Happening now in Olympia

[bigmacc]

If the game Dept. would educate Olympia on these wolves instead of pandering to the liberals who feed their  budget we might get some where.

I hate to say it, no I don't. You cannot educate a liberal..

And they are NOT the game Dept,  If they were truly the Game Dept(like they were 15 or so years ago) we may not be having all these predator issues and we may not be watching some of our game herds go into death spirals....

[Curly]

If the game Dept. would educate Olympia on these wolves instead of pandering to the liberals who feed their  budget we might get some where.

I hate to say it, no I don't. You cannot educate a liberal..

And they are NOT the game Dept,  If they were truly the Game Dept(like they were 15 or so years ago) we may not be having all these predator issues and we may not be watching some of our game herds go into death spirals....

You are right about if they truly were the Game Dept. 

However, it has been quite a bit longer than 15 years since there was a game dept. 

In 1987 the Department of Game became the Dept of Wildlife.  Then in 1994 the Dept of Wildlife was merged with the Fisheries Dept and they became the nightmare we have today.

So, more like 24 years.

[bigmacc]

If the game Dept. would educate Olympia on these wolves instead of pandering to the liberals who feed their  budget we might get some where.

I hate to say it, no I don't. You cannot educate a liberal..

And they are NOT the game Dept,  If they were truly the Game Dept(like they were 15 or so years ago) we may not be having all these predator issues and we may not be watching some of our game herds go into death spirals....

You are right about if they truly were the Game Dept. 

However, it has been quite a bit longer than 15 years since there was a game dept. 

In 1987 the Department of Game became the Dept of Wildlife.  Then in 1994 the Dept of Wildlife was merged with the Fisheries Dept and they became the nightmare we have today.

So, more like 24 years.

Yep, you are right Curly, I meant to type 25 years or so (dang fat fingers ) and yep ,if they were still the Game Department I,m sure things would be a lot different

[wolfbait]

If the game Dept. would educate Olympia on these wolves instead of pandering to the liberals who feed their  budget we might get some where.

I hate to say it, no I don't. You cannot educate a liberal..

And they are NOT the game Dept,  If they were truly the Game Dept(like they were 15 or so years ago) we may not be having all these predator issues and we may not be watching some of our game herds go into death spirals....

You are right about if they truly were the Game Dept. 

However, it has been quite a bit longer than 15 years since there was a game dept. 

In 1987 the Department of Game became the Dept of Wildlife.  Then in 1994 the Dept of Wildlife was merged with the Fisheries Dept and they became the nightmare we have today.

So, more like 24 years.

Yep, you are right Curly, I meant to type 25 years or so (dang fat fingers ) and yep ,if they were still the Game Department I,m sure things would be a lot different

The "Game Department" changed to WDFW when they started partnering up with the fake environmental groups like CNW, DoW etc. .

I remember years ago the different areas where the Game Department fed the deer in the winters.

Now WDFW protect predators, and play pattycake with the fake environmental groups, while watching the decimation of the game herds. WDFW are a total disgrace!~

[Skyvalhunter]

When in your estimation did they become disgraceful?

[grade-creek-rd]

So let me get this right...in order for wolves to be de-listed they need to have X amount of breeding packs in X amount of areas in the state...I believe we have surpassed the required amount of breeding packs in numbers as well as total numbers of wolves but not the requirement of needing to be in the X amount of areas in the state, so if WDFW wants to take "problem" packs and transplant them to the void areas of the state this would rapidly increase the amount of time needed to "naturally" increase the X amount of areas...and we as hunters are supposed to think this is a bad thing?

I say plant them in SW WA, Olympics, NW WA and leave King Co alone...keep the liberals happy and when all of a sudden we have met all of the requirements for de-listing then we put into motion de-listing the wolves! We already have too many in the places that we like to hunt, so lets get this process going! They should be de-listed anyways, as WDFW say's that all wolves have been naturally re-introduced into WA and therefore the population is several hundred percent more than a 100 years ago anyway!

Grade

[pianoman9701]

Dont they shoot problem wolves now?

Maybe the process of getting around to deciding that a wolf pack needs to be shot takes too long and he figures that relocating would go faster, and yes, relocate to King county might be what he suggests.

Keep in mind that it's estimated by most biologists and wolf experts that only 1 of 7 or 8 wolf attacks are attributed by the State F&W or USFWS to wolves. In the rest, there's either too little evidence or nothing left of the missing animal, even though wolf activity is prevalent in that area. Without proof, they won't issue a kill order for problem wolves. In WA, it's even harder because our commission and the WAG have been infiltrated with pro-wolf groups. More of that will be forthcoming as the WDFW administration continues to evolve.

I would support relocation of wolves, even to areas where I hunt in SW WA, if it meant delisting and some relief for the folks in the NE.

[ctwiggs1]

Dont they shoot problem wolves now?

Maybe the process of getting around to deciding that a wolf pack needs to be shot takes too long and he figures that relocating would go faster, and yes, relocate to King county might be what he suggests.

Keep in mind that it's estimated by most biologists and wolf experts that only 1 of 7 or 8 wolf attacks are attributed by the State F&W or USFWS to wolves. In the rest, there's either too little evidence or nothing left of the missing animal, even though wolf activity is prevalent in that area. Without proof, they won't issue a kill order for problem wolves. In WA, it's even harder because our commission and the WAG have been infiltrated with pro-wolf groups. More of that will be forthcoming as the WDFW administration continues to evolve.

I would support relocation of wolves, even to areas where I hunt in SW WA, if it meant delisting and some relief for the folks in the NE.

    I'm not wild about the idea of taking my kids hiking in areas with wolves, but something has to change here.

[PA BEN]

http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20180205/ARTICLE/180209950

[bobcat]

I could be wrong but I don't believe the wolf plan requires any wolves in western Washington. The plan stipulates a certain number of wolves in each "region," and the region that encompasses all of western Washington also includes the southern Cascades, with the northern boundary being Interstate 90. Again, I could be wrong but I think if there are the appropriate number of packs, or breeding pairs, or whatever it may be, south of I-90, but still east of the Cascade crest, let's say around the Naches area and/or the Klickitat area, then no wolves need to be living on the west side of the state in order to meet the requirements of the wolf plan and to begin the process of de-listing them.

[KFhunter]

I see how it is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.   I still have that stock trailer just show me your backyard 

[bobcat]

Here is a map showing the regions. I'm just not sure if the wolf plan calls for wolves to be distributed across each region, or does it matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ice Cap]

I could be wrong but I don't believe the wolf plan requires any wolves in western Washington. The plan stipulates a certain number of wolves in each "region," and the region that encompasses all of western Washington also includes the southern Cascades, with the northern boundary being Interstate 90. Again, I could be wrong but I think if there are the appropriate number of packs, or breeding pairs, or whatever it may be, south of I-90, but still east of the Cascade crest, let's say around the Naches area and/or the Klickitat area, then no wolves need to be living on the west side of the state in order to meet the requirements of the wolf plan and to begin the process of de-listing them.

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.

[emac]

Pretty much sums it up that we will never hunt wolves in this state in any of are lifetimes

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[jstone]

Get rid of the Democrats.