Wolf kills deer in Wenatchee yard

[MR5x5]

....and I'll keep saying!!!

This westsider says I demand a Capitol Forest pack be transplanted to so richly fulfill the local lives of those who impose upon others....

[AspenBud]

Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.

A better comparison is Minnesota.

Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.

No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.

From the angle you're talking about, I'll agree. But if we're talking about babies getting snatched by wolves in peoples' back yards, which is what the original argument was about, it's a great comparison. Minnesota has always had wolves, a large number of them, and to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a fatality caused by them in the last 100 years unless you count "pet" wolves. Bear on the other hand...

That should not be construed to mean they are fluffy and trustworthy animals. They are predators and the danger is there. But in the grand scheme of things people appear to have more to fear from bear and cougars, for now. But even if it happens, I very much doubt most people will see it any differently than when a bear or cougar kills someone, and why should they, dead is dead. Unless it becomes a very common thing, don't expect people to get too worked up about it.

Side note, part of the reason Minnesota has so few elk is farmers out there see them as pests that destroy crops. Their population has been heavily managed for years for that reason. Sound familiar?

**********************

There are very good reasons to be managing/hunting wolves in this state, I am not arguing that point.

[AspenBud]

Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.

A better comparison is Minnesota.

Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.

No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.

also MN has few cougars and a smaller bear population.

Cougar, yes. Bear, the last time I checked we had about 10,000 more. But they can still hunt them with hounds out there I believe.

[AspenBud]

No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer.

That highlighted part from your post, this is the point that needs to made and wolf supporters need to be whacked over the head with it over and over in this state.

Forget arguments about attacks on humans or attacks on dogs or attacks on livestock, other predators do that exact same thing and you will never get traction with that. But how Canadian grey wolves are throwing the ecosystem into disarray, that can be both proven and argued.

Why should an over population of wolves in one corner of the state be allowed to ravage the landscape while people wait for them to expand into others? How is that fair or, frankly, good science? It's not, and we all know it.

If they want wolves in all three zones, let's put them there and get it over with so we can start managing their numbers. Period.

[bobcat]

Finally, some common sense, reasonable comments on the wolf issue. Thanks Aspenbud.

But as for "putting wolves into regions where they are not already present," I don't agree with that. The wolves are doing that on their own and I don't think they need our help.

What is needed is for wolves to be counted where they already are. I don't want the state spending even more money on the relocation of wolves, into areas they may not ever inhabit without our help.

[denali]

Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.

A better comparison is Minnesota.

Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.

No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.

also MN has few cougars and a smaller bear population.

Cougar, yes. Bear, the last time I checked we had about 10,000 more. But they can still hunt them with hounds out there I believe.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/blackbear.html    est. 20,000-  WA population est. 25-30,000

[JLS]

Side note, part of the reason Minnesota has so few elk is farmers out there see them as pests that destroy crops. Their population has been heavily managed for years for that reason. Sound familiar?

**********************

It sounds VERY familiar.  Not only in Washington, but also Montana.

Maybe the reason Minnnesota has so many whitetails is they have the kind of wolves that live in harmony with everything else? 

[pianoman9701]

Alberta has a land mass of 255,500 sq miles and a population of 3.65 million = pop. density of 14.29 people per sq mile
WA has a land mass of 71,362 sq miles and a population of 6.9 million = pop. density of 96.7 people per sq mile.

A better comparison is Minnesota.

Land mass around 87,000 square miles and a population of 5,344,861 people. Or 61 people per square miles They have a wolf population of around 3000 and growing and even at their lowest point they've had more wolves than Washington does now. At least according to official records. If you play your cards right you can kill five deer a season in Minnesota I believe. They are rats with antlers the farther east you go.

No, that's not a great comparison. The geography and the animal mix in Minnesota is completely different from WA. A comparison to MT and ID is much more valid and those states are not doing well with the wolves they have. We also know that whitetails (MN) are far more abundant and reproduce faster than either blackies or mule deer. There are also no elk to speak of in Minnesota - very small population there.

also MN has few cougars and a smaller bear population.

Cougar, yes. Bear, the last time I checked we had about 10,000 more. But they can still hunt them with hounds out there I believe.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/blackbear.html    est. 20,000-  WA population est. 25-30,000

Yes, so MN has up to 33% fewer bears with 20% bigger land mass than WA. Cougars? Substantially fewer. Maybe none?

[Wenatcheejay]

There is an area called SaddleRock right between these two canyons where the wolf pack is. Granola crunching potheads love to hike around up there with their dogs. (Some normal people as well.) It's a likely spot for an altercation. The solution would be to close the area to human interaction. People do not need to be up there. 

  It would be grrreat! To see people switch their opinion if they had any skin in this game.

[denali]

Ranchers weigh future with wolves

By DAN WHEAT

Capital Press

WENATCHEE, Wash. -- The Hurd brothers started seeing tracks on their ranch last year. They were from wolves or really large dogs, they weren't sure.

Then last fall the Hurds held four miles of fire line during the Wenatchee wildfires, and Oregon hot shot fire crews told them they found wolf tracks on the ridge five to six miles southwest of Wenatchee.

In November, a neighbor's remote camera caught an image of a wolf.

The wolf probably split from the Teanaway Pack about 30 miles to the southwest, said David Volsen, a biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

In March, the Hurds found a large bull elk that they'd known for a split ear floating dead in their stock pond. Wolf tracks were abundant on the pond bank.

"Wolves probably chased it and it finally went into cold water to get away from them and drowned," Ross Hurd said.

It had been fed on after it was dead, and there were wolf tracks but a necropsy showed no evidence wolves killed it, Volsen said.

The Hurds placed a camera that caught images of two wolves feeding on the elk's carcass.

"Two wolves traveling together is the definition of a pack," Volsen said.

That was the end of March. Fish and Wildlife officials asked the Hurds if they wanted to name the pack. They chose Wenatchee Pack.

One of the Hurd's cows was killed. There was evidence of wolves around it and it had been fed upon after death, but again a necropsy did not show a wolf killed it, Volsen said.

But they were nearby, he said.

"We saw wolves on the hillside behind us during the necropsy," he said.

Two other bull elk and 14 deer died on the 5,000-acre ranch, suspected but unconfirmed wolf kills, Hurd said.

At the recommendation of Fish and Wildlife, the Hurds brought their 60 mother cows in from open range to an acre holding area near their ranch house up Pitcher Canyon, some five miles southwest of town.

The idea is to protect cows while calving, but six cows were so traumatized that they would run away and couldn't be brought in, Hurd said. They may have already lost their calves to wolves, he said.

"We have 24 calves right now when we normally have 35," he said. "It could be the cows are just calving late, but why would wolves not be eating our calves out there?"

The Hurds have signed an agreement with Fish and Wildlife, fencing the calving pasture, electrifying the fence and getting rid of old bone yards, Volsen said. The department will contribute close to $5,000 toward fencing and extra feed, he said.

If there are more problems, the department will flag the fence to deter the wolves, Volsen said.

The plan is to hold the cattle in the pasture until deer migrate into the high country on the theory the wolves will follow the deer, Hurd said.

But Hurd and his brothers, Scott and Doug, all in their 50s, are apprehensive.

"I am not out to anger wolf people," Ross Hurd said. "I'm not here to say we need to kill the wolves, but what do we have to do to continue in the cattle business? What business model supports that? We will have increased feed costs and losses.

"We'd like to keep ranching. We're doing the best we can. I don't understand the goal of Fish and Wildlife. If the pack becomes 10 does it make it easier for us?"

The brothers are the fourth generation in the family that has owned the ranch for more than 100 years.

http://www.capitalpress.com/content/djw-wolves-w-art-041713

[Heredoggydoggy]

There is an area called SaddleRock right between these two canyons where the wolf pack is. Granola crunching potheads love to hike around up there with their dogs. (Some normal people as well.) It's a likely spot for an altercation. The solution would be to close the area to human interaction. People do not need to be up there. 

  It would be grrreat! To see people switch their opinion if they had any skin in this game.

The Sherriff's Deputies euthanized the deer and took it away.  That means wolfie will have to kill something else to eat.  Granola-crunching Pothead--YUK! 

[Wenatcheejay]

Great article Denali but every one of those animals were sure to have died from heart failure. 

It is impossible that wolves have anything to do with anything. The bio's make sure of it. I am sure many WDFW bio's are good guys just trying to do their job... But, they suck at it.

Wolves are making the kills. It's common sense and, it is also easy to conclude WDFW and the general public doesn't really care. 

[wolfbait]

Wolves in WA and OR, are USFWS and state game agency projects and in that order. There are bios like Fitkin who enjoy their job of covering for the wolves more than others. Look at the wolf introduction of Idaho as an example of what WA is going through now and will continue to go through until the USFWS decide there are enough wolves to finish off the game herds and cattle ranching etc..

Remember the first wolf pack in 70 years lie? And the fact that Oregon came out with a new wolf pack the very same day. Whether it is the USFWS and Idaho, or MT or WA etc. it is still the same game, the only difference is the wolf introduction has been hidden releases in WA and other startes. The outcome will be the same as Idaho etc., wolf impacts are and will continue to be covered until they start killing livestock to the point that confirming is their only choice and game herds will be slaughtered to the point of no return.

The USFWS had to foot the bill for Wyoming's wolf recovery for several years, only because WY's state legistlators refuse to bow down to the USFWS wolf plans. The USFWS  discovered long ago the only way to handle livestock killing wolves was to take out the entire pack. Now we see OR and WA preserving wolves in every way possible including hurting ranchers by letting wolves continue to kill their cows, when they already know the end results will be more dead cows, more $$$$$ and eventually the end results will be tha pack will either be killed or relocated somewhere else. The public won't care until the wolves are affecting them directly, we have already seen that.

There is probably only one solution to delisting sooner, and that is to cofirm wolf packs privately and go public. Reporting wolves to WDFW is worthless.

[Special T]

I personally think the big push has to be south of I90 so that it really puts the preassure on delisting. Unless 198 can be found N of I90 and in the NE...

[mulehunter]

Can't believe BIO kept saying Wolves didnt kill it. Whatever....  I KNOW  ALL of Wolves has done everyday is chase chase chase till they catch it to eat meat to get more fuel for their body for next kill.

BIO.