Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: AspenBud on January 20, 2015, 04:19:35 PMQuote from: idahohuntr on January 20, 2015, 02:37:33 PMI agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything. Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48. They won't be much of a threat to most people here...because they'll be dying, a lot, due to modern life. People will probably be more concerned that so many cars accidentally kill them which may actually lead to more protections.Your reasoning is why the outrageous wolf plan should be changed, yet the WDFW refuses to look at that. This is an excerpt from the plan: "Three recovery regions were delineated for the state: (1) Eastern Washington, (2) Northern Cascades, and (3) Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. Target numbers and distribution for downlisting and delisting within the three recovery regions are:•To reclassify from state endangered to state threatened status: 6 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 2 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.•To reclassify from state threatened to state sensitive status: 12 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.•To delist from state sensitive status: 15 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions and 3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.•In addition to the delisting objective of 15 successful breeding pairs distributed in the three geographic regions for 3 consecutive years, an alternative delisting objective is also established whereby the gray wolf will be considered for delisting when 18 successful breeding pairs are present, with 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington region, 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades region, 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast region, and 6 anywhere in the state."So the wolf plan requires wolves in the west side, where all the people and cars are, before delisting can happen. They're not moving here to the west side in the numbers that are needed, probably for all the reasons you've mentioned. And, without any changes to the plan, the state and we will be unable to control their numbers. It's only when conflict with ranchers do they kill them. So, without either changing the plan OR transplanting wolves into the west side of the state, their numbers will continue to increase unabated. This is different from any of the other states. If you don't think this will have a negative effect on ungulate herds in the areas where they DO thrive, you're being completely naïve.
Quote from: idahohuntr on January 20, 2015, 02:37:33 PMI agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything. Again, there are more people on this side of the mountains than there are in all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington combined and everyone is packed into much less land. That's a lot of cars, parvo, people with guns, industrial poisons, etc etc etc etc that will kill a lot of wolves fast. Faster than people in any of the states I mentioned can do. This is hostile territory for wolves by virtue of human numbers and the hazards that come with that for wild animals, numbers that far in away exceed anywhere else that they exist in the lower 48. They won't be much of a threat to most people here...because they'll be dying, a lot, due to modern life. People will probably be more concerned that so many cars accidentally kill them which may actually lead to more protections.
I agree with you Aspen. Wolves over on the westside are not going to be a driving force of any kind because the presence of wolves will still affect a very small number of (mostly rural) people. Also, the scope of the impact of wolves is being exaggerated in some instances. I would swear there is not a child, pet, cow, or deer to be found in the entire NE corner of WA the way some folks talk because the wolves have "saurated" the area and killed everything.
The wolf plan does not require wolves on the westside. Look at the map. I posted a link earlier.
Quote from: Curly on January 20, 2015, 05:58:29 PMThe wolf plan does not require wolves on the westside. Look at the map. I posted a link earlier.So, you don't think the vast majority of the people who want them here so bad shouldn't have them running around their hiking trails?Pro wolf...just not in your backyard?
Oh I think they'll negatively impact them. I just think that it will be out of sight and out of mind for most. No, I know it will, ever see many ungulates in most hikers' photos? I sure don't. It's a big deal to them if they see anything at all. I also know that wolves will have a lot more to worry from the general population here. They aren't coyotes, they'll struggle outside of the woods and rural areas.
There's no point in arguing about this bill, it's not meant to pass and was written knowing full well it wasn't going to pass. The house leadership wouldn't even let this bill see the floor. ( I see they're already shelved HB1224/5, to die in Agriculture & Natural Resources )The goal of the bill was to promote discussion at a higher level than just water coolers and hunting forums, it was meant to foster discussion and debate at the highest levels of the legislature and make some news stories. It's done very well in that. I applaud Mr. Kretz, he's doing fine work.
