Why most probably don't see wolves as much of a public safety problem

[bobcat]

I agree that 15 pair may be too many, but really what difference does it make? It's not like they're going to open season on wolves as soon as the 15 pair minimum is met. And even if they were taken off the endangered species list eventually, and a hunting season opened on wolves, how many will actually get killed by hunters? I would think very few, not enough to even make a noticeable dent in the population.

The sooner we are delisted, the sooner we can protect our livestock etc. I think that makes one hell of a difference. With WDFW's wolf plan they can drag delisting out for a long time, as we are seeing.

I thought you could protect your livestock now?  So if a rancher were to see a wolf attempting to take down one of his cows he couldn't shoot it?

[villageidiot]

No, absolutely not!  If you kill a wolf chasing or killing your livestock you will be charged for killing an endangered species and will have to rely on a jury to exonerate you.  Problem is can you afford the trial?  Most of us can't.

[bobcat]

Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.

[AspenBud]

WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat).  The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days.  Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.

I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.

Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.

We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.

There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million.  It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population.  I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. 

Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan.  Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.

So true these days I hardly ever meet truly native Washingtonians. People from California or the Midwest...I meet many transplants from there.

[Bob33]

Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.

Not necessary.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/

[bearpaw]

Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.

Not necessary.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/

Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.

WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat).  The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days.  Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.

I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.

Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.

We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.

There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million.  It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population.  I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. 

Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan.  Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.

I agree that we do not want F&G getting more general fund moneys. They will become less and less about Fish & Game and more and more about other non-game wildlife.

Regarding what wildlife we should expect, we had no wolves 40 years ago, now they want 15+BP's, why can't we expect to have as many or more ungulates than 40 years ago? Wildlife in this state is what we make of it. If nobody wants robust herds then we certainly won't have them. It's all about setting goals and achieving those goals.

[AspenBud]

Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.

Not necessary.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/

Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.

WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat).  The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days.  Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.

I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.

Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.

We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.

There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million.  It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population.  I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. 

Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan.  Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.

I agree that we do not want F&G getting more general fund moneys. They will become less and less about Fish & Game and more and more about other non-game wildlife.

Regarding what wildlife we should expect, we had no wolves 40 years ago, now they want 15+BP's, why can't we expect to have as many or more ungulates than 40 years ago? Wildlife in this state is what we make of it. If nobody wants robust herds then we certainly won't have them. It's all about setting goals and achieving those goals.

Just addressing your point in bold, you are correct, but I think he's trying to say the makeup of the state is different. Once upon a time this state voted in Republican candidates as governor from time to time.

When I talk to a lot of new residents they are often very left of center and I'm afraid they have fundamentally changed the politics of Washington. This has never been a hardcore right leaning state, but it used to be more common sense minded.

[bearpaw]

Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.

Not necessary.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/

Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.

WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat).  The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days.  Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.

I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.

Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.

We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.

There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million.  It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population.  I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. 

Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan.  Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.

I agree that we do not want F&G getting more general fund moneys. They will become less and less about Fish & Game and more and more about other non-game wildlife.

Regarding what wildlife we should expect, we had no wolves 40 years ago, now they want 15+BP's, why can't we expect to have as many or more ungulates than 40 years ago? Wildlife in this state is what we make of it. If nobody wants robust herds then we certainly won't have them. It's all about setting goals and achieving those goals.

Just addressing your point in bold, you are correct, but I think he's trying to say the makeup of the state is different. Once upon a time this state voted in Republican candidates as governor from time to time.

When I talk to a lot of new residents they are often very left of center and I'm afraid they have fundamentally changed the politics of Washington. This has never been a hardcore right leaning state, but it used to be more common sense minded.

I have to agree with that.

[bearpaw]

So the million dollar question is how do we encourage the type of management to improve herds and opportunities?

[idahohuntr]

Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.

Not necessary.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/

Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.

Correct.  And WDFW is pushing hard to get wolves federally de-listed in the western 2/3 of the state which would provide the state the flexibility to allow ranchers the same options as those in the eastern 1/3.  I hope folks in the Methow are supportive of WDFW's efforts. 

[idahohuntr]

So the million dollar question is how do we encourage the type of management to improve herds and opportunities?

Bingo. 

This is why I believe WDFW is our biggest ally.  We HAVE to demonstrate that wolves will be managed in a way that they will not be exterminated.  I think the RMEF talking point that resonates well with non-hunters is that we need to manage for ALL wildlife...which means we can't have wolves running amok at the expense of ungulates...nor should we expect every predator population to be managed down to critically low numbers.  And we need WDFW to convey to the legislature, the public, etc. that they can manage ALL wildlife...otherwise we are going to end up managing wildlife via ballot box and things will go to hell quickly because sportsmen simply do not have the votes in this state to balance out the greenies and their big dollar media campaigns.  

[Special T]

So the million dollar question is how do we encourage the type of management to improve herds and opportunities?

Bingo. 

This is why I believe WDFW is our biggest ally.  We HAVE to demonstrate that wolves will be managed in a way that they will not be exterminated.  I think the RMEF talking point that resonates well with non-hunters is that we need to manage for ALL wildlife...which means we can't have wolves running amok at the expense of ungulates...nor should we expect every predator population to be managed down to critically low numbers.  And we need WDFW to convey to the legislature, the public, etc. that they can manage ALL wildlife...otherwise we are going to end up managing wildlife via ballot box and things will go to hell quickly because sportsmen simply do not have the votes in this state to balance out the greenies and their big dollar media campaigns.  

I have heard variations of these 2 statements outlined in red several times. FACTS support hunting wolves, AND shooting more predators.

Facts that in WA we do not have trapping like ID MT , Fact that even those states that allow traps and aerial gunning  are NOT keeping numbers in check. Fact Hunting alone does very Little to control populations. This leads me to believe that hunting Could/should be done where wolves are NOT protected by the ESA. IF you opened it up to hunting wolves would likely learn to stay away from humans, AND people would actually feel better about the situation. Nobody like being treated like a *censored* especially when they are responsible for paying the way...

There are other predators that have benefited from protection for over 40 years, and now they are once again a pest because commonsense harvest regulations have not been put into place.

If the WDFW was actually in the business of promoting hunting, it would take the time to explain to the general public how hunting is beneficial. If wolves can be "beneficial" to the ecosystem why cant hunters be the same? We can choose sex, age, geographic locations, harvest numbers to "balance" the numbers.
I know it has been said that the WDFW could not comment on the Initiative that outlawed Hounds and Baiting. BUT THEY COULD NOW! They even don't have to mention the law, they can state the facts and benefits of regulated predator hunting. Which happen to be the same "reasons" why they tell hunters wolves are OK...

WDFW are not our champions... They cant be. If they are unwilling to make the case for hunting as management even in the most nonconfrontational subdud way that is common in the Seattle area, how can you make the case that they are?

[wolfbait]

Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.

Not necessary.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/

Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.

Correct.  And WDFW is pushing hard to get wolves federally de-listed in the western 2/3 of the state which would provide the state the flexibility to allow ranchers the same options as those in the eastern 1/3.  I hope folks in the Methow are supportive of WDFW's efforts.

You can BS the fans but not the players! I think the Okanogan people have given up reporting wolf sightings and problems to WDFW, they just lie to the people and tell them it was coyotes or there are no wolves in their area. Since you seem to have such a good connection to WDFW, and some claim that WDFW even watch this forum? Tell WDFW to confirm the rest of the wolf packs in the Methow Valley, tell them to confirm the wolf pack up by Buzzard lake, and have them check on the wolves in Spring Coulee. Tell them to send someone who actually gives a damn up on Omak Flats to talk to people who have had wolves in their yards. I call BS on WDFW, they are dragging delisting out as long as they can. The people I have talk to are very pissed at WDFW and their lies, which is not going to end well for some in the future. It's a shame that do to WDFW's dishonesty people are forced to take matters into their own hands and break the law, but that is where many people are today.

[bobcat]

Are more confirmed breeding pairs even necessary in Okanogan county? It seems to me that to have any positive effect in the eventual delisting of wolves, we need to have confirmed wolves south of I-90.

[bearpaw]

All BP's are important because there is also an 18 BP option to manage.