collapse

Author Topic: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)  (Read 11828 times)

Offline garrett89

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2017
  • Posts: 386
  • Location: KingCo
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2017, 03:27:45 PM »
Except that they use 400k worth of Pitman Robert's funds that could go to improving something we can hunt
Like in the study of hoof rot would be nice to find out what's exactly causing it.

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 18494
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #46 on: February 16, 2017, 03:59:36 PM »
Tup
The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 3933
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2017, 06:51:44 PM »
This is just another joke study with $$$$ in the pockets of WDF&Wolves etc..


Study after study has already been done in other states where wolves were dump, and the outcome has always been the same, it's wolves stupid!

My guess is WDFW have already predetermined what the study will say and I would imagine it will favor either more habitat is needed or poor habitat.

Remember when WDFW claimed they would have enough bps to delist in 6 years? And yet we know that wolf populations double in size each year.




I don't remember them saying anything about meeting requirements in six years.  Do you have a link to that somewhere?

Which studies showed wolves were the culprit?  I know the Bitterroot showed otherwise, and the one currently underway in the CDAs is looking like lions are going to come out looking like the bad guys

Offline idaho guy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2012
  • Posts: 799
  • Location: hayden
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2017, 10:46:28 AM »
This is just another joke study with $$$$ in the pockets of WDF&Wolves etc..


Study after study has already been done in other states where wolves were dump, and the outcome has always been the same, it's wolves stupid!

My guess is WDFW have already predetermined what the study will say and I would imagine it will favor either more habitat is needed or poor habitat.

Remember when WDFW claimed they would have enough bps to delist in 6 years? And yet we know that wolf populations double in size each year.




I don't remember them saying anything about meeting requirements in six years.  Do you have a link to that somewhere?

Which studies showed wolves were the culprit?  I know the Bitterroot showed otherwise, and the one currently underway in the CDAs is looking like lions are going to come out looking like the bad guys



I have heard that they are suggesting that something like 70% of elk kills are due to lions not wolves in the panhandle. I don't know if this is the result of the study you are referencing but local idfg personnel have been saying this. I hound hunt quite a bit and I have a very hard time believing that since about 90% of the lion kills I have ever found have been deer? I have also found a lot more wolf kills on elk than lions. It seems like we have a lot less lions in the panhandle now then we did in the 90s and that was the "good old days" for elk numbers in the panhandle. I never noticed a significant decline in elk numbers hunting in the panhandle till the wolves showed up in large numbers. WAcoyotehunter I know from other posts you hunt lions in the cda's and that you are a biologist. I respect your opinion and I just have a real hard time believing lions are the bad guy here. I am not a biologist and probably just a redneck but we had tons of elk and seemingly more lions before the wolves. After wolves less elk AND less lions. This is all based on what I see when out in the woods or hunting and maybe I am wrong. Might be specific to the areas I hunt? I would like to see numbers on actual lions before wolves and now and then compare that to elk numbers. I also have noticed a big rebound in Elk in the area I regularly cat hunt and a huge decline in the number of wolf tracks. Educate me because it seems like a bunch of BS.     

Offline flatbkman

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 811
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2017, 11:28:14 AM »
Looks to me like this is just another way to justify spending more money and hiring more office staff, in other words job justification. Do people here really think that their studies will come up with a different conclusion that the studies other states are coming up with?

Online JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10186
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2017, 11:31:45 AM »
You mean the highly refined Washington wolves won't be on vegan diets?

Offline DOUBLELUNG

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 4893
  • Location: Wenatchee
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2017, 11:56:03 AM »
Most of the studies I've seen show greatly varied results that are very area specific when it comes to wolf impacts, and depend on the deer species and abundance, elk abundance, topographic roughness, and predator assemblages.  Wolves are really tough on mule deer where the conditions favor a coursing predator; basically anywhere that mule deer expanded into after wolves were eradicated, takes a huge hit when wolves return; however, they are also death on cougars in those same areas, which preferentially kill mule deer even when elk and whitetails are more abundant.  Mule deer fare much better when they have steep, rocky uneven mountain habitat.  Whitetails in forested environments seem pretty resilient to wolf predation.  Where wolves thrive, they put a hurt on coyotes, which can be a mitigating effect where coyote predation limits fawn/calf recruitment.  Where there are grizzlies, appropriating wolf kills puts griz on a protein rich diet for a much longer period of time, causing both wolves to kill more than in areas without grizzlies, and increasing the grizzly population (Wyoming documented grizzlies increasing from a 4% annual population growth rate pre-wolves, to 8% post wolves).  The same hasn't been true for black bear, which don't seem to exhibit much change with or without wolves.  There are definitely places where wolves have severely depressed deer and/or elk populations, but it is not an across the board finding. 

What is an across the board finding is that it is very difficult to limit or suppress established wolf populations through recreational hunting, even with OTC tags and liberal trapping and hunting quotas.  I'm pretty confident we'll never see legal trapping for wolves in WA, and despite the fact that they are a wide-ranging, resilient and highly fecund carnivore with impressive survival instincts, we will never see them hunted in Washington in a manner that would imperil populations.  There is no more frustrating game species to manage based on its intrinsic productivity than the wolf, if the emotions and politics were out of the equation they could be managed with the same rules as coyotes and wolf populations would not be imperiled.   
As long as we have the habitat, we can argue forever about who gets to kill what and when.  No habitat = no game.

Offline idaho guy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2012
  • Posts: 799
  • Location: hayden
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2017, 12:07:44 PM »
Most of the studies I've seen show greatly varied results that are very area specific when it comes to wolf impacts, and depend on the deer species and abundance, elk abundance, topographic roughness, and predator assemblages.  Wolves are really tough on mule deer where the conditions favor a coursing predator; basically anywhere that mule deer expanded into after wolves were eradicated, takes a huge hit when wolves return; however, they are also death on cougars in those same areas, which preferentially kill mule deer even when elk and whitetails are more abundant.  Mule deer fare much better when they have steep, rocky uneven mountain habitat.  Whitetails in forested environments seem pretty resilient to wolf predation.  Where wolves thrive, they put a hurt on coyotes, which can be a mitigating effect where coyote predation limits fawn/calf recruitment.  Where there are grizzlies, appropriating wolf kills puts griz on a protein rich diet for a much longer period of time, causing both wolves to kill more than in areas without grizzlies, and increasing the grizzly population (Wyoming documented grizzlies increasing from a 4% annual population growth rate pre-wolves, to 8% post wolves).  The same hasn't been true for black bear, which don't seem to exhibit much change with or without wolves.  There are definitely places where wolves have severely depressed deer and/or elk populations, but it is not an across the board finding. 

What is an across the board finding is that it is very difficult to limit or suppress established wolf populations through recreational hunting, even with OTC tags and liberal trapping and hunting quotas.  I'm pretty confident we'll never see legal trapping for wolves in WA, and despite the fact that they are a wide-ranging, resilient and highly fecund carnivore with impressive survival instincts, we will never see them hunted in Washington in a manner that would imperil populations.  There is no more frustrating game species to manage based on its intrinsic productivity than the wolf, if the emotions and politics were out of the equation they could be managed with the same rules as coyotes and wolf populations would not be imperiled.


Good info! Wolves can be managed like coyotes! No need for a study the real question has been answered! 

Online Wacenturion

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (-1)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Posts: 5946
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2017, 05:16:46 PM »
It will most likely be a complete and total waste of money.

Yep....certainly could spend it somewhere else that it's needed, but that requires WDFW to actually do some physical work, like habitat improvement.  Reseach is like crack to natural resource agencies.  Does two things....gives an excuse to put off anwering common sense questions and when they complete the task at hand they can and have molded the findings to fit their agenda.  Beyond that additional reseach is often deemed necessary to buy more time.  Like a wheel in a hampster cage.  Just keeps on spinning. :chuckle:  You can bet on it....fact
"About the time you realize that your father was a smart man, you have a teenager telling you just how stupid you are."

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 5286
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2017, 10:32:08 PM »
If WDF&Wolves were really interested.........

By preying on the elk, wolves can/will take the more vulnerable mule deer to exceedingly low levels or extinction. The wolves that were turned loose in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have preyed primarily on elk and there are data on how many elk each wolf kills per year---22 elk/wolf/year---but there is little data from these states or anywhere else on the effect of wolf predation on mule deer. To put it simply, mule decline so rapidly that there is nothing left to study!


Hunter harvest of black-tailed deer on Vancouver island though, gives some idea of what will happen if pro-wolf advocates have their way. Before wolves arrived, sportsmen on Vancouver Island took home around 25,000 blacktails a year. Now that wolves have overrun the island, the figure has plummeted to less than 4,000 deer a year. Moreover,  blacktails are now found in reasonable abundance only where they live in suburbs or cities; i.e., the deer have moved into town to avoid predators
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf

"the deer have moved into town to avoid predators"

Sounds like the Methow Valley

Offline MR5x5

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 153
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2017, 10:04:49 AM »
This is simply motion disguised as progress.  Nothing more than plausible deniability to tell any who may be starting to questions this situation that we are "trying our best to understand it for the good of the community".  It will keep anybody on the fence from stepping over it...  Sheeple are easy to heard...

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 15885
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2017, 10:11:48 AM »
If WDF&Wolves were really interested.........

By preying on the elk, wolves can/will take the more vulnerable mule deer to exceedingly low levels or extinction. The wolves that were turned loose in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have preyed primarily on elk and there are data on how many elk each wolf kills per year---22 elk/wolf/year---but there is little data from these states or anywhere else on the effect of wolf predation on mule deer. To put it simply, mule decline so rapidly that there is nothing left to study!


Hunter harvest of black-tailed deer on Vancouver island though, gives some idea of what will happen if pro-wolf advocates have their way. Before wolves arrived, sportsmen on Vancouver Island took home around 25,000 blacktails a year. Now that wolves have overrun the island, the figure has plummeted to less than 4,000 deer a year. Moreover,  blacktails are now found in reasonable abundance only where they live in suburbs or cities; i.e., the deer have moved into town to avoid predators
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf

"the deer have moved into town to avoid predators"

Sounds like the Methow Valley

and the cats follow

Offline garrett89

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2017
  • Posts: 386
  • Location: KingCo
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2017, 12:02:26 PM »
 It's about time to :mgun: some to manage them up. OTC tag and plenty of $ would be getting put into the system for researching.

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 15885
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2017, 12:56:47 PM »
It just irks me that the cougar plan was hugely influenced by the same guy that said the Diamond M ranch dropped cattle on top of a wolf den prompting the professors employer WSU to issue a public apology on behalf of their lying rogue professor. 


https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/

Quote
PULLMAN, Wash. – Washington State University and the WSU College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resources Sciences Wednesday issued the following statement regarding public statements made by Rob Wielgus, associate professor and director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at WSU, related to the Profanity Peak wolf pack.

Some of Wielgus’ statements in regard to this controversial issue have been both inaccurate and inappropriate. As such, they have contributed substantially to the growing anger and confusion about this significant wildlife management issue and have unfairly jeopardized the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wolf Advisory Group’s many-months long stakeholder process. Moreover, the statements do not in any way represent the views or position of WSU or the College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resources Sciences. These statements are disavowed by our institutions.

We offer the following corrections of the information in the public arena:

In an article published by the Seattle Times on Aug. 25, Wielgus stated that a particular livestock operator had “elected to put his livestock directly on top of (the wolves’) den site; we have pictures of cows swamping it…”

In fact, the rancher identified in the article did not intentionally place livestock at or near the den site of the Profanity Peak wolf pack, and Wielgus subsequently acknowledged that he had no basis in fact for making such a statement. In actuality, the livestock were released at low elevation on the east side of the Kettle Crest more than 4 miles from the den site and were dispersed throughout the allotments based on instructions found in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). The CC mountain allotment is more than 30,000 acres and livestock are generally moved from pasture to pasture following an established rotation.

In the same article, Wielgus stated that a particular cattle rancher had also “refused to radio-collar his cattle to help predict and avoid interactions with radio-collared wolves” and that there had been no documented “cattle kills among producers who are participating in research studies and very few among producers using Fish and Wildlife’s protocol.”

In fact, the rancher identified in the article has held a term grazing permit for 73 years and has worked with both the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service in the management of livestock in order to avoid conflict – following procedures outlined by the Washington Wolf Advisory Group. In order to reduce wolf/livestock conflict, the rancher has modified livestock rotation practices and utilized range riders to ensure livestock safety.

While the rancher  is not currently participating in Wielgus’ ongoing study, radio-collaring of livestock is not a Wolf Advisory Group procedure nor is it 100 percent effective at preventing depredations. It is inaccurate to state that there have been no cattle kills among producers participating in the study. There is at least one permittee who is participating in the study who has incurred livestock depredations.

The decision to eliminate the Profanity Peak wolf pack came after two years of careful work and scientific analysis by the Washington State Wolf Advisory Group, consisting of a collaboration between scientists, industry and conservation partners. WSU subscribes to the highest standards of research integrity and will not and cannot condone statements that have the effect of compromising that integrity.

Regarding future steps for preventing subsequent inaccurate or inappropriate statements, we are implementing applicable internal university processes.

WSU apologizes to our friends, our science partners and to the public for this incident.

INSANE!  WDFW should have immediately dropped that cougar plan and anything else Wielgus had influenced.

Offline Cougartail

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Posts: 466
  • Location: Eastern Washington
Re: Wolves' Effect On Other Wildlife (Study)
« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2017, 01:42:15 PM »
Wouldn't matter if they dropped the plan. Inslee was the one who shot down the proposed increase in cougar harvest in eastern Washington.

Since he has final say, any new plan will look exactly like the last one.

 

* Recent Topics