POLL: Wolf Groups Petition WDFW for Non-Lethal Wolf Control

[Johnb317]

Tourist wildlife viewing of this majestic animal?
That statement alone shows how naive these people are.
No more elk, or deer to see to view, but we'll get to view packs of wolves frolicking in open meadows where they can be viewed from within the safety of an air conditioned tour bus!!

[finnman]

All of those groups suck rocks!
Especially Cascadia Wildlands, just watch all of the fun and discord that will be brought to your threads by Bob Ferris. Mark my words. He is the grand daddy of all trolls. He will try to wash you out with supposed scientific studies, then back it up by his outlandish education, then proceed with his lifetime of outdoor experiences only to mock others and downplay their efforts, wisdom and outdoor knowledge. I see him lasting here about as long as the freak that started his own web site....what was his name? Cascade Charlie???

[Hunter4Life]

The title is even deceptive.  It is not to require non-lethal methods be used, that is already in the wolf plan.  Non-lethal methods already have to be tried before lethal control actions will be taken.  The intent of this petition is to eliminate lethal control of any wolves.  If this passes, any time that control is the be attempted, the anti's will go to court to stop it.  I am the hunting community's representative on the Wolf Advisory Group, and I am one of those people that the antis were talking about that would not support their proposal.  I do not think we need to send messages for the governor.  He is behind this petition 100%.  We need to flood our legislative friends on this.  The battle on this will be in three parts.  Part one is now, whether or not WDFW agrees to the petition.   Part two is with the legislature.  Part three is in the courtroom if all else fails.  This is the worst proposal ever and is potentially the most damaging to our community.  It is the Center for Biological Diversity who first brought this forward.  If anyone a complete copy of the petition they presented, please let me know as I have it.

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
--Winston Churchill

We must fight this will all that we have.  I have written a letter to the friends of the hunting community in the legislature and attached a copy of the CBD proposal.  This is very, very bad stuff.

[KFhunter]

I'd like a copy

PM inc

[jaredwitman]

I would like a copy, PM me if you get a second.
THANKS

[WildBear]

Sent.

[iusmc2002]

I agree with those groups.  Non-lethal is almost always the best way to control animals like this.  Spaying and neutering doesn't kill them 

[Hunter4Life]

I can't seem to attach a file to a personal message, so I attached the file here.

[Hunter4Life]

Those groups should just put their money where their mouth is, pay every rancher $3k for every dead cow.  Or, relocate the wolf to their neighborhood.  Or, they could pay for feeding stations out in the woods.  So many options other than beating of the gums.

couple problems

1) there'd be a lot of dead cows all the sudden
2) very difficult to make a cause of death determination on a cow

By the time the carcass is found it's full of bird feces on top and been chewed on by more than one species of predator, if the carcass is even found.  Most are dead cattle are never found on range.  The window is pretty short for finding a carcass and then being able to make a determination of wolf depredation.

Spot on KF Hunter.   That is why 90% of predation is never paid.  There is not enough left to determine it was a wolf.  The biggest loss from wolves to ranchers is not from predation however.   It is from weight loss because of wolves.  Cattle are swiveling their heads in fear of wolves instead of eating.  There is loss in calf weight and because of stress, cows abort their calves.  Huge loss to ranchers.  This has never been paid back to ranchers.  Loss in cattle weight in wolf areas is a huge problem.

[wolfbait]

Expanding wolf packs are expensive

Mech pointed out that from 1988-1993 Minnesota wolves expanded by only 15 percent but the number killed annually by Wildlife Services (WS) because of increased livestock depredation jumped from 59 to 139. From fiscal 

year 1996 through FY 2002, the number of Minnesota wolves killed annually by WS has averaged 154.

None of the wolves were killed from aircraft and steel leghold traps and snares accounted for all of the 152 Minnesota wolves killed in FY 2002. Yet the cost totaled $262,657, an average of $1,728 per wolf.

Mech pointed out that neither non-lethal methods of control nor relocation of wolves work. Despite all of the optimistic reports, he said that guard dogs are not economical and only somewhat effective in small flocks (bands) of sheep.

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location. He insists lethal control remains the only means of curbing wolf damage to livestock and pets.

DOW “Reimbursement”

The highly publicized program by Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) to compensate ranchers for confirmed livestock losses was simply bait used to get ranchers to accept living with wolves until wolf numbers increased. The necessity for discovering a carcass and having WS specialists examine it within 24 hours effectively prevents compensation in most cases.

Also, a joint cooperative study, involving the University of Idaho, Wildlife Services and the Nez Perce Tribe, on the impacts of wolf predation to cattle on summer grazing allotments in Lemhi County provided disturbing conclusions. The study indicated that for every calf killed by wolves and found by the rancher, as many as 5.7 additional wolf kills may have occurred without ever being detected.

Who Will Compensate?

DOW is already reneging on its commitment to compensate all ranchers for livestock losses by claiming that many substandard federal ranges allow cattle and sheep producers to exist where they could not otherwise make a profit. It is actively pursuing removal of some historical grazing allotments with FS and BLM and advising some ranchers they will not be compensated.

Mech‟s article points out that as wolf numbers continue to increase and expand their territory to include all rural farming and ranching areas, both environmental groups and government agencies are reluctant to pay for increasing losses to livestock. Increased killing of livestock and pets also increases public resistance to wolves and he predicted a return to the pre-wolf recovery era unless protection of wolves in agricultural/residential areas is removed when they are delisted.

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%204%20June%202004%20Controlling%20predators.pdf

[Dave Workman]

Not sure why Fish and Game think they really have a handle on how many wolves have already been killed.

That's because they're not "Fish and Game," they're "Fish and Wildlife."