WDFW Claims cow was not wolf kill

[bearpaw]

Specifically at the Colville meeting the WDFW presented a graph which depicted elk harvest in Idaho as steady indicating ungulates were not affected much by wolves. I challenged their graph, Idaho and Montana increased harvest in other areas to hide the impacts of wolves and I mentioned the Lolo, Bitterroot, Yellowstone, Payette, and other impacted herds. It is a fact that more elk are being harvested in areas unaffected by wolves in Montana and Idaho. I suppose I cannot prove that was their purpose of increasing harvest in unaffected areas, but the end affect is exactly as I specified. On a statewide harvest level it gives the appearance that wolves do not impact harvest, but the truth is that local harvest levels have been severely impacted.

MFWP completely shut down most of the Yellowstone late hunts due to a lack of elk and harvest has dropped in other wolf affected areas. The seasons have been greatly reduced in affected areas in Idaho and more harvest is coming from unaffected areas. So it was very misleading for WDFW to show a graph indicating there were little impacts caused by wolves.

It was especially frustrating for everyone who had to sit there and listen to irrelevant data from all over the state of WA when we were all there to hear what WDFW was going to do to protect ungulate herds in NE WA. Definitely a poor excuse for a dog and pony show. As someone else mentioned, WDFW has already started increasing other permits and seasons in other areas. This will hide the low harvest in NE WA when you compare year to year harvest on a statewide level.

[bearpaw]

My apologies for this getting off topic, this side discussion should be in the Colville meeting topic.

[JLS]

I wasn't at the meeting and won't even try to speak to it.  However, your continued assertion that the motive for increasing elk harvest in other areas was to hide or mask the affect of wolves is patently false.  I will again refer you to the 2003 legislation in MT that directed FWP to reduce elk numbers in many elk management units.  Debbie Barrett out of Dillon was the sponsor.

Data can be skewed in many ways to say what you want it to say.  All things must be taken in context, or else one can easily be misled.  I would certainly agree that simply focusing on statewide elk harvest is not an accurate indicator of the impact that wolves may have on localized hunter harvest. 

[wolfbait]

I wasn't at the meeting and won't even try to speak to it.  However, your continued assertion that the motive for increasing elk harvest in other areas was to hide or mask the affect of wolves is patently false.  I will again refer you to the 2003 legislation in MT that directed FWP to reduce elk numbers in many elk management units.  Debbie Barrett out of Dillon was the sponsor.

Data can be skewed in many ways to say what you want it to say.  All things must be taken in context, or else one can easily be misled.  I would certainly agree that simply focusing on statewide elk harvest is not an accurate indicator of the impact that wolves may have on localized hunter harvest.

Just one more thing JLS> "And this is the mentality that makes hunter look ridiculous, the continuous accusations of lies about wolves."

What makes hunters look "rediculous" is after 17 years of wolf promoters proven to be Liars by their own wolves,  hunters can't seem to come together as One and fight for their hunting.   

[6x6in6]

I wasn't at the meeting and won't even try to speak to it.  However, your continued assertion that the motive for increasing elk harvest in other areas was to hide or mask the affect of wolves is patently false.  I will again refer you to the 2003 legislation in MT that directed FWP to reduce elk numbers in many elk management units.  Debbie Barrett out of Dillon was the sponsor.

Data can be skewed in many ways to say what you want it to say.  All things must be taken in context, or else one can easily be misled.  I would certainly agree that simply focusing on statewide elk harvest is not an accurate indicator of the impact that wolves may have on localized hunter harvest.

The wolf plan specifically states, and I quote form said wolf plan.....   "During recovery stages, while wolves are listed in Washington, it is unlikely that they will have a significant negative effect on ungulate populations in the state. However, if WDFW determined that wolf predation was a primary limiting factor for an “at-risk” ungulate population, and the wolf population in that wolf recovery region was at least 4 successful breeding pairs, WDFW could consider reducing wolf abundance in the localized area occupied by the ungulate population before state delisting occurs.

I may be wrong in my interpretation of the bold above, but 4 successful breeding pairs within the wolf recovery region COULD CONSIDER reducing.......
Nothing at all about State numbers. 
Need to get to 4 to begin with in North Cascade Region.  Then they need to have puppies for 3 consecutive years.  And then the WDFW COULD CONSIDER reducing.......

It's BS!!!  Nothing here clearly states that the WDFW has to do squat, except consider.   

[Skyvalhunter]

First of all that RED is an obnioxious color to read can you tone it to say a more readable color. Thanks. The State will and has jumbled the numbers as they have already done in the past

[6x6in6]

First of all that RED is an obnioxious color to read can you tone it to say a more readable color. Thanks. The State will and has jumbled the numbers as they have already done in the past

Yeah, that was a little annoying wasn't it.

[wolfbait]

Specifically at the Colville meeting the WDFW presented a graph which depicted elk harvest in Idaho as steady indicating ungulates were not affected much by wolves. I challenged their graph, Idaho and Montana increased harvest in other areas to hide the impacts of wolves and I mentioned the Lolo, Bitterroot, Yellowstone, Payette, and other impacted herds. It is a fact that more elk are being harvested in areas unaffected by wolves in Montana and Idaho. I suppose I cannot prove that was their purpose of increasing harvest in unaffected areas, but the end affect is exactly as I specified. On a statewide harvest level it gives the appearance that wolves do not impact harvest, but the truth is that local harvest levels have been severely impacted.

MFWP completely shut down most of the Yellowstone late hunts due to a lack of elk and harvest has dropped in other wolf affected areas. The seasons have been greatly reduced in affected areas in Idaho and more harvest is coming from unaffected areas. So it was very misleading for WDFW to show a graph indicating there were little impacts caused by wolves.

It was especially frustrating for everyone who had to sit there and listen to irrelevant data from all over the state of WA when we were all there to hear what WDFW was going to do to protect ungulate herds in NE WA. Definitely a poor excuse for a dog and pony show. As someone else mentioned, WDFW has already started increasing other permits and seasons in other areas. This will hide the low harvest in NE WA when you compare year to year harvest on a statewide level.

Good Job BP, I couldn't make it as planned, but I'm happy you softened them up for me I'm sure they will hit the Okanogan packing their same bucket of BS, and their same I could give a chit attitude. Remember the meetings over the wolf plan? they came, lied laughed and left. Same/same.

WDFW are going to have to clearcut  to reach their goal of the Methow. What happens when six hunters show up and they kill five bucks? WDFW's tool will run to the local paper and say for the amount of hunters we had, the Methow deer season was a great sucess? This will be the new WA Hunting report in every county before long.

I talk to a friend of mine who lives at Grand Coulee, he said there have been wolves seen in the Tri-cities area chasing deer. I wonder how long it will be before WDFW's wolves kill some cows around there? More wolves are being reported around Deer Park also.

WDFW are going to need several million for the sudden increase in wolves, just think in 2008 according to WDFW we were just starting wolf recovery, in a few years we will have a worse wolf problem then Idaho. Wait in see.

[mountainman]

My opinion, for what its worth. I dont believe too much of what the department claims, and zero when it comes to the topic of wolves. Just looking at the pictures of the cow..why does there need to be punctures and bone crushing bites to the carcass for it to be a wolf? Yes, they kill that way, but they also run the animal to exhaustion, move in and hamstring, then open the bowels and begin feeding as the animal slowly dies. Look at the rear right hoof/pastern of the cow killed. Typical of a hamstring wound.. my 2 cents

[Wenatcheejay]

Why do people on this site not trust WDFW? Because they lie that is why. They have been dishonest, deceitful, and act with total disregard to the citizens who fund the bulk of their paychecks interests, that is why. I would like to see this agent of a dishonest government agency take a lie detector test that he honestly can determine this is not in fact a wolf kill.

Why do people on this site think that these animals are wolf kills? Wolves are 500 yards from the body, that is why. Everywhere the wolves show up this happens, the game becomes nonexistent and yet the wolves never have anything what so ever to do with it. (((Bullblank!))) I find it amazing the level of proof that must be visible to determine a wolf kill. Why not just demand that there must be 3 WDFW biologist eyewitnesses to any kill. There would be little difference in the outcome. Unbelievable. (I'd say stop with the fake CIS investigation but that would mean no photo op with the Wenatchee World showing how WDFW works with ranchers for a viable solution. That solution BTW is screw you ranchers!)

If WDFW were to have gone with the rest of the States and ended wolf protection and started a season, none of this would be an issue. At the very least not an issue to the level that it is.

Like the rest of government these days the only people who benefit from this is government employee's and special interests, nobody else benefits.

People who work with WDFW are fools if they think they have any interests in anything other than promoting their wolf agenda.

[Gringo31]

Lack of trust, coming from the top.



So...where from here?

[nwwanderer]

Seems like a very fast determination by WDFW.  I have had animals at the Diagnostic lab that I was pretty certain of a cause that tooks weeks for positive or negative determinations.  If a very pregnant cow was pursued, dying without a mark would not be unusual. 

[huntnphool]

I would like to see this agent of a dishonest government agency take a lie detector test that he honestly can determine this is not in fact a wolf kill.

I could be wrong but I don't think they ever make a statement that concludes its not a wolf kill, rather they leave themselves a out by saying "they can't confirm it is a wolf kill". It's politics pure and simple, a play on words that leaves them wiggle room in either direction.

[bobcat]

I would like to see this agent of a dishonest government agency take a lie detector test that he honestly can determine this is not in fact a wolf kill.

I could be wrong but I don't think they ever make a statement that concludes its not a wolf kill, rather they leave themselves a out by saying "they can't confirm it is a wolf kill". It's politics pure and simple, a play on words that leaves them wiggle room in either direction.

 

[boneaddict]

My opinion, for what its worth. I dont believe too much of what the department claims, and zero when it comes to the topic of wolves. Just looking at the pictures of the cow..why does there need to be punctures and bone crushing bites to the carcass for it to be a wolf? Yes, they kill that way, but they also run the animal to exhaustion, move in and hamstring, then open the bowels and begin feeding as the animal slowly dies. Look at the rear right hoof/pastern of the cow killed. Typical of a hamstring wound.. my 2 cents

100% my thoughts as well