Wedge pack costs

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The problem is that wildlife agencies have been infiltrated by anti-hunters who do not support hunting. Managers and Biologists are looking for ways to limit hunting. The wolf plan and the new study out on cougar are prime examples.

It's easy to throw out vague accusations and innuendos to fire people up. But seriously, name some anti-hunters who have infiltrated Washington's Dept of Fish and Game.

And of course Biologists look for ways to limit hunting. Sometimes that's the best management strategy. That's why there are drawing hunts for moose, sheep and goats. Because game populations can't support a full fledged open hunt, yet the department still wants to allow some opportunity.

I might point out that you yourself not only supported but pushed for limiting hunting for deer by supporting the 4 point or better rule and calling for less doe hunting.

The biggest loss of hunting opportunity comes from private timberlands being locked up or switched to lease only hunting.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

And I'd add to that, habitat change due to logging and regrowth, drouth, human population growth and associated construction (homes, roads and such) and activities, bad winters etc.  It's all interrelated and as much as we'd like to be able to say "Here's the one problem, that if we fix it, hunting is going to get better", that isn't going to happen. And it isn't realistic and can actually cause more harm because it takes our eyes off the fact that there are many things we need to keep our eyes on. If we get tunnel vision on one issue, the others are going to sneak up and bite us on the rear.

[FSTaxidermy]

What have wolves done to Idaho?

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75
Nonresident Deer and Elk Tag Quotas
As of: September 28, 2012

2012 DEER TAGS

Regular/White-tailed Deer
Quota......Available   
12,015.......9,965
 
White-tailed Deer
Quota......Available
1,500........1,500
 


2012 ZONE ELK TAGS

Zone Elk A & B Tag
Quota......Available
10,415.....6,672

We hunted elk in Idaho for 15 years straight. When the quality of the hunt left, we stopped going.  Looks like thousands of others are sending the same message!  From what I understand their game department is financially
upside down and their scrambling to fix the problem.  No easy answers, hope they can do something drastic to control the wolves, I know that I won't be sending them a dollar until they get it resolved.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Bob33, not sure where you came up with that graph, can't find it at that link you provided. But I don't think it's accurate for starters. Here are some numbers provided by Idaho For Wildlife an anti wolf group. http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/IDFG%20PAGE.html

According to you graph in 2000 there were about 25,000 elk taken in Idaho. IFG says there were 20,259.
Your graph shows  in 2001 about 28,000 elk taken While IFG shows 19,292
In 2005 your graph shows about 37,500 elk taken while IFG shows 17,085
2009 you show 26,000 elk taken and IFG shpws 11,796

So we have some major discrepancies here.

Now you're both trying to show the same thing, that wolves are ruining/causing the end of hunting. But if either your numbers or theirs are true, it shows no such thing.

If wolves were killing off elk herds, there would be a steady downturn in numbers but your graph and their numbers show ups and downs as is normal in a fluctuating wild herd. By their numbers, they tried to blame wolves for a 47% drop off in elk harvest between 2000 and 2009.  But they casually ignore that in 2003 15,117 elk were harvested and in 2007 18769 elk were harvested. That's an improvement of 24% and that happened while the wolf population was steadily growing. That's called cherry picking your facts to support your position. That's why drawing conclusions from limited data is foolish. This also ignores all other factors that affect elk herds.

[Killmore]

Yeah theres many things we do need to keep are eyes on,to bad the wedge pack has detoured the trappers from working on locating all the wolves, and what about the cougars and bear problems that never get checked out because someone decided that we needed wolves.Yes there is going to be less and less hunting unless we stop this wolf problem.

[jackmaster]

yeah just what i want to beleive is a idaho for wildlife and an anti wolf hunting group, i will always beleive a non wolf lover, they think a little more clearly and a hell of alot more to my liking, if your pro wolf quit hiding and come out and say it, be a man and get out from the covers and fess up, to many pro wolfers lurking around here trying to hide and thinkn that they are sneaky...... YA AINT..... WE SEE YOU.....

[Broken Arrow]

IFG is showing a 40% decline.

[Killmore]

I bet theres no hunters that lurk on the pro wolf crap but don't you think its funny how they always show up on a hunting site..

[MR5x5]

Before I do something I ask myself:  Self, what possible good can come form this?

So wolf lovers - Obvious negatives aside, what possible good can come from the reintroduction of wolves?

Let me guess - It's nature, it's beautiful...  Bunch of f'n NIMBYs.  I know a real nice wooded area that would be perfect for wolves with plenty of viewing opportunities.  Lets drop a pack on the Evergreen State College campus right next to the law makers.

I just don't get it....

[Humptulips]

And I'd add to that, habitat change due to logging and regrowth, drouth, human population growth and associated construction (homes, roads and such) and activities, bad winters etc.  It's all interrelated and as much as we'd like to be able to say "Here's the one problem, that if we fix it, hunting is going to get better", that isn't going to happen. And it isn't realistic and can actually cause more harm because it takes our eyes off the fact that there are many things we need to keep our eyes on. If we get tunnel vision on one issue, the others are going to sneak up and bite us on the rear.

You really need to wake up. Do you even go out in the woods? Maybe you just don't have enough time in the area to see the steep slide we are going down.

North of Hoquiam.

Habitat Change? Prior to the 80s the private timberlands were mostly bigger second growth which is poor habitat for deer but they were there. Now there are clearcuts but  few deer.
Drouth, When was that ever a problem?
Population growth and development, Not much of that going on north of Hoquiam. In fact the few deer there are hug in close to people where the predators stay back a little.
Bad winters, We haven't had one in years.

The real problem is predators and you can trace most of the decline back to cougars and especially 1996s I-655.
It started going down hill before that. When cougar were not a game animal you saw very few cougar tracks  and lots of deer. When F&W made them a game animal they went to a limited draw on cougar tags and the population of cats started increasing. It only accelerated after 655 passed.
Cougar and bear are what is limiting the deer and elk population.
Yes I hate the leased hunting closures but I know plenty of places to hunt but there is getting to be damned little to hunt.

[Bob33]

Bob33, not sure where you came up with that graph, can't find it at that link you provided. But I don't think it's accurate for starters. Here are some numbers provided by Idaho For Wildlife an anti wolf group. http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/IDFG%20PAGE.html

According to you graph in 2000 there were about 25,000 elk taken in Idaho. IFG says there were 20,259.
Your graph shows  in 2001 about 28,000 elk taken While IFG shows 19,292
In 2005 your graph shows about 37,500 elk taken while IFG shows 17,085
2009 you show 26,000 elk taken and IFG shpws 11,796

So we have some major discrepancies here.

Now you're both trying to show the same thing, that wolves are ruining/causing the end of hunting. But if either your numbers or theirs are true, it shows no such thing.

If wolves were killing off elk herds, there would be a steady downturn in numbers but your graph and their numbers show ups and downs as is normal in a fluctuating wild herd. By their numbers, they tried to blame wolves for a 47% drop off in elk harvest between 2000 and 2009.  But they casually ignore that in 2003 15,117 elk were harvested and in 2007 18769 elk were harvested. That's an improvement of 24% and that happened while the wolf population was steadily growing. That's called cherry picking your facts to support your position. That's why drawing conclusions from limited data is foolish. This also ignores all other factors that affect elk herds.

The graph is from the data in the link I referenced, which is Idaho's official Department of Fish and Game website. Click on the specie (wapiti = elk), click on the year and type: General or Controlled.  Download the CSV spreadsheets. Look at the HARVEST column: that means the number of elk killed. Add up the numbers.  In 2000 the General harvest is 16,629, and Controlled is 8,271. Find a calculator and enter the numbers.  I come up with 24,900. What do you come up with?

I have no idea where other websites get their data.

As for what is shows: 2011 had the lowest harvest of the last 12 years. The graph shows a decline in elk harvest from 2005, and the steepest decline is from 2010 to 2011.  Was the habitat and weather that much worse in 2011 than in all previous 11 years?

[h2ofowlr]

That is the future for Washington unless wolf numbers are controlled. 

Remember, there are most likely some anti-hunting WDFW employees hoping for this result. Those are the employees that need weeded out so the agency can function as a F&G agency rather than an environmentalist agency.

bearpaw, is there a way for us to vote them out or are they appointed by the higher ups?

The Commission hires the director, but others in the WDFW are probably hired by managers and are usually career hires, very hard to get rid of. Others on the forum probably know more than I do how it works.

Wasn't a lot of this cause by the equal opportunity standards that were forced upon the state agencies.  They needed "X" amount of minorities, etc.  Hiring standards were lowered in many cases as they couldn't get the qualified staff needed.  You start reaching to hit the required needs and you get what you get.  This gal / guy is qualified, but doesn't hunt.  Hired!  They used to be able to pick and choose, now it's a lawsuite if someone is a whistle blower.

[sakoshooter]

I don't understand why WA doesn't de-list wolves and allow hunting of them. There's obviously waaaaaaay too many.
Hunter $$$ pay for stocking wolves then hunter $$$ pay for eliminating them.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

yeah just what i want to beleive is a idaho for wildlife and an anti wolf hunting group, i will always beleive a non wolf lover, they think a little more clearly and a hell of alot more to my liking

That site isn't anti wolf hunting, they are anti wolf, which means they don't like wolves. Just like you. So I guess you can believe them.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The graph is from the data in the link I referenced, which is Idaho's official Department of Fish and Game website. Click on the specie (wapiti = elk), click on the year and type: General or Controlled.  Download the CSV spreadsheets. Look at the HARVEST column: that means the number of elk killed. Add up the numbers.  In 2000 the General harvest is 16,629, and Controlled is 8,271. Find a calculator and enter the numbers.  I come up with 24,900. What do you come up with?

I have no idea where other websites get their data.

As for what is shows: 2011 had the lowest harvest of the last 12 years. The graph shows a decline in elk harvest from 2005, and the steepest decline is from 2010 to 2011.  Was the habitat and weather that much worse in 2011 than in all previous 11 years?

Bob, I think you made a mistake totaling the numbers up. On some years they record the numbers differently than others. Sometimes numbers are repeated and if you aren't paying close attention, it's easy to add in a number that's already been accounted for. I know, as I've already attempted to add them up previously. I'll try to find a less confusing source.