Wolf pack to be targeted by Washington state shooters after repeated cattle atta

[ribka]

Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.

When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility.  Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?

How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?

This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.

Looks like they have put it to black and white.

https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html


FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.

The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.


A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.

I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???

It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.

The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife).  I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands. 

However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine.  The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core.  Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife.  Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.   

When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. 

Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.

And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.

[TheStovePipeKid]

Mankind is responsible for the near total eradication of the native population of wolves in this region. I don't think anyone would dispute that fact. I'm not going to speculate on whether that was right or wrong of them to do at the time. I have not and never will support the introduction of these wolves into the wild. As a sportsman, and resident of Washington state, I have yet to discover the tangible or intangible benefit of such actions. Wolves continued to thrive in other regions of he world long after they were eradicated here. Those who wish to see or experience wolves in the wild have always been able to do so. If we continue down the path of protecting these animals it will cost us more than just an extra few dollars at the meat counter. They are destroying our wildlife, people's livelihoods, and in the end are contributing to their own inevitable destruction through starvation and environmental collapse. I don't think there is a place for the hybrid grey wolf here in Washington and personally feel like they should all be removed. Right or wrong we were better off without them.

[KFhunter]

Purely emotional conception to bring them back

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Tbar]

Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.

When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility.  Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?

How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?

This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.

Looks like they have put it to black and white.

https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html


FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.

The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.


A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.

I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???

It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.

The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife).  I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands. 

However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine.  The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core.  Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife.  Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.   

When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. 

Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.

And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.

What if this were applied to elk?

[Special T]

Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.

When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility.  Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?

How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?

This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.

Looks like they have put it to black and white.

https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html


FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.

The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.


A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.

I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???

It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.

The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife).  I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands. 

However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine.  The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core.  Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife.  Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.   

When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. 

Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.

And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.

What if this were applied to elk?

If applied to elk there is a tangable measurable benefit. Tag sales taxes raised via pitman roblees and sales.  Small towns benefit from supporting sportsmen.

We were told that wolves would bring an economic benefit. Something similar to whale watching or the Sandhill crane festival in Othello.

We are not seeing it here in Wa, and I challenge you to show me where there is a significant economic benefit from wolves. Contrary to the narrative wolves have been in the N Cascades for the whole time they were "exterminated" from the state.

If Susewind folds on this he is done. Fortunately he seems to be inclined to follow through on the departments agreements. Unlike past directors that seemed to drag thier feet.  Delay is a tactic and a useful one for Beurocracy. I may not like the agreements  because they are to conservative  but not following the agreement is showing favoratism. It is why sportsmen have felt frustrated for so long.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Alchase]

Figures - Lawsuit filed to stop Washington state from killing wolves

"SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — A lawsuit filed Thursday seeks to prevent the state of Washington from killing more wolves from a pack that is preying on cattle.

The Maryland-based Center for a Humane Economy filed the suit in King County Superior Court, contending too many wolves have been killed as a way to protect livestock at a single ranch in the Kettle River Range in Ferry County.

The center and other conservation groups say it may be time to consider moving the cattle off Colville National Forest grazing lands that are also prime wolf habitat.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife said Wednesday it planned to kill more members of the Old Profanity Territory wolf pack. The agency killed one wolf last month in an effort to change the behavior of the pack.

Since then, the pack has been blamed for killing two cows and injuring five others. The pack is credited with 27 depredations since September.
"The chronic livestock depredations and subsequent wolf removals are stressful and deeply concerning for all those involved," agency director Kelly Susewind said. "The department is working very hard to try to change this pack's behavior."

The Lands Council, a Spokane-based conservation group, said it may be time to move the cattle.

"It is evident at this point, grazing in an area of prime wolf habitat is folly," said Chris Bachman of the Lands Council.

Bachman noted that wolves have come into regular conflict with cattle from the Diamond M Ranch in Ferry County. Conservation groups say the state has killed 18 wolves over the years on behalf of the ranch.

Ranch owner Len McIrvin said his business averages 70 head of cattle lost per year to wolves, and he estimated his losses at more than $1 million.

He doesn't think wolves will stop preying on his cattle just because the state kills a few of the animals.

"If wolves kill my cattle, I have a right to kill wolves," he said.

The Center for Biological Diversity also opposes killing more wolves.

"If this rancher keeps putting cattle in prime wolf habitat, he needs to accept some losses just like any other business," said Sophia Ressler, an attorney at the center.

In 2016, the agency wiped out the Profanity Peak pack of wolves for preying on cattle. The current pack occupies the same general area.

Wolves were exterminated in Washington state by the 1930s on behalf of ranchers. The animals started returning earlier this century from neighboring Idaho and British Columbia.

Most of the wolves are located in the rugged mountains of northeastern Washington, but they have started spreading to other areas of the state.

Officials say the state now has at least 126 wolves in 27 packs with 15 successful breeding pairs. For the first time, a pack has been found living west of the Cascade Range.

Gray wolves are no longer listed as an endangered species under federal protection in eastern Washington. They are still federally protected across the rest of the state, although the federal government is considering lifting those protections."

https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Washington-to-kill-more-wolves-that-prey-on-cattle-14273089.php

[TheStovePipeKid]

I'm still waiting to hear what legitimate impact killing wolves has on anything in Washington. If they all disappeared tomorrow what negative effect would it have?

[Tbar]

Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.

When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility.  Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?

How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?

This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.

Looks like they have put it to black and white.

https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html


FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.

The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.


A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.

I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???

It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.

The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife).  I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands. 

However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine.  The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core.  Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife.  Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.   

When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. 

Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.

And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.

What if this were applied to elk?

If applied to elk there is a tangable measurable benefit. Tag sales taxes raised via pitman roblees and sales.  Small towns benefit from supporting sportsmen.

We were told that wolves would bring an economic benefit. Something similar to whale watching or the Sandhill crane festival in Othello.

We are not seeing it here in Wa, and I challenge you to show me where there is a significant economic benefit from wolves. Contrary to the narrative wolves have been in the N Cascades for the whole time they were "exterminated" from the state.

If Susewind folds on this he is done. Fortunately he seems to be inclined to follow through on the departments agreements. Unlike past directors that seemed to drag thier feet.  Delay is a tactic and a useful one for Beurocracy. I may not like the agreements  because they are to conservative  but not following the agreement is showing favoratism. It is why sportsmen have felt frustrated for so long.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

So do you support the slaughter of elk exclusively for commercial ag? Because the same principal is being applied to elk.

[bearpaw]

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

[Tbar]

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things. 

[bearpaw]

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.

please explain further

Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?

[Special T]

Shooting a few problem wolves out of 100’s after all other efforts were exhausted is now defined as a “ slaughter “ right out of the radical anti hunting playbook.

When you lie and exaggerate you lose all credibility.  Isn’t that something you wrote in the past on here?

How much does Conservation NW receive from WDFW for their failing wolf program?

This entire wolf reintroduction seems to be based on lies, fraud and corruption. But let’s keep cutting back on tags.

Looks like they have put it to black and white.

https://www.khq.com/news/wdfw-rethinking-how-it-deals-with-wildlife-attacks-on-livestock/article_d1256d20-b3eb-11e9-a89d-5762c7a806bd.html


FERRY COUNTY, Wash. - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in talks to rework how the organization addresses attacks on wildlife grazing on public lands by wildlife.
Over the last three years, wolves belonging to the OPT Pack have been involved in multiple conflicts with livestock on grazing allotments on the public lands.

The Diamond M Ranch's public land livestock operations have resulted in the killing of 20 recovering wolves, including Wedge Pack in 2012, the Profanity Peak Pack in 2016, the Sherman Pack in 2017, as well as wolves removed from the Sherman and Togo Packs in 2018, and now the OPT Pack.
WDFW said the constants between the deaths of recovering wolves and the attacks are the producer and the public land area being grazed.


A letter submitted WDFW Director Kelly Susewind asks for WDFW to take a different approach and instead prioritize wildlife over livestock on public grazing lands.
The letter says livestock should be relocated and wildlife should not be killed if conflict occurs.
Lands Council Executive Director Mike Peterson and WDFW Director Kelly Susewind discussed the proposal during a meeting Wednesday.

I can't tell from the article if the letter as submitted to Susewind or by Susewind???

It'd be a bad blow to those who wanted to give him a chance (me included), if the recommendation comes from him.

The letter was to Susewind...requesting WDFW take that position (move cattle, don't kill wildlife).  I think its an extraordinary waste of time and money for WDFW to be involved in any such discussion - they have no authority to require cattle move off federal grazing leases or private lands. 

However, the overall principle that wildlife has to be culled to eliminate any possible impact to an ag industry is a growing concern of mine.  The way some states are managing elk and deer to appease a farmer who plants a crop in a wildlife rich area is a violation of public trust to the core.  Reasonable steps to manage conflict should occur...but in some cases its just turning into a wholesale slaughter of the publics wildlife.  Add in payments to farmers who don't allow any sort of hunting access to help address the problem and its just salt in an open wound.   

When the USFWS planted wolves in the NRM the promise was for a population of a few hundred wolves and producers would be compensated for losses to wolves, perhaps you should review the original USFWS plan to refresh your memory. 

Most state wolf plans have similar language, including WA.

And none of that is relevant to the overarching concern of wildlife being slaughtered exclusively for private commercial ag interests.

What if this were applied to elk?

If applied to elk there is a tangable measurable benefit. Tag sales taxes raised via pitman roblees and sales.  Small towns benefit from supporting sportsmen.

We were told that wolves would bring an economic benefit. Something similar to whale watching or the Sandhill crane festival in Othello.

We are not seeing it here in Wa, and I challenge you to show me where there is a significant economic benefit from wolves. Contrary to the narrative wolves have been in the N Cascades for the whole time they were "exterminated" from the state.

If Susewind folds on this he is done. Fortunately he seems to be inclined to follow through on the departments agreements. Unlike past directors that seemed to drag thier feet.  Delay is a tactic and a useful one for Beurocracy. I may not like the agreements  because they are to conservative  but not following the agreement is showing favoratism. It is why sportsmen have felt frustrated for so long.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

So do you support the slaughter of elk exclusively for commercial ag? Because the same principal is being applied to elk.

Elk are hunt-able by the public Wolves are not. If they were then it would be a different story. The argument has been made by many on here that sportsmen should be allowed more access if Deer or Elk are a problem for farmers. This is a great discussion, but it not relevant to wolves. Sidestepping the issue on Elk and Ag doesn't answer the question of public value

I pointed out how Elk have a tangible measurable benefit to sportsmen and the public.  There has been some measurement for non consumptive wildlife viewing like Whale watching and Sand hill crane festival.   Show me the Data from wolves. not necessarily from wa but anywhere in the USA.

[bearpaw]

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.

please explain further

Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?

Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?

[Special T]

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.

please explain further

Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?

Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?

I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism...  This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.

[bearpaw]

Almost every state has special hunts to keep elk out of agriculture, I support that. I do not support shooting and leaving elk lay, they are a food animal and should be utilized. With wolves they need to be shot and destroyed due to the parasites and diseases they carry. I see no benefit to introduce wolves, hunters can be utilized to control game herd numbers. I don't agree with exterminating wolves from the planet, but wolves don't fit and are not needed in heavily human populated areas.

Leaving them lay and wholesale slaughter to appease a producer are two totally different things.

please explain further

Do you not agree that the policies promised in the wolf plans should not be followed?

Does this also mean that we can ignore tribal treaties?

I will Use MJs moniker for this... Whataboutism...  This a bunny trail leading away from the very focused point of discussion. making agreements, following through on them, and measuring the proposed success of the plan. Measure this plan on its merits and do not get distracted by the shiny bobble of a discussion point that is brought up. save that for a separate thread because the 2 are not linked.

I think there is a relationship, clearly it seems there is a different standard being applied to agreements with the tribes and agreements that impact ranchers and rural citizens living in areas where wolves are over populating.