Wolves

[idahohuntr]

Notice the graph says "excludes Washington and Oregon"
LOL

Things that make ya go hhmmmmmmmmmm....................

Maybe...seems pretty straight forward to me.  But I don't look at things through the lens of a tinfoil hat.

[AspenBud]

http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg

look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.

There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves.  Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed.  I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so...

Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades  did not have the same kind of growth?

Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?

These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.

I just got back from visiting family in Montana this weekend and to me there is a very obvious answer. There is a reason why Montana has always been considered one of THE big game destinations in the country and Washington has not. I saw loads of deer, a moose, and a few big horns and that was just while driving home. Even before wolves I never saw that much game while driving in WA.

This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Mystery solved.

[3nails]

http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg

look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.

There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves.  Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed.  I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so...

Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades  did not have the same kind of growth?

Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?

These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.

I just got back from visiting family in Montana this weekend and to me there is a very obvious answer. There is a reason why Montana has always been considered one of THE big game destinations in the country and Washington has not. I saw loads of deer, a moose, and a few big horns and that was just while driving home. Even before wolves I never saw that much game while driving in WA.

This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Mystery solved.

I have property in MT not far from my dad who lives there. It is well noted among the locals that you now see way more animals in the lowlands and roadways because the wolves have driven the majority out of the backcountry. Some people think the populations are fine because of this but that's not the case.

 Cracks me up about the debate on whether wolves were released in WA or not. If I bring a rotting head full of maggots into my mudroom and flies spread throughout the house into my wifes sewing room I'm going to have a hard time convincing her that I didn't bring them in. "Hey man, I just brought them into the mudroom. They migrated into the sewing room. Not my fault!" 

[boneaddict]

   That cracked me up.  I'm going to try that one. 




Good description of the deer in town too.  I know somewhere else this is very common.

[ctwiggs1]

If pro turkey groups are releasing turkeys could pro wolf groups be releasing wolves?

[buckcanyonlodge]

http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg

look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.

There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves.  Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed.  I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so...

Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades  did not have the same kind of growth?

Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?

These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.

I just got back from visiting family in Montana this weekend and to me there is a very obvious answer. There is a reason why Montana has always been considered one of THE big game destinations in the country and Washington has not. I saw loads of deer, a moose, and a few big horns and that was just while driving home. Even before wolves I never saw that much game while driving in WA.

This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Mystery solved.

I have property in MT not far from my dad who lives there. It is well noted among the locals that you now see way more animals in the lowlands and roadways because the wolves have driven the majority out of the backcountry. Some people think the populations are fine because of this but that's not the case.

 Cracks me up about the debate on whether wolves were released in WA or not. If I bring a rotting head full of maggots into my mudroom and flies spread throughout the house into my wifes sewing room I'm going to have a hard time convincing her that I didn't bring them in. "Hey man, I just brought them into the mudroom. They migrated into the sewing room. Not my fault!" 

You wife no doubt had a few native blowflies in the sewing room already ( I'll bet you saw one there in the'80's )......so it does not matter that your blowflies migrated into the sewing room.. Tell your wife the blowflies are here to stay   so get used to it..

[AspenBud]

http://thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/final_2010_figure_5_rec_area_num__bp.jpg

look at the part of the graph from 02-09...that is called exponential population growth...that is when you have expansion.

There is no need to share this data with WDFW...they are well aware of why they are seeing more and more wolves.  Again, just because a few folks on this forum are uninformed about why wolves are increasing in WA does not mean everyone else in the world is also uninformed.  I referred to leading a horse to water a few times now...if you look at this graph and are still mystified about why wolves started showing up increasingly in WA in 08 or so...

Why have the wolves from ID and YNP had exponential growth YET the wolves that were already in the cascades  did not have the same kind of growth?

Why was it necessary to bring wolves from the far north in the McKenzie Valley when just across the boarder in the Selkirk Mts the Canadians had plenty of them?

These are just a couple of the question that do not add up in my mind. When answers go against basic logic it requires me to be a skeptic and challenge both the methods and the motivations.

I just got back from visiting family in Montana this weekend and to me there is a very obvious answer. There is a reason why Montana has always been considered one of THE big game destinations in the country and Washington has not. I saw loads of deer, a moose, and a few big horns and that was just while driving home. Even before wolves I never saw that much game while driving in WA.

This is not Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Mystery solved.

I have property in MT not far from my dad who lives there. It is well noted among the locals that you now see way more animals in the lowlands and roadways because the wolves have driven the majority out of the backcountry. Some people think the populations are fine because of this but that's not the case.

 Cracks me up about the debate on whether wolves were released in WA or not. If I bring a rotting head full of maggots into my mudroom and flies spread throughout the house into my wifes sewing room I'm going to have a hard time convincing her that I didn't bring them in. "Hey man, I just brought them into the mudroom. They migrated into the sewing room. Not my fault!" 

What I think is funny is you missed the point. Washington is no Idaho or Montana and never has been wolf or no wolf. People have always gone to Montana and Idaho because of their abundance of game. Wolves expanded there for a reason, plenty of food which meant higher pup survival rates. For someone to wonder how wolves could expand so fast in Idaho or Montana but not in Washington really means they don't understand that or are in denial about the realities of Washington's big game hunting. Things are not the same here.

They are also optimists about people and must not think many wolves get poached. Now that is funny.

There was a good one posted on hunting forums for years here and it went something like this, "the state says no wolves exist here, open season on big coyotes!" And yet we have people who wonder why they didn't edpand as fast...

[KFhunter]

If wolves were easy to kill or poach then WDFW wouldn't need choppers to get the job done even though they have tracking collars.  The elusiveness of the wolf prevents that scenario from happening.  The wedge wolves are a good example how hard they are to spot let alone get cross hairs on them.  Wolves that are getting poached is because they're in someone's back yard or making themselves far too easy of an opportunity.

WDFW's wolf FAQ page:

Is WDFW concerned that killing wolves will set back the statewide recovery effort?

No. Wolves are very adaptable animals that can thrive in a variety of habitats so long as they have adequate food and are not exterminated through indiscriminant killing. Thousands of wolves have been killed in the Rocky Mountain states in recent decades, yet the species continues to recover in that region.

A model developed by Washington State University in conjunction with the authors of Washington’s wolf plan found that removing wolves pose a very low risk to the statewide recovery objectives once population levels reach numbers currently documented in the eastern Washington recovery region. The real danger to recovery is if people lose confidence in WDFW’s ability to manage wolves and take matters into their own hands.

WA doesn't have MT's or Idaho's Elk herds because WDFW hasn't managed for such herds. End of a story that goes back well before the wolves showed up in numbers in WA.
It would take a big commitment to manage predators and people (including Indians) to build the Elk herds and bring WA up to par with the rest of the west.  WDFW hasn't shown the desire and has managed for small struggling herds with very little calf recruitment. WDFW won't even close roads in heavily hit tribal Elk hunting areas, even off winter feeding sites! 

All the Cow's I've seen this year did not have a calf with them, not one single juvenile.  All were older mature cows.  Tells me something is wrong!

Now that wolves are here we'll NEVER see Elk such as what's seen in all the other western states.  Especially that WA has such a burdensome wolf plan.

[AspenBud]

If wolves were easy to kill or poach then WDFW wouldn't need choppers to get the job done even though they have tracking collars.  The elusiveness of the wolf prevents that scenario from happening.  The wedge wolves are a good example how hard they are to spot let alone get cross hairs on them.  Wolves that are getting poached is because they're in someone's back yard or making themselves far too easy of an opportunity.

WDFW's wolf FAQ page:

Is WDFW concerned that killing wolves will set back the statewide recovery effort?

No. Wolves are very adaptable animals that can thrive in a variety of habitats so long as they have adequate food and are not exterminated through indiscriminant killing. Thousands of wolves have been killed in the Rocky Mountain states in recent decades, yet the species continues to recover in that region.

A model developed by Washington State University in conjunction with the authors of Washington’s wolf plan found that removing wolves pose a very low risk to the statewide recovery objectives once population levels reach numbers currently documented in the eastern Washington recovery region. The real danger to recovery is if people lose confidence in WDFW’s ability to manage wolves and take matters into their own hands.

WA doesn't have MT's or Idaho's Elk herds because WDFW hasn't managed for such herds. End of a story that goes back well before the wolves showed up in numbers in WA.
It would take a big commitment to manage predators and people (including Indians) to build the Elk herds and bring WA up to par with the rest of the west.  WDFW hasn't shown the desire and has managed for small struggling herds with very little calf recruitment. WDFW won't even close roads in heavily hit tribal Elk hunting areas, even off winter feeding sites! 

All the Cow's I've seen this year did not have a calf with them, not one single juvenile.  All were older mature cows.  Tells me something is wrong!

Now that wolves are here we'll NEVER see Elk such as what's seen in all the other western states.  Especially that WA has such a burdensome wolf plan.

If you'll allow me to play devil's advocate, if one reads some comments on here it sounds like wolves are in every backyard in Okanogan and Stevens County. At some point those losses add up if people are putting a coke bottle on the end of a rifle and taking care of things from the window and then digging a hole.

Comparing Montana and Idaho to Washington is really comparing apples to oranges. Once you get out of NE Washington the landscape stops being similar and is either devoid of forest or is forested land so thick with cover that you need a machete to cut your way through. We also have a lot more people per square mile.

[KFhunter]

they're not in everyone's back yard all at the same time 

I didn't mean we could have the overall numbers that other states have, but in Elk areas we could have the density that other western states enjoy.   The habitat is there, it's going unused.  Grasses up to your waist in a lot of areas that could hold a pretty heavy density with plenty of winter browse, and in areas with excellent summer forage but lacking good winter forage then feeding stations could bolster the over all herd size to make use of the rest of the 3 seasons.

It's just not managed to be that way, but it could.

Comparing Montana and Idaho to Washington is really comparing apples to oranges. Once you get out of NE Washington the landscape stops being similar and is either devoid of forest or is forested land so thick with cover that you need a machete to cut your way through. We also have a lot more people per square mile.

Exactly why WA's wolf plan makes no sense!  We have room for wolves in WA, but no where near what our current wolf plan calls for.    The current plan would be excellent if you wanted to eliminate open grazing and greatly reduce hunting opportunities.  Due to Washington's population and smaller numbers or density of game (compared to MT/ID) we should likewise have a smaller wolf footprint, but our plan calls for MORE wolves than other western states 

[AspenBud]

they're not in everyone's back yard all at the same time 

I didn't mean we could have the overall numbers that other states have, but in Elk areas we could have the density that other western states enjoy.   The habitat is there, it's going unused.  Grasses up to your waist in a lot of areas that could hold a pretty heavy density with plenty of winter browse, and in areas with excellent summer forage but lacking good winter forage then feeding stations could bolster the over all herd size to make use of the rest of the 3 seasons.

It's just not managed to be that way, but it could.

Comparing Montana and Idaho to Washington is really comparing apples to oranges. Once you get out of NE Washington the landscape stops being similar and is either devoid of forest or is forested land so thick with cover that you need a machete to cut your way through. We also have a lot more people per square mile.

Exactly why WA's wolf plan makes no sense!  We have room for wolves in WA, but no where near what our current wolf plan calls for.    The current plan would be excellent if you wanted to eliminate open grazing and greatly reduce hunting opportunities.  Due to Washington's population and smaller numbers or density of game (compared to MT/ID) we should likewise have a smaller wolf footprint, but our plan calls for MORE wolves than other western states 

I can't disagree with any of that.

[boneaddict]

Who are you and what have you done with our Aspenbud?

[AspenBud]

Who are you and what have you done with our Aspenbud?

I have my disagreements, but I don't disagree with everything here.

[boneaddict]

Just teasing you.   

[KFhunter]

Aspenbud is a small success story in the making,  he's evolved quite a bit on his position regarding wolves. 

It was a lot of work to get him where he is today