collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves  (Read 71000 times)

Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3534
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #195 on: January 23, 2015, 06:34:23 PM »
One thing mentioned earlier worth repeating...de-listing does not mean hunting or other forms of lethal control starts the following day.  Wolves are still federally listed in western Washington, so we actually need 2 "de-listings" to occur.  Also, note that Idaho wolves were petitioned for delisting in 2002, it was not until 2009 that we were able to hunt them...then the hunting was shutdown and in 2011 we resumed.  Keep in mind that was IDAHO!!!  This is Washington.

This will be a long battle and will almost certainly be decided by voter initiative...take a look at the banning guns in the legislature thread where many agree that just a few extremists can do great harm and maybe some of my critics can understand why I cringe when I hear sportsmen make outlandish claims about wolves and wolf conspiracies.  Focusing on issues that are based on misinformation or distortions of accurate information are non-starters for non-hunting voters.  We have no need to resort to repeating articles and points from fringe groups that publish stuff all the time about the various conspiracies, ineptness of game agencies, cover-ups etc.  We have a several century track record of hunters funding and supporting wildlife conservation for the beneift of all wildlife, including predators as well as prey.  We have wildlife management agencies that are capable of conserving all species of wildlife.  Those are points that support lethal control of wolves that non-hunters need to hear.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline mfswallace

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Posts: 2653
  • Location: where I be
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #196 on: January 23, 2015, 08:07:17 PM »
One thing mentioned earlier worth repeating...de-listing does not mean hunting or other forms of lethal control starts the following day.  Wolves are still federally listed in western Washington, so we actually need 2 "de-listings" to occur.  Also, note that Idaho wolves were petitioned for delisting in 2002, it was not until 2009 that we were able to hunt them...then the hunting was shutdown and in 2011 we resumed.  Keep in mind that was IDAHO!!!  This is Washington.

This will be a long battle and will almost certainly be decided by voter initiative...take a look at the banning guns in the legislature thread where many agree that just a few extremists can do great harm and maybe some of my critics can understand why I cringe when I hear sportsmen make outlandish claims about wolves and wolf conspiracies.  Focusing on issues that are based on misinformation or distortions of accurate information are non-starters for non-hunting voters.  We have no need to resort to repeating articles and points from fringe groups that publish stuff all the time about the various conspiracies, ineptness of game agencies, cover-ups etc.  We have a several century track record of hunters funding and supporting wildlife conservation for the beneift of all wildlife, including predators as well as prey.  We have wildlife management agencies that are capable of conserving all species of wildlife.  Those are points that support lethal control of wolves that non-hunters need to hear.

You have been told there a a few hundred wolves in Washington by senior wdfw biologists, yet the last official count they put on the website is 53 and that was over a year ago. You have explained this 53 is actual wolves they have documented but the fact that these senior wdfw bio' s know there are actually a few hundred sound like the people you describe in bold above. I want to believe someone but when both sides aren't giving the best information they can it's hard  :dunno:

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9115
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #197 on: January 23, 2015, 08:28:48 PM »
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

Quote
Quote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.


In order to reach thier 15 BP according to the management goal it is going to increase numbers whether they are in one area or the entire state, this doesn't compute to you? Its simple to me and I don't get how others are not seeing this? If it took 1000 to reach 12 it is going to take another 500 minimum to reach 15 that = MORE WOLVES!
I'm finding it a hard pill to swallow that in your position you would advocate 1) for anymore and 2) to wish that the entire state should suffer the same consequence that the NE has.
Personally I hope they never reach their goal and furthermore had they chose the west side in the first place I wouldn't wish the destruction on my worst neighbor. Those who make the comments that they should plant them on the west side don't understand that we will never be able to control the numbers because it is even more dense than the NE. So the answer to this problem is to ruin the whole state? are we so self centered that we want everyone to suffer because our area has suffered? And how is this the fault of Westsider's? West side hunters didn't decide where to put them in the first place  :dunno:  hell I've heard more west side opposition to wolves not being anywhere in the state period so how does this comment even make any sense???  :dunno: I have never heard a westsider say "Yeah plant them in the East" But I've heard plenty of Eastsiders say "plant them on the west"  :bash:


In 2008 WDFW confirmed the first wolf pack in WA. M_ray do you know how many years people had been reporting wolves to WDFW before they finally had to confirm a pack? I know as early as 2003 wolves in Black pine basin were reported to WDFW. 2005-8, wolves from Bridge Creek to Gold Cr were being reported to WDFW. In fact I know a guy who actually gave a WDFW biologist wolf scat and hair, the biologist laughed it off saying he would put it with his sasquatch info..

It took several years before WDFW were finally forced to confirm a wolf pack, and that one wolf pack is the only one they will confirm, every wolf in the Okanogan is part of the Lookout pack.

The west side already has wolves, and like the east side, WDFW will not confirm a wolf pack until they are forced to do so. So while you are telling us how you don't want any wolves, WDFW are laughing their arse off.

If some bps were collared and relocated from the east side to the west side at least there would be documentation of these soon to be wolf packs with pups, as it is WDFW are just going to play the waiting game until they have to come out and confirm the "first wolf pack" in 70 years on the W-side, you folks are going to go  through the same lying crap that the east side is going through.

A Wildlife commission that stacked the wolf working group with pro-wolfers and gave us the crappy wolf plan.
 WDFW refusing to confirm wolf packs and breeding pairs unless forced to do so, do to livestock predation by wolves.
WDFW's condescending attitude at wolf meetings. Refusal to answer questions.
 The public comment period when drafting our current wolf plan.
 Refusal of cattlemen money to fund a WDFW trapper and bio ride along.
 CNW sitting on the Commission.
 WDFW repeatedly denying wolf depredation.
 WDFW denying wolf even exist in an area.
 WDFW forcing their own field officers to phone Olympia for permission to say "yes, a wolf killed this calf"
 WDFW pulling authorization from local LE to determine wolf depredation.
 WDFW's acceptance of monies from NGO's who support the wolf agenda but disallow monies from pro-management NGO's.


Maybe you trust that WDFW are honest and would confirm wolf packs on the W-side.

At any rate I don't think there is anyone that would wish these wolves on any part of WA. Some of us have gotten to witness their destruction of wildlife and WDFW BS lies when it come to confirming wolf killed livestock. What we would like to see is some honesty from WDFW.



Wolf pack could be coming to the area, but no one knows when

YAKIMA, Wash. — While the population of resident wolves in Washington state has been growing, with four new packs established over the past year, wildlife experts know the next logical place for a new pack could well be in the forested Cascade foothills west of Yakima.

But it isn’t there yet, say state wildlife experts.

“We’re continuing to keep our eyes on the area south of I-90 and west of Yakima,” said Scott Becker, wolf biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “It’s the next area that’s probably going to be populated by wolves at some point in the future.

“But we can’t predict when that’s going to be.”

One would think it’s already happening based on the frequency of anecdotal reports, rumors and sightings of animals that may be wolves — but probably aren’t.

“There’s lots of reports that come in west of Yakima, and a lot of them may turn out to be coyotes or, as in the case earlier this year, a Cascade fox or those types of things,” Becker said. “We haven’t been able to confirm anything. We’ve conducted surveys and there’s thousands of cameras out there as well, and we’ve got nothing solid.

“That doesn’t mean there’s nothing there.”

One thing that is there — and may be slowing wolf expansion into this part of the state — is an already plentiful population of cougars. The big cats, drawn to the same sort of ungulate prey that attracts wolves, have long been well-established on the Central Washington landscape, and are apparently willing to defend their territory against the region’s newest predator — or eat it.

Earlier this month, a cougar killed and partially devoured a radio-collared wolf north of Ellensburg, a year after another collared Washington wolf had been killed by a cougar. This month’s victim was a young male, almost 3 years old, that was believed to be dispersed from the Teanaway pack.

“A lone wolf doesn’t stand a chance against a lion,” Becker said. “A lion’s a pure predator. If you have a pack of wolves, that’s a different story — in that case, I think the lion’s going to run away. But (against) a single wolf, or even two, a lion would be able to hold its own in just about any situation.

“And (cougars killing wolves) may happen more than we know, because those two (fatalities) just happened to be wolves that had radio collars on. Whether that’s happened to uncollared wolves, we don’t know.”

The Teanaway Pack, based in the Teanaway area of western Kittitas County, north and northeast of Cle Elum, is one of 13 packs in the state, based on the WDFW’s annual survey released 10 days ago. While that number counts four new packs, though, the state has only verified five successful breeding pairs and the total number of individual wolves in the survey, 52, constitutes an increase of just one wolf over the previous year’s count.

Three of the four new packs were formed by wolves that split off from the Smackout Pack in northeast Washington, according to WDFW state carnivore specialist Donny Martorello. The fourth new pack, though, the Wenatchee pack, might already be gone or might actually consist of Teanaway pack wolves that are on what biologists are calling “a walkabout.”

Since this time in 2013, when there were multiple photos and sightings of two wolves traveling together — the minimum requirements for a pack, according the state wolf management plan plan — the only evidence of the wolves was two trail-cam photographs captured over this past winter by a landowner in the Pitcher Canyon area southeast of Wenatchee.

“That was the only evidence we’ve had of that pack,” said Dave Volsen, a Wenatchee-based WDFW wildlife biologist. “When they appeared (in early 2013), they met all the requirements to be called a pack, and they’re still what we refer to as the Wenatchee pack in that area.

“But in reality, packs sometimes persist or do not persist. Conditions can change and their range can change, based on changes in the prey base and things like that.”

It’s been relatively easy for state officials to keep apprised of wolf activities in the northeast part of the state, with its relatively high density of wolves and livestock. But of the state’s 20 reported attacks on pets and livestock by wolves last year, WDFW officials determined that wolves were actually only involved in four of those attacks, resulting in one calf being killed and three dogs injured.

Those numbers constituted a significant drop from depredation in 2012, when Washington wolves killed at least seven calves and one sheep and injured another six calves and two sheep. Most of those attacks were attributed to the Wedge Pack, and the WDFW killed seven pack members that year. Two wolves from the Wedge, though, were still traveling as a pack in the same area in 2013.

A 2-year-old female from another northeast Washington pack, the Smackout pack in Stevens County, was shot and killed early last month. The WDFW, with support from three non-profit organizations, is offering a reard of up to $22,500 to find the person or persons responsible for its death.

But while wolves in that part of the state remain at the center of an emotional maelstrom, Central Washington’s wolves have “been fairly well-behaved,” without a single 2013 lifestock or wolf report involving the Teanaway pack.

That hasn’t stopped reports from coming in that wolves are, well, everywhere.

“Those reports are constant,” said Yakima-based WDFW biologist Jeff Bernatowicz. “Even along the I-5 corridor over by Seattle, they’re constant. Everywhere in the state you get reports of wolves. People see things.

“And, really, wolves aren’t very reclusive. They’re actually pretty bold. They like to run roads, and they howl. If there’s a pack, you’re going to know it. And it’s not going to be one report here and there, it’s going to be numerous reports.”

As for the occasional report of a set of wolf tracks — or what appears to be wolf tracks — Bernatowicz said that doesn’t mean there’s a pack anywhere around.

“That could be a single wolf traveling through or on a walkabout from another pack,” he said. “One set of wolf tracks, that’s not a pack. And that wolf, if it is a wolf, the next day could be many miles away.”

And the removal of wolves from the state’s endangered species list could be years away. The management plan calls for documenting 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years spread among three designated wolf-recovery regions, or 18 successful breeding pairs in one year for the whole state.

And five breeding pairs, the current official count, is a far cry from that.

http://www.yakimaherald.com/sports/outdoorandrecreation/2023875-8/wolf-pack-could-be-coming-to-the-area


Offline M_ray

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 4593
  • Location: I'm takin the 5th on this one
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #198 on: January 23, 2015, 09:53:13 PM »
Wolbait, Thanks but I don't need the run down on stuff I allready know and that has nothing to do with my comments? Obviously my numbers are for the sake of argument. Bearpaw seems to be advocating relocation which equates to more and I oppose any more period whether it be westside or eastside IMO any more is to many!

Quote
 
Quote
Posted by: wolfbait
« on: Today at 08:28:48 PM »

At any rate I don't think there is anyone that would wish these wolves on any part of WA. Some of us have gotten to witness their destruction of wildlife and WDFW BS lies when it come to confirming wolf killed livestock. What we would like to see is some honesty from WDFW.

Really? did you even read what I was responding to? maybe this will make more sense to you ...

Quote
Quote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

Hence my comments regarding the fact that I have never heard W Wa hunters say move wolves to E Wa but many times have heard E Wa guys say move them W???

Sorry you wasted your time but I didnt need the lesson on things that I didn't say, You talk as if because you live on the E side that you are the only ones that have to suffer from this and that general attitude is that we should have to share in your pain. We hunt those ares too and I have many boot tracks between lookout and the NE so you're not the only one that is impacted and not the only one that wants honesty from the WDFW so that we can agree on but I still don't see how that relates to my response to Bearpaw?
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are not those of HW Management, Admins, Mods or Myself... But they are the opinions of Elvis who has revealed them to me through the medium of my pet hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...


MB

Growing old is mandatory ... Growing up is optional!

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #199 on: January 23, 2015, 10:13:04 PM »
They'd cure the hoof rot problem, why aren't you in favor of that?


They prey on the weak and sick remember?  Seems like a no brainer to get some of these wolves on the wetside to me.


My offer stands, I'll haul them on my dime with my stock trailer.

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9115
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #200 on: January 24, 2015, 12:25:04 AM »
Wolbait, Thanks but I don't need the run down on stuff I allready know and that has nothing to do with my comments? Obviously my numbers are for the sake of argument. Bearpaw seems to be advocating relocation which equates to more and I oppose any more period whether it be westside or eastside IMO any more is to many!

Quote
 
Quote
Posted by: wolfbait
« on: Today at 08:28:48 PM »

At any rate I don't think there is anyone that would wish these wolves on any part of WA. Some of us have gotten to witness their destruction of wildlife and WDFW BS lies when it come to confirming wolf killed livestock. What we would like to see is some honesty from WDFW.

Really? did you even read what I was responding to? maybe this will make more sense to you ...

Quote
Quote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

Hence my comments regarding the fact that I have never heard W Wa hunters say move wolves to E Wa but many times have heard E Wa guys say move them W???

Sorry you wasted your time but I didnt need the lesson on things that I didn't say, You talk as if because you live on the E side that you are the only ones that have to suffer from this and that general attitude is that we should have to share in your pain. We hunt those ares too and I have many boot tracks between lookout and the NE so you're not the only one that is impacted and not the only one that wants honesty from the WDFW so that we can agree on but I still don't see how that relates to my response to Bearpaw?

I don't feel I wasted my time M_ray, I think you fail to understand that whether the wolves stay on the E-side or were relocated to the W-side they would still be making pups in WA and killing wildlife and livestock.

I highly doubt WDFW would want to relocate wolves to the W-side with a paper trail following, they would just a soon play the waiting game with the wolves that are already there, same as they have and will continue to do on the E-side.

"Sorry you wasted your time but I didnt need the lesson on things that I didn't say, You talk as if because you live on the E side that you are the only ones that have to suffer from this and that general attitude is that we should have to share in your pain. We hunt those ares too and I have many boot tracks between lookout and the NE so you're not the only one that is impacted and not the only one that wants honesty from the WDFW so that we can agree on but I still don't see how that relates to my response to Bearpaw?"


How many cows have you lost so far to the wolves, have you had any wolves after your horses  several nights in a row, have you had wolves kill deer within a hundred yards of your house, had them crap in your yard? How about your dog, have you had any problem with wolves coming on to your porch and trying to kill your dog? Have you had wolves kill your cow/cows and then have WDFW tell you wolves wouldn't kill cow/cows? Or blame everything but wolves for your loss? I don't think you have done all that much suffering, but you will in the future as wolves eat their way into veiw on the w-side.







Offline M_ray

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 4593
  • Location: I'm takin the 5th on this one
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #201 on: January 24, 2015, 01:44:43 AM »
Wolfbait, you clearly have the wrong impression, please go back and read my comments, once again your post has zero relavance to my response to bearpaw. I'm not sure why you feel the need to stir the pot in an entirely different direction, classic example of Internet trolling ... We are more on the same side than you think.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are not those of HW Management, Admins, Mods or Myself... But they are the opinions of Elvis who has revealed them to me through the medium of my pet hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...


MB

Growing old is mandatory ... Growing up is optional!

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9115
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #202 on: January 24, 2015, 02:29:30 AM »
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

Quote
Quote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.


In order to reach thier 15 BP according to the management goal it is going to increase numbers whether they are in one area or the entire state, this doesn't compute to you? Its simple to me and I don't get how others are not seeing this? If it took 1000 to reach 12 it is going to take another 500 minimum to reach 15 that = MORE WOLVES!
I'm finding it a hard pill to swallow that in your position you would advocate 1) for anymore and 2) to wish that the entire state should suffer the same consequence that the NE has.
Personally I hope they never reach their goal and furthermore had they chose the west side in the first place I wouldn't wish the destruction on my worst neighbor. Those who make the comments that they should plant them on the west side don't understand that we will never be able to control the numbers because it is even more dense than the NE. So the answer to this problem is to ruin the whole state? are we so self centered that we want everyone to suffer because our area has suffered? And how is this the fault of Westsider's? West side hunters didn't decide where to put them in the first place  :dunno:  hell I've heard more west side opposition to wolves not being anywhere in the state period so how does this comment even make any sense???  :dunno: I have never heard a westsider say "Yeah plant them in the East" But I've heard plenty of Eastsiders say "plant them on the west"  :bash:

Maybe Bearpaw can answer your question :dunno: Seems people on the west side would just a soon the east side put up with the wolves, they don't want nothing to do with them, which is understandable. Unfortunately that isn't the way the USFWS or WDFW planed for wolves in WA.

Offline PA BEN

  • LINEMAN
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 4860
  • Location: Chewelah
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #203 on: January 24, 2015, 06:04:47 AM »
If the moose will go "bye bye", why is the population increasing to the point that wdfw is increasing tags 20% this year in NE wa? 

Managing wildlife and hunting is expensive, challenging, and unappreciated.  Individual county management is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of...I assume it was another bill with no intention of actually passing? 
The wolf plan is not the deciding factor in whether wolves will be on the west side or not. The wolves will decide that. If they get here on their own and the habitat is such that they can survive, and multiply, then we'll have a wolf population over here. If not, then we won't. In my opinion, the wolf plan is irrelevant.
The wolf plan is relevant, we will be over run by wolves before we can control them by hunting. The plan needs to be changed to support control in areas with high numbers of wolves. Not when they migrate to the rest of this state.

 Only issue with this statement Pa Ben is evidence/testimony has shown that wolves can not be "controlled" by hunting, hunting is not a effective means to control them. ;)
The statement was made that the plan "is irrelevant". The State is following a flawed plan right now and are going to stick to it unless it is changed to manage wolves. Hunting is just one of many management tools that should be in a plan. phool you have seen first hand what wildlife/hunting is like in the 49 area. Over the last few years the wolves have moved into all of those you hunted for your Washington moose and they are making a foothold. Cottonwood just East of town has at least 3, 2 with collars not more than a mile or so from town. It's bye, bye moose and the small amount of elk will be gone. I had one hollowing above my house last February, the northern tip of the Huckleberry pack is not far to the south of my house. Yes we have a lot of skin in the game here. This "not in my backyard attitude has to stop" and the westsiders need to jump in and help. At the Colville wolf meeting Sen. Dansel said he was going to introduce legislation to allow counties to manage the wildlife in their own Counties and kick out WDFW. A lot of westsiders jumped in and side counties can't do that, the game animals belong to us all. I hear comments about turkey hunting and the amount of over the counter tags", "too many hens are being taken" so on and so on. Wolves will eat a turkey too. Everybody wants to come over and hunt whitetails, turkeys, moose, elk but no one wants to help in the fight. I applaud the young man who went to the westside wolf meeting and stood up for wildlife/hunting.
Did your people in the know at WDFW tell you that? I’ve been looking and haven’t found where the permits in 49 are going up by 20%. I said, and maybe you should read this real slow, ‘’the wolves are making a foothold in the 49 unit just East of Chewelah.’’ Soon the moose will go bye, bye. I don’t see the WDFW managing the wolves; I don’t see a lot of changes with tags and permits.  Just ask anybody who hunts the units with the most wolves how the moose, elk and deer are doing. You yourself admitted you don’t hunt the NE of this State. This means you have no clue of what’s going on here, but you sure love to support the wolf with no facts, but you jump all over the hearsay. It has been pointed out several times here that the flawed wolf plan is what WDFW follows so that does make the plan relevant. You love to argue but I don’t hear any solutions coming from you. How many of you Westside’s are calling your legislators? Seems to me there is a lot of talk and a lot of people sitting on their hands. But until wolves are in your back yard will you stand up.   
 Everybody wants to come over and hunt whitetails, turkeys, moose, elk but no one wants to help in the fight. I applaud the young man who went to the Westside wolf meeting and stood up for wildlife/hunting.
See how you guys jump on the bandwagon when Counties managing the wildlife comes up. Just keep sitting on your hands and the wolves will be managing the wildlife for the State.   

Offline PA BEN

  • LINEMAN
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 4860
  • Location: Chewelah
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #204 on: January 24, 2015, 06:25:09 AM »
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

Quote
Quote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.


In order to reach thier 15 BP according to the management goal it is going to increase numbers whether they are in one area or the entire state, this doesn't compute to you? Its simple to me and I don't get how others are not seeing this? If it took 1000 to reach 12 it is going to take another 500 minimum to reach 15 that = MORE WOLVES!
I'm finding it a hard pill to swallow that in your position you would advocate 1) for anymore and 2) to wish that the entire state should suffer the same consequence that the NE has.
Personally I hope they never reach their goal and furthermore had they chose the west side in the first place I wouldn't wish the destruction on my worst neighbor. Those who make the comments that they should plant them on the west side don't understand that we will never be able to control the numbers because it is even more dense than the NE. So the answer to this problem is to ruin the whole state? are we so self centered that we want everyone to suffer because our area has suffered? And how is this the fault of Westsider's? West side hunters didn't decide where to put them in the first place  :dunno:  hell I've heard more west side opposition to wolves not being anywhere in the state period so how does this comment even make any sense???  :dunno: I have never heard a westsider say "Yeah plant them in the East" But I've heard plenty of Eastsiders say "plant them on the west"  :bash:
M-Ray don't take this wrong, I have the utmost respect for you and phool. I've hunted the NE corner for elk and I have hunted the West as well, and the NE corner is every bit as dense and steep as the westside. Getting back to the topic; I wouldn't want wolves in anyones back yard. My hope for this bill is to wake up the Westside. The quote from Japanese Naval Marshal General Isoroku Yamamoto, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Online mountainman

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 4923
  • Location: Wenatchee, Wa
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #205 on: January 24, 2015, 09:52:42 AM »
Trolls and drama queens..these wolf threads keep turning into predictable boredom... on to better things..
That Sword is more important than the Shield!

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 37053
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #206 on: January 24, 2015, 10:09:39 AM »
KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me. :dunno:

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

 So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

 You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same? :bash:

 You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers? :DOH:

If you can get a better plan implemented I am all for it.  :tup:

But honestly I think those wolves are going to multiply no matter where they are at in the state which results in more wolves in WA no matter where they are located. Someone said WDFW has said there are many more wolves than the minimum number that they publish, I agree with that. If we spread those wolves that we already have in WA into all three wolf areas then we can delist and hopefully start more meaningful wolf management sooner which could result in fewer wolves statewide than if we let two wolf zones go unchecked and wait for the third zone.

As others have eluded, this isn't a law that is going anywhere quickly anyway, but it does keep the problems we are facing in the NE in the conversation and not forgotten. I'm just looking for a solution, it doesn't have to be this solution.

 So you are advocating for more wolves?

 You're basing all this on someone's theory that there are more wolves than WDFW are admitting to?

To clarify again, I am not advocating for more wolves in WA, the legislation suggests moving existing WA wolves from wolf zone 1 or 2 to wolf zone 3. Why would I want more wolves?  :dunno:

Apparently senior WDFW people have said we have more wolves than their claimed minimum number, I agree and think many forum members might also agree there are more wolves than the minimum claimed.

I think this legislation is a political move to draw attention and reality to the wolf issue. I explained how I thought relocation might actually result in fewer wolves in the end, but that is an unknown. I would like see the wolf plan modified so that wolves can be controlled in wolf zones 1 and 2 when they reach a certain number without dependency on how many wolves exist in wolf zone 3.

I realize that huntnphool, M_ray, and most west side hunters are not part of this majority in wolf zone 3 who want unlimited wolves in the NE and I'm sorry if this has been taken personal. NE WA has tried to get help from the majority without result, perhaps this legislation and likely future actions will eventually bring some reality to the thought process of the majority, if they think they have some skin in the game they may decide that wolves do need controlled.

If anyone has a better plan to get the majority to resolve these wolf problems please lay it out.
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline PA BEN

  • LINEMAN
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 4860
  • Location: Chewelah
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #207 on: January 24, 2015, 10:30:16 AM »
Trolls and drama queens..these wolf threads keep turning into predictable boredom... on to better things..
[/qutalkote]talk about drama :chuckle:

Offline jasnt

  • ELR junkie
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 6445
  • Location: deer park
  • Out shooting
  • Groups: WSTA
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #208 on: January 24, 2015, 10:50:43 AM »
As we all sit here and argue the wolves are starting there breeding season. In a few months from now our wolf population is going to double again.  Some of you think moving wolves means more wolves in Washington.  Where do you think all the dispersed pups are going. We know they can travel hundreds of miles before calling some place home.  They are heading west and have already.  It blows my mind how some of us seem to think the west side is unsuitable for wolves. Lmao!  Just like the east side you will have way too many before you know it. 
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/take_action  It takes 10 seconds and it’s free. To easy to make an excuse not to make your voice heard!!!!!!

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012

Offline jasnt

  • ELR junkie
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 6445
  • Location: deer park
  • Out shooting
  • Groups: WSTA
Re: Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves
« Reply #209 on: January 24, 2015, 11:07:52 AM »
I think we need to band together and pressure wdfw and state leg to rewrite the wolf plan. It's more than obvious that NONE of us want wolves in Washington.  Get in on the fight before our hands are completely tied!
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/take_action  It takes 10 seconds and it’s free. To easy to make an excuse not to make your voice heard!!!!!!

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal