Ranchers urge relocation of Washington wolf packs [to Western Washington]

[buckfvr]

The push for wolves is and has been about one thing........chewing the deer and elk herds down to the point they need to be protected, ending hunting, and getting guns............if you cant connect those dots, you arent paying attention.

My boss showed me a picture of a buddy of his the other day...standing next to a nice bull elk he got in Montana last week. Looks like wolves are falling short of that goal...though he did do it with a bow and not a gun....

I never suggested they are achieving their goals, and despite the wolf problems here in  n.e. wa., I notched my elk tag, a bow bull, not a gun................not that that has a thing to do with it.

[Elkslayer]

But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."

Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.

Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.

The problem isn't that the ranchers don't know how to deal with the wolves. They know exactly how to deal with them! When you have an outside party come in and start telling them how they are going to deal with them and start forcing all these non-lethal methods on them and telling them they have to do this, this and this before lethal action can be taken is where the problem is.

The other problem is that the N/E corner is averaging 2-3 new packs per year and we are being told there is absolutely nothing that can be done until wolves have populated all regions of the state before any managment will be looked at. WDWF's own estimate is for this to possibly happen by 2021. So at that rate we are looking at 25-30 packs in the N/E corner alone. Sorry but there is absolutely no way we have the game population to support that amount of wolves.

[MR5x5]

They clearly only kill the weak.
15,000 of 19,000 Yellowstone Elk herd were clearly weak.
All but a couple of the 1000 Moose were clearly weak.
We are now starting to find out how many of the Bison are clearly weak.

Sure it took 15 years happen.  Sure the original predictions were 7-12% impact to herds. Sure some level of animals survive in all impacted areas.  Sure the introduction of Canadian wolves exterminated the documented Native wolves in the release area. Sure the the ESA was directly violated by the release of these wolves with direct evidence of native species. But who really cares?

Estimates are that there are at least 10 times and as many as 20 times the amount of wolves originally agreed to.  The environmentalists are useful idiots.  But what is the bigger game being played out?  Land grab? Gun Grab?  Both?  Something else?  It sure as hell isn't being done for natures sake.

Bring some wolves to the west side.  You say they won't survive?  Then I guess there is no reason to worry.  You say you don't want to spend anymore money on this.  I suspect we can find some volunteers.  You say wolves don't bother people?  Of course they don't where they don't exist. You should look around the world.  Ask the Russians if wolves kill people?

Yes, it does look like they are here to stay.  World history demonstrates they will dominate their environment if not proactively controlled.  Check the impact on Caribou herds in Canada.  Lots of interesting wolf work done there.  They will not be proactively controlled until the the west side, granola eating, sandal wearing NIMBYs have a chance to experience them.

So lets got on with so we can got on with it.

[bone collector 12]

But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."

Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.

Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.

But bears Cougars and coyotes are regulated Wolves are not

[KFhunter]

But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."

Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.

Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.

All the ranchers I've talked too know the wolves are here to stay and know that ranching as they knew it is changed forever.

Cougars, Bears and Coyotes do prey on livestock and there are losses due to those animals, it's negligible especially when compared to what wolves can do; but none the less there are some losses.  The ranchers deal with it and have the legal means to do so.  If Coyotes are bad WDFW will give out a permit to use foothold traps and you can already shoot them 24/7 365.  Cougars, WDFW will allow hounds to run them on occasion and will even live trap bears for you.  If those animals are caught in the act there is no serious investigation or false allegations of poaching.  Not so much with wolves.

Ranchers want the tools as mentioned above and the freedom to deal with it.  Right now they'll get into a lot of trouble for shooting a wolf that doesn't quite meet the definition "caught in the act" and quite frankly do not trust WDFW enough to utilize that rule, or at least report they've used that rule 
Who in their right mind would report that they've shot a wolf and hope for a fair investigation?  Not only that but suffer public condemnation, ridicule and death threats when WDFW releases all the names to the media?

A good example is the recent attack on the Aladdin highway where construction crews and other passers by witnessed wolves giving chase to cattle.  What a perfect time to shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act rule" provided by WDFW....but then look how WDFW handled it,  refused to admit it was wolves and told them all it was coyotes at first.  Would you legally shoot a wolf if WDFW was telling you that you must be mistaken, it must be a coyote, it's not in the act or any other excuse they can come up with to say it wasn't a wolf?   I'd be in fear they'd accuse me of poaching a wolf and that my cattle weren't really in any danger,  and if a cow was down I'd be worried they'd say the cow died of some other cause and a wolf was merely scavenging which doesn't fit the "caught in the act" rule. 

I know WDFW is between a rock and a hard spot with the wetside voters and I don't envy the tight rope they walk,  I understand that.  The problem I have is members of WDFW is the lack of honesty and openness.  Too many times they've obfuscated the truth about wolf kills, they haven't done enough to locate, collar and verify pack status.  Given the tight rope they walk I still think they could do a better job serving Washington's hunting community.  They could do a better job documenting wolf impact areas in regards to ungulate numbers but they won't even broach that subject other than to say they'll do a study if they see significant wolf impact; which there clearly is if anyone spends any time in a wolf area, it's eerily deserted of large game animals.

I think WDFW could do a few key things to help ranchers and still have very little effect on the wolf recovery.

1) Set up body gripping trap permits in wolf impacted grazing allotments, along the same lines as they currently do for coyotes.
2) Identify and contact livestock owners when range areas overlap wolf denning sites.  Have the ranchers sign a non-disclosure agreement and make wolf movement date available to them.
3) Divorce all WDFW funding from advocacy groups.  Remove all paid members of conservation groups off WDFW staffing and commission members.  Maintain an impartial wolf advocacy group, commission members and discourage all WDFW staffing from joining advocacy groups. 
4) Hire hunters to remove wolves where permitted trapping is failing prevent wolf conflict.
5) keep all dealings with ranchers private, refuse to release names of those individuals who shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act" rule.
6) keep private all ranchers names who are loosing livestock to wolves and where preventive measure are being employed.

given a little more time and thought I'm sure I could come up with a lot more ideas to help WDFW's image and public cooperation, especially the cooperation of ranchers.  WDFW isn't doing any of these things and it would appear that they have little desire to improve their image or public trust. 

[PA BEN]

 

[wolfbait]

But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."

Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.

Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.

All the ranchers I've talked too know the wolves are here to stay and know that ranching as they knew it is changed forever.

Cougars, Bears and Coyotes do prey on livestock and there are losses due to those animals, it's negligible especially when compared to what wolves can do; but none the less there are some losses.  The ranchers deal with it and have the legal means to do so.  If Coyotes are bad WDFW will give out a permit to use foothold traps and you can already shoot them 24/7 365.  Cougars, WDFW will allow hounds to run them on occasion and will even live trap bears for you.  If those animals are caught in the act there is no serious investigation or false allegations of poaching.  Not so much with wolves.

Ranchers want the tools as mentioned above and the freedom to deal with it.  Right now they'll get into a lot of trouble for shooting a wolf that doesn't quite meet the definition "caught in the act" and quite frankly do not trust WDFW enough to utilize that rule, or at least report they've used that rule 
Who in their right mind would report that they've shot a wolf and hope for a fair investigation?  Not only that but suffer public condemnation, ridicule and death threats when WDFW releases all the names to the media?

A good example is the recent attack on the Aladdin highway where construction crews and other passers by witnessed wolves giving chase to cattle.  What a perfect time to shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act rule" provided by WDFW....but then look how WDFW handled it,  refused to admit it was wolves and told them all it was coyotes at first.  Would you legally shoot a wolf if WDFW was telling you that you must be mistaken, it must be a coyote, it's not in the act or any other excuse they can come up with to say it wasn't a wolf?   I'd be in fear they'd accuse me of poaching a wolf and that my cattle weren't really in any danger,  and if a cow was down I'd be worried they'd say the cow died of some other cause and a wolf was merely scavenging which doesn't fit the "caught in the act" rule. 

I know WDFW is between a rock and a hard spot with the wetside voters and I don't envy the tight rope they walk,  I understand that.  The problem I have is members of WDFW is the lack of honesty and openness.  Too many times they've obfuscated the truth about wolf kills, they haven't done enough to locate, collar and verify pack status.  Given the tight rope they walk I still think they could do a better job serving Washington's hunting community.  They could do a better job documenting wolf impact areas in regards to ungulate numbers but they won't even broach that subject other than to say they'll do a study if they see significant wolf impact; which there clearly is if anyone spends any time in a wolf area, it's eerily deserted of large game animals.

I think WDFW could do a few key things to help ranchers and still have very little effect on the wolf recovery.

1) Set up body gripping trap permits in wolf impacted grazing allotments, along the same lines as they currently do for coyotes.
2) Identify and contact livestock owners when range areas overlap wolf denning sites.  Have the ranchers sign a non-disclosure agreement and make wolf movement date available to them.
3) Divorce all WDFW funding from advocacy groups.  Remove all paid members of conservation groups off WDFW staffing and commission members.  Maintain an impartial wolf advocacy group, commission members and discourage all WDFW staffing from joining advocacy groups. 
4) Hire hunters to remove wolves where permitted trapping is failing prevent wolf conflict.
5) keep all dealings with ranchers private, refuse to release names of those individuals who shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act" rule.
6) keep private all ranchers names who are loosing livestock to wolves and where preventive measure are being employed.

given a little more time and thought I'm sure I could come up with a lot more ideas to help WDFW's image and public cooperation, especially the cooperation of ranchers.  WDFW isn't doing any of these things and it would appear that they have little desire to improve their image or public trust.

Well Said!

[Hunting7mm]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

    

[mfswallace]

But here's the thing- those wolves would still be there and would still be killing livestock, even if the state had never written a "wolf plan."

Let's even go one step further and say the wolves have been delisted and are no longer on the endangered list, and could legally be killed by ranchers to protect their livestock.

Would that change anything? Would wolves then stop killing livestock? I doubt it. If you want to be a rancher, learn to deal with the wolves, just like you've had to deal with cougars, bears, and coyotes.

All the ranchers I've talked too know the wolves are here to stay and know that ranching as they knew it is changed forever.

Cougars, Bears and Coyotes do prey on livestock and there are losses due to those animals, it's negligible especially when compared to what wolves can do; but none the less there are some losses.  The ranchers deal with it and have the legal means to do so.  If Coyotes are bad WDFW will give out a permit to use foothold traps and you can already shoot them 24/7 365.  Cougars, WDFW will allow hounds to run them on occasion and will even live trap bears for you.  If those animals are caught in the act there is no serious investigation or false allegations of poaching.  Not so much with wolves.

Ranchers want the tools as mentioned above and the freedom to deal with it.  Right now they'll get into a lot of trouble for shooting a wolf that doesn't quite meet the definition "caught in the act" and quite frankly do not trust WDFW enough to utilize that rule, or at least report they've used that rule 
Who in their right mind would report that they've shot a wolf and hope for a fair investigation?  Not only that but suffer public condemnation, ridicule and death threats when WDFW releases all the names to the media?

A good example is the recent attack on the Aladdin highway where construction crews and other passers by witnessed wolves giving chase to cattle.  What a perfect time to shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act rule" provided by WDFW....but then look how WDFW handled it,  refused to admit it was wolves and told them all it was coyotes at first.  Would you legally shoot a wolf if WDFW was telling you that you must be mistaken, it must be a coyote, it's not in the act or any other excuse they can come up with to say it wasn't a wolf?   I'd be in fear they'd accuse me of poaching a wolf and that my cattle weren't really in any danger,  and if a cow was down I'd be worried they'd say the cow died of some other cause and a wolf was merely scavenging which doesn't fit the "caught in the act" rule. 

I know WDFW is between a rock and a hard spot with the wetside voters and I don't envy the tight rope they walk,  I understand that.  The problem I have is members of WDFW is the lack of honesty and openness.  Too many times they've obfuscated the truth about wolf kills, they haven't done enough to locate, collar and verify pack status.  Given the tight rope they walk I still think they could do a better job serving Washington's hunting community.  They could do a better job documenting wolf impact areas in regards to ungulate numbers but they won't even broach that subject other than to say they'll do a study if they see significant wolf impact; which there clearly is if anyone spends any time in a wolf area, it's eerily deserted of large game animals.

I think WDFW could do a few key things to help ranchers and still have very little effect on the wolf recovery.

1) Set up body gripping trap permits in wolf impacted grazing allotments, along the same lines as they currently do for coyotes.
2) Identify and contact livestock owners when range areas overlap wolf denning sites.  Have the ranchers sign a non-disclosure agreement and make wolf movement date available to them.
3) Divorce all WDFW funding from advocacy groups.  Remove all paid members of conservation groups off WDFW staffing and commission members.  Maintain an impartial wolf advocacy group, commission members and discourage all WDFW staffing from joining advocacy groups. 
4) Hire hunters to remove wolves where permitted trapping is failing prevent wolf conflict.
5) keep all dealings with ranchers private, refuse to release names of those individuals who shoot a wolf under the "caught in the act" rule.
6) keep private all ranchers names who are loosing livestock to wolves and where preventive measure are being employed.

given a little more time and thought I'm sure I could come up with a lot more ideas to help WDFW's image and public cooperation, especially the cooperation of ranchers.  WDFW isn't doing any of these things and it would appear that they have little desire to improve their image or public trust.

Well Said!

 

[Silent-one]

Ridiculous idea. I don't want any more money spent on wolves than what they are already spending. Wolves will get here on they're own, we don't need to be moving them from one place to another. It's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Although I'm pretty sure it's not really something people say thinking it actually has a chance of ever happening.

By the time the wolves make it to the west side on their own the east side of the state will no longer have any wildlife left to hunt and ranchers will be out of business. If this is what it takes to wake up the libs have at it.

I understand your viewpoint but think it's a little extreme. Maybe there will be less wildlife to hunt, but I doubt there will ever be none. I also don't believe any rancher will be out of business as a result of the presence of wolves. And if wolves for some weird reason never do become established on the west side of the state, I would prefer that. We don't want them over here just like we don't want them over there. But it's not like we have a choice- they're wild animals and go where they want.

And why is this such a ridiculous idea Bobcat? The majority of the people in the state that want the wolves are from the west side. So give them what they want!

What is ridiculous is you telling us that we just need to learn to deal with them. Then at the same time you say don't bring them over here cause I don't want to deal with them.

West Coast mentality I guess!

[bobcat]

It's ridiculous because it costs money. Do you want all your license fee money going towards increasing the number of wolves in this state? Do you realize what it costs to capture and move wild animals around like that? The wolves will go where they want. They don't need our help.

[Silent-one]

I'm pretty sure the majority of my license fee money is already going to the wolf program.

[jasnt]

It's ridiculous because it costs money. Do you want all your license fee money going towards increasing the number of wolves in this state? Do you realize what it costs to capture and move wild animals around like that? The wolves will go where they want. They don't need our help.

how would it be increasing the number of wolves?

we'll just donate a few of our packs to the SW left coast.  If you'll take the lookout, huckleberry, and dirty shirt packs then we'll throw in the Sherman pack for free. 

we can pay for it with a new tax on sandals or vegetables 

[bobcat]

It's ridiculous because it costs money. Do you want all your license fee money going towards increasing the number of wolves in this state? Do you realize what it costs to capture and move wild animals around like that? The wolves will go where they want. They don't need our help.

how would it be increasing the number of wolves?

we'll just donate a few of our packs to the SW left coast.  If you'll take the lookout, huckleberry, and dirty shirt packs then we'll throw in the Sherman pack for free. 

we can pay for it with a new tax on sandals or vegetables 

Wolves spread out over a bigger area = more wolves. Regardless, I simply don't want the state wasting money on wolves. But then I'm not really a fan of moving any kind of wildlife around, including elk.

[PA BEN]

It's ridiculous because it costs money. Do you want all your license fee money going towards increasing the number of wolves in this state? Do you realize what it costs to capture and move wild animals around like that? The wolves will go where they want. They don't need our help.

how would it be increasing the number of wolves?

we'll just donate a few of our packs to the SW left coast.  If you'll take the lookout, huckleberry, and dirty shirt packs then we'll throw in the Sherman pack for free. 

we can pay for it with a new tax on sandals or vegetables 

Wolves spread out over a bigger area = more wolves. Regardless, I simply don't want the state wasting money on wolves. But then I'm not really a fan of moving any kind of wildlife around, including elk.

They are trapping and callering them now. It's not like they will be going out of their way to trap them. I understand you sportsmen don't want them in your backyard, but the way I see it the only choice the Libs in this state can do to ease the pain that we are going through is to spread the love. So stand up and help us out. Go to the meeting in Lynnwood and speak up. Don't just go there and say not in my backyard, voice your concern about the States wolf management plan and how it doesn't work. You guys are feeling the pressure that wolves might be there sooner than later, well you better get on the boat now and help out.