Washington wolf population continues to grow

[KFhunter]

He's being commonsensical.

[jackelope]

So I would assume we would then need county hunting/fishing licenses?? Oh damn I just crossed the county line, well I guess I need to buy a different license...

I guess each county would have to have their own county fish and wildlife officers, biologists, etc.. Where is the money for that going to come from? Let us not forget that just 28% of WDFWs funding comes from license/tag sales.

There is a reason why fish and wildlife is managed by the state in EVERY state.

I have no problem with counties wanting to become involved, similar to what I posted with how each county in California has a county fish and game board which are advisory boards to the CA Fish & Game Commission. But the overall management needs to be at the state. 

We've offered to share our wolves with the west side but the west side legislators want to keep wolves in eastern WA and out of their own backyards. Of course county management would probably never happen, but due to the lack of consideration of Eastern WA input by the state there are certainly people considering other management options.

I certainly would not be opposed meaningful input into reasonable management by the state in eastern WA, but I doubt that happens either!

I don't think King County needs any help getting them here. They're here now. The audio I posted earlier in this thread.
The one hit on I90 outside North Bend confirmed to be a grey wolf by DNA test.
This one in Snoqualmie last year(may be the same one hit and killed on 90)



This is a track from a series of tracks a hiker saw on the Mt Si trail a week or 2 ago.  The small track was the guy's adult Labrador retriever. If I can find the story again I'll post it here.  No tracks on the way up and those big tracks on the way down and there were no other hikers on the trail at the time that they ran into. They hiked up at 3:15am for a sunrise summit. Fresh snow.

[RB]

The audio was cool, it will be great when there is a few breeding pairs in King County. If tree huggers want to "balance" the ecosystem it can be done on both sides of the state. The only problem is there are not as many Deer and Elk in the Puget sound region, so livestock and pets will be eaten. Then the cry will go out to trap those darn wolves and send them away.

[Special T]

Jackalope where did you get the pic of that black wolf? Ive seen it before... and not on here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

Studies vary!

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.

22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten

That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.

Not all 22 ungulates will be elk. I suspect that deer and livestock will make up a portion of their diets as well.

And moose.  The profanity peak pack killed at least one moose recently that im aware of.  A bull.

They are very hard on moose, some of my favorite moose hunting areas in NE WA have been hit hard. We are changing our moose hunting strategy, our new strategy is based on avoiding areas with heavy wolf impacts.

So I would assume we would then need county hunting/fishing licenses?? Oh damn I just crossed the county line, well I guess I need to buy a different license...

I guess each county would have to have their own county fish and wildlife officers, biologists, etc.. Where is the money for that going to come from? Let us not forget that just 28% of WDFWs funding comes from license/tag sales.

There is a reason why fish and wildlife is managed by the state in EVERY state.

I have no problem with counties wanting to become involved, similar to what I posted with how each county in California has a county fish and game board which are advisory boards to the CA Fish & Game Commission. But the overall management needs to be at the state. 

We've offered to share our wolves with the west side but the west side legislators want to keep wolves in eastern WA and out of their own backyards. Of course county management would probably never happen, but due to the lack of consideration of Eastern WA input by the state there are certainly people considering other management options.

I certainly would not be opposed meaningful input into reasonable management by the state in eastern WA, but I doubt that happens either!

I don't think King County needs any help getting them here. They're here now. The audio I posted earlier in this thread.
The one hit on I90 outside North Bend confirmed to be a grey wolf by DNA test.
This one in Snoqualmie last year(may be the same one hit and killed on 90)



This is a track from a series of tracks a hiker saw on the Mt Si trail a week or 2 ago.  The small track was the guy's adult Labrador retriever. If I can find the story again I'll post it here.  No tracks on the way up and those big tracks on the way down and there were no other hikers on the trail at the time that they ran into. They hiked up at 3:15am for a sunrise summit. Fresh snow.

Yes, I know wolves are moving westward, as wolf numbers increase many people will understand why I worked so hard to get a better wolf plan in WA. I really think the west side elk will be hit hard in the future. Given the political climate in WA I just don't have much hope for management here in WA anytime soon unless there is a big change in politics which is unlikely. I've pretty much moved on in life to try and put my time into efforts where I can make a difference. Even if we get wolf management many years from now, it will be very hard to control wolves in Western WA. Meanwhile, with the recent blue tongue die off, growing wolf populations, a huge coyote and cougar population, and WDFW's refusal to manage predators the NE might be looking at a predator pit scenario for some time. There are still deer here but hunter harvest is going to drop. We have reduced our hunting schedule by 50% on all our properties for this coming fall in WA to try and maintain a good success ratio. I hope the deer can recover, but with all these predators IMO it's going to be tougher than after any previous deer decline we've had in my lifetime. The last whitetail recovery took nearly twice as long as it should have, IMO mainly due to predators and liberal WDFW seasons, I could see the next recovery taking even longer, if a recovery even happens. Hopefully I'm wrong! 

In Idaho things are very good, predators are being hunted and trapped, many herds that had suffered great losses from unhunted wolves are now rebounding nicely because wolf populations are being reduced. I am transitioning more and more into Idaho as that state has a much brighter future for hunting.

Sorry I don't have a more cheerful outlook for WA. 

[bearpaw]

Studies vary!

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/
Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.

22 elk x 900 wolves = 19,800 elk per year eaten

That is based on actual elk consumption in YNP.

Not all 22 ungulates will be elk. I suspect that deer and livestock will make up a portion of their diets as well.

  Exactly, and moose are taking a hit already in several areas.

[4fletch]

When the state sees they are loosing revenues from hunters not buying licenses then they will address the issue. Then they can save some money because they won't need game wardens there won't be any game or much left

[bigtex]

When the state sees they are loosing revenues from hunters not buying licenses then they will address the issue.

And that's not happening. I just checked the current fiscal reports for the wildlife fund for revenue simply from hunting and fishing license fees, they are exceeding their projections for this point by nearly $300,000 for the current budget.

For the 2013-15 budget WDFW exceeded their license revenue projection by $5.5 Million.

A lot of people say they will quit hunting and fishing to decrease funds to WDFW, but in reality WDFW is bringing in more revenue from licenses then they projected.

Now before some of you ask "why if WDFW exceeds license revenue projection do they ask for increased fees?" The reason is because every budget year the legislature is sending less general tax money to WDFW. The legislature is slowly making WDFW a user funded agency rather than a tax funded agency. Who is the biggest funding source for WDFW?? The federal government.

[Special T]

Big tex th e fact that we provide more $ every year makes me mad they treat us like redheaded step children.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[KFhunter]

I did a good bit of snowmobiling in moose country, seen a good amount of moose and not one calf with a cow.   Not one.  Also every moose track I came across was large and heavy, full grown.


Used to see cow's with calves, not anymore.   Seen a lot of wolf poo

[bigtex]

Big tex th e fact that we provide more $ every year makes me mad they treat us like redheaded step children.

Well when you look at the grand scheme of things hunting/fishing license fees is still a small part of the WDFW budget. Just 28% of WDFW's budget comes from the wildlife account. License/hunting fees make up only about 70% of the wildlife account, the remaining 30% in the wildlife account comes from other sources.

So when you do the rough math, hunting/fishing license fees make up only about 20% of WDFW's funding.

[Special T]

When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?

If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.

So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.

[pianoman9701]

When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?

If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.

So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.

So they erred in the Hunter Ed handbook by saying that about 50% of their funding comes from hunters and fishers license and tag purchases?

[bearpaw]

When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?

If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.

So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.

  That is a problem in WA, WDFW is not dependent enough on license sales.