Wolf caught snatching a chicken near Colville

[bigmacc]

fast forward 10-15 years.....


Who will be vindicated?  Wolfbait or Idahohunter?



OH another Poll idea!

Every time I think you can't possibly come up with a dumber post...

I think the same way about some of your posts idaho...but to my amasement you always come through 
By the way KF-funny post

[idahohuntr]

A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say. 

For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies.  So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. 

I know wolfbait personally and believe him more that your liberal rearend. Guys like you don't want to believe the truth for your own agenda........typical !

I'm not attacking any one person. But unfortunately, idahohuntr has a point. The more people rant and rave every time and blah blah, you get written off as the crazy guy, and people stop listening to you. At times it can be very hard to be calm, but if you blow up and make yourself look like the pissed off guy, you will basically lose any type of reputation/respect from whatever agency you deal with.

You'd be hard pressed to find any government department (anything from the local sewer district to FBI) who knows when certain people call it's going to be a rant and rave and your going to hang up your phone and do nothing regarding what they were saying, every department has "those people."

I think folks also confuse politeness/professionalism on behalf of WDFW staff as some kind of acceptance when in reality they are just ignoring those who are ranting and raving as they see no point or value in telling people they are full of bs...let them rant and then move on to something useful to do for the day.

[villageidiot]

The first pack in the state that was confirmed near Twisp was first reported to a Federal Bio. Back in 2007.  The rancher saw 9 wolves in that pack.  The bios response was "I will put that in my file with my big foot sightings".  Then the rancher reported more wolf tracks on his place to a second Federal bio who told him they get reports all the time and they are not wolves.  Then the rancher took some hair samples he got off a barbed wire fence where the wolf crawled under in the snow.  He gave these hair samples to the Bio on a third attempt to convince them. Nothing was done with the hair samples by the Bio.  Incidentally the rancher had a calf killed which at the time he had no clue what killed it.  Then he had a dog killed and totally eaten by wolves.  The rancher finally bought some trail cameras and got multiple pictures of these wolves which at last convinced the Bios he really did have wolves.  They went up and tried to trap the wolves with no success and went back to the rancher who told them exactly where to go set the traps.  They caught two the first night.
  So, you can see why the public does not trust any wildlife people.  So why did they doubt the rancher so many times when in the end his pictures proved he was telling the truth all along and the Bios were not.  All the ranchers friends have heard his story and the credibility of the Bios. He reported his sightings to is zero.

[wolfbait]

A new WDFW warden showed up and we had a little discussion about wolves and where they came from, I think he left with a few more ideas other then the BS he was told to say. 

For all of you who report wolves and wonder why WDFW has a hard time taking many of them seriously...it is because of people like wolfbait that they have to listen to rant every darn day that are clueless and full of government conspiracies.  So...if we can get the wolfbaits of the world to keep their crazy to themselves it can only help. 

I know wolfbait personally and believe him more that your liberal rearend. Guys like you don't want to believe the truth for your own agenda........typical !

I'm not attacking any one person. But unfortunately, idahohuntr has a point. The more people rant and rave every time and blah blah, you get written off as the crazy guy, and people stop listening to you. At times it can be very hard to be calm, but if you blow up and make yourself look like the pissed off guy, you will basically lose any type of reputation/respect from whatever agency you deal with.

You'd be hard pressed to find any government department (anything from the local sewer district to FBI) who knows when certain people call it's going to be a rant and rave and your going to hang up your phone and do nothing regarding what they were saying, every department has "those people."

I think it depends on whether you are agenda driven or a WDFW pro-wolfer or a person who has been lie to time and again by wildlife agencies who protect wolves above all else. I can show you several discussions (rant's & raves) with the USFWS and state game agencies over the years, most of these were from people who were fed up with watching the game herds or their livestock being slaughtered by wolves, only to have the culls in charge deny wolves did the killing when everyone knew damn well it was wolves. What the environmentalists and WDFW would like everyone to do is shut the hell up unless you have something good to say about wolves.

Do to the fact that WDFW refuse to be honest with the people of WA, and the fact that they are openly protecting predators, there is getting to be less discussion (rants and raves) and more public wolf control, which from the looks of things will be the only wolf control there will ever be.

[wolfbait]

If it went to federal court in Spokane County hard to say what would happen, but I think it's a state issue in Stevens County due to the delisting of eastern WA. If it went to court in Stevens County we all know what the court results will likely be. Too many residents have been told "it's only coyotes" to get a conviction of wrong doing on that here in my opinion. 

Although wolves in Stevens County are no longer listed under the ESA a potential federal case could happen. If you shot a wolf on federal lands it could go to federal court, if you shot a wolf on non-federal lands but then transported it across federal lands (say shot it in your buddy's pasture and you have to get to USFS lands to get home) you could be charged under the Lacey Act in federal court, or of course if you transported the dead wolf across the state/international border.

Now as far as the court in Stevens County. Under state law if a county prosecutor fails to act then the WDFW Commission can request the Attorney General's Office essentially step in and prosecute the case. This is very rare, but you can imagine it wouldn't be that unfeasible for a case involving a state endangered species.

Speaking of the Lacey Act, the USFWS broke that law when they brought wolves into Idaho with no paper work, do you think they will ever be held accountable?

[AspenBud]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

[jackmaster]

Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it 

thats what i am gonna do when these yotes show up on the wetside in my backyard, pretty tough for WDFW to hammer you in a court of law when they are the ones telling you its a coyote, i do however beleive in what bixtex has said about people thinking they saw this when they really saw a house cat or a fluffy dog! but if it comes from a farmer in wolf country that has seen coyotes everyday of his life, it should be taken a little more serious, for craps sake, that a game wardens or a wdfw bio's job, earn your paycheck, if a "CUSTOMER" calls then it should be followed up on, i would lose my damn job if i didnt respond to a customer report plain and simple, it might suck but thats what they signed up for

[AspenBud]

Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it 

thats what i am gonna do when these yotes show up on the wetside in my backyard, pretty tough for WDFW to hammer you in a court of law when they are the ones telling you its a coyote, i do however beleive in what bixtex has said about people thinking they saw this when they really saw a house cat or a fluffy dog! but if it comes from a farmer in wolf country that has seen coyotes everyday of his life, it should be taken a little more serious, for craps sake, that a game wardens or a wdfw bio's job, earn your paycheck, if a "CUSTOMER" calls then it should be followed up on, i would lose my damn job if i didnt respond to a customer report plain and simple, it might suck but thats what they signed up for

I stand by my previous comment. The warden can't outright say it, but by saying it's a coyote he's effectively saying "take care of it, I don't want to know about it."

[bearpaw]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

You are wrong again. 

Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. 

Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.

The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.

[idahohuntr]

Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it 

thats what i am gonna do when these yotes show up on the wetside in my backyard, pretty tough for WDFW to hammer you in a court of law when they are the ones telling you its a coyote

I'm not sure I would go with that logic. I think it would be pretty easy for WDFW to railroad somebody who shot a wolf . Not sure I would want a jury trial in western Washington either!!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[idahohuntr]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.

Are you saying the state agencies are hiding the impacts of predators on ungulates ? Or just some Seattle Times reporters?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.

Are you saying the state agencies are hiding the impacts of predators on ungulates ? Or just some Seattle Times reporters?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Pretty obvious, it's happening both places.

[bearpaw]

Eh just shoot one then call up wdfw and tell them you told me it was a coyote so I shot it 

thats what i am gonna do when these yotes show up on the wetside in my backyard, pretty tough for WDFW to hammer you in a court of law when they are the ones telling you its a coyote

I'm not sure I would go with that logic. I think it would be pretty easy for WDFW to railroad somebody who shot a wolf . Not sure I would want a jury trial in western Washington either!!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I agree, you better be careful, especially in western WA because wolves are still federally listed in western WA which means federal court. 

[AspenBud]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

You are wrong again. 

Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. 

Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.

The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.

No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.

[Boss .300 winmag]

The sad part of it is that if a call was made to WDFW that you shot what you thought was a coyote but wasn't sure about it, I bet they would be at your door in no time flat.

I think someone on the east side should try this and see if my theory is correct.