WDFW Offers Reward for info ................wolf killing

[AspenBud]

Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.

If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...

It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.

In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... 

The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. 

This isn't even an intelligent discussion. 

That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?

[idahohuntr]

I don't think livestock losses should be compensated either. First of all, it wasn't the WDFW that put the wolves here. Second, we just can't afford to pay out money every time a wolf, cougar, bear, or other predator kills someone's animal. It's the cost of doing business. You raise cattle in wolf habitat? Well then, expect to have the wolves eat a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

x1000
Why some think ranchers deserve a handout/welfare check from hunters is mind boggling to me.  Not all ranchers accept/apply for these handouts, which I applaud.  I also agree that ranchers should be allowed to kill any predator harassing/attacking their livestock on their PRIVATE land.  IF they run livestock on public land...tough...cost of doing business.  You want to lease some public land in wolf or other predator country...then you know what your getting into and its not the hunters of this state who should compensate your losses.  We as a society can not just continue to support through welfare programs the poor decisions of other segments of society...including ranchers who graze on public lands with high predator densities.   

Maybe we should start a reverse program where all cattle ranchers compensated for losses on public ground have to give 25lbs of beef to all unsuccessful deer and elk hunters in the state 

[bearpaw]

Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.

If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...

It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.

In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... 

The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. 

This isn't even an intelligent discussion. 

That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?

I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.

If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.

It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! 

[AspenBud]

Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.

If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...

It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.

In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... 

The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. 

This isn't even an intelligent discussion. 

That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?

I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.

If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.

It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! 

 

Of course you haven't asked.

People lie Bearpaw.

[bearpaw]

I don't think livestock losses should be compensated either. First of all, it wasn't the WDFW that put the wolves here. Second, we just can't afford to pay out money every time a wolf, cougar, bear, or other predator kills someone's animal. It's the cost of doing business. You raise cattle in wolf habitat? Well then, expect to have the wolves eat a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

x1000
Why some think ranchers deserve a handout/welfare check from hunters is mind boggling to me.  Not all ranchers accept/apply for these handouts, which I applaud.  I also agree that ranchers should be allowed to kill any predator harassing/attacking their livestock on their PRIVATE land.  IF they run livestock on public land...tough...cost of doing business.  You want to lease some public land in wolf or other predator country...then you know what your getting into and its not the hunters of this state who should compensate your losses.  We as a society can not just continue to support through welfare programs the poor decisions of other segments of society...including ranchers who graze on public lands with high predator densities.   

Maybe we should start a reverse program where all cattle ranchers compensated for losses on public ground have to give 25lbs of beef to all unsuccessful deer and elk hunters in the state 

Some people have a pretty short memory or perhaps they just don't absorb details.

The deal to bring back wolves was that the wolf groups and agencies would compensate ranchers for losses. Prettty simple explanation, too bad the wolf groups duped the agencies and now agencies are stuck being somewhat accountable. Although they get out of the majority of liability by claiming non-conclusive wolves made the kill. But please don't be so naïve as to say you don't understand this. It was all part of the wolf plan to bring back wolves. 

[Jingles]

It's interesting how WDFW can fail do its duty by hiding behind the no money excuse when it's convenient. When they closed the catch and release steelhead season on the Sky I asked the biologist why they thought there was a shortage of wild fish since everybody who spent time on the river knew better. She said "we don't know how many there are we don't have any money to study it. We closed it just in case". Now they say wolf studies are too expensive.

WDFW comes up with the excuse that they don't have money yet they continue to purchase more and more land here in the Methow Pumpkin Patch

[idahohuntr]

I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.

If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.

It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! 

ol bearpaw has got to be one or two of the biggest hypocrites in the entire world:
-Doesn't need numbers from rancher on livestock losses, but the gov't needs to count and provide stats on every darn wolf in the state 
-Touts how elk have plummeted in Idaho because of wolves yet advertises great elk hunting in Idaho on his outfitter website 
-Trusts government numbers on number of elk/deer killed per wolf, but doesn't trust government numbers regarding poaching or overall wolf numbers 

Kind of makes John Kerry (and many other politicians) look like real straight-shooters   

[bearpaw]

Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.

If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...

It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.

In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... 

The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. 

This isn't even an intelligent discussion. 

That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?

I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.

If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.

It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! 

 

Of course you haven't asked.

People lie Bearpaw.

Yep, some people do...., I remember a lot of promises about the wolf plan and wolf numbers, I know who the liars are in this wolf fiasco. 

The documented statistics are there for all of us to see. Some of us can grasp the truth, others, well.....

[Heredoggydoggy]

It's interesting how WDFW can fail do its duty by hiding behind the no money excuse when it's convenient. When they closed the catch and release steelhead season on the Sky I asked the biologist why they thought there was a shortage of wild fish since everybody who spent time on the river knew better. She said "we don't know how many there are we don't have any money to study it. We closed it just in case". Now they say wolf studies are too expensive.

WDFW comes up with the excuse that they don't have money yet they continue to purchase more and more land here in the Methow Pumpkin Patch

Not to mention Jay Inslee's plan to have WDFW buy the north half of Douglas County... 

[bearpaw]

I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.

If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.

It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! 

ol bearpaw has got to be one or two of the biggest hypocrites in the entire world:
-Doesn't need numbers from rancher on livestock losses, but the gov't needs to count and provide stats on every darn wolf in the state 
-Touts how elk have plummeted in Idaho because of wolves yet advertises great elk hunting in Idaho on his outfitter website 
-Trusts government numbers on number of elk/deer killed per wolf, but doesn't trust government numbers regarding poaching or overall wolf numbers 

Kind of makes John Kerry (and many other politicians) look like real straight-shooters   

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Maybe you don't know anyone you can trust, if that is so, I'm sorry for you.

Maybe I'm a lucky man, I do know people I can trust and I'm glad to trust them. I'll also trust the McIrvin's long before I'll trust the wolfers in our government who promised the deal for 100 wolves per state with compensation to ranchers for losses. That's already been proven to be lies. Show me the proof the McIrvin's are lieing, WDFW seemed to agree with the McIrvin's that the wolves were a problem killing cattle and eliminated most of them. 

It's seems you hate outfitters, even if you don't know them, I don't know if it's jealousy or what, don't really matter. I do know that I have been fortunate in that I think ranchers have kept the wolves shot out of my current area. I am looking at another hunt business right in the heart of wolf country.

Idaho is doing a great job of curbing wolf numbers and Idaho is aggressively managing cougars and bear to try and make up for the high numbers of elk and deer being killed by wolves, some areas that have been wolf impacted for several years, now the elk are finally growing in numbers in some of those areas now that wolves are being thinned. As more wolves are thinned this will improve further.

I'm thinking in my business plan for the new area that rather than charge for wolf hunts, we will credit any deer or elk hunter $500 back for any wolf taken, that way we are doing our part in helping to control wolves to improve wildlife and hunting in Idaho. If we can kill 3 or 4 wolves each year we more than offset any game taken by our hunters and herds will grow even more. 

[bearpaw]

-Trusts government numbers on number of elk/deer killed per wolf, but doesn't trust government numbers regarding poaching or overall wolf numbers 

Here's the difference between what you think and what I have said.

I agreed poaching is a problem, I disagreed with the numbers, simple mathematics proves your F&G buddies were exaggerating their story and it appears they were trying to lessen the impacts of wolves. Those are the boys I would be more careful about trusting. 

As others have said, poaching was a problem prior to 1995, probably much less today than then. Wolves have greatly increased. I know what you think and what I think, let's let the readers decide who is closer to being correct. 

[idahohuntr]

I'm thinking in my business plan for the new area that rather than charge for wolf hunts, we will credit any deer or elk hunter $500 back for any wolf taken, that way we are doing our part in helping to control wolves to improve wildlife and hunting in Idaho.

I think this is a good business idea...wolf success rates are very low so its not like you will lose a bunch of money...but unlike most outfits that would charge a trophy fee for the instances of killing a wolf you give them a credit...I think this will resonate very well with most folks and be a good selling point that could differentiate your business  Can't hurt.  Maybe you can take me, Aspen, Sitka and JLS on a hunt   

I also think a lot of the hard hit areas in Idaho will start to turn around in elk numbers with declines in wolf numbers and increasing habitat restoration efforts, particularly the habitat work being planned in N-C Idaho.  The old adage "buy low sell high" applies to hunting businesses as much as stocks...now is the time to be buying hunting outfits in N-C Idaho...they are at a low!

For all that I disagree with you on biological/wildlife management issues I will not argue your business sense.

If we can kill 3 or 4 wolves each year we more than offset any game taken by our hunters and herds will grow even more. 

This is where I think your logic starts to fall apart...predator/prey interactions are not the simple addition and subtraction you describe.  It is why your statements about 17 elk and 44 deer per wolf don't actually play out...even if that is what wolves in N-C Idaho are eating (*I have serious reservations about extrapolating wolf predation in YNP just a year or two after wolf introduction and very high elk numbers in the park to present day N-C Idaho...) its just not as simple as you describe.  The notion that killing a wolf saves 17 elk per year is not likely very accurate in most parts of Idaho and N-C Idaho...perhaps in some very specific areas it does...but not many.

[bearpaw]

I'm thinking in my business plan for the new area that rather than charge for wolf hunts, we will credit any deer or elk hunter $500 back for any wolf taken, that way we are doing our part in helping to control wolves to improve wildlife and hunting in Idaho.

I think this is a good business idea...wolf success rates are very low so its not like you will lose a bunch of money...but unlike most outfits that would charge a trophy fee for the instances of killing a wolf you give them a credit...I think this will resonate very well with most folks and be a good selling point that could differentiate your business  Can't hurt.  Maybe you can take me, Aspen, Sitka and JLS on a hunt   

I also think a lot of the hard hit areas in Idaho will start to turn around in elk numbers with declines in wolf numbers and increasing habitat restoration efforts, particularly the habitat work being planned in N-C Idaho.  The old adage "buy low sell high" applies to hunting businesses as much as stocks...now is the time to be buying hunting outfits in N-C Idaho...they are at a low!

For all that I disagree with you on biological/wildlife management issues I will not argue your business sense.

If we can kill 3 or 4 wolves each year we more than offset any game taken by our hunters and herds will grow even more. 

This is where I think your logic starts to fall apart...predator/prey interactions are not the simple addition and subtraction you describe.  It is why your statements about 17 elk and 44 deer per wolf don't actually play out...even if that is what wolves in N-C Idaho are eating (*I have serious reservations about extrapolating wolf predation in YNP just a year or two after wolf introduction and very high elk numbers in the park to present day N-C Idaho...) its just not as simple as you describe.  The notion that killing a wolf saves 17 elk per year is not likely very accurate in most parts of Idaho and N-C Idaho...perhaps in some very specific areas it does...but not many.

At first I think that the predation rate was probably pretty close in Idaho as YNP, but now some of those wolf impacted areas don't have as many elk and deer so you are likely correct, now wolves may not be killing quite that many because they can't find them. This could explain why wolves are increasingly coming to WA and OR and even going back to B.C.

We all know from published data that wolves peaked, destroyed YNP elk herds and then fled to other areas or began eating each other. After a little of both, the end result is that YNP has half as many wolves and roughly 20% of the elk it once did. 

In Idaho's heavily impacted areas it's very possible wolves are only finding 10 elk per year or 30 deer per year to consume, obviously numbers will vary, but even at that predation rate the end result is the same, those animals eaten are gone. If I can shoot 3 or 4 wolves and save even 30 elk or 90 deer then I have saved more than my hunters will take.   

[AspenBud]

Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.

If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...

It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.

In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... 

The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. 

This isn't even an intelligent discussion. 

That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?

I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.

If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.

It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! 

 

Of course you haven't asked.

People lie Bearpaw.

Yep, some people do...., I remember a lot of promises about the wolf plan and wolf numbers, I know who the liars are in this wolf fiasco. 

The documented statistics are there for all of us to see. Some of us can grasp the truth, others, well.....

So you mean to tell me that you will go to the ends of the earth and post just about any statistic you think supports your view here, but you've never asked a guy like McIrvin if he has records going back a couple decades that show he is now losing more cattle to predation overall than he was in 1990-1995?

Are you afraid he's going to show you that he lost (hypothetical number here) 100 cattle in 1995 and 100 in 2013? That he loses on average about the same every year wolf or no wolf?

A one or two year stat that solely shows wolves killed cows doesn't say much. Numbers that indicate an upward trend in cattle losses to predation over several years with a sharp spike since the arrival of wolves does. That wolves killed cattle doesn't matter, it's if they are leading to more losses overall, as in if they are additive to existing predation or if they are just displacing existing predators, that matters.

Can ranchers in Stevens County supply this information? If so, where is it? That is valuable information.

[idahohuntr]

Without statistics it's kind of hard to prove anything. Sure, wolves may get to a point where they eat babies out of mothers' arms, but so far the statistics between Canada and the lower 48 don't show that. We do have, however, bear attacks reported every year with the most recent to make headlines of a woman in Florida being attacked and dragged out of her garage by one.

If ranchers in Washington are losing more cattle, sheep, whatever every year to predators, and if there is a real spike in the last 5, that says something. Particularly in Stevens County. But if the average over the last 25 years is about the same year over year, well...

It's one thing to get all wound up emotionally over the issue, that goes for both sides, it's another to look at hard numbers for what they really are.

In one year McIrvin's lost more cattle to wolves than they've ever lost to any other predators. That's why that pack was mostly killed. Old News... 

The data is proven on wolves and they are being managed heavily in other states where the wolf lovers don't control the Fish & Game. 

This isn't even an intelligent discussion. 

That doesn't say much to me. Did they lose more than in any other year ever to predators in general? Have they ever submitted records that show this is true year over year for the last 25 years? If so, where are they?

I really don't care what you think, you are one of the people on here only to try and promote wolves.

If you want to know exact numbers call McIrvin up and ask. I've never asked for documented details from them and have no idea if they keep exact numbers. Some people you can trust on their word, but that may be a concept you don't understand. You wolfers will grab at anything to avoid admitting the impacts of wolves.

It's all proven, numbers of wolf killed cattle are documented. Wolves have already been killed that were responsible. Old news! 

 

Of course you haven't asked.

People lie Bearpaw.

Yep, some people do...., I remember a lot of promises about the wolf plan and wolf numbers, I know who the liars are in this wolf fiasco. 

The documented statistics are there for all of us to see. Some of us can grasp the truth, others, well.....

So you mean to tell me that you will go to the ends of the earth and post just about any statistic you think supports your view here, but you've never asked a guy like McIrvin if he has records going back a couple decades that show he is now losing more cattle to predation overall than he was in 1990-1995?

Are you afraid he's going to show you that he lost (hypothetical number here) 100 cattle in 1995 and 100 in 2013? That he loses on average about the same every year wolf or no wolf?

A one or two year stat that solely shows wolves killed cows doesn't say much. Numbers that indicate an upward trend in cattle losses to predation over several years with a sharp spike since the arrival of wolves does. That wolves killed cattle doesn't matter, it's if they are leading to more losses overall, as in if they are additive to existing predation or if they are just displacing existing predators, that matters.

Can ranchers in Stevens County supply this information? If so, where is it? That is valuable information.

Now we are getting to the complexity of predation issues...compensatory mortality...how many would die anyways...this applies to cattle as much as it does deer and elk.  It is why bearpaws simple addition/subtraction logic doesn't work out in the real world very often.  Except in extremely rare cases it is difficult to believe all wolf predation is additive.