Wash. reports new wolf pack found

[AspenBud]

That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.

Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.

[bearpaw]

Lets see,  some time back Stevens Co. complained to the WDFW about their "Cougar" problem.

What came about from WDFW was a cut back of season and tags on Cats!

Wonder what the WDFW will do this time!??

Insert "wolf" everywhere it says cougar/mountain lion. The state of Washington has heard this story before, not to mention seen the hysteria. That's half the problem.

"Complaints were especially high in Okanogan County, where Washington's only recorded fatal cougar attack on a human occurred in 1924. Okanogan County commissioners threatened to declare open season on cougars, arguing that the increased number of complaints meant that there were too many cats. Rancher Joel Kretz, now a state senator, blames the hound-hunting ban..."

http://www.hcn.org/issues/368/17639

""One of the things we'll never get a handle on is the folks who move to the end of a box canyon in the middle of nowhere, and maybe they come from the city, and they see a cougar and say, 'Hey, I saw a cougar, you've got to remove him,' " Beausoleil says. "Well, no, that's not what we do. You're living in cougar country now." He hopes that one day developers, whose brochures tout the wildflowers, deer and elk in Washington's wild places, will tell people about all the bears and cougars, too."

Sure-and then you have WDFW protecting cougars and bears, and then if that isn't bad enough they open their arms for the the Canadian wolves that were introduced illegally. We have cougars coming into towns killing deer, so it can't be blamed on the folks living out of town. It's lack of predator control plain and simple.

Hunters take out just as many cougars as was done pre hound ban. I think the problem is not the quantity, but rather the where. Bearpaw and I had a rather heated debate about that if you recall but he's right in regards to where the hunting is allowed these days and how much is allowed.

The difference is that cougars inhabit a much greater portion of the state now than when hound hunting was allowed. There are units producing couhgar that never used to produce many cougar. The statewide harvest may be similar, but WDFW has cut back the number of cats being taken in traditional cougar strongholds, so the data is misleading. More cougar need to be taken in areas that used to provide larger harvests.

[wolfbait]

That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.

Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.

Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.

[AspenBud]

That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.

Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.

Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.

I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

[wolfbait]

That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.

Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.

Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.

I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

So your point is, it's alright to sacrifice the game herds in order to create more habitat?

[jasnt]

That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.

Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.

Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.

I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

. If you don't like what you see around you. Maybe you need to move. You can fight all you want but they will never tear out those strip malls to plant a forest. You want more habitat? Move to where there is habitat.

[Elkaholic daWg]

That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.

Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.

Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.

I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do.

 Sounds like something a wolf advocate, or anti Hound and  bear bating voter might say on the west side. 

[timberfaller]

  the last year I lived in Twisp city limits, I had two cougars living behind the house.

Didn't call the WDFW,  the cats did a great job taking care of the cats and dogs running around at nite

They'd leave during the day and come back at nite,  yep they are NOT as dumb as some think!!

[Billdos Uncle]

That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.

Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.

Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.

I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

. If you don't like what you see around you. Maybe you need to move. You can fight all you want but they will never tear out those strip malls to plant a forest. You want more habitat? Move to where there is habitat.

Seems like someone works for WDFW.. Where u stationed at and what branch? My guess is it has do with game management because ur doing a great job right now! 

[jasnt]

That maybe true aspenbud, its also possible that many cougar were not reported, depredation kills and such. My gramps told me they used to kill every cat they saw. It was just part of the farm life, all predators were shoot on sight basis. No one was called and nobody cared. It may have been illegal but it did happen.

Something tells me people didn't get religion the day after the ban passed. I think the limits in areas that used to have higher quota's and their proximity to people who would be affected or concerned has more to do with it. I hate to say it but I think what you're seeing is the indirect affect of development and population growth. As more and more land gets developed for houses and strip malls you get less space for wildlife which means the state is going to cram more and more into areas that aren't developed. That means all sorts of bad for more rural communities.

Pushing for more habitat again eh? With WDFW deer management in the Methow and too many predators there soon won't be enough deer to feed anything, and WDFW will be mostly killing cougars or transplanting them to areas that still have game herds.

I'll be honest wolfbait, in 40 years I've never ever set foot in Okanogan or Stevens county and don't really care if I ever do. But I do want more habitat west of the mountains but instead I see a continuing stream of houses, malls, parking lots, and office buildings popping up and private timber getting locked up. That trend is not lost on the state and as much as you don't like it what I see is them trying to maintain higher predator numbers in areas with fewer people. Fair? No. Sustainable? No. But when you're presented with a choice between millions of people who live on postage stamp lots in suburbs or thousands people who deal with wildlife all of the time, who hunt, and who live on the land it's not a big leap to conclude they want the more dangerous animals near the people who can handle them, that's what I see. That could be a wrong assessment but when I see the state limiting hunting of cougars near your area and telling people to have a free for all on them elsewhere I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

. If you don't like what you see around you. Maybe you need to move. You can fight all you want but they will never tear out those strip malls to plant a forest. You want more habitat? Move to where there is habitat.

Seems like someone works for WDFW.. Where u stationed at and what branch? My guess is it has do with game management because ur doing a *censored*ty job right now! 

if that's directed at me it funniest thing I've read all year! You must not have read many of my posts! The majority of folks here know I'm not happy with wdfw or most of their decisions. If I worked for them I'd most likely quite or resign out of disgust.  I wouldn't believe aspen bud does either.

[Billdos Uncle]

don't forget about idahohunter 

[idahohuntr]

don't forget about idahohunter 

Ok...you got me.  I head up the wolf relocation and conspiracy development department.  I also supervise the permit draw and customer service departments.  Could you give me you wild ID # so I can put it on our "special" list for future tag/permit/application issues.  Thank you. 

[wolfbait]

Excuses For Not Controlling Wolves

In January 2008, FWS Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs told the media, “Wolves are never the primary cause (of failure to achieve elk population objectives). The primary cause is always habitat."

In a February 20, 2008 article in the St. Maries Gazette-Record, IDFG Wolf Biologist Dave Spicer told Editor Ralph Bartholdt that deep snow in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe River drainages was preventing normal movement of deer and elk. Spicer predicted a high winter mortality for elk, especially elk calves, and said in addition to floundering in the deep snow, game herds must contend with predators that can walk on the snow’s crust

The article quoted Spicer, “Predators from cats to wolves have an easier time killing their prey when the snow piles up – it’s like a kid in a candy shop, they are out there doing their thing. The health of game herds, though, is driven by weather not predators,” he added.

Lacking fact or science to justify their failure to control excessive wolf numbers, the federal biologist used the magic word “habitat” and the state biologist blamed unhealthy game herds on “the weather.” Yet the vast majority of wolf-big game research concludes that wolves – not habitat or weather – prevent big game species from recovering once their numbers are temporarily reduced by either natural or man-caused disasters.


http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf

[idahohuntr]

So your point is, it's alright to sacrifice the game herds in order to create more habitat?

I guess I'm not following how more habitat means sacrificing game herds...I guess it falls in line with your other view about how public lands are bad for public land hunters.   

Excuses For Not Controlling Wolves

In January 2008, FWS Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs told the media, “Wolves are never the primary cause (of failure to achieve elk population objectives). The primary cause is always habitat."

In a February 20, 2008 article in the St. Maries Gazette-Record, IDFG Wolf Biologist Dave Spicer told Editor Ralph Bartholdt that deep snow in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe River drainages was preventing normal movement of deer and elk. Spicer predicted a high winter mortality for elk, especially elk calves, and said in addition to floundering in the deep snow, game herds must contend with predators that can walk on the snow’s crust

The article quoted Spicer, “Predators from cats to wolves have an easier time killing their prey when the snow piles up – it’s like a kid in a candy shop, they are out there doing their thing. The health of game herds, though, is driven by weather not predators,” he added.

Lacking fact or science to justify their failure to control excessive wolf numbers, the federal biologist used the magic word “habitat” and the state biologist blamed unhealthy game herds on “the weather.” Yet the vast majority of wolf-big game research concludes that wolves – not habitat or weather – prevent big game species from recovering once their numbers are temporarily reduced by either natural or man-caused disasters.

These little tidbit quotes are deceptive AT BEST.  Have you ever met Ed Bangs?  He is not the green/enviro guy you frequently try and portray him as.  He's an awfully genuine guy who understands wolves have impacts and must be managed. 

[Billdos Uncle]

So your point is, it's alright to sacrifice the game herds in order to create more habitat?

I guess I'm not following how more habitat means sacrificing game herds...I guess it falls in line with your other view about how public lands are bad for public land hunters.   

Excuses For Not Controlling Wolves

In January 2008, FWS Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs told the media, “Wolves are never the primary cause (of failure to achieve elk population objectives). The primary cause is always habitat."

In a February 20, 2008 article in the St. Maries Gazette-Record, IDFG Wolf Biologist Dave Spicer told Editor Ralph Bartholdt that deep snow in the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe River drainages was preventing normal movement of deer and elk. Spicer predicted a high winter mortality for elk, especially elk calves, and said in addition to floundering in the deep snow, game herds must contend with predators that can walk on the snow’s crust

The article quoted Spicer, “Predators from cats to wolves have an easier time killing their prey when the snow piles up – it’s like a kid in a candy shop, they are out there doing their thing. The health of game herds, though, is driven by weather not predators,” he added.

Lacking fact or science to justify their failure to control excessive wolf numbers, the federal biologist used the magic word “habitat” and the state biologist blamed unhealthy game herds on “the weather.” Yet the vast majority of wolf-big game research concludes that wolves – not habitat or weather – prevent big game species from recovering once their numbers are temporarily reduced by either natural or man-caused disasters.

These little tidbit quotes are deceptive AT BEST.  Have you ever met Ed Bangs?  He is not the green/enviro guy you frequently try and portray him as.  He's an awfully genuine guy who understands wolves have impacts and must be managed.

Pro-Wolf statement right there sir...