Whitman County’s first probable instance of wolf killing livestock reported

[bearpaw]

Humans killed by wolves in North America last year: 0
Cows killed by wolves last year in Oregon: 5
Humans killed by cows nationwide: 20
Cows and calves in Oregon that died from all causes- disease, birth, cars, etc.-  prior to market (approx.): 52,000
Cows killed by trucks in or near Madras, Oregon: 40

It's pretty easy for someone living in Ridgefield or Vancouver to judge the people in our state who have to actually live with these pests. First of all, your statistics primarily show OR numbers. OR has a far less aggressive wolf plan than ours and their DF&W is far more responsive to resolving human/wolf conflict. Your statistics don't show the damage being done to cattle and sheep in our state. They don't show what would have happened if a hunter in the NE last month hadn't had a gun and killed a wolf that was part of a pack stalking him. Your statistics don't show the pets that have been eaten or the spread of parasites from wolves to dogs, even humans (zoonosis) from Echinococcus granulosus. Your misleading and impertinent facts have nothing to do with WA's wolf program. Other than having a canned, pro-wolf response with a shortcut on your desktop, or a head filled with propaganda from some Seattle or wetside greenies, I wonder whether you have any pertinent information or have done any actual research regarding wolves and their impact in WA. I doubt it, judging of course only from the lack of depth in your little list.

I would ask you the same question.  Your statements imply an exaggerated risk and impact of wolves in Washington.  Reality is they are here, they are about the least amount of risk you might encounter in stepping outside your home, and I am not aware of any data showing declines in game abundance or hunter harvest that can be linked to wolves.

There certainly are no statistics in WA showing wolf impacts because WDFW isn't doing any studies to prove wolf impacts and I seriously doubt they will do any studies soon because they are so busy promoting wolves. 

[KFhunter]

From  http://www.pullmanradio.com/whitman-countys-first-probable-instance-of-wolf-killing-livestock-reported/

Washington Fish and Wildlife agents are investigating the first probable case of a wolf killing livestock in Whitman County. The incident occurred early Friday afternoon when an apparent wolf killed a sheep in the Northern part of the county. Fish and wildlife agents quickly responded and believe the sheep was killed by a wolf based on the damage done to the animal and since wolves have been sighted in the area. The wolf situation in Whitman County has ramped up quickly this year. The first ever confirmed sighting of a wolf came last Winter near Lacrosse. Then in October a wolf was shot and killed outside Pullman marking the first time in Washington’s history that a wolf poaching suspect has been identified. Now comes the first wolf predation in Whitman County which is leading fish and wildlife to believe there may be a pack settling on the Palouse. Fish and wildlife agents are working with ranchers in Northern Whitman County on non-lethal deterrents to keep wolves away from livestock - See more at: http://www.pullmanradio.com/whitman-countys-first-probable-instance-of-wolf-killing-livestock-reported/#sthash.lVBkGLCU.dpuf

We know which wolf didn't kill the sheep. 

I wonder how many times this guy complained to WDFW about wolves hanging out around his home?

Probably almost enough times that he'll get in his truck and chase the wolf down and kill it.........

[pianoman9701]

Humans killed by wolves in North America last year: 0
Cows killed by wolves last year in Oregon: 5
Humans killed by cows nationwide: 20
Cows and calves in Oregon that died from all causes- disease, birth, cars, etc.-  prior to market (approx.): 52,000
Cows killed by trucks in or near Madras, Oregon: 40

It's pretty easy for someone living in Ridgefield or Vancouver to judge the people in our state who have to actually live with these pests. First of all, your statistics primarily show OR numbers. OR has a far less aggressive wolf plan than ours and their DF&W is far more responsive to resolving human/wolf conflict. Your statistics don't show the damage being done to cattle and sheep in our state. They don't show what would have happened if a hunter in the NE last month hadn't had a gun and killed a wolf that was part of a pack stalking him. Your statistics don't show the pets that have been eaten or the spread of parasites from wolves to dogs, even humans (zoonosis) from Echinococcus granulosus. Your misleading and impertinent facts have nothing to do with WA's wolf program. Other than having a canned, pro-wolf response with a shortcut on your desktop, or a head filled with propaganda from some Seattle or wetside greenies, I wonder whether you have any pertinent information or have done any actual research regarding wolves and their impact in WA. I doubt it, judging of course only from the lack of depth in your little list.

I would ask you the same question.  Your statements imply an exaggerated risk and impact of wolves in Washington.  Reality is they are here, they are about the least amount of risk you might encounter in stepping outside your home, and I am not aware of any data showing declines in game abundance or hunter harvest that can be linked to wolves.

I know how much you love the wolves, but I definitely have to call BS on your reply. I didn't make one exaggerated statement. Our plan is more aggressive. His stats are OR stats - nothing to do with WA. E. granulosus is a zoonosis, is transmittable to pets, and further, affects 60+% of wolves tested so far in MT and ID. Nothing I said is exaggerated. He doesn't have information about cow and sheep kills in WA OR about pet losses. A hunter did kill a wolf in self-defense last month.

Your knee jerk reactions to always take the side of the wolves are extremely tiring and now, you've resorted to misinformation. I exaggerated nothing and implied nothing. I stated facts. Maybe those facts don't coincide with the brain-washing you've received but that's your problem.

[sirmissalot]

I am not aware of any data showing declines in game abundance or hunter harvest that can be linked to wolves.

Nope, loss of habitat right? 

[KFhunter]

Been kicked many times over the years, but in the chest?  Man that would hurt!

It does 

[KFhunter]

Humans killed by wolves in North America last year: 0
Cows killed by wolves last year in Oregon: 5
Humans killed by cows nationwide: 20
Cows and calves in Oregon that died from all causes- disease, birth, cars, etc.-  prior to market (approx.): 52,000
Cows killed by trucks in or near Madras, Oregon: 40

It's pretty easy for someone living in Ridgefield or Vancouver to judge the people in our state who have to actually live with these pests. First of all, your statistics primarily show OR numbers. OR has a far less aggressive wolf plan than ours and their DF&W is far more responsive to resolving human/wolf conflict. Your statistics don't show the damage being done to cattle and sheep in our state. They don't show what would have happened if a hunter in the NE last month hadn't had a gun and killed a wolf that was part of a pack stalking him. Your statistics don't show the pets that have been eaten or the spread of parasites from wolves to dogs, even humans (zoonosis) from Echinococcus granulosus. Your misleading and impertinent facts have nothing to do with WA's wolf program. Other than having a canned, pro-wolf response with a shortcut on your desktop, or a head filled with propaganda from some Seattle or wetside greenies, I wonder whether you have any pertinent information or have done any actual research regarding wolves and their impact in WA. I doubt it, judging of course only from the lack of depth in your little list.

I would ask you the same question.  Your statements imply an exaggerated risk and impact of wolves in Washington.  Reality is they are here, they are about the least amount of risk you might encounter in stepping outside your home, and I am not aware of any data showing declines in game abundance or hunter harvest that can be linked to wolves.

There certainly are no statistics in WA showing wolf impacts because WDFW isn't doing any studies to prove wolf impacts and I seriously doubt they will do any studies soon because they are so busy promoting wolves. 

WDFW already outlined their plan which is basically if they see a serious decline in ungulate numbers in an area they'll initiate a 3 year study.  Problem is WDFW has no clue how many Elk/Deer as they don't do surveys. 


They rely heavily on hunter harvest reports.


Here is something I've been saying all along and I'm glad Idahohunter finally agrees with me.

My observation is that hunting pressure on public land pushes game to less pressured private land

If a hunter can alter game movement then a wolf can do it x1000, they're a coursing predator and move game for a living, it's how they hunt.  Wolves avoid humans so the only reprieve animals get is moving where wolves don't - into hunters' crosshairs.  Just like all those parking lot elk in yellowstone...
This activity by wolves moves game into better areas for hunters to access, they move Elk out of the deep dark inaccessible holes and out to where hunters can see and shoot them.
It creates artificially high success rates. 


This is why relying so much on hunter harvest reports is such a flaw in WDFW's approach and why IDH can say he doesn't see any data about the decreasing population of ungulates in WA.


loop-de-loop!

[idahohuntr]

You are incorrect that they rely solely on harvest reports.  Go read the game management reports on WDFW website, perhaps some of our disagreement stems from your total lack of awareness about what WDFW actually does. 

They are out right now collecting and marking moose for population estimates.  They have seen such increases in moose numbers they are INCREASING moose permits 20%.  All moose hunting is in NE Wa where wolves are at the highest densities.  Overall moose numbers are increasing though (and we all know moose are a primary food for wolves)...so I guess what you are saying is at high densities wolves alter game behavior but do not usually cause any sort of declines in game abundance?...even with lots of wolves running around up in NE Wa, you agree the primary effect is a benefit to hunters.  We totally agree...the relative impact of wolves on game abundance and availability to hunters is insignificant...there will continue to be lots of deer, elk, moose hunting throughout Washington regardless of wolves.  Killing them will help with depredation issues and increase social tolerance...but even if they never de-list them it will not have a substantial impact to hunting. 

[bearpaw]

so I guess what you are saying is at high densities wolves alter game behavior but do not usually cause any sort of declines in game abundance?...even with lots of wolves running around up in NE Wa, you agree the primary effect is a benefit to hunters.  We totally agree...the relative impact of wolves on game abundance and availability to hunters is insignificant...there will continue to be lots of deer, elk, moose hunting throughout Washington regardless of wolves.  Killing them will help with depredation issues and increase social tolerance...but even if they never de-list them it will not have a substantial impact to hunting. 

Studies proving wolf impacts on game herds in Idaho, Montana, Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere indicate that statement is just your own personal propaganda.     

[idahohuntr]

so I guess what you are saying is at high densities wolves alter game behavior but do not usually cause any sort of declines in game abundance?...even with lots of wolves running around up in NE Wa, you agree the primary effect is a benefit to hunters.  We totally agree...the relative impact of wolves on game abundance and availability to hunters is insignificant...there will continue to be lots of deer, elk, moose hunting throughout Washington regardless of wolves.  Killing them will help with depredation issues and increase social tolerance...but even if they never de-list them it will not have a substantial impact to hunting. 

Studies proving wolf impacts on game herds in Idaho, Montana, Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere indicate that statement is just your own personal propaganda.     

Its actually called sarcasm bearpaw...KF was pointing out where we agree by taking liberties with my statements...I was merely returning the favor

[bearpaw]

so I guess what you are saying is at high densities wolves alter game behavior but do not usually cause any sort of declines in game abundance?...even with lots of wolves running around up in NE Wa, you agree the primary effect is a benefit to hunters.  We totally agree...the relative impact of wolves on game abundance and availability to hunters is insignificant...there will continue to be lots of deer, elk, moose hunting throughout Washington regardless of wolves.  Killing them will help with depredation issues and increase social tolerance...but even if they never de-list them it will not have a substantial impact to hunting. 

Studies proving wolf impacts on game herds in Idaho, Montana, Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere indicate that statement is just your own personal propaganda.     

Its actually called sarcasm bearpaw...KF was pointing out where we agree by taking liberties with my statements...I was merely returning the favor

So you are admitting that studies have shown that wolves do impact game herds?

[KFhunter]

It's easier to see and find the moose when the wolves are moving them, same rules apply for WDFW bio's too.  A moose on the move is easier to count and see than a moose in a hole.

You ever see a moose being run by wolves?  I have, a big bull.   I would never have seen him if it weren't for the aid of the wolves.   Had I a moose tag I'd have been successful right then, due to the aid of the wolves. 

Have you seen a  herd of Elk stampede down out of the timber and run into a large opening so they could see?   I have, some nice ones in there too.  Again, I wouldn't have seen them had it not been for the wolves driving them out of the timber.   Easy to count them when they're all standing in a large field noses up blowing hard staring back at the timber.


Listening to you one would think wolves increased moose, elk and deer populations. 

[pianoman9701]

Oh, they do, KF. Everything's right as rain.

[JimmyHoffa]

It's easier to see and find the moose when the wolves are moving them, same rules apply for WDFW bio's too.  A moose on the move is easier to count and see than a moose in a hole.

You ever see a moose being run by wolves?  I have, a big bull.   I would never have seen him if it weren't for the aid of the wolves.   Had I a moose tag I'd have been successful right then, due to the aid of the wolves. 

Have you seen a  herd of Elk stampede down out of the timber and run into a large opening so they could see?   I have, some nice ones in there too.  Again, I wouldn't have seen them had it not been for the wolves driving them out of the timber.   Easy to count them when they're all standing in a large field noses up blowing hard staring back at the timber.


Listening to you one would think wolves increased moose, elk and deer populations.

I have heard that ranchers that have cattle where wolves have returned, have seen the cows do things like herd up in the open instead of acting like they did before.  That even when they've had the gate open they won't move up the mountain into summer grazing leases because of the wolves.  In the past the cattle would head on up, now the ranchers have to force them out and a few hurt themselves trying to get back so they won't have to go in to the heavier cover with the wolves.  On the hot days the cows will still be out in the sun in the open instead of laying under the trees.

[idahohuntr]

so I guess what you are saying is at high densities wolves alter game behavior but do not usually cause any sort of declines in game abundance?...even with lots of wolves running around up in NE Wa, you agree the primary effect is a benefit to hunters.  We totally agree...the relative impact of wolves on game abundance and availability to hunters is insignificant...there will continue to be lots of deer, elk, moose hunting throughout Washington regardless of wolves.  Killing them will help with depredation issues and increase social tolerance...but even if they never de-list them it will not have a substantial impact to hunting. 

Studies proving wolf impacts on game herds in Idaho, Montana, Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere indicate that statement is just your own personal propaganda.     

Its actually called sarcasm bearpaw...KF was pointing out where we agree by taking liberties with my statements...I was merely returning the favor

So you are admitting that studies have shown that wolves do impact game herds?

I've never suggested wolves haven't impacted game herds.  The scope and scale of the supposed impact is what I usually take issue with.  You know...folks that talk about how wolves will end or destroy hunting.

[idahohuntr]

It's easier to see and find the moose when the wolves are moving them, same rules apply for WDFW bio's too.  A moose on the move is easier to count and see than a moose in a hole.

You ever see a moose being run by wolves?  I have, a big bull.   I would never have seen him if it weren't for the aid of the wolves.   Had I a moose tag I'd have been successful right then, due to the aid of the wolves. 

Have you seen a  herd of Elk stampede down out of the timber and run into a large opening so they could see?   I have, some nice ones in there too.  Again, I wouldn't have seen them had it not been for the wolves driving them out of the timber.   Easy to count them when they're all standing in a large field noses up blowing hard staring back at the timber.


Listening to you one would think wolves increased moose, elk and deer populations.

I guess without wolves then you wouldn't see any game KF? They would all be holed up and inaccessible.  Everything you are posting is making the case that wolves improve hunting.  What a remarkable turn around.