Wash. reports new wolf pack found

[KFhunter]

 

yup - I just want folks to know though that just because the county neglects to prosecute doesn't mean a person is off the hook. 



I would imagine though unless it's egregious or there is significant media input...it'll stay as is.   

If KOMO or national media picks it up, and there's an outcry from the wolf huggers then all bets are off..WDFW would most likely pick up the case and move it to Olympia.

[bearpaw]

yup - I just want folks to know though that just because the county neglects to prosecute doesn't mean a person is off the hook. 



I would imagine though unless it's egregious or there is significant media input...it'll stay as is.   

If KOMO or national media picks it up, and there's an outcry from the wolf huggers then all bets are off..WDFW would most likely pick up the case and move it to Olympia.

Can they force Stevens County to give up the case? Can the county say no?

[KFhunter]

federal > state > county

A higher authority can poach a case from a lower authority,  it's very rare.

[Northway]

Don't forget KF, with the WA wolf plan, management doesn't start for three years after we reach population AND disbursement goals. So, proper and aggressive management isn't going to take place for at least three years after 2 packs are established in the So. Cascades. They can't even admit to the first one that's there now.

As far as the specific species and whatever, it's only important when someone knows the facts that the real indigenous wolves, wolves which are listed on the ESA, have been sacrificed to the larger Canadian wolves. We've actually allowed an endangered species to become extinct by introducing another variety which doesn't naturally belong here. This is important, especially in light of comments from people who love the wolves and their presence in every corner of our state, when these people start talking about who was here first, the cattle or the wolf. The fact is, and it's important, that the wolves that were actually here first have been sacrificed by these people in their fervor to hear the howls in the night, regardless of the costs to the cattle, sheep, and tourism industries. The REAL WA wolves have been, in effect, thrown to the wolves.

How much are you claiming the "new" breed of wolves outweigh the prior indigenous wolves that supposedly were all pushed out? I've never seen anyone venture a guess as to how much the original, smaller wolves weighed. 

If I recall correctly, based on harvest statistics for recent wolf hunts in the NRM, they're currently averaging in the 70's.

[bearpaw]

Wolves like most other species get larger the farther north you go!



Northwestern wolf
Canis lupus occidentalis
 
The northwestern wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis), also known as the Mackenzie Valley wolf[3] or northern timber wolf[1] is a subspecies of gray wolf which ranges from the upper Mackenzie River Valley, southward into central Alberta.[3] Along with C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis is the most widespread member of the five gray wolf subspecies in North America, with at least six different synonyms.[1]

The subspecies was first written of by Scottish naturalist Sir John Richardson in 1829. He chose to give it the name occidentalis in reference to its geographic location rather than label it by its color, as it was too variable to warrant such.[4] Phylogenetic analyses of North American gray wolves show that there are three clades corresponding to C. l. occidentalis, C. l. nubilus and C. l. baileyi, each one representing a separate invasion into North America from distinct Eurasian ancestors. C. l. occidentalis, the most northwestern subspecies, is descended from the last gray wolves to colonize North America. It likely crossed into North America through the Bering land bridge after the last ice age, displacing C. l. nubilus populations as it advanced, a process which has continued till present times.[1]

Northwestern wolves are one of the largest subspecies of wolves with grown males weighing between 100 and 135 pounds (45–61 kg).[5] The heaviest recorded specimen was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939 and weighed 79.4 kilograms (175 lb).[6] Sir John Richardson described the northwestern wolf as having a more robust build than the European wolf, with a larger, rounder head and a thicker, more obtuse muzzle. Its ears are also shorter, and its fur bushier.[4]

In Yellowstone National Park, artificially relocated northwestern wolves have been well-documented feeding on elk. They usually stampede the herd using pack teamwork to separate the younger elk from the adults. They also will charge young calves separated from their parents. Winter-weakened or sick elk also play an important part of Yellowstone wolf diets and it is estimated that over 50 percent of winter-weakened or sick elk in Yellowstone are killed by wolves. Of these, about 12 percent of carcasses were scavenged by other predators such as ravens or coyotes.[7] In the same national park, wolves also prey on bison, though such attacks usually involve sick animals or calves, as bison can easily kill wolves with their hooves.[8] The northwestern wolf has been responsible for a few, but notable attacks on humans, with at least two fatal attacks in the 21st century in which both victims were partially eaten: in 2005, a man was killed in Saskatchewan, Canada,[9] while in 2010, a woman was killed whilst jogging near Chignik Lake in Alaska.[10]



Northern Rocky Mountains wolf
Canis lupus irremotus
Northern Rocky Mountains wolf.jpg
Goldman 1937[40][45]
This subspecies generally weighs 70–135 pounds (32–61 kg), making it one of the largest subspecies of the gray wolf in existence.[46] It is a lighter colored animal than its southern brethren, the Southern Rocky Mountains Wolf, with a coat that includes far more white and less black. In general, the subspecies favors lighter colors, with black mixing in among them.



Southern Rocky Mountains wolf
Canis lupus youngi
Goldman 1937[40]
A medium-size wolf that weighed around 90 lbs on average.[58][59] It is considered to have been the "second largest wolf in the United States".[60] The coloring of the subspecies tended toward black, with lighter areas on the edges of its fur and white in various small patches.[40]

[Houndhunter]

On the cougar plan...does it really make a difference?  With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all    I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars 

I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!

I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. 

Yea, I suspect cougars are far less susceptible to show up on a camera at an artificial bait station...and I know there are plenty around.  Washington is the only state I've seen cougars that weren't sitting in a tree with dogs barking below them!  But I really am shocked at how little evidence/indication of cougar predation I see...I can watch all the same bucks grow throughout the year...the fawn numbers stay pretty similar for as long as I can reliably id them...I see the same numbers of does...I would think I'd have cougars sitting right next to my blind all night waiting for easy meals... Any ideas on why I'm overrun with deer and just not seeing evidence of much cougar predation...knowing there are cougars all around?

Cougar are very secretive and rarely seen. You need to understand their habits and know where they live to find them consistently. 35 years ago it took us a week to find an adult cougar track of either sex without kittens to chase for a hunter. Seasons were reduced and cougar tags put on a draw after a few years and about 20 years ago just before the voters outlawed hounds I could find an average of about 5 adult cougar tracks per day.

Now you need to come up and ride with me this winter, I will show you at least 10 adult cougar tracks in a day. WDFW has a quota of only 2 cougar in one unit and the other units really aren't much better considering they are much larger in size. The quotas need to be doubled or tripled to try and reduce the cat numbers. I'm not even sure that would reduce the population much.



Kf, I can't remember exactly how they said it, you probably heard about it, wasn't that pretty much the meat and potatoes of it?

Seeing the quotas in MT compared to WA for lion is unreal and we get to use dogs which almost guarantees they get met. While I think a couple of our units have high quotas, our seasons/quotas really show how out of touch WA is with controlling the lion population.

[bearpaw]

Don't forget KF, with the WA wolf plan, management doesn't start for three years after we reach population AND disbursement goals. So, proper and aggressive management isn't going to take place for at least three years after 2 packs are established in the So. Cascades. They can't even admit to the first one that's there now.

As far as the specific species and whatever, it's only important when someone knows the facts that the real indigenous wolves, wolves which are listed on the ESA, have been sacrificed to the larger Canadian wolves. We've actually allowed an endangered species to become extinct by introducing another variety which doesn't naturally belong here. This is important, especially in light of comments from people who love the wolves and their presence in every corner of our state, when these people start talking about who was here first, the cattle or the wolf. The fact is, and it's important, that the wolves that were actually here first have been sacrificed by these people in their fervor to hear the howls in the night, regardless of the costs to the cattle, sheep, and tourism industries. The REAL WA wolves have been, in effect, thrown to the wolves.

How much are you claiming the "new" breed of wolves outweigh the prior indigenous wolves that supposedly were all pushed out? I've never seen anyone venture a guess as to how much the original, smaller wolves weighed. 

If I recall correctly, based on harvest statistics for recent wolf hunts in the NRM, they're currently averaging in the 70's.

You need to remember that many of the wolves hunters are getting are sub adults, thus the average weight of harvested animals may be less than the average weight of adult animals. 

[wolfbait]

Court Allows Transplants – Then Orders Removal

Readers who actively opposed the FWS option to import Canadian wolves may recall the following events:
In 1994 the Farm Bureau, Audubon Society and other plaintiffs asked the Wyoming Federal District Court to halt wolf introduction because it could not legally occur where naturally occurring wolves already existed per the 10J Rule. But instead of issuing an injunction to halt the process while the arguments were presented, Judge Downes allowed FWS to go ahead and transplant Canadian wolves into Central Idaho and Yellowstone Park for three years until he issued his ruling in December of 1997.
Then after setting aside the final wolf introduction rules as unlawful, Judge Downes ordered FWS to remove all Canadian wolves and their progeny from both experimental population areas. This ruling was met with loud criticism by the wolf activists, including the state and federal wildlife agencies who apparently believed they could get by with ignoring both state and federal laws when it suited their agenda.
Judge “Passes the Buck” to Appeals Court
They quickly pointed out that it would not be possible to even locate most of the wolves – much less capture them. But even if that were possible, both Canadian Provinces refused to allow the wolves to return and there were not enough zoos willing to accept several hundred wild wolves so killing most was the only option.
Judge Downes could have prevented this disaster from occurring by simply putting wolf introduction on hold three years earlier until his decision was reached. But the second time he did essentially the same thing by later staying execution of his removal order pending an appeals decision by the 10th Circuit Court.
On January 13, 2000, five years after the first large Canadian wolves were introduced, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the December 1998 Wyoming District Court ruling that the reintroduction program was unlawful and should be revoked. The appeals court admitted that the evidence showed native irremotus wolves already existed when the larger Canadian wolves were introduced, but said FWS had the authority to determine what constituted a population.
The fact that the resident wolves coexisted with abundant big game populations and with negligible impact on livestock and human activity was already a matter of record in 1994. But on August 12, 1994, FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs sent a letter to Charles Lobdell telling him to stop issuing statements to the public advising that the number of reported resident wolves was increasing.
Bangs’ letter advised that FWS planned to introduce wolves from Canada and said: “From this day forward…confirmed wolf activity (will only include) individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radio-collared and monitored in the wild.” He also said he had transferred $9,000 to the FWS Boise Field Office to search for wolves and organize flights to locate any radio-collared wolves that might be in Idaho or the Yellowstone area during the summer and fall.
Bangs also included key issues to be presented to the public consistently by FWS:
“1. (I)t is likely that wolf populations would ultimately recover without reintroduction and breeding pairs of wolves would likely occur in Idaho before they would occur (in) Yellowstone.
4. Experimental populations will not knowingly contain a significant portion of the territory of any naturally occurring breeding pair that has successfully raised young. However once wolves are released all wolves in the area will be treated as experimental animals.”
Despite reported wolf sightings by more then 120 outfitters, trappers and others in less than two months, most in the same location where Kemery mapped three wolf pack areas from 1988-1991, and despite the USFS road closure to protect existing wolves (see Bulletin 35), Bangs dumped Canadian wolves halfway between the two known native wolf locations guaranteeing their extermination.
In February of 2012, I forwarded the Weckworth DNA study, without comment, to Dr. Valerius Geist. The following was his reply:
“Thank you, George, I have seen this study. To me it suggests that there was indeed a remnant of native wolves in Idaho that were finally done away with by introduced wolves from Canada. The native wolves would have been of the same clad as the coastal wolves. Anyway, that’s testable since some museum specimens of native Idaho wolves are still available for genetic analysis. However, somebody competent and trustworthy needs to do it. Cheers, Val Geist.”
http://tomremington.com/2012/07/20/dna-studies-smaller-native-wolves-existed-in-northern-rockies-before-canadian-wolf-transplant/

[KFhunter]

be nice to see them held accountable

[bearpaw]

wolfbait thanks for your post, pretty well sums it up 

[wolfbait]

wolfbait thanks for your post, pretty well sums it up 

No wonder the pro-wolf crowd doesn't like wolf history, makes it hard for them to keep the environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies lies a float.

[idahohuntr]

wolfbait thanks for your post, pretty well sums it up 

No wonder the pro-wolf crowd doesn't like wolf history, makes it hard for them to keep the environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies lies a float.

The final 2 sentences of the abstract for the paper cited in your linked article:

"The independent phylogeographic history of these Coastal wolves has yet to be characterized. Their distinctiveness among North American wolf populations may warrant a reevaluation of their conservation status and management."

I'm not one to ignore data or science in peer reviewed publications in order to push my desire to de-list wolves...but I have some familiarity with mtDNA analyses, taxonomy, and evolution.  I do not believe the data presented, given numerous other facts, supports the position that wolves captured in 1995 in central canada represent some different subspecies.  From a conservation standpoint I just don't think it matters either.  I do not have a strong enough genetics background to provide a more rigorous review...but I do suspect folks are taking a lot of things out of context or not considering the numerous uncertainties inherent with evaluations like this...I doubt this Tom Remington or George Dovel are qualified to weigh in on the taxonomy of wolves.  Consider your source. 

More importantly, I want to go back to the quoted sentences I provided above.  This is hook, line, and sinker DoW material.  Do you think the author of this paper, in suggesting a re-evaluation of conservation and management of these "coastal" wolves is suggesting we ought maybe to shoot some more of them?    

Keep pushing this stuff with all the enviro groups and you may just get your wish...we will have the inland wolf management plan, which will require 15 documented bp's in E. Wa before we can even discuss de-listing...and then we will need a separate coastal wolves management plan which will be another 15bp's in W. Wa.  Maybe with enough data mining and creativity we can come up with even more subspecies in Wa and really get serious about building wolf populations.    

   

[JimmyHoffa]

"but then you could also say wolves were here for a LONG time before any cattle."

Yep, you could say, but at the same time you could say they WEREN'T here before the cattlemen showed on the scene.

You don't last in the business world if you don't PASS on to the consumer the COST and its increases of doing business, to the consumer.  Economics 101

I am assuming idaho, you've never raised cattle for consumption.

The only place economics has in the wolf argument is at the local level for the specific ranchers who are affected. It's a rural economic issue. There is no "wolf cost" in beef prices. There just aren't enough ranchers affected nationally to have a material effect on prices. It takes something to the effect of the massive drought/wildfires that hit most of Texas a while back, a state that has many times more cattle than the entire NRM.

I believe that would hold true even if there were a way to factor in the cost of the reduction in weight for cattle that are harried by wolves.

A significant issue for the rancher in Idaho grazing cattle in the Sawtooth, but not for the person buying the delicious six pack of strip steaks from Costco in Boise.

The USFWS has introduced wolves into the Southwest and some have reportedly spread into Texas.  Plus Colorado has the Northern Rocky Grays coming in from the north and the Mexican wolves from the south.  Wolf programs on the east coast too, as well as Louisiana.  In due time.  Then a national impact can be ascertained, and someone can extrapolate how much increase in beef prices is probably wolf related.

[idahohuntr]

On the cougar plan...does it really make a difference?  With no hounds...changing it to your liberal seasons I don't really see it changing cougar numbers at all    I also don't see the impacts to deer you describe...in 24/7 trail cam monitoring on a bait station, I've got 1 cougar picture in a year and I literally have 20-50 deer a day coming in at times...I'm pretty sure my deer are eating the cougars 

I'm not going to question your abilities as a hunter, but we have seen 8 cougars with our own eyes this year while turkey and bear hunting with no trail cameras involved and we managed to get photos or video of 6 of them. I didn't see 8 cougars without using hounds in my first 20 years of hunting and guiding. Cougar numbers are seriously skewed!

I remember a methow rancher who's kids all shot cougars out of their yard last winter. 

Yea, I suspect cougars are far less susceptible to show up on a camera at an artificial bait station...and I know there are plenty around.  Washington is the only state I've seen cougars that weren't sitting in a tree with dogs barking below them!  But I really am shocked at how little evidence/indication of cougar predation I see...I can watch all the same bucks grow throughout the year...the fawn numbers stay pretty similar for as long as I can reliably id them...I see the same numbers of does...I would think I'd have cougars sitting right next to my blind all night waiting for easy meals... Any ideas on why I'm overrun with deer and just not seeing evidence of much cougar predation...knowing there are cougars all around?

Cougar are very secretive and rarely seen. You need to understand their habits and know where they live to find them consistently. 35 years ago it took us a week to find an adult cougar track of either sex without kittens to chase for a hunter. Seasons were reduced and cougar tags put on a draw after a few years and about 20 years ago just before the voters outlawed hounds I could find an average of about 5 adult cougar tracks per day.

Now you need to come up and ride with me this winter, I will show you at least 10 adult cougar tracks in a day. WDFW has a quota of only 2 cougar in one unit and the other units really aren't much better considering they are much larger in size. The quotas need to be doubled or tripled to try and reduce the cat numbers. I'm not even sure that would reduce the population much.

Oh I'm not doubting you that cougar numbers are high...I just can't figure out why I don't see more indication of cougar predation on the deer...but I have little experience with cougars...maybe they are harder on the nearby elk...or do they spend much time with smaller game?    

[jasnt]

I just want to see aggressive predator management.

No reason not to have excellent Elk hunting in WA and specifically the NE, we've got the habitat for it in many locations throughout the state and the wintering areas for it.  We should have *a lot* more Elk in the NE corner.  Predators and humans keep herds small and struggling.  Deer -although way down from previous years- is still capable of quick rebounds if given the opportunity.

With proper and aggressive management there isn't any reason to not increase the ungulates and afford good public grazing opportunity.

I'm long past playing the blame game with wolves, none of that matters now.  How they got here, what species they are...all irrelevant now.

  the wolves are here and we will never be rid of them in any of our life times. But the need to manage them properly or the herd is going to take a dive in numbers quick. All it will take is a bad winter combined with un regulated predator numbers and our herds will suffer big losses.