Free: Contests & Raffles.
Except that they use 400k worth of Pitman Robert's funds that could go to improving something we can hunt
This is just another joke study with $$$$ in the pockets of WDF&Wolves etc..Study after study has already been done in other states where wolves were dump, and the outcome has always been the same, it's wolves stupid!My guess is WDFW have already predetermined what the study will say and I would imagine it will favor either more habitat is needed or poor habitat. Remember when WDFW claimed they would have enough bps to delist in 6 years? And yet we know that wolf populations double in size each year.
Quote from: wolfbait on February 16, 2017, 11:18:56 AMThis is just another joke study with $$$$ in the pockets of WDF&Wolves etc..Study after study has already been done in other states where wolves were dump, and the outcome has always been the same, it's wolves stupid!My guess is WDFW have already predetermined what the study will say and I would imagine it will favor either more habitat is needed or poor habitat. Remember when WDFW claimed they would have enough bps to delist in 6 years? And yet we know that wolf populations double in size each year. I don't remember them saying anything about meeting requirements in six years. Do you have a link to that somewhere?Which studies showed wolves were the culprit? I know the Bitterroot showed otherwise, and the one currently underway in the CDAs is looking like lions are going to come out looking like the bad guys
Most of the studies I've seen show greatly varied results that are very area specific when it comes to wolf impacts, and depend on the deer species and abundance, elk abundance, topographic roughness, and predator assemblages. Wolves are really tough on mule deer where the conditions favor a coursing predator; basically anywhere that mule deer expanded into after wolves were eradicated, takes a huge hit when wolves return; however, they are also death on cougars in those same areas, which preferentially kill mule deer even when elk and whitetails are more abundant. Mule deer fare much better when they have steep, rocky uneven mountain habitat. Whitetails in forested environments seem pretty resilient to wolf predation. Where wolves thrive, they put a hurt on coyotes, which can be a mitigating effect where coyote predation limits fawn/calf recruitment. Where there are grizzlies, appropriating wolf kills puts griz on a protein rich diet for a much longer period of time, causing both wolves to kill more than in areas without grizzlies, and increasing the grizzly population (Wyoming documented grizzlies increasing from a 4% annual population growth rate pre-wolves, to 8% post wolves). The same hasn't been true for black bear, which don't seem to exhibit much change with or without wolves. There are definitely places where wolves have severely depressed deer and/or elk populations, but it is not an across the board finding. What is an across the board finding is that it is very difficult to limit or suppress established wolf populations through recreational hunting, even with OTC tags and liberal trapping and hunting quotas. I'm pretty confident we'll never see legal trapping for wolves in WA, and despite the fact that they are a wide-ranging, resilient and highly fecund carnivore with impressive survival instincts, we will never see them hunted in Washington in a manner that would imperil populations. There is no more frustrating game species to manage based on its intrinsic productivity than the wolf, if the emotions and politics were out of the equation they could be managed with the same rules as coyotes and wolf populations would not be imperiled.
It will most likely be a complete and total waste of money.
If WDF&Wolves were really interested.........By preying on the elk, wolves can/will take the more vulnerable mule deer to exceedingly low levels or extinction. The wolves that were turned loose in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have preyed primarily on elk and there are data on how many elk each wolf kills per year---22 elk/wolf/year---but there is little data from these states or anywhere else on the effect of wolf predation on mule deer. To put it simply, mule decline so rapidly that there is nothing left to study!Hunter harvest of black-tailed deer on Vancouver island though, gives some idea of what will happen if pro-wolf advocates have their way. Before wolves arrived, sportsmen on Vancouver Island took home around 25,000 blacktails a year. Now that wolves have overrun the island, the figure has plummeted to less than 4,000 deer a year. Moreover, blacktails are now found in reasonable abundance only where they live in suburbs or cities; i.e., the deer have moved into town to avoid predatorshttp://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles%20Kay/76-wolf%20predation-more%20bad%20news.pdf"the deer have moved into town to avoid predators"Sounds like the Methow Valley
PULLMAN, Wash. – Washington State University and the WSU College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resources Sciences Wednesday issued the following statement regarding public statements made by Rob Wielgus, associate professor and director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at WSU, related to the Profanity Peak wolf pack.Some of Wielgus’ statements in regard to this controversial issue have been both inaccurate and inappropriate. As such, they have contributed substantially to the growing anger and confusion about this significant wildlife management issue and have unfairly jeopardized the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wolf Advisory Group’s many-months long stakeholder process. Moreover, the statements do not in any way represent the views or position of WSU or the College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resources Sciences. These statements are disavowed by our institutions.We offer the following corrections of the information in the public arena:In an article published by the Seattle Times on Aug. 25, Wielgus stated that a particular livestock operator had “elected to put his livestock directly on top of (the wolves’) den site; we have pictures of cows swamping it…”In fact, the rancher identified in the article did not intentionally place livestock at or near the den site of the Profanity Peak wolf pack, and Wielgus subsequently acknowledged that he had no basis in fact for making such a statement. In actuality, the livestock were released at low elevation on the east side of the Kettle Crest more than 4 miles from the den site and were dispersed throughout the allotments based on instructions found in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). The CC mountain allotment is more than 30,000 acres and livestock are generally moved from pasture to pasture following an established rotation.In the same article, Wielgus stated that a particular cattle rancher had also “refused to radio-collar his cattle to help predict and avoid interactions with radio-collared wolves” and that there had been no documented “cattle kills among producers who are participating in research studies and very few among producers using Fish and Wildlife’s protocol.”In fact, the rancher identified in the article has held a term grazing permit for 73 years and has worked with both the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service in the management of livestock in order to avoid conflict – following procedures outlined by the Washington Wolf Advisory Group. In order to reduce wolf/livestock conflict, the rancher has modified livestock rotation practices and utilized range riders to ensure livestock safety.While the rancher is not currently participating in Wielgus’ ongoing study, radio-collaring of livestock is not a Wolf Advisory Group procedure nor is it 100 percent effective at preventing depredations. It is inaccurate to state that there have been no cattle kills among producers participating in the study. There is at least one permittee who is participating in the study who has incurred livestock depredations.The decision to eliminate the Profanity Peak wolf pack came after two years of careful work and scientific analysis by the Washington State Wolf Advisory Group, consisting of a collaboration between scientists, industry and conservation partners. WSU subscribes to the highest standards of research integrity and will not and cannot condone statements that have the effect of compromising that integrity.Regarding future steps for preventing subsequent inaccurate or inappropriate statements, we are implementing applicable internal university processes.WSU apologizes to our friends, our science partners and to the public for this incident.
