Wedge pack costs

[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.

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.

Humptulips, I've hunted all over Grays Harbor County since 1964. I have plenty of time in the woods there. I know whats going on. I'll give you an example in your neck of the woods. In the 60's and early 70's I hunted deer quite a bit up the East Humptulips.  The second growth there wasn't like the third growth today. It was allowed to regenerate naturally. What I mean is, they didn't use the replanting regamine like they do today. That really got going in the 60's and 70's. Whats the difference? The second growth came in unevenly and with much more diversity. There were lots of hardwoods mixed in, alder, big leaf maple, vine maple, etc. Now you should know that blacktails and elk both love alder patches. Especially in the winter. Hardwoods lose their leaves and let light onto the forest floor. That allows plants and brush to grow that deer and elk like to eat.  Alder is also a nitrogen fixer. When it dies, it puts nitrogen into the soil which makes it healthier.  Modern tree farms with their 6 to 7 foot planting and herbicide spraying programs create a gradually worsening environment for deer and elk. A crowded all conifer forest is not good deer and elk habitat. There's little to eat. Go into a 12 to 20 year old tree farm these days ans look at the ground. All you see are fir needles and mushrooms and some salal. It's a biological dessert with a similar lack of life. Areas with clearcuts will have a handfull of animals but as they age, the animals disappear as there is nothing to sustain them. I drive up the East Hump road now and all I see is 10 to 30 year old plantations with almost no sign of animals. There's nothing there for them. Same with the 5200 line just north of Failor Lake. In the 80's when Reagan eased the export ban, and the cutting frenzy took over, the 5200 line was prime habitat. My family and friends took a lot of deer out of there for 5 or 6 years. One year the loose group I hunted with went 12 for 12 on deer. Fast forward to now. You'd be hard pressed to find a deer there, but it wouldn't matter if you could because it's Rayonier land. Only open to lease hunting as is a major portion of unit 642.

[Ridgeratt]

Prognostications & Bumbling's from the Ratt

This was a calculated response from the WDFW to appease both sides.

By their own admission they didn't kill all the wolves in the area, but this will have a significant impact on the wedge pack. They have made an effort to control the problem which makes the anti wolf factions happy. They can also tell the pro wolf side that they didn't remove all of them but only the problem wolves.
This will allow the wedge pack to reestablish itself over the next 2-3 years. This also allows them to hopefully reach the goals of the management guide lines and then allow sportsman to start hunting them. I hope not another OIL tag fee. So everyone should be happy.

Nothing more than Damage control and Eye Candy.


I found this on the Spokesman review page this morning as well"

ENDANGERED SPECIES — Former Spokane County Commissioner (and current candidate) John Roskelley of Spokane claims the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was not being genuine with the public in its handling of the summer wolf attacks in northern Stevens County and ultimately the elimination of the Wedge Pack. Here's Roskelley's take, as posted on my Facebook page:

The WDFW rushed this decision to exterminate the Wedge Pack to avoid having to deal with the public or legislators like Sen. Rankin. I stopped at the meeting in Colville Thursday night; the WDFW got their nose bloodied by McIrvin and other Stevens County ranchers; the agency decided on a quick and dirty fix; provided the news media with their excuses for their action; used Conservation Northwest and the Cattlemen's Association as justified supporters; pretended to hunt the wolves by foot; and then proceeded to do what they intended all along - wipe the wolves out quickly via helicopter and sharpshooters before the public woke up and some organization filed an injunction to get it stopped. The WDFW agency people had their mind made up weeks ago, but they knew better than to let the public in on something this controversial before it was a done deal.”

[ribka]

So your argument is that home development, not wolves, are responsible for the deer elk and Moises populations crashing in the Yellowstone , Lolo and Clearwater areas in MT and ID?  Have you ever been over and hunted and hiked in these areas?

There is no doubt at the federal level that anti hunters have infiltrated the Fish and wildlife and park services in the past 20 years. Look who was behind the original intro of Canadian grey wolves in ID, WY and MT. The former head of the USFWS.

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.

[pianoman9701]

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.

You're either in complete denial or just aren't paying attention. Jay Kehne is a board member of Conservation NW and has been campaigning for three years to school classes and greenie groups around the state about how good the wolves are for us. He was appointed to the Wildlife Commission two years ago.

As far as controlling hunting is concerned, The number of multi tags has doubled in this state, as opposed to opening up more seasons to the general hunting population. The DFW does limit hunting even when it isn't necessary. Many of our surrounding states allow a hunter to hunt all three seasons with one harvest. The number of multi-season tags made available would indicate that we're able to do that here but won't.

The most ridiculous part of this all is that the DFW depends on hunter dollars for the majority of their operating costs/wild game management, yet they're doing everything they can to limit hunting opportunities to the general public who can't afford the incredibly expensive options that open up more hunting for you. In addition, our money is used to fund the wolf plan which also works against the hunter in this state. They're killing themselves by taking away hunting opportunity.

[jackmaster]

I LOVE HUNTN, been doing it my whole life like many here on this site, we should all ban together and refuse to hunt next year, i could give up a huntn season or 2 to get are point across, what would be 1 or 2 years for us, yeah it would suck not actually getn to hunt but it would stop a guy from killn a ton of animals with his camera, it wouldnt hurt us as much as it would the department of fish and wildlife, maybe they would have to cut back on some of the anti-hunting staff.....just a thought..... your points would still be there, when we decided to hunt again, and it would be a hell of a united message   

[stuckalot]

The push behind the re-introduction of wolves is simple: TO ELIMINATE SPORT HUNTING PERIOD! They don't care about cattle, ranchers, or people's pets. With enough wolves big game numbers will plummet to the point that sport hunting cannot be justified.  Simple as I can put it.

[bearpaw]

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.

FAIR ENOUGH, I will play your game.

Okanogan County has a biologist who says every wolf within 100 miles is a Lookout pack wolf. This forum has documented sightings that prove that is false. His actions are preventing WA from reaching our delisting goal and our herds in NE WA are going to suffer and as a result of his actions many hunters will lose opportunity, if that isn't an anti-hunting I don't know what you would call it? Everybody knows exactly who I am talking about, I don't even need to name him.

WDFW is now following a cougar plan developed by WSU's Wielgus under a WDFW cougar study. The WDFW is supposed to maximize hunter opportunity but is bowing to Conservation Northwest and anti-hunters and utilizing his absurd plan to reduce cougar hunting opportunity. The study should have looked at how to resolve cougar problems and how to increase hunter opportunity. By the very definition the plan is anti-hunting and every WDFW biologist or manager who agreed to implement this absurd cougar management plan is guilty of anti-hunting.

[bearpaw]

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.

You are correct I did support the 4 pt rule and elimination of doe hunting!

I did that so that we can rebuild the herd and have more hunting opportunity in the future. By saving a few does now we will be producing many more deer in a few years. That is simply wise management to build the herd.

That is a heck of a lot different than putting too many wolves, cougars, and coyotes on the landscape and thereby preventing herds from proliferating. Then as a result reducing hunter opportunity forever.

[bearpaw]

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.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/actionLoloZone.pdf

Lolo elk populations have been in decline for years, dating back to the early 1990s. Fish and
Game has conducted extensive research that indicates wolf predation is the leading cause of
death of adult cow elk and calves older than six months, while black bear and mountain lion
predation is the leading cause of death for younger elk calves.

That sounds pretty straight forward to me. Idaho has too many predators and WDFW simply has too many predators on the landscape in WA.

[bearpaw]

You can always spot the wolf lovers by their tactics. Whenever this forum has a topic that shows the reality of wolves in a damaging light, the wolf lovers try to change the topic. 

Getting back to the topic, the costs involved trying to accomodate the wedge pack and finally the "partial" removal costs are only the tip of the iceberg of what wolves are going to cost Washington taxpayer, sports folks, rural residents, and ranchers.

Washington voters should carefully consider whom they vote for this fall because the politicians promoting wolves are going to cost them a lot of money, a heck of a lot of money. 

[Special T]

BP isnt that Bio named Fitkins?

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 lawsuit if someone is a whistle blower.

I don't know if it has as much to do with EO rules as much as getting fed grants. The state has said that they need a new bio but only have the funds for half of one. so "half" time they spend on deer elk whatever then the other"half" they spend on the grant. The problem is that they hire a bio that is an "expert" in some ESA species like wolves then also tell them to do the normal work on deer and elk in the area... From a business stand point this makes a bunch of sense, HOWEVER it fails where the rubber meets the road. Many new bio's especially ESA specialists are greenies and have a skewed outlook on their job. The state has to hire a ESA specialist to get the grant, and then you are stuck with that person doing work on related animals. Those related animals aren't nearly as important in the bio's eyes.  I think this conflict of interest does not need to be nefarious in order to be damaging. We could argue that the bios are/not doing it on purpose but i think we come up with the same outcome regardless the conclusion.

[elkfins]

I LOVE HUNTN, been doing it my whole life like many here on this site, we should all ban together and refuse to hunt next year, i could give up a huntn season or 2 to get are point across, what would be 1 or 2 years for us, yeah it would suck not actually getn to hunt but it would stop a guy from killn a ton of animals with his camera, it wouldnt hurt us as much as it would the department of fish and wildlife, maybe they would have to cut back on some of the anti-hunting staff.....just a thought..... your points would still be there, when we decided to hunt again, and it would be a hell of a united message   

The problem I see with this tactic is that there are plenty of other anti-hunting groups that would happily step up and help fund the WDFW...  Look at what's happening in Idaho.  Then, we would be left out completely.

[jackmaster]

i doubt any anti huntn group would step and give the money that the department would be missing from us, i seriously think that this could work, it would hurt them in more ways than one, hell just the animal problems alone would cost the wdfw tons of money, nuissance calls would go through the roof, hell just beaver problems alone would keep them swamped.... just a thought, but i know it would work if everyone of us banned together....one voice isnt that loud, 500,000 thousand voices is very loud.....it would work..

[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.

Humptulips, I've hunted all over Grays Harbor County since 1964. I have plenty of time in the woods there. I know whats going on. I'll give you an example in your neck of the woods. In the 60's and early 70's I hunted deer quite a bit up the East Humptulips.  The second growth there wasn't like the third growth today. It was allowed to regenerate naturally. What I mean is, they didn't use the replanting regamine like they do today. That really got going in the 60's and 70's. Whats the difference? The second growth came in unevenly and with much more diversity. There were lots of hardwoods mixed in, alder, big leaf maple, vine maple, etc. Now you should know that blacktails and elk both love alder patches. Especially in the winter. Hardwoods lose their leaves and let light onto the forest floor. That allows plants and brush to grow that deer and elk like to eat.  Alder is also a nitrogen fixer. When it dies, it puts nitrogen into the soil which makes it healthier.  Modern tree farms with their 6 to 7 foot planting and herbicide spraying programs create a gradually worsening environment for deer and elk. A crowded all conifer forest is not good deer and elk habitat. There's little to eat. Go into a 12 to 20 year old tree farm these days ans look at the ground. All you see are fir needles and mushrooms and some salal. It's a biological dessert with a similar lack of life. Areas with clearcuts will have a handfull of animals but as they age, the animals disappear as there is nothing to sustain them. I drive up the East Hump road now and all I see is 10 to 30 year old plantations with almost no sign of animals. There's nothing there for them. Same with the 5200 line just north of Failor Lake. In the 80's when Reagan eased the export ban, and the cutting frenzy took over, the 5200 line was prime habitat. My family and friends took a lot of deer out of there for 5 or 6 years. One year the loose group I hunted with went 12 for 12 on deer. Fast forward to now. You'd be hard pressed to find a deer there, but it wouldn't matter if you could because it's Rayonier land. Only open to lease hunting as is a major portion of unit 642.

So you've been on the ground and apparently you don't care for how the timber companies manage their land. We're not going to  change that. It is private land.
I hunted a lot in 642 in the late 60s and after plus I've spent many a day on the trapline there. I used to see a lot of deer and a lot of them were in around that thick second growth fir and hemlock. True they do better around clearcuts. Trouble is there's damn few of them in either place now. The Promised Land had a lot of deer before they started logging it the second time. I've spent a lot of time there. The habitat is far better now then in the 60s and 70s. Again damn few deer.
You can pretty well name an area and the deer are in decline if not at the bottom.
Not so with cougars. I see cougar scratchings everwhere. They have to be eating something and it ain't mushrooms.
On a parrallel the beaver population north of Hoquiam has been in steep decline in the last 12 years at a time when trapping them had virtually stopped. I do see cougar tracks around every beaver pond that is left.
They are hungry. Cougar used to bypass every bait set prior to the 90s. Not so now. They are in every cat cage I set. Not big enough cages to fit them but they are in there stealing the bait.
So what has changed? Not sure how you get to the reforestation being the problem. FYI, all the timber companies have been reforesting since in the 50s. Yea deer do better without the reforestation but that wasn't killing the hunting in the 60s through the 90s. What has changed is I-655 and a maxed out cougar and bear population. Less so the bear because of the spring depredation hunts.

And by the way there is a lot of land in the 5200 area not owned by Rayonier. You have to know how to access it though and it's a long walk.
About a month ago I hiked in to look things over. It is a cross country trek and I finally broke out onto an old road and set down to take a break. There were 5 cougar scratchings in a 20 foot circle where I sat down. Didn't see a single deer.

[SpringerFan]

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.

Humptulips, I've hunted all over Grays Harbor County since 1964. I have plenty of time in the woods there. I know whats going on. I'll give you an example in your neck of the woods. In the 60's and early 70's I hunted deer quite a bit up the East Humptulips.  The second growth there wasn't like the third growth today. It was allowed to regenerate naturally. What I mean is, they didn't use the replanting regamine like they do today. That really got going in the 60's and 70's. Whats the difference? The second growth came in unevenly and with much more diversity. There were lots of hardwoods mixed in, alder, big leaf maple, vine maple, etc. Now you should know that blacktails and elk both love alder patches. Especially in the winter. Hardwoods lose their leaves and let light onto the forest floor. That allows plants and brush to grow that deer and elk like to eat.  Alder is also a nitrogen fixer. When it dies, it puts nitrogen into the soil which makes it healthier.  Modern tree farms with their 6 to 7 foot planting and herbicide spraying programs create a gradually worsening environment for deer and elk. A crowded all conifer forest is not good deer and elk habitat. There's little to eat. Go into a 12 to 20 year old tree farm these days ans look at the ground. All you see are fir needles and mushrooms and some salal. It's a biological dessert with a similar lack of life. Areas with clearcuts will have a handfull of animals but as they age, the animals disappear as there is nothing to sustain them. I drive up the East Hump road now and all I see is 10 to 30 year old plantations with almost no sign of animals. There's nothing there for them. Same with the 5200 line just north of Failor Lake. In the 80's when Reagan eased the export ban, and the cutting frenzy took over, the 5200 line was prime habitat. My family and friends took a lot of deer out of there for 5 or 6 years. One year the loose group I hunted with went 12 for 12 on deer. Fast forward to now. You'd be hard pressed to find a deer there, but it wouldn't matter if you could because it's Rayonier land. Only open to lease hunting as is a major portion of unit 642.

Thought this wolf hugger was banned.......Dale....you let him back in?