Bowhunter chased up tree by wolves in GMU 121!

[pianoman9701]

It makes sense to me. They cleared a lot of land, which creates a lot of grasses. That's one thing I wish we had more of on the wetside. I think our deer populations would be more robust.

[AspenBud]

It makes sense to me. They cleared a lot of land, which creates a lot of grasses. That's one thing I wish we had more of on the wetside. I think our deer populations would be more robust.

I remember when it wasn't that uncommon to see roadkill deer on the side of I-5. In the last year I saw one. It used to be that in a lot of spots you had to work your way through thick brush/understory when walking in the woods. These days all I see is tall trees with relatively clear forest floors and it is dark in there. In a lot of places the forest has become an eco desert in this state and that applies to about every national forest in Washington, even on private tree farms the landscape is different from what it used to be.

To say the habitat hasn't changed over the years or even that it's good is insanity. Restrictions on logging have done a lot of damage as has much of the development done on private lands. I have no idea what it's like in the Methow, but I grew up seeing deer in people's yards for 18 years on the west side and I still see them here on the west side more than 20 years beyond that. It's nothing new and it was occurring long before wolves and the hound hunting ban. Heck, they have a small group of elk that has been snacking around the country club in Longview for years.

I think deer and elk are opportunists. If their traditional habitat becomes trash they'll come looking for an easy meal and people's gardens and yards are full of it. Property owners often have land that is brushy, unused, and that has relatively few trees around which allows plenty of sun in. Deer love that stuff. They can hide in it, they can eat, and they thrive in it. They don't thrive on bare forest floors. If predators are following it makes sense, bad habitat means no food for them since the prey animals will seek out what they need so guess where they will go???

If Wolfbait wanted to say that wolves are exacerbating problems created as a result of poor deer/elk habitat I could buy into that. But to say that better and more habitat wouldn't change things is just downright wrong. The proof is right in front of you up in Alberta and it is the spectral opposite of what he is telling you. The deer have good habitat and their numbers have grown despite wolves.

Where many are right however, is that it can also be bad news for other species like the caribou up in Alberta. What benefits one species can be bad news for another if certain checks and balances aren't used.

Sorry, this is just one point in the argument that is so cockamamie I can't stand it. Poor and decreasing habitat is part of the problem. Very much so.

[Northway]

It makes sense to me. They cleared a lot of land, which creates a lot of grasses. That's one thing I wish we had more of on the wetside. I think our deer populations would be more robust.

I remember when it wasn't that uncommon to see roadkill deer on the side of I-5. In the last year I saw one. It used to be that in a lot of spots you had to work your way through thick brush/understory when walking in the woods. These days all I see is tall trees with relatively clear forest floors and it is dark in there. In a lot of places the forest has become an eco desert in this state and that applies to about every national forest in Washington, even on private tree farms the landscape is different from what it used to be.

To say the habitat hasn't changed over the years or even that it's good is insanity. Restrictions on logging have done a lot of damage as has much of the development done on private lands. I have no idea what it's like in the Methow, but I grew up seeing deer in people's yards for 18 years on the west side and I still see them here on the west side more than 20 years beyond that. It's nothing new and it was occurring long before wolves and the hound hunting ban. Heck, they have a small group of elk that has been snacking around the country club in Longview for years.

I think deer and elk are opportunists. If their traditional habitat becomes trash they'll come looking for an easy meal and people's gardens and yards are full of it. Property owners often have land that is brushy, unused, and that has relatively few trees around which allows plenty of sun in. Deer love that stuff. They can hide in it, they can eat, and they thrive in it. They don't thrive on bare forest floors. If predators are following it makes sense, bad habitat means no food for them since the prey animals will seek out what they need so guess where they will go???

If Wolfbait wanted to say that wolves are exacerbating problems created as a result of poor deer/elk habitat I could buy into that. But to say that better and more habitat wouldn't change things is just downright wrong. The proof is right in front of you up in Alberta and it is the spectral opposite of what he is telling you. The deer have good habitat and their numbers have grown despite wolves.

Where many are right however, is that it can also be bad news for other species like the caribou up in Alberta. What benefits one species can be bad news for another if certain checks and balances aren't used.

Sorry, this is just one point in the argument that is so cockamamie I can't stand it. Poor and decreasing habitat is part of the problem. Very much so.

Corporate interests that utilize undeveloped spaces try and foster that mentality that shifts all the blame for downward fluctuations in ungulates to predators, IMO. Why take any heat from adjacent residents if you don't have to? Create a narrative that takes credit for any increase in ungulate numbers, and then blame hippies and their pro-predator policies whenever things hit the fan. Caribou numbers going down? It's okay, we'll go whack some wolves and don't you dare ask any questions about any other factors causing declines.

I'm pro-wolf/pro predator management, but not when predators become the sole scapegoat for every problem. They are an additive pressure that need to be considered amongst other issues. I believe some people only voice their opinion when it comes to predator management because addressing other important factors bring them into conflict with their political beliefs. 

[pianoman9701]

I'd say if they have an extra 6,000 wolves to cull, they don't need a scapegoat. That's a lot of freakin wolves.

[pianoman9701]

It makes sense to me. They cleared a lot of land, which creates a lot of grasses. That's one thing I wish we had more of on the wetside. I think our deer populations would be more robust.

I remember when it wasn't that uncommon to see roadkill deer on the side of I-5. In the last year I saw one. It used to be that in a lot of spots you had to work your way through thick brush/understory when walking in the woods. These days all I see is tall trees with relatively clear forest floors and it is dark in there. In a lot of places the forest has become an eco desert in this state and that applies to about every national forest in Washington, even on private tree farms the landscape is different from what it used to be.

To say the habitat hasn't changed over the years or even that it's good is insanity. Restrictions on logging have done a lot of damage as has much of the development done on private lands. I have no idea what it's like in the Methow, but I grew up seeing deer in people's yards for 18 years on the west side and I still see them here on the west side more than 20 years beyond that. It's nothing new and it was occurring long before wolves and the hound hunting ban. Heck, they have a small group of elk that has been snacking around the country club in Longview for years.

I think deer and elk are opportunists. If their traditional habitat becomes trash they'll come looking for an easy meal and people's gardens and yards are full of it. Property owners often have land that is brushy, unused, and that has relatively few trees around which allows plenty of sun in. Deer love that stuff. They can hide in it, they can eat, and they thrive in it. They don't thrive on bare forest floors. If predators are following it makes sense, bad habitat means no food for them since the prey animals will seek out what they need so guess where they will go???

If Wolfbait wanted to say that wolves are exacerbating problems created as a result of poor deer/elk habitat I could buy into that. But to say that better and more habitat wouldn't change things is just downright wrong. The proof is right in front of you up in Alberta and it is the spectral opposite of what he is telling you. The deer have good habitat and their numbers have grown despite wolves.

Where many are right however, is that it can also be bad news for other species like the caribou up in Alberta. What benefits one species can be bad news for another if certain checks and balances aren't used.

Sorry, this is just one point in the argument that is so cockamamie I can't stand it. Poor and decreasing habitat is part of the problem. Very much so.

I think there's a perfect storm of problems here in WA, especially in the west but really, all over. The restrictions on logging the NFs was first, including a ban on logging spotted owl habitat.  That reduced grasses and prime habitat. The next leg of the storm was the end to hounding and baiting, and we're seeing the large numbers of bears and cougars as a result. Cougars have reached carrying capacity in virtually every part of the state. Next, you have the wolves coming. When they fully hit the wetside, and they will, you won't see any deer. I suspect blacktails will be protected within the next 20 years.

[JLS]

I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.

[pianoman9701]

I think they're in trouble here and when the wolves come, it's going to be worse.

[Northway]

I'd say if they have an extra 6,000 wolves to cull, they don't need a scapegoat. That's a lot of freakin wolves.

That is a lot of wolves. If a get a few minutes, I might try and figure out where they came up with the 6,000 number.

[buckfvr]

I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.

Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......

[wolfbait]

Human, pet encounters with cougars increase each winter
http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/01/human-pet-encounters-with-cougars-increase-each-winter/

Cougar sightings, encounters continue to add up in the valley

by ADMIN on Jan 9, 2014
http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/09/cougar-sightings-encounters-continue-to-add-up-in-the-valley/


And now add uncontrolled wolves in on top of cougars, and ask yourself how long will it be before WA has lots of habitat with nothing on it?

[bobcat]

I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.

Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......

Yeah, that plus very likely we won't have over the counter tags anymore.

[AspenBud]

I think they're in trouble here and when the wolves come, it's going to be worse.

Sooner or later people will have to face the choices they have made. If deer decline that badly it will mean either killing some wolves, improving/increasing habitat, or both.

[Elkaholic daWg]

I think they're in trouble here and when the wolves come, it's going to be worse.

Sooner or later people will have to face the choices they have made. If deer decline that badly it will mean either killing some wolves, improving/increasing habitat, or both.

 You forgot putting an end to hunting....

[AspenBud]

I think they're in trouble here and when the wolves come, it's going to be worse.

Sooner or later people will have to face the choices they have made. If deer decline that badly it will mean either killing some wolves, improving/increasing habitat, or both.

 You forgot putting an end to hunting....

Not for small game or predators.

But without deer and other ungulates wolves starve, become much more dangerous as a result of hunger, and die. Letting wolves kill every ungulate in sight is a zero sum gain for hunters and greenies alike. Letting habitat disappear or degrade to the extent that it causes ungulate declines is also a zero sum gain for both groups.

At some point everyone will have to break bread together and ungulates are at the center of their mutual desires. You can't have wolves without game and you can't have big game hunting without game. Given the relatively small number of hunters in this state, any significant decline in ungulates means something is horribly out of whack in the ecosystem.

I just see a multifaceted problem where guys like Wolfbait see one. He'll say it's just the wolf where I'll point out that wolf reintro started happening right around the time logging restrictions and the spotted owl started rearing their head and the negative impacts of those restrictions is starting to show itself. The older the forests get the worse it will get.

[JLS]

I highly doubt blacktails will be protected in 20 years, but again that's just my humble opinion.

Not in that sense, but I could see no shooting zones restricting fire arms along much of the I-5 corridore, east and west into developed areas.........so many dang people over there.......

That would be a very legitimate concern.