Wolves and Livestock:The Never Ending Battle

[nwwanderer]

All whom question Dr. Kay's article should read his nearly 20 year old wolf/politics study.  Seems to me he was on track, probably too conservative.  Stop spending money on the beasties.  They are will past recovery by any estimation.

[wolfbait]

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

"To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat."

WDFW claim wolves started coming into WA in 2002, 13 years later they claim most of WA wolves are in the North East corner of the state, why is that I wonder? According to WDFW it would appear that the wolves are not dispersing. Could it be that taking out some of the wolves that were killing cattle curtailed their movement into the rest of the state? Or are WDFW getting caught in another wolf lie?


My guess is the USFWS have already dumped wolves in Utah as well as Colorado, hard release. It takes awhile before they become noticeable unless they start killing livestock. http://tomremington.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/scan0006.pdf


A wolf was shot not too long ago in Colorado.

Officials confirm gray wolf killed in Colorado by legal coyote hunter
 
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS May 28, 2015
 
DENVER — Wildlife officials say a coyote-like animal killed near Kremmling was a gray wolf.
 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Thursday that DNA tests at its Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, were used to confirm the species.
 
A legal coyote hunter shot the animal April 29 and immediately notified state wildlife officials. The gray wolf is listed as an endangered species under state and federal law.
 
Most gray wolves live in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin but are known to wander thousands of miles in search of food or a mate. A gray wolf that wandered into Colorado in 2009 was found dead along a county road in Rio Blanco County.
 
Officials later determined the wolf had been poisoned.
 
source:
http://tinyurl.com/ndo84mw

"Officials later determined the wolf had been poisoned."

Sounds like the folks in Colorado have some wolf recipes, I wonder how many times the USFWS etc. have been caught releasing wolves in Colorado?

[jasnt]

I think hunters should tie in with the ranchers over the wolf issue as their interests are basically the same concerning wolf control.

There will be the usual number of fools who believe groups like CNW, DoW, Sierra Club and HSUS support hunters and ranchers in WA, but not many people are easily fooled after the bogus wolf plan.


Bingo we have a winner!

[WAcoyotehunter]

  the UPS guy dumping wolves again??   

[Gringo31]

Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card   

[jasnt]

Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card   

Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card   

Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card   

everything wolfbait posts idahohunter says its a lie. Wolfbait could start a thread about the sky being blue or the earth round and idahohunter would say nay. Then start throwing in the foil hat guy. Any more I can't take Idaho hunter serious on any matter!

[mountainman]

Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card   

Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card   

Idahohuntr should probably set down his stuffed animal "wolfy" and read the entire article before he plays the "I know more than everyone else" card   

everything wolfbait posts idahohunter says its a lie. Wolfbait could start a thread about the sky being blue or the earth round and idahohunter would say nay. Then start throwing in the foil hat guy. Any more I can't take Idaho hunter serious on any matter!

[bearpaw]

No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:

Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.

Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.

Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.

In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.

Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted.

[AspenBud]

No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:

Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.

Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.

Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.

In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.

Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted.

People are going to protect their livestock and pets. All keeping that illegal (or extremely hard to prove as legitimate) does is keep it buried underground. It's one thing to have a discussion about a hunting season/limits/etc. It's entirely another to tell people they can do nothing about a wolf problem or that if they do they will most likely be burned at the stake legally and financially.

When you live in the sticks you have space, people target shoot, people shoot varmints, gun shots don't really get peoples' attention...been there, done that. If someone shoots a wolf and buries the thing NO ONE will know unless a person is incredibly stupid. That is reality. If a grouse hunter with a dog or a hiker packing heat with a dog is walking in the woods where no one is around, and a wolf shows up threatening their dog and they shoot it, do people honestly think that person is going to report it? No, most likely they will, at best, drag the corpse off into the bushes and get out of the area fast. That is reality.

The sooner the state recognizes that and backs off of it, the sooner the state can have a more realistic conversation about when and how to institute a wolf season.

[KFhunter]

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

Ranchers and hunters don't share the same interests?  Are you kidding? 

They're joined at the hip.  From private property hunting cattle ranch, hunting agriculture lands used to feed the cattle, open range grazing the list goes on.. one affects the other and quite frankly it's the hunters who benefit more from the hunter/rancher relationship.

Yes, we as hunters need to get behind the ranchers in the wolf fight as we do share a common end goal; who cares if we have different motivation.

[bearpaw]

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

Ranchers and hunters don't share the same interests?  Are you kidding? 

They're joined at the hip.  From private property hunting cattle ranch, hunting agriculture lands used to feed the cattle, open range grazing the list goes on.. one affects the other and quite frankly it's the hunters who benefit more from the hunter/rancher relationship.

Yes, we as hunters need to get behind the ranchers in the wolf fight as we do share a common end goal; who cares if we have different motivation.

   Exactly right! Most ranchers I know are also hunters and fishers and care more about what actually happens to the land than anyone else. I think this attitude we hear at times about ranchers is just an ill-perceived thought some hunters have imagined that don't really know many ranchers. Sure the big corporate farms have a different agenda, but there are no big corporate farms in NE WA that I know of? Corporate farms are found more in the intensively farmed areas, not in the wildlife rich areas.

[wolfbait]

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

Ranchers and hunters don't share the same interests?  Are you kidding? 

They're joined at the hip.  From private property hunting cattle ranch, hunting agriculture lands used to feed the cattle, open range grazing the list goes on.. one affects the other and quite frankly it's the hunters who benefit more from the hunter/rancher relationship.

Yes, we as hunters need to get behind the ranchers in the wolf fight as we do share a common end goal; who cares if we have different motivation.

   Exactly right! Most ranchers I know are also hunters and fishers and care more about what actually happens to the land than anyone else. I think this attitude we hear at times about ranchers is just an ill-perceived thought some hunters have imagined that don't really know many ranchers. Sure the big corporate farms have a different agenda, but there are no big corporate farms in NE WA that I know of? Corporate farms are found more in the intensively farmed areas, not in the wildlife rich areas.

 

I think the last wolf killed livestock that was reported to WDFW in the Methow was the calf at a ranch up Alder Cr a couple of years ago. Wolf scat and tracks where the wolf killed the calf, and yet Scott Fitkin of WDFW, found a coyote track and then called it a coyote kill.

Many people who raise livestock, aren't calling WDFW over wolf problems anymore.

How many people besides Bearpaw make their living by hunting? Ranchers have far more at stake then the average hunter, Without ranchers their is no accountability.

WDFW claim the wolves haven't impact the game herds in WA yet. What have WA's wolves been eating since 2002?

One wolf will kill 20+ elk per year, compare a deer to an elk.

Bearpaw said "social tolerance" has already started on a downward spiral, I am quite sure some of the public has already started a wolf management program of their own.

Personally I don't think it will matter in the confirmation process, as WDFW have a six year prediction as to when the BP confirmation for the wolf plan will be met, which is all that counts. WA could have a couple hundred wolf packs but it is WDFW's select breeding pairs that decide when wolves are delisted.

KFHunter-Ranchers and hunters don't share the same interests?  Are you kidding? 

They're joined at the hip.  From private property hunting cattle ranch, hunting agriculture lands used to feed the cattle, open range grazing the list goes on.. one affects the other and quite frankly it's the hunters who benefit more from the hunter/rancher relationship.

Yes, we as hunters need to get behind the ranchers in the wolf fight as we do share a common end goal; who cares if we have different motivation.

[nwwanderer]

Hunters rely on private land, about 75% of wildlife depends on private, read crop and grazing, for habitat.  I know many will say they only hunt public land, the critters use private to feed themselves.  We produce the habitat and food they rely on.  Find an old hunting family member ask him them where their grandfather hunted.  If they lived in eastern Washington it was isolated areas with dismal wildlife populations.  People planted the elk in most Washington's east side.  They simply were not here.  Lewis and Clark ate dogs, horses, native supplied roots and fish once they topped the Rockies.  They very nearly starved to death twice in the interior.  Though wolf pelts were traded here, the source was not normally local.
Private production land nationally is held by family farms, about 97%.  Large corporations, Monsanto, do not farm or graze, not enough money in it.  Certainly, farms have grown and fewer families produce.  You need to realize that the 80 acre family homestead is not going to support a $600,000 combine.  Less than one half % produce more than 80% of the food, not much political clout there.  If you enjoy large game populations keeping that one and one half percent that produce all of the food on the land is critical.  Poor management decisions like protecting wolves taking private property is just another group of producers that leave production.  We enjoy feeding all of you at the smallest cost for income on the planet.  Keeping it that way is at risk and the wolf is just a very small example with huge individual consequences.

[AspenBud]

Hunters rely on private land, about 75% of wildlife depends on private, read crop and grazing, for habitat.  I know many will say they only hunt public land, the critters use private to feed themselves.  We produce the habitat and food they rely on.  Find an old hunting family member ask him them where their grandfather hunted. If they lived in eastern Washington it was isolated areas with dismal wildlife populations.  People planted the elk in most Washington's east side.  They simply were not here.  Lewis and Clark ate dogs, horses, native supplied roots and fish once they topped the Rockies.  They very nearly starved to death twice in the interior.  Though wolf pelts were traded here, the source was not normally local.
Private production land nationally is held by family farms, about 97%.  Large corporations, Monsanto, do not farm or graze, not enough money in it.  Certainly, farms have grown and fewer families produce.  You need to realize that the 80 acre family homestead is not going to support a $600,000 combine.  Less than one half % produce more than 80% of the food, not much political clout there.  If you enjoy large game populations keeping that one and one half percent that produce all of the food on the land is critical.  Poor management decisions like protecting wolves taking private property is just another group of producers that leave production.  We enjoy feeding all of you at the smallest cost for income on the planet.  Keeping it that way is at risk and the wolf is just a very small example with huge individual consequences.

The section in bold...That historical fact poses a problem in the current political climate. Imported wolves eating imported elk...you know where that goes.

[idahohuntr]

No wolf hunting in wyoming in 2014 and lack of wolves in Utah or even southern idaho is not because of some invisible rancher fence.

OK- I get that ranchers want wolves controlled, and I get that hunters want wolves controlled.  As groups (hunters:ranchers) we seem to have few other common interests.  If hunters and ranchers can work together for wolf control, that's great.  We should.  But we should also recognize that Ranchers and Hunters have different interests for wolf management.  The end result might look the same, but the motivations are clearly different. 

To say that ranchers are the reason there are no wolves in Colorado and Utah is disingenuous and helps the writer lose credibility right of the bat.

I don't know if you are naive or just don't want to admit the fact of what is happening across the west. I certainly think you guys are incorrect, here's why:

Southern Idaho and Utah are big ranching country. I have spent most of my fall and winter in both of those states since 1997 and know a few ranchers in certain areas of those states. But the vast majority I do not know and probably will never know them. Out of the small number of ranchers that I do know there are two ranchers in southern Idaho that have reduced the wolf threat and one rancher in Utah who has reduced the wolf threat. Two of those had livestock killed before they took care of the problem and the other reduced the threat before he lost livestock. I've also heard of additional wolf reduction "word on the street" but nobody is saying who. I operate in 7 F&G units in southern Idaho and a dozen units in Utah, so my guides and I see how many wolf tracks there are in many of those areas. I can say this, I know of more wolves that have been removed by ranchers than what we know are alive in those same areas right now. Please keep in mind that I don't know the vast majority of ranchers and local residents and have no idea how many wolves they may have removed without saying a word to anyone.

Dr Charles Kay is a professor at the University in Logan, I don't know him personally but he is a greatly respected man. I think he explained ranchers and wolves perfectly and I have specifically pointed out facts and reasoning why I think he is correct.

Washington is only in the beginning of this same cycle. The longer WDFW takes to drag out wolf management in NE WA the further this same cycle will repeat itself here in NE WA. I've already heard "on the street" of numerous wolves killed and nobody is saying who, people want it to happen, they aren't going to finger anyone for shooting a wolf, it's the only wolf management happening. Now a moose or deer poacher, yes people still report those poachers. My point is reinforced by the huge reward that was offered on local radio and in local papers by WDFW and CNW for info on the wolf poacher who killed the wolf at Deep Lake. Most local people laughed at that reward, nobody is going to report who shot that wolf. If they did it had better be kept quiet as they would be shunned by many people in the community.

In F&G management there is a term known as "social tolerance". I have talked about this "social tolerance" many times even though I may not have called it specifically that. You can walk into nearly any bar in any small town in Idaho or western Montana and strike up a conversation about wolves and learn all about local wolf management. It has been this way ever since Malloy shut down wolf hunting. That man caused more wolf management to happen than any other single person. So while wolf advocates thought they won they actually lost with that ruling as it set off a firestorm of "vigilante wolf management". Many people lost all confidence or trust in professional game management and that ruling was one of the main turning points for many people.

Disclaimer
Don't shoot me I am only the messenger telling you the way it is. Let me be clear, I have never shot a wolf and when I do it will be legal, I follow all wildlife laws, I buy wolf tags in Idaho so I can legally shoot a wolf when I get the chance. I also fully support wildlife management, I don't like to see what wolves and green leaning federal and state F&G Depts bowing to wolf groups have done to the public's confidence in professional wildlife management, I think it's unhealthy for our whole system of wildlife management. Having said that, I will also say that at this time I will not be the person to finger anyone for protecting their livestock from unregulated wolves. What people want to see is responsible wolf management by the agencies, I think most people are willing to see a few wolves on the landscape as long as they are managed so they don't impact livestock and ungulates. Currently what we have is wolf management dictated by urban wolf lovers who don't even want wolves where they live. That doesn't set well with people that have been forced to live with unregulated wolf numbers and especially people whose livelihood has been impacted.

It is incorrect to suggest ranchers and poachers are the reason wolves are less common in southern idaho and utah...and I think you know that so I must be misunderstanding your point.