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

[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.....

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.

There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I would agree that small numbers of wolves could be mostly compensatory and not make a large difference in game numbers. I wouldn't have a problem with reasonable wolf management. The problem is that the wolf groups know no moderation, they want unmanaged wolf numbers. I am forced to support the other end of the spectrum in hopes of meeting in the middle as they have done in Idaho. Problem is who knows when "reason" will come to Washington. 

I said it before, maybe you missed it, I don't know if they have exact records of all cattle mortality reasons. Doesn't really matter, the wolves that ate McIrvin's cattle were proven to have eaten the cattle. As a result those wolves were eliminated as they should have been. OLD NEWS.... GET OVER IT!   

Washington needs to follow Idaho's lead, Idaho is bringing wolf management back to reality. Their goal is 200 wolves, that's 50 more wolves than the ESA requires, a comfortable cushion and a number that will not rape and pillage the countryside of all other wildlife. 

Washington could probably support 100 wolves without too many negative impacts. Currently we likely have at least double that many wolves but they only admit to around 100 and don't want to find the rest probably for fear of having to tackle state delisting. 

There are impacts already being felt by wolves, I know one shed hunter who found 3 wolf killed moose this late winter. First time he's ever seen a wolf kill, suddenly three in one winter that one person found, I wonder how many moose were actually killed by wolves over the last 3-4 years in NE WA?

[cougarbart]

i don't know about the mcirvins but i will give you some statistics from my family log! They ran 200 head of cows from the 1930 to 2002 out of elk river idaho! Up until 1996 they lost 2 yearling calves to predators in 70 years! In 1996 they lost 2 cows to wolves even tho biologist said it looks like it died in a mud hole and then the wolves ate it!lol sound familiar? 97- 2 calves and a cow 98- 2 calves 99-4 cows and and calf 00- 2 cows and a calf 01- 2 cows and a bull!

[idahohuntr]

There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas.

Only in areas where habitat is poor have I seen strong evidence of additive mortality (e.g., Lolo).  Majority of Idaho is at or above elk population objectives and many areas are well over objectives and have only increased since 1995 which would likely mean wolf predation in those areas is compensatory.  This is also why Idaho is trying so hard to get at the habitat factor in the Lolo...it will be a more effective and longer term solution to rebuilding elk numbers than targeted removal of wolves 

[AspenBud]

i don't know about the mcirvins but i will give you some statistics from my family log! They ran 200 head of cows from the 1930 to 2002 out of elk river idaho! Up until 1996 they lost 2 yearling calves to predators in 70 years! In 1996 they lost 2 cows to wolves even tho biologist said it looks like it died in a mud hole and then the wolves ate it!lol sound familiar? 97- 2 calves and a cow 98- 2 calves 99-4 cows and and calf 00- 2 cows and a calf 01- 2 cows and a bull!

I'll be honest, that's a fascinating statistic if true. I suspect there are a lot of livestock owners around the country who would love to have had that kind of success ratio over 70 years.

[snowpack]

i don't know about the mcirvins but i will give you some statistics from my family log! They ran 200 head of cows from the 1930 to 2002 out of elk river idaho! Up until 1996 they lost 2 yearling calves to predators in 70 years! In 1996 they lost 2 cows to wolves even tho biologist said it looks like it died in a mud hole and then the wolves ate it!lol sound familiar? 97- 2 calves and a cow 98- 2 calves 99-4 cows and and calf 00- 2 cows and a calf 01- 2 cows and a bull!

I'll be honest, that's a fascinating statistic if true. I suspect there are a lot of livestock owners around the country who would love to have had that kind of success ratio over 70 years.

I know of a few small time ranchers in Western WA that didn't lose any big animals in between wolf extirpation and the hound ban.  In the early 30's their families would lose a few a year to wolves and cougars.  Then a couple wolves chased one of the guys looking for a lost animal.  He had to climb a tree to escape.  The wolves didn't leave until the next morning when a search party came to find him.  That ended up being the final straw and they killed off the wolves in the area.  They put up lots of bounties for cougars.  Next time the area lost an animal was after the ban on hound hunting.  Now there is an animal lost every couple of years (goat/llama/sheep) and there were attempts on a bull (not a bright cougar) and a pack horse.

[cougarbart]

heres something you probably didnt know, but in 30 years of predator complaints and all i have seen, i have yet to see a cougar ever kill a bovine!(i hear it happens but have never seen it) i have seen them decimate sheep, attack horses and goats and i think dale did one that it got into a ostrich farm! I have yet to see a cougar ever kill a cow!  coyotes kill alot of calves, i have seen a bear kill a calf but never a cougar!

[JLS]

i have seen a bear kill a calf but never a cougar!

I have seen cougar killed calves.

[cougarbart]

i have heard good sources say they do! im just saying in 30+ years in eastern wash and north idaho i have yet to see it and with how many cows are in cougar country i think the predator rate on bovine is very small from cougars!

[bearpaw]

i have heard good sources say they do! im just saying in 30+ years in eastern wash and north idaho i have yet to see it and with how many cows are in cougar country i think the predator rate on bovine is very small from cougars!

This true, just off hand I cannot remember responding to a single cougar complaint that involved a cougar eating cattle. Bear yes, cougar no. Depredating Cougars like goats or sheep, pets, horses, and small children or women, pretty much in that order of frequency.

Wolves like beef, there is no disputing this, ask the McIrvins, ask WDFW agents that investigated McIrvins, ask any other USFWS agents who respond to livestock killings in the west. Watch and read the following links and then try telling us wolves don't like beef! 

New Mexico Wolves Attack Cattle
Wolf Investigator - 300 wolf complaints in 3 years in New Mexico, 140 complaints on private land...
WARNING GRAPHIC
middle fork 0001

Washington Wolves Attack Cattle
Wolves attack, kill Stevens County cattle

Oregon Wolves Attack Cattle
Imnaha pack keep killing more cattle - first calf in 2012 adds to 21 confirmed by ODFW

Montana Wolves Attack Cattle
Sula wolf kill

Idaho Wolves Attack Cattle
Idaho Wolf Chasing Beef Cow - Switchback Outdoors

Wyoming Wolves Attack Cattle
Wolf impact on cattle researched:
http://www.wylr.net/component/content/article/185-wildlife/wolves/3741-wolf-impact-on-cattle-researched

B.C. Wolves Attack Cattle
Wolves a $15-Million Problem for B.C. Ranchers
http://www.bcbusiness.ca/people/wolves-a-15-million-problem-for-bc-ranchers

[bearpaw]

There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas.

Only in areas where habitat is poor have I seen strong evidence of additive mortality (e.g., Lolo).  Majority of Idaho is at or above elk population objectives and many areas are well over objectives and have only increased since 1995 which would likely mean wolf predation in those areas is compensatory.  This is also why Idaho is trying so hard to get at the habitat factor in the Lolo...it will be a more effective and longer term solution to rebuilding elk numbers than targeted removal of wolves 

  The only thing you can do is hide behind the areas that have not experienced wolf impacts. If you address the units in Idaho where wolves have decimated herds your whole philosophy is destroyed. 

Your ridiculous arguments are really outdated. Luckily Idaho is handling the problem, they are removing wolves from impacted areas and they are removing wolves from areas which haven't declined in an effort to prevent another Lolo, YNP, Bitterroot, Selway, Payette, or similar elk decline. Three cheers for Idaho they are taking the lead in wolf management and saving their other wildlife while at the same time maintaining a viable population of wolves.

All I want is reasonable wolf management! Too bad the wolf lovers want unmanaged wolves and don't care about other wildlife. 

[idahohuntr]

There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas.

Only in areas where habitat is poor have I seen strong evidence of additive mortality (e.g., Lolo).  Majority of Idaho is at or above elk population objectives and many areas are well over objectives and have only increased since 1995 which would likely mean wolf predation in those areas is compensatory.  This is also why Idaho is trying so hard to get at the habitat factor in the Lolo...it will be a more effective and longer term solution to rebuilding elk numbers than targeted removal of wolves 

  The only thing you can do is hide behind the areas that have not experienced wolf impacts. If you address the units in Idaho where wolves have decimated herds your whole philosophy is destroyed. 

Your ridiculous arguments are really outdated. Luckily Idaho is handling the problem, they are removing wolves from impacted areas and they are removing wolves from areas which haven't declined in an effort to prevent another Lolo, YNP, Bitterroot, Selway, Payette, or similar elk decline. Three cheers for Idaho they are taking the lead in wolf management and saving their other wildlife while at the same time maintaining a viable population of wolves.

All I want is reasonable wolf management! Too bad the wolf lovers want unmanaged wolves and don't care about other wildlife. 

Yea, thats it...I'm hiding behind the vast majority of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Oregon where wolves are not having significant population impacts    You can't fit wolf predation into a black and white argument where its always at fault.  The bottom line is elk populations are doing relatively well, wolf numbers have stabilized/declined in many areas of ID/MT/WT.  In areas where wolf predation is limiting, elk habitat is relatively poor...very few exceptions to this IMO.  Those are just facts whether you want to admit them or not.  We get a million acre fire in the lolo and I don't care if IDFG does any more wolf removals or not...elk numbers will increase substantially in the following decades. 

[CAMPMEAT]

I took these pictures 5 years ago very close to Republic. They were given to the WDFW Bio in Colville He didn't give one rip about them.......

[bearpaw]

There is data available that says wolf predation is compensatory and data that says additive. Wolves have proven themselves to be mostly additive especially when wolf numbers are high or you wouldn't see the elk, deer, and moose herds dip so dramatically in heavy wolf impacted areas.

Only in areas where habitat is poor have I seen strong evidence of additive mortality (e.g., Lolo).  Majority of Idaho is at or above elk population objectives and many areas are well over objectives and have only increased since 1995 which would likely mean wolf predation in those areas is compensatory.  This is also why Idaho is trying so hard to get at the habitat factor in the Lolo...it will be a more effective and longer term solution to rebuilding elk numbers than targeted removal of wolves 

  The only thing you can do is hide behind the areas that have not experienced wolf impacts. If you address the units in Idaho where wolves have decimated herds your whole philosophy is destroyed. 

Your ridiculous arguments are really outdated. Luckily Idaho is handling the problem, they are removing wolves from impacted areas and they are removing wolves from areas which haven't declined in an effort to prevent another Lolo, YNP, Bitterroot, Selway, Payette, or similar elk decline. Three cheers for Idaho they are taking the lead in wolf management and saving their other wildlife while at the same time maintaining a viable population of wolves.

All I want is reasonable wolf management! Too bad the wolf lovers want unmanaged wolves and don't care about other wildlife. 

Yea, thats it...I'm hiding behind the vast majority of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Oregon where wolves are not having significant population impacts    You can't fit wolf predation into a black and white argument where its always at fault.  The bottom line is elk populations are doing relatively well, wolf numbers have stabilized/declined in many areas of ID/MT/WT.  In areas where wolf predation is limiting, elk habitat is relatively poor...very few exceptions to this IMO.  Those are just facts whether you want to admit them or not.  We get a million acre fire in the lolo and I don't care if IDFG does any more wolf removals or not...elk numbers will increase substantially in the following decades.

Elk and other wildlife are beginning to recover in some areas and are being saved from decline in other areas because half the wolves have been eliminated. Not too hard to figure that out, you just can't admit that, wolves eat ungulates. Studies prove it all.

[idahohuntr]

Half the wolves have been eliminated?  I thought the government seriously under counted wolves and were lying about how many there were?  How could this be?  Wolf populations have stabilized/declined a little in Idaho...they have not been cut in half.

And "Beginning" to recover?  Many of these areas never had elk declines to begin with...lots of areas are well over objectives...but glad you are willing to take credit for stable elk populations being the result of killing wolves that never affected their populations to begin with...thats the making of a great politician right there 

And please point out where I have ever suggested wolves don't eat ungulates...   Wolves do eat elk, and in some cases wolf predation reduces elk abundance and without control measures and other management activities elk will be suppressed in those areas.  Sorry my actual views don't fit the box you like to paint me into to fit your simplistic view of the world. 

[RG]

Idahohuntr I worked as an elk hunting guide/packer, ranch hand in Tom Miner Basin just north of YNP in the 80's. comparing the elk there then to what happened when wolves arrived answers the question. If you throw in a few hundred predators weighing a hundred pounds plus or minus each, something has to change. The food gets more scarce.  Here's the point, it wasn't necessary except in the minds of some uninformed folk who live someplace else. That's what makes people who are directly affected angry. It's easy to have opinions if you live in Seattle or New York or wherever because it has no affect on your world or livlihood. When somebody effectively takes money out of your bank account without your permission your feelings get a little more realistic. 

It didnt wipe out the elk and cattle ranchers but it had a significant impact. Outfitter clients suddenly went to Colorado and places without wolves. The issue that really set the tone was that all this happened because bureaucrats from somewhere else were able to slide it through the system and do this to the states and to the people who live in the states with no regard for whatever impact it might have on those people. Now they continue to lie and manipulate and threaten those people by offering big rewards when a wolf dies. All the while they sit in their city or Jackson Hole or Ketchum or some place insulated from real life in the real world where their wolves live.  I don't ever remember hearing a reward offered when an endangered butterfly got stepped on. 

If they are so interested in "making the world a better place" they should join neighborhood watch or the school board in their own neighborhood.