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

[villageidiot]

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.

Sorry but you are underestimating ranchers ability to control wolves.  If the ranchers were allowed to kill wolves that were threatening their livestock they most certainly would.  They have some very creative tools they can use and once the wolves are delisted they will use them.  They do deal with cougars and bears and use the SSS method.  Your not seeing all the methods they use in the newspapers because it does not benefit them in any way for the public to know.  Some ranchers are already dealing with the wolf problem on their own.  They have no choice if they want to survive.  They've seen the response from the Feds and WDFW on wolf depredations and it's not acceptable at all.  This wolf introduction is turning perfectly good honest working people into criminals to stay in business. 

[AspenBud]

Bobcat I agree with you that a lot of the hysteria and hyperbole about wolves is unrealistic, but really the problem is that people are just realistically afraid to live around wolves.  Obviously they are not the man eating, night stalking devils that some seem to believe, but on the other hand they are not the cute, cudily basically harmless animal that others would have you believe.  The point with me is that many people who want wolf reintroduction really want them to be a long ways away from them and it's unfair to those people who have to live near them.  I also believe that wolf introduction is being done without a real assessment on the end effect regarding our big game management. No, I don't think they will wipe out every game animal in an area, but to think they won't  severely impact big game herds  is naïve also.  Even if you are not a hunter I would think you'd have to be concerned with the uncountable kill tally from large numbers of wolves in an area.  Guess it's kind of like new prisons to me, everyone wants more to get criminals off the street, they just don't want them in their neighborhood. People on the westside don't want wolves around simply because they are afraid of them, I think the only way they'll really sympathize with the eastside folks is when they experience that fear first hand.  I don't buy any conspiracy on the part of WDFW or any of the Big Govt. is out to get me stuff.  WDFW is caught in the middle of an issue that they are underfunded and undermanned to really deal with , but are responsible for handling.  I don't suspect we'll really see wolves on the westside for a long time, if ever, but honestly believe that if they did show up over here there'd be a whole different management plan in effect.

I would also add to this that many people are under the false impression that wolves only kill the weak, injured, starving, or what have you? They truly believe that they will just balance out the ecosystem and until they see thrill kills or killing healthy animals and just eating parts of them, they will never understand.

I hate to break it to you but not all animals are born equal. While some might look healthy that does not mean that under the hood they have the tools needed to survive. Weakness encompasses far more than physical appearance or health when talking about wild animals. Dog breeding is a great comparison. High levels of selectivity lead to better specimens, water that down and you get inferior specimens. We have a lot of genetically watered down ungulate populations...which is a problem for both pro wolfers and pro management folks whether they understand/believe it or not.

So are you saying every single animal a wolf kills has some sort of weakness and that wolves inherently know this? Do you have a source for this or is this your opinion. I find it very hard to believe

I think every animal they take down had a weakness they exploited. It's called survival of the fittest for a reason. Some will make it, some will not. Some chance is involved there but at the end of it some, and it may only be a small fraction, are better able to fend for themselves than others. Equality does not exist in the natural world.

A weakness in regards to the wolves sheer power, speed, numbers etc. A bull elk that breaks away from the herd to browse on some grass, gets surrounded by wolves, taken down, partially eaten and left for scavengers was weak? I think you are stretching an already weak argument but it is your opinion and we are all entitled to them.

There is nothing to stretch. Ungulates can and do survive in areas that wolves occur. Your argument is that they vacuum everything up, that there are no survivors and that strength (which can refer to a lot of different factors) isn't helpful at all in fending off wolves. If that were true we wouldn't be having this argument as every animal living should have been gone thanks to wolves long ago.

Elk in the lower 48 haven't dealt with wolves in a looooong time. That means many have survived that otherwise would not have and the gene pool has become diluted. Many of them are at a distinct disadvantage compared to elk and other ungulates that have had to live with them all along. That doesn't really paint a rosy picture for ungulates down here.

But as you say, we're all entitled to our opinions.

[AspenBud]

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 

Yeah, that's funny. Dump them in a west side corner that bleeds red as much as the east side. So much for getting back at Liberals.

[AspenBud]

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.

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.

I have to agree with you here.

[gr8whthunter]

i havent even read this thread but if they do bring wolves to the wetside and i see any, there will be dead wolf carcasses thats all i gotta say and thats my  ,

*to the pro wolf people sorry but im not sorry and dont let my judgment or my ideas on the subject reflect badly on any other outdoorsmen or sportsmen*

[AspenBud]

i havent even read this thread but if they do bring wolves to the wetside and i see any, there will be dead wolf carcasses thats all i gotta say and thats my  ,

That's a statistical inevitability. There are as many or more people packed into western Washington than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Eastern Washington combined. Wolves have over 5 million ways to die in a much smaller space here. This is not BFE.

[gr8whthunter]

BFE? Bigfoot evidence?

[vandeman17]

BFE? Bigfoot evidence?

I assume he meant butt #@%$ Egypt

[gfull]

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.

Didn't mean my post to sound as if I agree with this idea, and I too do not want any more monies spent on any wolf program.  I certainly understand the ranchers' and hunters' perspective on this issue.  I agree that wolves will be on our side soon enough.  It will be very interesting to see how westsiders take to the idea of having wolves in their backyards.  I for one am not looking forward to it.

[buckfvr]

I think we're all past the whole idea of not wanting them here, its the part about not being able to deal with them as one would any other predator exhibiting bad manners...........wdfw and their pro-wolf allies are still intent on getting their first poster child.

I will not tolerate an aggressive animal.   

[pianoman9701]

Wolves are already here on the wetside anyway. They just need to make it official. I've seen one close up in Winston and many people have them on cams and have heard them around Mt. S.H. howling at night.