Washington lawmaker proposes moving wolves

[jasnt]

[kentrek]

While I appreciate everything you do for hunting bearpaw I definitely disagree with this idea.....i feel you shouldnt rearrange nature to work around a law...get the law fixed with out messing up our side of the state

I really do feel bad for the north east and it would be some sweet karma to have the "seatle" pack chomp some puppy dogs infront of the wolf luvers but still doesn't make it the rite thing to do

I know this is just to open some eyes so hopefully it does just that and the north east gets some help

[wolfbait]

Whole I appreciate everything you do for hunting bearpaw I definitely disagree with this idea.....i feel you shouldnt rearrange nature to work around a law...get the law fixed with out messing up our side of the state

I really do feel bad for the north east and it would be some sweet karma to have the "seatle" pack chomp some puppy dogs infront of the wolf luvers but still doesn't make it the rite thing to do

I know this is just to open some eyes so hopefully it does just that and the north east gets some help

"i feel you shouldnt rearrange nature to work around a law"



IDFG Continues to Deny It Violated Idaho Law

To counteract a false claim by Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Randy Budge that certain hunters who testify are not telling the truth about the Department’s role in transplanting Canadian wolves into Idaho, Outdoorsman Bulletin No. 38 published documents proving IDFG violated Idaho Code Sec. 36-715(2) by:
(a) illegally signing a document which officially approved the FWS wolf plan;
(b) illegally signing a permit authorizing FWS to introduce up to 75 Canadian wolves into Idaho.
I suggested it was time for them to admit the truth about how we got where we are, put it behind them, and get on with the business of restoring our billion dollar wildlife resource. Instead, a May 13, 2010 Lewiston Tribune article stated, “Department Director Cal Groen said the document was signed to make sure any wolves placed in Idaho were done so under an experimental and nonessential population status.”
As Chief of the IDFG Natural Resource Policy Bureau, Groen knew FWS needed state approval of its plan to bring “Nonessential Experimental” Canadian wolves into Idaho in order to appear to comply with 50 CFR 17 and the intent of Congress. He also knew Idaho Law
prohibited IDFG from signing the agreements – yet they did it anyway.
But instead of admitting they violated Idaho law in order to get Canadian wolves into Idaho as I suggested, Groen had a “Wolf Reintroduction/Recovery Timeline” placed on the website the last week in May which conceals their illegal actions. It claims the Permit was simply “a courtesy in accordance with state law and the Idaho wolf management plan currently being drafted by IDFG.” and truthfully admits the full Commission formally approved introduction of the wolves by FWS two months later
If Groen’s statement to the Tribune is an admission that we would not have many wolves in Idaho today if the documents allowing FWS to transplant them had not been signed, he admitted the truth about the controversial documents for a change.
But his willingness to continue to mislead the public with a carefully crafted document distorting the truth does not excuse the fact that Fish and Game’s violation of State Law then to serve its private agenda, is now costing Idaho citizens up to $24 million each year just in lost revenue from elk hunters. Unfortunately, that cost represents just the tip of the iceberg to Idaho Citizens.  Read More @ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%2039%20May%202010-IDFG%20Continues%20to%20Deny.pdf

KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me.

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

I agree 100% with Bearpaw, If WDFW refuse to confirm wolf packs that are already on the west side, then make them collar and move some BP's from the east side.

[bearpaw]

Whole I appreciate everything you do for hunting bearpaw I definitely disagree with this idea.....i feel you shouldnt rearrange nature to work around a law...get the law fixed with out messing up our side of the state

I really do feel bad for the north east and it would be some sweet karma to have the "seatle" pack chomp some puppy dogs infront of the wolf luvers but still doesn't make it the rite thing to do

I know this is just to open some eyes so hopefully it does just that and the north east gets some help

I understand completely!   

[huntnphool]

KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me.

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

 So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

 You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same?

 You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers?

 

 

 

[bearpaw]

KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me.

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

 So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

 You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same?

 You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers?

If you can get a better plan implemented I am all for it. 

But honestly I think those wolves are going to multiply no matter where they are at in the state which results in more wolves in WA no matter where they are located. Someone said WDFW has said there are many more wolves than the minimum number that they publish, I agree with that. If we spread those wolves that we already have in WA into all three wolf areas then we can delist and hopefully start more meaningful wolf management sooner which could result in fewer wolves statewide than if we let two wolf zones go unchecked and wait for the third zone.

As others have eluded, this isn't a law that is going anywhere quickly anyway, but it does keep the problems we are facing in the NE in the conversation and not forgotten. I'm just looking for a solution, it doesn't have to be this solution.

[bearpaw]

I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.

 

[huntnphool]

KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me.

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

 So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

 You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same?

 You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers?

If you can get a better plan implemented I am all for it. 

But honestly I think those wolves are going to multiply no matter where they are at in the state which results in more wolves in WA no matter where they are located. Someone said WDFW has said there are many more wolves than the minimum number that they publish, I agree with that. If we spread those wolves that we already have in WA into all three wolf areas then we can delist and hopefully start more meaningful wolf management sooner which could result in fewer wolves statewide than if we let two wolf zones go unchecked and wait for the third zone.

As others have eluded, this isn't a law that is going anywhere quickly anyway, but it does keep the problems we are facing in the NE in the conversation and not forgotten. I'm just looking for a solution, it doesn't have to be this solution.

 So you are advocating for more wolves?

 You're basing all this on someone's theory that there are more wolves than WDFW are admitting to?

[vandeman17]

KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me.

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

 So you justify/support/advocate other areas being forced into wolf depredation because the NE has a issue? Yeah that's not self centered thinking at all, or as I posted before, "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

 You don't want more wolves, but ARE advocating reaching the 15 BP target, yet fail to see this as one in the same?

 You honestly don't believe transplanting opposite sex wolves, in other areas currently uninhabited with wolves, will result in increased wolf numbers?

If you can get a better plan implemented I am all for it. 

But honestly I think those wolves are going to multiply no matter where they are at in the state which results in more wolves in WA no matter where they are located. Someone said WDFW has said there are many more wolves than the minimum number that they publish, I agree with that. If we spread those wolves that we already have in WA into all three wolf areas then we can delist and hopefully start more meaningful wolf management sooner which could result in fewer wolves statewide than if we let two wolf zones go unchecked and wait for the third zone.

As others have eluded, this isn't a law that is going anywhere quickly anyway, but it does keep the problems we are facing in the NE in the conversation and not forgotten. I'm just looking for a solution, it doesn't have to be this solution.

 So you are advocating for more wolves?

 You're basing all this on someone's theory that there are more wolves than WDFW are admitting to?

I think he is wanting to spread the existing wolves out in all the areas required to have a certain amount of wolves in them so that they can be de-listed. Until all the zones have their "required" amount of breeding pairs then nothing will change. 

[huntnphool]

I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.

 I understand the situation in the NE, but it's asinine to advocate the destruction of other herds simply out of spite because you are unhappy that it's happening in your area.

 And you call yourself a outfitter and sportsman, you should be ashamed of this tit for tat attitude Dale, it's unbecoming.

[pianoman9701]

I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.

 

I hate to see the wolves in my backyard, but I stand shoulder to shoulder with my friends from the NE and say bring 'em on. The sooner they're dispersed, the sooner everyone can start putting wolf rugs up on the wall.

[bearpaw]

I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.

 I understand the situation in the NE, but it's asinine to advocate the destruction of other herds simply out of spite because you are unhappy that it's happening in your area.

 And you call yourself a outfitter and sportsman, you should be ashamed of this tit for tat attitude Dale, it's unbecoming.

I'm really really sorry but one way or another all three zones are going to get at least 3 or 4 BP's, whatever the plan calls for. It really doesn't matter if anything becomes of this legislation or not, it's going to happen, there are already some wolves in W WA, neither you nor I can stop this from happening. I can assure you that I am as upset if not more upset than you. If the table was turned I cannot say that I wouldn't feel the same as you, I understand your thoughts.

But, if we spread the 100-200 wolves that we have now so we can delist sooner, any planted wolves would have collars and would be monitored for reproduction, I don't think that is currently happening with the wolves that are already on the westside? So ultimately we may have fewer total wolves in the state if we moved a few wolves and monitored them in all zones. Just a thought to consider. I will say it again, I completely understand your opposition!

[JimmyHoffa]

I agree, both options kind of suck.  On one hand it kind of speeds up delisting--then the court challenges, etc.  On the other it wipes out herds in one region, then pushes hunters into other areas and humans take out the other herds ahead of the wolves.  But it a way it would be like planting hoof rot elk all over the state to get WDFW to finally get cranking, otherwise it is a slow spread that will get to most herds eventually and doesn't seem to light the right fire under WDFW.

[M_ray]

KFH, Bearpaw, Ridgerat and anyone else, as hunters why do you want more wolves in this state? This is completely illogical to me.

I think you are misunderstanding some comments. I can't speak for the others but I don't think any one of us wants more wolves in WA, I am suggesting that the wolves already existing in WA be spread across all three wolf zones rather than wolves being left unmanaged in NE WA for an undetermined amount of time. If the wolf plan was changed whereby management in the NE wasn't determined by how soon wolves move into all the other zones I wouldn't have this concern at all. But the plan is written so that management in the NE is dependent on wolves being established in all three wolf zones. The only chance we have for management in the NE is for at least 3 BP's to be raising pups in each of the three wolf zones for 3 consecutive years.

Quote from: bearpaw on Today at 04:10:08 PM
I would add that there is a sort of prevailing attitude in western WA that the wolves in the NE are not really a significant problem, if that is really true then it shouldn't be a problem with those folks to move some of the wolves to W WA?

I know not all people in W WA share that prevailing attitude and I appreciate those who understand our situation in the NE.

In order to reach thier 15 BP according to the management goal it is going to increase numbers whether they are in one area or the entire state, this doesn't compute to you? Its simple to me and I don't get how others are not seeing this? If it took 1000 to reach 12 it is going to take another 500 minimum to reach 15 that = MORE WOLVES!
I'm finding it a hard pill to swallow that in your position you would advocate 1) for anymore and 2) to wish that the entire state should suffer the same consequence that the NE has.
Personally I hope they never reach their goal and furthermore had they chose the west side in the first place I wouldn't wish the destruction on my worst neighbor. Those who make the comments that they should plant them on the west side don't understand that we will never be able to control the numbers because it is even more dense than the NE. So the answer to this problem is to ruin the whole state? are we so self centered that we want everyone to suffer because our area has suffered? And how is this the fault of Westsider's? West side hunters didn't decide where to put them in the first place    hell I've heard more west side opposition to wolves not being anywhere in the state period so how does this comment even make any sense???  I have never heard a westsider say "Yeah plant them in the East" But I've heard plenty of Eastsiders say "plant them on the west"   

[JJB11B]

They should move all wolves Due south about 6'