collapse

Author Topic: Officials confirm gray wolf in Skagit  (Read 1300 times)

Offline wints13

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Elk Camp, WA

Online Boss .300 winmag

  • Best Biggie Blogger
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 10079
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • DAN-O CAN'T TAKE BIGGIE PICS
Re: Officials confirm gray wolf in Skagit
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2017, 10:47:55 AM »
First one confirmed on the west side of cascades, yea right, what about the one ran over on I-90 by Nortbend.  :chuckle:
"Just because I like granola, and I have stretched my arms around a few trees, doesn't mean I'm a tree hugger!
Hi I'm 8156, our leader is Bearpaw.
YOU CANNOT REASON WITH A TIGER WHEN YOUR HEAD IS IN ITS MOUTH! Winston Churchill

Keep Calm And Duc On!

Offline boneaddict

  • Site Sponsor
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 42896
  • Location: Selah, Washington
Re: Officials confirm gray wolf in Skagit
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2017, 10:51:24 AM »
Kind of hard to take them seriously isn't it
My website.....DDK Photography
http://ddkphotography.pixels.com

Offline pianoman9701

  • Mushroom Man
  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 27893
  • Location: Vancouver USA
  • NRA Life, MH, WFW, CCRKBA, NAGR, RMEF, WSB
Re: Officials confirm gray wolf in Skagit
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2017, 06:24:34 AM »
 :yeah: They're completely void of credibility. Their projections were off, impacts were off, the components of the plan are almost impossible to meet.
"Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals and madmen will have no positive effect on the future acts of criminals and madmen. It will only serve to reduce individual rights and the very security of our republic." - Pianoman

Offline ghosthunter

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 5025
  • Location: Mount Vernon WA
Re: Officials confirm gray wolf in Skagit
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2017, 07:36:55 AM »
Now we know why ,to much fooling around down there in Dome Town.
GHOST CAMP "We Came To Hunt"
Proud Parent of A United States Marine

We are all traveling from Birth to the Packing House. ( Broken Trail)

Online wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 5692
Re: Officials confirm gray wolf in Skagit
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2017, 08:52:36 AM »
:yeah: They're completely void of credibility. Their projections were off, impacts were off, the components of the plan are almost impossible to meet.

WDF&wolves knew the outcome when they came out with their BS wolf plan, wolves don't change when they cross state lines.


WOLF IMPACTS

Wolf impacts underestimated

According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grossly underestimated the impact of a reintroduced population of wolves.

• The wolf population in the Greater Yellowstone area in 2005 was at least 3.3 times the original environmental impact statement prediction for a recovered population.
• The number of breeding pairs of wolves in the GYA in 2005 was at least twice as high as the original EIS prediction and the number of breeding pairs in 2004 was at least 3.1 times the original EIS prediction.
• In 2005, the wolf population in Wyoming outside Yellowstone National Park exceeded the recovery criteria for the entire region and continues to increase rapidly.
• The estimated annual predation rate (22 ungulates per wolf) is 1.8 times the annual predation rate (12 ungulates per wolf) predicted in the EIS.
• The estimated number of ungulates taken by 325 wolves in a year (7,150) is six times higher than the original EIS prediction.
• The percent of the northern Yellowstone elk harvest during the 1980s currently taken by wolves (50 percent) is 6.3 times the original estimate of eight percent projected in the EIS.
• The actual decline in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (more than 50 percent) is 1.7 times the maximum decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in cow harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd (89 percent) is 3.3 times the decline originally forecast in the EIS.
• The actual decline in bull harvest in the northern Yellowstone elk herd is 75 percent, whereas the 1994 EIS predicted bull harvests would be “unaffected.”
• Since wolf introduction, average ratios of calf elk to cow elk have been greatly \depressed in the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Wyoming elk herds impacted by wolves. In the northern Yellowstone elk herd and in the Sunlight unit of the Clarks Fork herd, calf:cow rations have been suppressed to unprecedented levels below 15 calves per 100. The impact of wolves on calf recruitment was not addressed by the 1994 EIS.

WG&F stated: “Despite research findings in Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, and monitoring evidence in Wyoming that indicate wolf predation is having an impact on ungulate populations that will reduce hunter opportunity if the current impact levels persist, the Service continues to rigidly deny wolf predation is a problem.”

The 1994 EIS predicted that presence of wolves would result in a 5-10 percent increase in annual visitation to Yellowstone National Park. On this basis, the EIS forecast wolves in the region would generate $20 million in revenue to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. WG&F reports that annual park visitation remained essentially unchanged after wolf introduction, and has decreased 2.6 percent since the wolf population reached recovery goals in 2000.

“ Since park visitation did not increase as originally forecast, the Service cannot legitimately conclude presence of wolves has had any appreciable effect on net tourism revenues,” WG&F stated.

WG&F stated: “Wolf presence can be ecologically compatible in the GYA only to the extent that the distribution and numbers of wolves are controlled and maintained at approximately the levels originally predicted by the 1994 EIS –100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs.” WG&F maintained that FWS “has a permanent, legal obligation to manage wolves at the levels on which the wolf recovery program was originally predicated, the levels described by the impact analysis in the 1994 EIS.”

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/wolfimpacts.htm

 
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

* Recent Topics

WTS - Browning Western Hunter(blued) 6.5 Creedmoor w/rings by JeffRaines
[Today at 06:59:52 PM]


WTS - Christensen Arms Mesa 6.5 CM - $900 by versydus
[Today at 06:55:39 PM]


FREE TICKETS TO THE FALLEN OUTDOORS BANQUET!! Last call by Russ McDonald
[Today at 06:52:25 PM]


Remington Ultimate Muzzleloader Help by Brushcrawler
[Today at 06:50:44 PM]


Disabling camera by HoofsandWings
[Today at 06:49:26 PM]


Tribal wolf hunt by cbond3318
[Today at 06:46:08 PM]


2018 seems very lean by andrebeergog
[Today at 06:41:55 PM]


Hikers: Stop Hating on Hunters by shallowforks
[Today at 06:40:44 PM]


.260 Rem model 700 by davis5
[Today at 06:39:19 PM]


blacktail deer pre-rut by acc
[Today at 06:37:55 PM]


USFS, USFWS, DNR and WDF$Wolves Hidden Agenda? by wolfbait
[Today at 06:36:54 PM]


Should this be reported?! by Curly
[Today at 06:30:43 PM]


2018, ELK, Post them here! by Whitenuckles
[Today at 06:27:23 PM]


Conflict Goat Tag by Timberstalker
[Today at 06:25:53 PM]


Buying whitetail shed antler by Outdoorskindaguy
[Today at 06:24:02 PM]


Successful hunt with no deer haha by onmygame
[Today at 06:14:44 PM]


Elk in the low 100's GMUs... by babarbaird
[Today at 06:09:14 PM]


Lake Helen hunting? by onmygame
[Today at 06:05:13 PM]


Big buck! by blackveltbowhunter
[Today at 05:59:26 PM]


Bethel muzzy spike. Wheres the elk? by MAVsled
[Today at 05:31:37 PM]