..I agree with you TVguy in that wildlife management is necessary now that humans have impacted everything. Still, is there no place wild animals can do what wild animals have always done.

Yellowstone? Did you hear me talk about what the positive impact of Wolves was to the park?
I'm not sure what particular area would benefit from having wolves. It seems totally obvious that in some places (Idaho) they are far from being a benefit to anything.
If you look at Idaho it depends on the type of country and the food source for wolves.

[quote] It's their wilderness more than it is ours. Why not eat steak and save some elk and deer for the wolves. You know what I mean dude? Share the planet.

I'm all for it IF it works that way. I don't think it is working all that well where it's being tried and not well at all in some instances.

It's not like we need to "save the wolves" there are actually plenty of them now. Although they are still listed as endangered, fish and wildlife would like them removed from the list.

And it's not like we will get to see then roaming or we can dance with them like Lt. John Dunbar.

[tvguy]

So you don't get pleasure from killing? Why do it then? And I imagine Larry's headed to Las Vegas to support his patriot buddies. At their funerals.

Are you really this clueless about hunting? Well of course you are. And since you are.. why the hell am I even talking to you?

[Hugo]

So you don't get pleasure from killing? Why do it then? And I imagine Larry's headed to Las Vegas to support his patriot buddies. At their funerals.

Wow. To imply that ANYONE who EVER posted here might be associated with those White Supremist murdering freaks in ANY way, shows a complete disconnect from reality. To pull an old acronym out that SOME here will get, FUB.